Breaking News - Women for Faith & Family

Posted October 11, 2007

Statement from Most Rev. Robert J. McManus, S.T.D.
Regarding Teen Pregnancy Conference at the College of the Holy Cross

Click Title for complete statement.

"A controversy has arisen at the College of the Holy Cross that has resulted from the College’s renting space for a conference sponsored by the Massachusetts Alliance on Teen Pregnancy. The conference involves workshops presented by members of Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. Both organizations promote positions on artificial contraception and abortion that are contrary to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. ...

"Both Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice are notorious for their policies and practices that directly reject the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception and abortion. The College of the Holy Cross should recognize that any association with these groups can create the situation of offering scandal understood in its proper theological sense, i.e., an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. Certainly it is understandable how people of good will could interpret the college’s allowing presentations to be made by such groups as truly scandalous.

"I strongly contend that the confusion and upset to the Catholic faithful and others that flow from the perception that the administration of the College of the Holy Cross supports positions contrary to the fundamental moral teaching of the Church must be avoided. To deny Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice a forum in which to present their morally unacceptable positions is not an infringement of the exercise of academic freedom but a defensible attempt to make unambiguously clear the Catholic identity and mission of the College of the Holy Cross.

Posted August 22, 2007

http://www.mocureswithoutcloning.com/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Curt Mercadante
August 22, 2007 (314) 825-4478

Missourians Launch Campaign to Prohibit Human Cloning

Initiative Would Protect Proven Cures and Treatments

JEFFERSON CITY, MO – A coalition of concerned Missouri citizens, doctors, and academics today launched the “Cures Without Cloning” (CWC) initiative to prohibit human cloning in Missouri. Dr. Lori Buffa, of St. Peters, Missouri, filed proposed ballot language with the Secretary of State’s office this morning.

“The Missouri Constitution currently allows for human cloning. It allows for the same cloning method that created Dolly the Sheep,” said Dr. Buffa, who serves as chair of CWC. “This initiative will ensure this dangerous, unproven, unnecessary practice is prohibited, and allow us to focus on safe research that leads to lifesaving cures and treatments.”

The initiative would amend the Missouri Constitution to prohibit the practice of human cloning, and would prohibit taxpayer funding of human cloning experiments. Specifically, the coalition is seeking to place the following language in the Missouri constitution:

Section 38(e) 1. It shall be unlawful to clone or attempt to clone a human being. Researchers may conduct stem cell research to discover cures for disease and develop stem cell therapies and cures, provided that the research complies with the limitations of this section and, in addition, the limitations of Section 38(d).

2. For all purposes within this constitution:

(1) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” includes the creation of or the attempt to create, by means other than fertilization of a human egg with human sperm, a new human organism that is virtually identical genetically to an existing or previously existing human organism or human orgnisms.

(2) “Human organism” means human life in any stage. Human life begins with an initial stage, when a single human egg cell receives a complete set of forty-six chromosomes, and continues through any subsequent stages of embryonic, fetal, postnatal, and later development.

3. No taxpayer dollars shall be expended:

(1) to clone or attempt to clone a human being; or

(2) to research or experiment using a human organism, or any part of a human organism, derived from cloning or attempting to clone a human being.

“As a doctor, I have grave concerns about experimentation with human cloning. It is unproven, dangerous, and outside the mainstream of society,” said Dr. Buffa. “We should continue to search for cures and treatments using stem cell research. And we should embrace the exciting promise of cures and treatments that proven, safe research can bring - and we should do so by resoundingly rejecting the practice of human cloning.”

Cures without Cloning (CWC) is leading a broad-based, statewide coalition of grassroots organizations committed to prohibiting the cloning of human beings in Missouri. Interested citizens are invited to visit www.MOcureswithoutcloning.com for more information.

Posted April 30, 2007

The Respect Life Apostolate of the Archdiocese of St. Louis reports the Komen Foundation for breast cancer supports Planned Parenthood; suggests
alternatives.

