Virginia Should Pass Health Standards Bill Regarding Abortion Clinics
By Steven Osborne | Saturday, January 22nd, 2011 | Catch-All, PolicyAccording to Life News a bill that would strengthen the health standards for abortion clinics here in the Commonwealth has passed through the Health, Welfare, and Institutions Committee in the House and is expected to get a full floor vote soon. Unfortunately, it is expected to have a more difficult time in the State Senate. Hopefully, Senate Democrats will have the courage to stand up to the abortion industry and support this legislation.
One would think that the pro-abortion lobby, which claims to care about the health and well being of women, would want the best possible standards for a procedure that can be very dangerous to the woman involved. Unfortunately, we have not seen this concern reflected on the part of the abortion industry.
This only serves to reflect the ideology that birthed such organizations as Planned Parenthood in the first place. One needs only to read the works of Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger to know that the history of this particular organization is steeped in bigotry and racial hatred. It should not surprise us that most of Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinics are being build in predominately black and Hispanic neighborhoods.
This troubled history only seems to be confirmed by the recent reports out of Philadelphia, in which an abortion “doctor” has been properly indicted for murder. Furthermore, a common sense evaluation of abortion in America leads one to the conclusion that abortion is primarily used as a function of belated birth control. This allows for the elimination of those babies that are unwanted while allowing others to live. So much for the “all men are created equal” principle.
Unfortunately, while the left has sought to justify the actions of the abortion industry, many on the right have made attempts to avoid the issue in the past several years. This was due, in large part, to the desire of some figures on the right who have sought to avoid “divisive” social issues. Sadly, in an effort to avoid conflict, this group has called for the tolerance of injustice.
This year, so far, has been different. The pro-life movement has grown in energy and vitality, with personhood amendments having been proposed in states around the country, any successful one of which could trigger a court challenge to Roe v. Wade. The new Republican majority in Washington is working to defund abortion from a federal level. Meanwhile, efforts like the one currently underway in Virginia could serve to reduce the number of abortions, which have been on the rise in the Commonwealth.
An article in the Washington Post Virginia politics blog makes an interesting observation about the health standards bill making its way through the House of Delegates, according to the Post:
“Abortion providers fear that clinics won’t be able to afford the costs of making the changes and will shut down or increase their prices. They predict that if the Board of Health imposes the restrictions, 17 of 21 facilities in the state would most likely have to close their doors.”
So 17 of the 21 clinics would not meet the standards imposed by the Board of Health. This is in spite of the fact that the women involved are undergoing a quite serious, and sometimes risky, operation. Are we honestly supposed to believe that the abortion industry cares about the health of women?
Virginia of all places should understand that the right to life is not open for compromise. Our Commonwealth would do well to pass this legislation, to protect the lives of both the child in the womb and the mother.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Steven Osborne is a grassroots conservative activist from Central Virginia. He is currently furthering his education at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. In addition to writing for Bearing Drift he is also a columnist for the Christian Law Journal.
Comments
28 Responses to "Virginia Should Pass Health Standards Bill Regarding Abortion Clinics"
You need to remember that these are the same folks who think Cuba has a wonderful healthcare system – for You of course, They have made other arrangements which would be too much trouble to change wink wink. I believe Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg made a Sanger like statement about abortion in the recent past as well.
I always worry about legislation that provides all the hurdles and hoops to jump through that ends in “…and then you can kill the baby.”
Regulations are all well and good, but when the abortion industry then meets these standards, does the opposition to the clinics go away?
The answer, they will argue, is no.
The answer, I would argue, is also — NO.
While there is certainly a great deal of scandal involving clinics that are run with health care standards that would make a meat processing plant keel over and vomit (Hodari and Gosnell being two very low and clear examples), I’m not so sure at the end of the day we all cut through the fog and know this is an attempt to impose cost on the abortion industry — a cost they will most certainly pick up, because the profit margins are so high.
Well intentioned bill, but when the abortion industry picks up the tab (and they will), I’m not sure it saves lives at the end of the day.
Shaun,
You make some good points and certainly this bill alone does not accomplish our goals.
