Soros Funds Pro-Abortion March

The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Right

Bill Donohue comments on the upcoming March for Choice:

On September 24, there will be a March for Choice in Dublin, and in 16 other cities; events will be held in 11 nations, including Ireland. Its proximate goal is to force the repeal of Ireland's Eighth Amendment that bans abortion; its long-term goal is to secure abortion-on-demand in other Catholic European countries.

The money behind this effort is coming largely from George Soros, the atheist Jewish billionaire who hates Israel—he labels it a "racist" nation—and loves to fund pro-abortion campaigns. That he likes to interfere in the internal affairs of Catholic nations is indisputable.

His Open Society Foundation funds Amnesty International Ireland, the Abortion Rights Campaign and the Irish Family Planning Association. They are promoting the protest. He also funds Catholics for Choice in the United States, an anti-Catholic letterhead with no members.

Reportedly, Soros has donated more than $25 million to help Hillary Clinton and other Democrats win in November; one report says he has given $9 million to her alone.

The lavish amounts Soros spends on Clinton is something Catholics should know about. After all, she is on record stating that pro-life "religious beliefs" must change. Last year, in reference to abortion, she explicitly said that "deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed." In other words, it is the duty of elites, such as Soros, to foster the pro-abortion agenda.

An honest media would tell the public what I have just said—it's all true. But don't hold your breath.

     

                  

The Catholic League is the nation's largest Catholic civil rights organization. Founded in 1973 by the late Father Virgil C. Blum, S.J., the Catholic League defends the right of Catholics – lay and clergy alike – to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination.  Use this link for more information on the Catholic League.

Oklahoma Abortion Law Protects Kids

from Bill Donohue
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights


Bill Donohue comments on a bill passed today by the Oklahoma legislature making it a felony for a doctor to perform an abortion:

It is up to Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin to sign this bill if it is to become law. Currently, it is a felony in Oklahoma for non-doctors to perform an abortion, so this bill simply adds doctors to the list. Quite frankly, it would be illogical not to do so: It is not the training of the abortionist that is the crux of the matter, it is the procedure, and its aftermath, that counts.

This bill would not apply in instances where the woman's life is in danger, or when a miscarriage warrants an operation; felony charges would not be brought against a doctor who performed an abortion in those cases. Unlike some other state laws that restrict abortion, this legislation does not make exceptions for rape, incest, or the woman's health (the latter is typically interpreted to cover her alleged emotional state, not her physical health).

The lawmaker who sponsored the bill, Sen. Nathan Dahm, said, "Since I believe that life begins at conception, it should be protected, and I believe it's a core function of state government to defend that life from the beginning of conception."

Noble though Sen. Dahm's statement is, all he had to say is, "Since life begins at conception...." There is no need to personalize his comment, citing his beliefs. Life obviously begins at conception—this is Biology 101. Those who maintain otherwise are advancing an unscientific argument, to say nothing of its morally objectionable nature.

The champions of abortion rights are on the wrong side of humanity. Change is not easy to accept, especially for those unaccustomed to thinking for themselves, but they need to get with it before the train of history leaves them standing at the station. Kids need to be protected, in and out of the womb.

For more information on this bill, SB 1552, use this link. 

Gov. Fallin needs to hear from you. Her contact information is below.


The Office of Governor Mary Fallin

Oklahoma State Capitol
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 212
Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Local: (405) 521-2342
Fax: (405) 521-3353

source:   http://www.catholicleague.org

Voices for the Unborn is an e-publication dedicated to informing and educating the public on pro-life and pro-family issues. To read our Mission Statement, use this link.  You can also follow us on Facebook, Google, and Pinterest.  Help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

NUN PERFORMS ABORTION ON TV SHOW

From Bill Donohue
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

Bill Donohue comments on the August 15 episode of “The Knick,” a Cinemax TV show (the parent company is Time Warner):

Sister Harriet, a nurse who runs an orphanage, visits an Irish Catholic woman, Nora, who wants an abortion. The woman doesn’t want her husband to find out.

• Sister Harriet: “Your husband will know nothing of it. I promise.”
• Nora: “Will God forgive me? I don’t want to go to hell for killing a baby.”
• Sister Harriet: “He knows that you suffered. I believe the Lord’s compassion will be yours.” [The audience is led to believe that the nun performs the abortion.]

It is no secret that Hollywood is a big pro-abortion town, but to depict a nun who performs an abortion is a new low.