St. Louis Archdiocese - Respect Life Committee statement -http://stlprolife.org/KomenfortheCure.html

Position Statement on Susan G. Komen for the Cure
Issued 7 June 2006; revised 29 March 2007

The Respect Life Apostolate of the Archdiocese of St. Louis acknowledges the beneficial work of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, formerly known as the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, in the area of breast cancer detection, prevention, research and treatment. Due to its policy allowing affiliates to offer financial support to abortion providing facilities and its endorsement of embryonic stem cell research, the Respect Life Apostolate neither supports nor encourages participation in activities that benefit Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

This position is based on the following facts:

1. Public records indicate that Susan G. Komen for the Cure ("Komen") affiliates in at least 22 states (Missouri is not among them) have provided sizable grants to local Planned Parenthood chapters for breast health care services.1

• Despite Komen donations for breast health care services, Planned Parenthood (the largest single abortion provider in the country) stated in its 2004-2005 annual report that 9,900 more abortions were performed and 26,000 fewer breast exams were provided in 2004 than in 2003. 2

• Donors cannot control how an organization designates its funds. Therefore, money donated for a specific service, i.e. breast health care, directly frees up funds to support other areas of an organization’s agenda, i.e. contraception services, “safe” sex education and abortion services.

2. The Komen website dismisses the link between procured abortion and increased risk of breast cancer.3 However, the research of Joel Brind, Ph.D., a professor of Endocrinology and founder of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, and the work of Dr. Janet Daling,4 a leading cancer epidemiologist and pro-choice advocate, invalidate a dismissal of the link. Daling said, “I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It’s not a matter of believing, it’s a matter of what is.”5

3. Komen endorses embryonic stem cell research that requires the destruction of embryonic human life, stating that “embryonic stem cells…have the most potential” for cancer stem cell research.6 The destruction of human life at any stage of development is never morally acceptable. Embryonic stem cell research is also unnecessary since adult stem cell research has a proven record of cures and treatments.

Based on these documented facts, the Respect Life Apostolate (RLA) does not endorse Susan G. Komen for the Cure. The RLA encourages you to contact Susan G. Komen for the Cure (5005 LBJ Freeway, Suite 250 ? Dallas, TX 75244) and call for an end to all associations between Komen affiliates and Planned Parenthood, recognition of the link between breast cancer and abortion, and a refusal to support research that leads to the destruction of any human life. Our hope is that the Komen Foundation will focus all funds on research to find causes and cures for breast cancer and refuse to give financial or other support to any abortion provider or organization that promotes the destruction of human life.

Rather than supporting any Komen fundraising, the Respect Life Apostolate encourages you to direct your donations to the following local hospitals that provide breast cancer services and patient support groups:

St. John’s Mercy Medical Center
Mail to: SJMMC Donations
12800 Corporate Hill Drive
St. Louis, MO 63131
Check: David C. Pratt Cancer Center
Memo: Breast Cancer Development

St. Mary’s Health Center
Mail to: St. Mary’s Health Center Foundation
6420 Clayton Road
St. Louis, MO 63117
Check: St. Mary’s Health Center Foundation
Memo: Empower and Engage Breast Cancer Program (patient support)

DePaul Health Center
Mail to: DePaul Foundation
12303 DePaul Drive
Bridgeton, MO 63044
Check: DePaul Health Center
Memo: Breast Cancer Programs

SSM St. Joseph Health Center
Mail to: St. Joseph Health Center
Foundation Office
300 First Capitol Drive
St. Charles, MO 63301
Check: St. Joseph Health Center Foundation
Memo: Breast Cancer Programs

St. Anthony’s Medical Center
Mail to: St. Anthony’s Medical Center – Cancer Center
10010 Kennerly Road
St. Louis, MO 63128
Check: St. Anthony’s Cancer Center
Memo: designate for breast cancer research or patient support services

1 Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation & Planned Parenthood: The Visible
Link. Right to Life of Indianapolis, August 2005.

2 Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. (2007). 2004-2005 Annual
Report. Retrieved March 27, 2007 from
<http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/report-05.pdf>

3 see "Factors That Do Not Increase Risk of Breast Cancer." Susan G. Komen
for the Cure. 27 March 2007.
<http://cms.komen.org/Komen/AboutBreastCancer/AbcFactorsNotRelatedtoRisk>.

4 see Daling JR, Malone KE, Voigt LF, White E, Weiss NS, Risk of breast
cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion., Journal of the
National Cancer Institute 86: 21, 1584-92, Nov 2, 1994.

5 "The Cover Up." Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. 27 March 2007.
<http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/coverup3.htm>.