It does do two things:
1) It establishes the fact that the pro-life movement is concerned with the health of women. By demonstrating that we are concerned about the health of the woman in addition to the life of the child, we gain valuable leverage in our future endevours to end the practice of abortion altogether.
2) We make an incremental step in the right direction. During the fight to end slavery, many small and incremental steps were taken to eventually achieve the ultimate goal. I believe that this bill is a step in the right direction.
So even if it is unable to save lives in the short term, this bill may indeed save lives in the long run.
The bill may save lives in the short run but the only way to save lives in the long run if women have an unwanted pregnancy is to have support and alternatives to abortion if they do not have family support.
http://cpcfriends.org/ is a great organization who has saved lives by supporting pregnant women in our community.
Steve –
(1) Kathy’s point is well taken. If you want to save lives and show you care about women, donate to the pregnancy resource centers and other organizations that do precisely that.
(2) Incrementalism did not end slavery. The Civil War did — an absolute solution if there ever was one. I would also add that all gains are increments, and not all increments are gains (apologies to Morton Blackwell’s immutable laws). The long and short being, in the long run bills such as these are hardly gains, though they make a certain wing of the pro-life movement feel better for the job we’ve failed to do over the last 38 years.
…and no, I really don’t want to devolve into a greater good vs. common good discussion. The merits of this particular bill, while well intentioned and designed to cost the abortion industry money up front, will eventually be another hurdle jumped and only serve to hurt women and kill babies in a clean, antiseptic environment (that the pro-life movement ostensibly asked for…)
Steven, two points.
One, any Democrat that adhered to “legal, safe and rare” should either support bills like this or admit to being a liar.
Two, Roe v. Wade is not the issue anymore. For all intents and purposes, Roe has been overturned. Casey v. Planned Parenthood is the controlling decision now regarding abortion. Stare decisis is resting on this point in the legal history, not Roe.
On incrementalism:
Slaves were freed from being owned, but they were hardly free. Many Americans had to endure becoming free people in increments. Our economy and liberty have been assaulted by increment. Terror works by increment. Power struggles that overthrow nations often grow by increment until nearing a tipping point and then a larger event.
Are you “pro-life” or just “anti-abortion”? With regard to this proposal, if you are pro-life, should you not ask the question: WWJD?
From a markrting standpoint, does the continual message of protecting life not make sense? You are not saying young girls dying is sometimes good are you? Predatory clinics are preferable? I hope not.
What about other increments? Parental notification kill more in the long run? I doubt it. What about other possible increments like de-funding Planned Parenthood? Removing that stain from your taxes means nothing to an all or nothing voter that opposes abortion?
We are not going to end abortion by legislation. It is going to require a social solution – one in which there is no need for it, thus it doesn’t happen. Spending all of our time and energy on trying to come up with creative ways around Roe v. Wade through the law misses the point.
If we spent half as much energy on trying to educate people on birth control and the alternatives to abortion that are available, we’d make much more progress towards the end goal of a world without abortion.
Totally agree with you, Schoeneman. I think we’ll reach that destination through a series of steps and continued effort to educate.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by BowlMeOverVa and Bearing Drift, manonthestreet. manonthestreet said: RT @BowlMeOverVa: via @bearingdrift: Virginia Should Pass Health Standards Bill Regarding Abortion Clinics http://bit.ly/h6FPFP #tcot #sgp [...]
For the Catholic wing of the pro-life movement, birth control and contraception is just as much a part of the problem as abortion. In fact, one can make a serious argument that the availability of condoms, pills, etc. has been readily distributed over the last four decades, and abortion rates are still murderously high.
Worse still, we’re sending a pretty clear message on what American value systems are regarding human life.
I would agree that there are certainly some forms of legislation that would help get the government out of the abortion business (defunding Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, for instance). I would also agree that certain forms of legislation designed to “regulate” abortion only entrench the problem.
Lastly, I agree that the problem is societal, and that the only way abortion will end is through a cultural shift where abortion is unnecessary, and legislation accurately reflects our values. This is why I’m such a fan of the personhood amendments — it a steady temperature of where the fight to end abortion really is, and it is ultimately where we want to be as a movement.