The only saving grace in this episode is the real-life recognition of the woman who is about to have the abortion: she admits that her baby is going to be killed.

Please contact Time Warner communications Senior VP Keith Cocozza:
keith.cocozza@timewarner.com to voice your outrage. 

Bid To Kill Religious Rights Fails

July 16, 2014
 Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

Bill Donohue comments on the Senate vote held today on the Protect Women's Health from Corporate Interference Act:

The assault on religious liberty lost today as the Senate failed to achieve the 60 votes necessary to advance this bill. While the outcome is welcome, the fact that a majority of Senators, almost all Democrats, are still bent on eviscerating the religious liberty rights of Americans is very disturbing. It seems they will stop at nothing to trample on our First Amendment freedoms.

The vote is being widely misreported by the media as a vote on contraception. It was not. The issue is abortion, not contraception. All four of the procedures that plaintiffs for Hobby Lobby cited in their brief involved at least the possibility that a pregnancy might be terminated; prevention and termination are not identical. Moreover, this company does not object to providing contraceptives. Ergo, attempts to override the high court's decision has nothing to do with contraception.

The lust for abortion is sickening, and the war on religion is equally contemptuous. Outside the Capitol today there were anti-Catholic protesters flagging their signs, "KEEP YOUR ROSARIES OFF MY OVARIES." The bigots were from Code Pink, the far left-wing band of activists. But we won't look for Nancy Pelosi to condemn them, even though she loves to tout what a "devout Catholic" she is.

DEMS VALUE ANIMALS OVER HUMANS

Catholic League For Religious and Civil Rights

Bill Donohue comments on the results of a Gallup survey on moral issues; it was released on May 30:
 
On the issue of "Medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos," 74 percent of Democrats find it morally acceptable, but when it comes to "Medical testing on animals," the figure drops to 50 percent. "Buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur" finds only 49 percent of Democrats saying it is acceptable.
 
More Democrats find abortion to be morally acceptable, 59 percent, than the death penalty, 52 percent. Support for doctor-assisted suicide jumps to 63 percent.
 
Democrats value animals more than humans. That is the inescapable conclusion. They also value the life of convicted serial murderers more than the life of innocent unborn babies.
 
It's a sad day when the champions of compassion value Fido more than Frank or Fran.
 
[On the issue of embryonic stem cell research, 50 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Independents say it is morally acceptable. Medical testing on animals is seen as acceptable by 69 percent and 56 percent, respectively. Clothing made of animal fur is accepted by 71 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of Independents.

The death penalty is seen as acceptable by 73 percent of Republicans, and 62 percent of Independents. For abortion, it is 28 percent and 41 percent, respectively. Doctor-assisted suicide is okay by 40 percent of Republicans and 54 percent of Independents.]

he Catholic League is the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization. Founded in 1973 by the late Father Virgil C. Blum, S.J., the Catholic League defends the right of Catholics – lay and clergy alike – to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination.

Motivated by the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment, the Catholic League works to safeguard both the religious freedom rights and the free speech rights of Catholics whenever and wherever they are threatened.

The Catholic League is listed in the Official Catholic Directory and has won the plaudits of many bishops.  Find more information on the Catholic League at: http://www.catholicleague.org/about-us/

The How and Why of Roe's Radical Mandate

RICK HINSHAW

Clarke D. Forsythe, Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade (New York: Encounter Books, 2013)

With his extensive background in law, Clarke Forsythe, senior counsel at Americans United for Life, seems the ideal author for a detailed overview of Roe v. Wade. In Abuse of Discretion, he does not disappoint, providing a comprehensive account of how and why the Supreme Court justices used Roe — and its often overlooked but equally significant companion case, Doe v. Bolton — to impose a radical pro-abortion mandate on the entire nation.

Through what he describes as “a quarter-century of research” – research that included examination of the papers of eight of the nine justices who decided Roe – Forsythe analyzes Roe and its impact, 40 years later, in the process confirming what many pro-life activists knew instinctively at the time:

•  that the ruling was far more sweeping, and radical, than claimed by media and Court members themselves;
• that it resulted not from a comprehensive, reasoned analysis of facts, but from an ideological agenda pushed by the Court’s most activist members;
• that the justices misused, misunderstood and misrepresented pertinent facts in a range of critically relevant areas, from the history of abortion laws, to medical data and developments, to public opinion regarding abortion;
• that instead of a careful, balanced study of empirical data from various perspectives, the justices relied almost exclusively on advocacy pieces produced by pro-abortion activists;
• that the social crises the justices believed legal abortion would help alleviate – poverty, child abuse, out-of-wedlock pregnancies – would grow worse in ensuing decades.