6 “Cancer Stem Cell Research Shows Promise.” Frontline: The Susan G. Komen
Breast Cancer Foundation’s Newsletter. (Fall 2006). 29 March 2007
<http://cms.komen.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/komen_document/006137.pdf>.

Posted April 26, 2007

Link below to Archdiocese of St Louis web site April 25 - Archbishop Raymond Burke's video statement, press release and Q & A on objections to a pro-abortion advocate, Sheryl Crow, performing at a benefit for Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital. He also resigned as chairman Of Board of Governors for the hospital foundation.

http://www.archstl.org/commoffice/2007/cgcmc.html

Posted April 19, 2007

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS
U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS

DATE: April 18, 2007

FROM: William Ryan
O: 202-541-3200
H: 202-686-1824

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CARDINAL WELCOMES SUPREME COURT DECISION UPHOLDING FEDERAL PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN

Washington, DC—Cardinal Justin Rigali welcomed the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision upholding the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 in Gonzales v. Carhart.

Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia, is Chairman of the Committee for Pro-Life Activities, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). The full text of his statement follows:

“Today, after a decade of struggle in legislatures and courts, the U.S. Supreme Court finally upheld a federal law prohibiting the brutal and inhumane partial-birth abortion procedure. This is the first time in 34 years that the Court has upheld a ban of any type of abortion.

“The Court’s decision does not affect the legal status of the great majority of abortions, and does not reverse past decisions claiming to find a right to abortion in the Constitution. However, it provides reasons for renewed hope and renewed effort on the part of pro-life Americans. The Court is taking a clearer and more unobstructed look at the tragic reality of abortion, and speaking about that reality more candidly, than it has in many years.

“Especially welcome is the Court’s explicit recognition of certain key facts: that abortion is the taking of a human life, and that government has a legitimate interest in protecting and preserving this life at every stage; that 'respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child'; that abortion may also cause grief and sorrow for women, which is only made worse when the reality of the procedure has been withheld from them until it is too late; and that the ethical integrity of the medical profession, as well as the fabric of our society, is threatened by the acceptance of practices that are difficult to distinguish from infanticide.

“The Court also acknowledges that in some past decisions, the usual rules for constitutional review were distorted by an unwarranted hostility to legislative efforts to respect unborn human life. We hope today’s decision marks the beginning of a new dialogue on abortion, in which fair-minded consideration will be given to the genuine interests of unborn children and their mothers, to the need for an ethically sound medical profession, and to society’s desperate need for a foundation of respect for all human life.”

Posted April 18, 2007

Quotes from the Supreme Court 5-4 decision April 18, 2007, which upheld the
2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act:

Complete decision: < http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/05-380.html >

Judge Anthony Kennedy presented the majority decision on the "Partial Birth Abortion" Act:

"The Act does not regulate the most common abortion procedures used in the first trimester of pregnancy, when the vast majority of abortions take place. In the usual second-trimester procedure, "dilation and evacuation" (D&E), the doctor dilates the cervix and then inserts surgical instruments into the uterus and maneuvers them to grab the fetus and pull it back through the cervix and vagina. The fetus is usually ripped apart as it is removed, and the doctor may take 10 to 15 passes to remove it in its entirety. The procedure that prompted the federal Act and various state statutes, including Nebraska's, is a variation of the standard D&E, and is herein referred to as "intact D&E." The main difference between the two procedures is that in intact D&E a doctor extracts the fetus intact or largely intact with only a few passes, pulling out its entire body instead of ripping it apart. In order to allow the head to pass through the cervix, the doctor typically pierces or crushes the skull. [...]

"Respondents have not demonstrated that the Act, as a facial matter, is void for vagueness, or that it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception. For these reasons the judgments of the Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits are reversed.

"It is so ordered."

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, concurring.

"I join the Court's opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution. See Casey, supra, at 979 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914, 980-983 (2000) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 727, n. 2 (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring).

Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting, wrote, in part:

"Today's decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health.

"I dissent from the Court's disposition. Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman's reproductive choices. […]

"The Court offers flimsy and transparent justifications for upholding a nationwide ban on intact D&E sans any exception to safeguard a women's health. Today's ruling, the Court declares, advances "a premise central to [Casey's] conclusion"--i.e., the Government's "legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life." Ante, at 14. See also ante, at 15 ("[W]e must determine whether the Act furthers the legitimate interest of the Government in protecting the life of the fetus that may become a child."). But the Act scarcely furthers that interest: The law saves not a single fetus from destruction, for it targets only a method of performing abortion. […]

" In sum, the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational. The Court's defense of the statute provides no saving explanation. In candor, the Act, and the Court's defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court--and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives. ...