Britt asked, “WWJD”? On this issue as with most societal issues we have the opportunity to be like Jesus. Get involved and be a friend to others, get out of the microscopic life of “just family, close friends and clicks”. Open up your life to others so when they have a need you already have the relationship to help, lead, guide in the direction of life, not just for the baby, but for the mother as well. Perfect love cast out all fear (of getting close to “those people”).
It’s not good enough to think it’s up to the government or laws. It’s going to take real life involvement of all who proclaim to be pro-life and Jesus followers. Time to walk the walk and not just feel comfortable talking the talk. We all get to answer for what we did, and didn’t do.
I am not Catholic and thus incapable of understanding. You can’t logically analyze some beliefs. I just won’t get how preventing the loss of life of young girls in substandard clinics is ok even given why they are there. Not only does regulation impose cost, but it says that you care for life so much, that even if you can’t outlaw abortion, you will still fight for the life of those women. Would Jesus say let them die or be mutilated? I don’t see that.
Further, someone like me can’t be educated on why the prevention of life via condom is as bad as abortion. I can at least understand an argument for birth control that kills a fertilized egg, but a condom? So, a condom (preventing life) is as bad as abortion(destroying life)? Catholics say masturbation is a sin for the same reason? Because it prevents life? But what about abstinence? Doesn’t that prevent life as well?
If the solution is a societal shift, why is it a bad thing to save lives and prevent damage to their organs needed for future births in the process. That’s protecting life as much as possible, not condoning abortion.
Religion aside and back to political beliefs(of mine anyway). These girls going to substandard clinics are being defrauded into thinking there is reasonable safety. Women are killed and permanently injured due to that fraud and negligence. To me, one of the purposes of government is to protect the individual from both force & fraud. Therefore somesort of law/regulation should be put in place.
…and there you go, Britt. The bill isn’t about saving lives, it’s about imposing costs.
This is the difference between policy with the strategic foresight of checkers, and the policymakers who play chess.
Even under the best of conditions, the abortion industry simply upgrades and then throws the argument back in the face of the movement. We don’t gain an inch, we don’t save a single life. In fact, abortion becomes more commonplace, regulated, and “safe” for all parties… except the babies.
The anti-Catholic stuff? I’ll let that ignorance stand on its own. Cheers!
Shaun, that wasn’t anti- Catholic. It was perhaps a sloppy way of articulating that I, as a non-catholic don’t understand THAT specific area of your religion. Parts of Catholicism make perfect sense to me. I acknowledge that just because I don’t get it, doesn’t mean it isn’t correct. It may be also beyond our understanding for all I know. We are talking about things far larger than ourselves. I am a flawed individual that chose a path I thought had the best chance of being correct. Knowing full well there is no way to be sure.
My intent was not to belittle Catholics but articulate what I see (open to persuasion) as contradiction that I don’t personnally understand. I only mean to be frank with difference of opinion, not to be offensive. I sincerely apologize. I in no way meant to be arrogant enough to state anyone’s belief is wrong or “illogical”. And by definition Shaun, I am ignorant!! I don’t “know”. I am operating on my judgment, a little logic, and a lot of faith.
Personally I would see an upgrade as a gain. Adding cost for its own sake is merely punitive. I just see it differently. I see it as promoting life where you can. Just because it is safer for the mother does not necessarily condone the act. To me there is nothing for the “abortion industry” to throw back in anyone’s face.
I have personally seen attitudes change. Just ancecdotal evidence in my small segment of the world? Maybe. I should probably research the numbers per capita.
I knew this conversation would be a challenge. I enjoyed it. I again offer sincere apologies for clumsey wording that you took as belittling or anti-Catholic.
Sorry guys, but our ‘outrage’ vis a vis medical facility standards is pretty suspect ~ as it should be. We all know this is another pressure push on abortion services; why pretend otherwise? Shaun, a bit of history from one mackerel snapper to another? Catholics practiced sanctioned birth control and abortion for centuries –and most modern family priests understand (and privately support) responsible family planning. We both know the Catholic church hierarchy doesn’t truly represent the views of US Catholics on this issue OR the practice of Catholic women – who utilize birth control AND have abortions.