Most disturbing is the justices’ – especially Justices William O. Douglas and William J. Brennan, Jr. – manipulation of the judicial process to bring about their fore-ordained result: a nationwide mandate legalizing abortion.

continue reading at http://www.catholicleague.org

Rick Hinshaw is editor of The Long Island Catholic magazine.

NEW YORK TIMES SHOWS ITS BIAS

Bill Donohue comments on bias at the New York Times:

There is no newspaper in the United States that is more extreme in its defense of abortion-on-demand and homosexual rights than the New York Times. It regards the defense of partial-birth abortion to be a "moderate" position, and its reporters have openly bragged about the record number of homosexuals who write feature stories. Today's edition offers more support to the accusation that it is biased in its coverage on these issues.

There is a front-page story about a homosexual vice principal in Seattle who was asked to step down when it was learned that he was married to a man. The 1351-word story does not focus on the man's violation of a contract he voluntarily signed (Catholic employees are expected to abide by Catholic teachings); rather, it focuses on students who are rallying to his side. The story features four photos: the one on the front page is in color, and one of the three pictures on p. A16 is quite big (9"x6").

On the opposite page, p. A17, there is an average-size picture of the March for Life that was held yesterday in Washington, D.C. There is no story. Yet there could have been a great one: hundreds of thousands of marchers, overwhelmingly young, braved the bitter cold; many had traveled through a snow storm the day before to get there (the federal government shut down because of the bad conditions).

A handful of young people from Seattle who support their fired vice principal merits big coverage, but a massive pro-life march in a winter storm is all but ignored. And the motto of the New York Times is, "All the News That's Fit to Print." I guess pro-life news is not fit to print.

 William Donohue is the President of The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

OKAY FOR BISHOPS TO SAY THE ROSARY

Bill Donohue comments on a New York Times editorial in today’s paper:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) because the bishops are pro-life. Its pretext is a case involving a pregnant woman who visited the only hospital in her area, and claims she was not given information about the option of aborting her baby. The New York Times, which always sides with the pro-abortion industry against the Catholic Church, thinks the ACLU is doing yeoman work. But the first sentence in today’s 520-word editorial, along with the last two, prove why my first sentence is accurate.

The first sentence says that beyond state efforts to restrict abortion, there is “another, if quieter, threat [that] is posed by mergers between secular hospitals and Catholic hospitals operating under religious directives from the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops.” What scares the Times is diversity: it is resolutely opposed to the pro-life position of Catholic hospitals, and wants every hospital to perform abortions. Whenever there is a merger between secular and Catholic entities, the Times maintains that Catholic First Amendment rights should yield to the non-constitutional rights of secular institutions.

“The bishops are free to worship as they choose and advocate their beliefs. But those beliefs should not shield the bishops from legal accountability when church-affiliated hospitals following their rules cause patients harm.” These sentences are a gem: in effect, the Times says it is okay for the bishops to say the rosary. They can even advocate their beliefs! What they can’t do is act on them. This is what the New York Times believes are sufficient constitutional rights for Catholics in 2013.

Freedom to worship, promoted by the Obama administration, is a neutered rendition of the more robust, and constitutionally protected, right to religious freedom; it has a public dimension. As Pope Francis recently instructed, Catholics should never settle for less.

Contact Andrew Rosenthal, editorial page director, NYT: andyr@nytimes.com

Bishops Affirm Tradition

Bill Donohue comments on the decisions reached by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) this week in Baltimore:

Those who have been pushing the bishops to abandon their opposition to the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate, abortion and gay marriage lost big time this week. Yesterday, the bishops voted unanimously to continue their fight against the HHS mandate.

The bishops invoked the name of Pope Francis, sending a message to those who are trying to hijack the pope's words to pressure the bishops to abandon their cultural concerns. "Pope Francis has reminded us," they said, that "there is only one thing which the Church quite clearly demands: the freedom to proclaim the Gospel in its entirety, even when it runs counter to the world, even when it goes against the tide."

By electing Archbishop Joseph Kurtz as president, and Cardinal Daniel DiNardo as vice president, the bishops affirmed their commitment to religious liberty, the life of the unborn, and marriage equity.

Archbishop Kurtz took to the streets of Louisville last year protesting the HHS mandate; Cardinal DiNardo, as chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities, wrote letters to the U.S. senators expressing the bishops' opposition to the mandate.