"For the reasons stated, I dissent from the Court's disposition and would affirm the judgments before us for review."

See complete decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380

The Supreme Court changed course on abortion today, upholding a national ban on a disputed midterm abortion procedure and ruling that the government has “a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life.”

The 5-4 decision marks the first time the court has upheld a ban on an abortion procedure. A similar ban was struck down seven years ago, but the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and President Bush’s choice of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. tipped the balance in favor of the ban on “partial-birth abortions.”

Today’s ruling does not directly challenge the basic right to abortion set in Roe vs. Wade, but it gives states and the federal government more leeway to impose “reasonable regulations” on abortion doctors.

MANASSAS, VA (January 29, 2007) – For the sixth consecutive year, the Cardinal Newman Society (CNS) has launched its nationwide protest of Catholic campus performances of The Vagina Monologues, a sexually explicit and offensive play that favorably describes lesbian rape, group masturbation, and the reduction of sexuality to selfish pleasure.

In addition to the annual protest, CNS is urging Catholic college students to sponsor competing programs <http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/cns/projects/alternatives> , including lectures, prayer events, movies and other activities with Saint Valentine’s Day themes that support women’s dignity, chastity and true romance. Students have been offered advice and financial support for such programs. For instance, CNS is proud to financially support the Edith Stein Project (www.edithsteinproject.org) at the University of Notre Dame, a two-day conference on February 23-24 addressing themes of women’s dignity consistent with Catholic teaching.

V-Day — (www.vday.org <http://www.vday.org/contents/vcampaigns/college> ) the national organization promoting the play — has announced performances at 26 Catholic colleges and universities during February and March, but already officials of three of those colleges have assured CNS that the play will not occur. One other Catholic college has been removed from the V-Day list without explanation.

That leaves 22 Catholic colleges and universities expected to host the play this year. In previous years the CNS protest yielded a significant decline in Monologues performances: from 32 in 2003 to 22 last year. But faculty and student supporters of the play have dug in their heels at colleges including the University of Notre Dame, which has earned an annual public scolding from Bishop John D’Arcy of Fort-Wayne-South Bend for hosting a play that is “offensive to women” and “antithetical to Catholic teaching.”

Last year Notre Dame president Rev. John Jenkins, C.S.C., rallied alumni and faithful Catholics worldwide to his side when he announced his opposition to the Monologues—which he decried for its “graphic descriptions of homosexual, extramarital heterosexual and autoerotic experiences”—but later alienated the same Catholics by bowing to activists’ pressure and allowing the play to be performed.

“You must know that in taking this decision you have brought most joy to those who care least about Notre Dame’s Catholic mission,” wrote fellow Holy Cross Father Bill Miscamble in an open letter to Jenkins. “…By your decision you move us further along the dangerous path where we ape our secular peers and take all our signals from them.”

CNS has contacted the president of each college by mail with a plea to prevent the Monologues performances. Each president and their local bishop were also provided copies of the play, statements opposing the play from Bishop D’Arcy and Providence College president Rev. Brian Shanley, O.P., and citations from various official Catholic sources <http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/cns/projects/teaching> .

Officials at the College of St. Catherine in Minnesota, St John’s University in New York, and Providence College in Rhode Island thanked CNS for informing them of V-Day’s announced plans for 2007 and assured CNS that the play would not be performed. Several bishops also have pledged to contact the colleges in their dioceses.

CNS is calling on its more than 20,000 members and other Catholics to convey their concerns about the Monologues to college presidents. In past years, some colleges reported being flooded with e-mails and other communications protesting the play.

“This play describes the adult seduction of a minor to be the victim’s ‘salvation’ that lifts her into ‘a kind of heaven,’ said CNS President Patrick J. Reilly. “There is an obvious parallel to the clergy sex-abuse scandal here, and it is shocking that any Catholic educators are sanctioning its performance.”

The Cardinal Newman Society is a national organization working to renew and strengthen Catholic identity at Catholic colleges and universities. For more information on CNS or the Monologues, including updates and cancellations, see http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/cns/projects/monologues.