Up until 1869 the Church followed the Augustinian view (the soul can not live in a body that doesn’t have human characteristics) and it made clear distinctions between the stages of pregnancy. Termination WAS permitted (and therefore not considered murder) before the fetus took human shape. Pope Pius IX changed this long-held view during Vatican I, throwing the church back into middle ages doctrine (which contended the soul enters the body at conception). Also interesting to note … the timing of Pius IX changes coincided with brand new social forces brought on by newly budding industrial capitalism … which was extremely dependent upon women to reproduce and socialize the next generation of workers. There was immense pressure to protect the status quo (and make abortion illegal) from:
- the anti-feminist backlash to the suffrage movement,
- the medical establishment that joined the cause as part of its effort to eliminate midwives,
- and the eugenics movement, which was concerned with “race-suicide” and lower birth rates by “white, native-born” women.
You would think, by the national conversation and rhetoric, that abortion is some kind of wicked modern invention. It’s not; it’s been around since ancient times and until relatively recently was performed by healers and midwives – women caring for other women.
In the 1890′s doctors estimated the number of US abortions at 2 million. By the 1950s, 1 million US illegal abortions a year were still performed – and over 1000 women died each year from ‘botched’ procedures or complications. Stats also show that in 1969 (before Roe v. Wade), 90% of all abortions were performed on white private patients – yet 75% of the women who died from abortions (mostly illegal) were women of color. By 2000, totals were still dropping (875K/year) AND the death rate for legally induced abortions was down to 1/ per 100,000 abortions. Today, the figures remain very close to 2000 levels, with the exception that significantly more women are terminating pregnancies in the earliest stage. http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/Abortion.htm
Abortion rates haven’t risen; they’ve plummeted since the availability of condoms, pills, etc. …readily distributed.
If we are serious about abortion reduction, we (Republicans) should ALSO be championing:
- modern birth control distribution. Attention Delegate Marshall and like minded opponents: the “morning after” pill prevents a blastocyst from attaching to the walls of the womb. It does NOT “abort a baby”.
- affordable long-term birth control solutions for poor women.
- legislation to track, fine, garnish, seize, and jail men who abandon their children (and the child’s baby-momma).
Tolerance for spiritual beliefs and church dogma is an important part of our national foundation. However, when YOUR church dogma overrides world-wide medically known facts AND endangers others, my tolerance ends. Women determined to end unwanted pregnancies have always found a way – and will continue to do so.
@Britt – you have NOTHING to apologize for because there was ZERO “anti-Catholic stuff” in your post. I’m sure Shaun must have read it on the fast fly and misinterpreted. Nothing at all remotely offensive to Catholics in your post.
Good stuff Jay D., I appreciate your input on that. You offered evidence supporting what I suspected , but did not research. That being abortion numbers have declined.
However,I have to differ though on that some clinics may be substandard. I suspected given obvious crooked incentives, that not all clinics are equal. I thought somebody mentioned the Gosnell clinic along with another one I forgot, as specific examples of dangerous clinics. If true, this would be more than just punitive which I would be against.
Jay D –
That is just such a gravy train of… well, bad history… that I really don’t even know where to start.
Catholics have always defended life at its very earliest beginning. For St. Augustine, that was where the science of the day put it — quickening. As science excavated better when life begins, the Catholic Church moved the goalpost back (quickening, to implantation, to conception, to fertilization, to biological beginning).
At no time did the Judeo-Christian understanding move from that of scientific research as to when life began.
As for the whole “the Church doesn’t represent the values of most American Catholics” garbage, that’s precisely what it is. All faithful Catholics defend life from womb to tomb. Otherwise, as Bishop Olmsted recently informed on particular individual at Catholic Healthcare West, you are not a Catholic.
In fact, I’d challenge you to find a single time when the Catholic Church ever condoned abortion. Ever. Go for it — impress the rest of us.
And I would wholeheartedly agree with your final sentiment. Your values stop where mine — and others — begin. Why you feel it so utterly necessary to impose the values of a very lucrative abortion industry not just on women, but on the defenseless lives this industry snuffs out, is the real question here.