On abortion, Kurtz said yesterday that "the deliberate destruction of unborn children at their most vulnerable stage is a travesty." In June, when Texas Sen. Wendy Davis filibustered a pro-life bill, DiNardo called on Gov. Rick Perry to call for a special session to revive the bill.

Archbishop Kurtz, previous chairman of the USCCB's Ad Hoc Committee on the Defense of Marriage, set the agenda for the bishops in opposing gay marriage. In June, Cardinal DiNardo called the Supreme Court's ruling allowing gay marriage a "grave injustice."

Kudos to the USCCB for affirming tradition and holding the line.

HHS Mandate Final Rules

Bill Donohue comments on the final rules set forth today by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding its abortifacient mandate:

The HHS mandate forcing Catholic non-profits to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization will not kick in on August 1, as scheduled; an extension has been granted to January 1, 2014.

There are some changes in the rules worth noting, but they are not satisfactory. Attempts to distance Catholic non-profits from directly providing insurance coverage for these morally objectionable services are admirable, but we’ve been there before: five months ago we were told that more in the way of accommodation was forthcoming, and we applauded that gesture. But now we know that the Obama administration has come up short.

The Catholic community, and many others, are not asking for anything new: all we are asking for is to respect the status quo ante as it applies to this issue. It is not people of faith who sought this confrontation—it is President Obama. 

OUR ANTI-CHILD CULTURE

Catalyst March Issue 2013, From William A. Donohue

Jonathan V. Last is a senior writer at the Weekly Standard, the prominent conservative magazine that features Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes. He is also a gifted writer, a strong pro-life advocate, and a man not afraid to challenge the conventional wisdom. His new book, What to Expect When No One’s Expecting: America’s Coming Demographic Disaster, is a much needed wakeup call for the nation: we need more children, and we need them now.

It is commonplace for academics and pundits to assume that we have too many people in the world. They paint scary environmental scenarios and trot out mind-numbing data on how our limited resources cannot sustain current rates of population growth. They’re wrong. As Last makes clear, it is precisely the current population growth rate that cannot be sustained any longer.

Today, Al Gore likes to wax hysterical over the so-called population problem. A lot of his ideas are traceable to the intellectual godfather of population mania, Paul Ehrlich. His 1968 book, The Population Bomb, had a tremendous effect, and it was not salutary. Looking back at its incredible influence, Last labels it “one of the most spectacularly foolish books ever published.” He does not exaggerate.

Ehrlich was all over radio, TV, and college campuses in the late 1960s and the 1970s. He was known for proclaiming with dogmatic certainty, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over.” Indeed, he predicted that the scale of famines in the 1970s would lead to the deaths of “hundreds of millions of people,” all because of overpopulation. But as Last ably shows, Ehrlich’s prediction was not only wrong, his “silly book” was wrong when he penned it. To be specific, “Fertility rates in America and across the world had been declining gradually for decades,” Last says, “but beginning in 1968 they sank like a stone.”

Unfortunately, in many circles data matter less than perception. It was the perception of overpopulation, fed by those like Ehrlich, that allowed elites to see people as the enemy, a foe that must be curtailed. An anti-child culture soon took root, aided and abetted by leaders in education, the media, and government. Foundations also jumped on board, rewarding liberal think tanks with plentiful grants.

The development of an anti-child culture required more than this. Technology played a role. Once the pill became commercially available in 1960, it would not take long before fertility rates would plummet. In 1973, abortion was legalized, adding more fuel to the fire: sex without consequences was the dream of irresponsible men throughout the ages, and now they could get what they wanted in the name of women’s rights.

As Last points out, the migration of women into the workforce all but insured the prevalence of two-income families. Consider that in 1965, 44 percent of women worked outside the home; by 1990 the figure was 70 percent (about where it is now). Let’s not forget about the sharp increase in shacking up (politely called cohabitation). These arrangements, based on convenience, not commitment, pay lousy social dividends: while 78 percent of marriages last more than five years, only 30 percent of cohabitations last that long. Moreover, the divorce rate for couples who previously lived together is much higher than those who waited until they were married.

The illegitimacy rate (thoughtfully called the out-of-wedlock rate) is also related to these social dynamics. What’s new is the fact that the rate of illegitimacy has more than doubled for women over the age of 30. The declining influence of religion surely figures here: the stigma once attached to illegitimacy has all but vanished. The good news is that those young people who are faithful churchgoers are happier in their marriages, and are less likely to divorce. So religion matters.