@Britt – I agree completely; substandard (meaning potentially dangerous) at ANY health clinic, providing ANY health service, should be cleaned up. However, I’ll bet mortality and infection rates at abortion service clinics are no more/ less than rates at any non-hospital clinic. This bill isn’t about making women safer, it’s about limiting access to a legal procedure. (I wish it were not so.)
The government DOES need to get out the abortion business – WHEN it also gets out of the medical care business. Not before.
Until then, I’m getting awfully tired of a select right-wing sub group defining who I am and what it means to be a Republican. I say right-on! Kathy Mateer. If the fact that someone else’s daughter ends a pregnancy upsets you THAT much, then please, strike a nice big check to the unmarried gal faced with leaving college to take care of a baby. Give your money –and your time– to organizations helping women faced with this awful, terrible choice.
Take this litmus test off the R-table and you will see two VERY positive things happen:
- Republican politicians admitting this is a private choice.
- More talented leadership swarming to the R side of the aisle.
The Christian Right … got it right … when they joined ranks to block the government’s growing Christian school micro management policies. I would now like to invite my passionate friends to butt out and quit micro managing what are, and what must remain, PRIVATE family decisions.
Jay D,
I disagree with your jaded overview of the abortion industry. Simply look into the most recent headlines and you will see some of the horrific scenes that take place at these abortion clinics, and lest you think that it is isolated to Philadelphia, I can give you numerous other examples of similarly grotesque scenes at numerous other abortion clinics around the country.
As Shaun has pointed out, this bill is not perfect, however, it does seek to clamp down on the abortion industry. Yes, it does act in a punitive manner against the abortion industry, so what. In doing so, it may save the lives of women and children. As far as the pro-life movement is concerned, the women taken in by the abortion industry are victims as well.
I also disagree with the assertion that abortion is perfectly “legal” and therefore subject to government protection and/or subsidation. Segregation was legal as well, but that did not make it just.
As to your questions concerning the Catholic doctrine, they are and have been very adamently pro-life. If you want proof of this, just go to Washington D.C. tommorrow.
You cite the Christian right’s position on the privates schools, and you are correct, originally, many evangelical Christian schools reviled the idea of being arbitrarily labeled as racists by the government. Evangelicals then galvanized against abortion en masse, after the Catholics had laid the groundwork. To this day, many Evangelicals continue to draw on the work of Catholic scholars and thinkers when making the intellectual case against abortion.
I do not question your Republican identity, as the party is a vehicle for various ideologies to achieve their ends. I simply do not want the pro-abortion crowd in the drivers seat.
Jay D, thank you for voicing your personal insight. Yes it is a PRIVATE family decision. What about the women and young girls and young adults that have no one. No support or help. It happens more than you know.
I’m not judging anyone. Personally I believe in restraining from sex outside of marriage and if you get pregnant you eat right, get enough rest, take your vitamins and raise the child with all the love you can give. Am I foolish to believe most of the world believes as I? NO. Do I push my own beliefs on others and they have to accept my beliefs in order for me to accept them? Absolutely not. The fact is here in Hampton Roads for every 2 births there is 1 abortion. 1 in 3. Most abortions are by black women who feel they have no other alternative.
Infanticide has been going on from the beginning of written history. “Exposure”, the leaving of new born infants for the birds and animals to devour has been common for thousands of years. As far as religion, the people who believed in God did not practice this infanticide. For them, a child is a child at conception.
Abortion has been around for a long time. Many women can’t have children because of botched abortions.
I don’t know where you got the “big fat check” idea. I talked about personal involvement. HELLO.
If you can’t stomach being personally involved Jay D, I’m sure a check to your local pregnancy resource center, in any amount, will be greatly appreciated. Not just by the mother, but by all the family when they are blessed by a beautiful baby. I know all of my six children are glad they are here, even though they all have had hardship just like every one else.
@ Shaun – in a nutshell… bull@#%$. You and I both know there is the official church position (law) and then there are ‘practices and standards’, which are often in opposition. Vatican I changed church law regarding ‘when life begins’ AND gave us that new definition for papal infallibility. Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING happens in a vacuum. And NOTHING happens in the Catholic church without politics, political pressure, and dividing political factions. There was considerable resistance and dissent at Vatican I– political factors were a significant and driving influence on both changes.