Is it any wonder why young people are waiting longer to marry, and are having fewer children when they do? This is not the kind of social base upon which a child-friendly society can be built. And it shows: dogs have replaced children as a source of affection in urban America. In 1994, we spent $17 billion on pets; today we’re close to $50 billion. The same phenomenon is also true in nations that have adopted an anti-child culture, namely Japan and Italy: the “dog mommy” is now a common Japanese stereotype.

But does it matter? Yes, in terms of economic productivity, a declining fertility rate (2.1 percent is the replacement level) is the kiss of death. For senior citizens, the outlook is devastating: every dime paid by workers to the Social Security Trust Fund is spent on current retirees—none of it is put away for those who are currently paying into it. To put it another way, thanks to collapsing fertility rates, the huge Social Security bill for the swelling ranks of senior citizens will be paid for by a declining number of workers. The worst is yet to come.

Jonathan Last has given us much to think about; after all, he is really talking about the fate of our nation. While all is not doom and gloom—we are an eternally resilient people—there are plenty of problems built into our demographic profile that cannot be neglected any longer.

“AFTER TILLER” FLICK IS REVEALING

George Tiller was the most maniacal child killer in U.S. history

A documentary about those who perform late-term abortions, “After Tiller,” previewed at the Sundance Film Festival this week. The directors of the movie, Lana Wilson and Martha Shane, were interviewed by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! about their film. Bill Donohue found much of what they said revealing [click here to read it]:

George Tiller was the most maniacal child killer in U.S. history, and it is testimony to his deeds (he was the king of partial-birth abortion) that there are only four “doctors” left in the entire nation who are able to do what he did for a living (three of whom worked with him). “After Tiller” is their story. But it is also our story: these people unwittingly validate the pro-life position.

Goodman discusses how these abortionists are faced with “dilemmas” and “agonizing” decisions. Dr. Shelley Sella uses the term “baby” to speak of the unborn children she readily discards, and director Shane mentions how these women go on “grieving the loss of their child.” Best of all is Dr. Susan Robinson who recounts what she tells her patients:

“Look, of course you don’t want an abortion. Nobody wants an abortion. You have three choices: You can have a kid that you say you can’t take good care of; you can have a kid and give it to somebody else, who you know or don’t know; or you can have an abortion, which you think is the wrong thing to do. Those are your three choices. They all suck.”

Robinson is to be commended for her brutal honesty, though she failed to note that the child wouldn’t weigh all three choices equally. She also needs to explain why “nobody wants an abortion.” Why not? Why is it that none of her patients really want to undergo the surgery she is happy to perform? What makes her patients so different from the patients of, say, back surgeons?

“After Tiller” tries to put a human face on an inhuman practice, and it fails. Here’s the proof: the film never shows the patients’ faces, though permission was granted.

IN DENIAL ABOUT ABORTION

By Bill Donahue

Next Tuesday marks the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Those who support abortion rights are in denial, and for eminently good reason: the public has turned against them. Indeed, more Americans consider themselves pro-life than at any time since 1973.

On November 21, the Centers for Disease Control released a report, “Abortion Surveillance—United States, 2009,” that found there was a 5 percent decrease in abortions between 2008 and 2009, the largest single-year decrease in a decade. This makes sense given the general revulsion against abortion. Then there is the increasing reluctance of doctors to kill children in utero: it takes a special kind of person to do that. This is why New York Governor Andrew Cuomo wants to allow non-doctors to do abortions—they don’t have the same scruples about killing the innocent.

The number of abortions peaked in 1990 and has been declining ever since. The number of abortion providers peaked in 1982, and while they have been steadily declining, a leveling off has been evident since 2005. The good news is that 27 states and the District of Columbia have experienced a decrease in abortion providers.

Pro-abortion activists are in denial. For instance, the Center for American Progress’ (CAP) Faith and Reproductive Justice Leadership Institute issued a statement yesterday by a few clergy members that is classic doublespeak. It says they are committed to “justice and dignity for all God’s people” [my italic], which is obviously a lie. They also say they “affirm the sacredness of conscience…as a foundation of religious liberty.” This is also a lie: Sally Steenland, director of CAP’s Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative, who is touting this statement today, cheered when Catholic conscience rights were nixed by the HHS mandate.

For the record, George Soros funds CAP and the Ford Foundation funds its Faith and Reproductive Justice Leadership Institute.