Yes, church canon law IS sacrosanct. But again, we BOTH know there are thousands of instances each day where priests privately give permission for behavior that does NOT conform to church doctrine. Unless married Catholics aren’t having sex, we’re either damn lucky –or using prohibited birth control in mass numbers.
Our priests rarely use the pulpit or go on TV to preach politics, birth control, get out the vote, or encourage participation in “movements”. In point of fact, it is VERY rare to hear the political mixed in with Sunday gospel. The right-to-life clergy and activists in the “Catholic wing” are simply passionate folks that happen to be Catholic and utilize Catholic doctrine to support their position. They do not, nor do you, nor do I, speak on behalf of “Catholics”. Hey, it’s your blog and I would be a rude guest to suggest you NOT use it promote your own politics. You simply cross the line, IMO, when you suggest YOUR politics represent “the Catholic” point of view.
Of course Catholics have always defended life at it’s earliest beginning – AND we also changed our own definition of “earliest beginning”. By the current definition, I would say we “condoned abortion” during the many centuries prior to Vatican I when it was permitted between conception and quickening. Will that satisfy your “name one” request?
And your science argument? “Defenseless lives”? Please, get a grip. World wide, without exception, the science-based medical view is… a zygote, blastocyst, or embryo possesses the potential to become life, but to call this batch of growing cells ‘a baby’ is a bit of a stretch. Yet that is what passionate, well-intentioned, but scientifically deficient and intrusive right-to-lifers push on the rest of us. Dogma.
Well said Kathy.
Jay D –
What is this “we” Catholics stuff? If you’re not pro-life, you’re not Catholic. End discussion.
The escalation in this conversation, including my own, demonstrates the near impossibility of having a reasonable, rational, solutions-based discussion that moves us closer towards what we ALL want (Ds and Rs alike): a world where abortion is rare, unnecessary, and all of God’s children are well loved and cared for. For the record (please read carefully this time):
-I do not promote abortion. I believe it to be the most awful, heartbreaking, and life-changing decision a woman could ever face.
-I know where babies come from and that society continues to give a ‘wink wink’ nod to men, while it holds women “accountable” for the unintended consequences of premarital sexual relations.
-I support parental rights laws. Schools and hospitals can’t deliver an aspirin without my permission; I don’t want ANY medical procedures or treatment (other than in an emergency) provided to my child without my consent.
-I believe abortion services providers should meet the same HIGH medical standards set for any other medical service provider.
-I believe that a women who is determined to end an unwanted pregnancy WILL find a way.
-I want that woman to have a legal and safe option.
-I believe the only religious view that matters belongs to the woman undergoing the procedure.
-I understand the scientific and medical facts regarding reproduction. At what precise moment God breaths life into a soul remains an unknown mystery … even to the Pope (and Shaun Kenney).
Period. End of story. That’s it. Sorry if it all sounds too extreme, dangerous, or unRepublican for BD readers. My grandmother’s motto was “There is always room to love one more”. I would like to think my generation honors her as we help raise up grand-children, several of whom are being raised (and supported) by loving grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. because our beautiful, but unexpected, blessings came much too early, without benefit of marriage. At the same time as my family works together to help with child care and education expenses, I have absolutely no illusions regarding the many without resources or family support anywhere close to equal of ours. And for these young women, early unintended pregnancy, without marriage, equals an almost guaranteed Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200 straight shot to poverty for her AND her children, and likely her children’s children.
WWJD? Hell, I haven’t a clue … but I’m fairly confident he would NOT protest with a baby-killer sign or waste much time with legislative bills. It’s also likely, given past performance, he wouldn’t place too much stock in established religion’s rules and canons.
@Kathy Mateer – please go back and read my words again. I wrote: “Give your money –and your time– to organizations helping women faced with this awful, terrible choice.” How did THAT warrant “If you can’t stomach being personally involved…”? WTF? I’m confused. Are you saying big fat checks are unwelcome at CPC? If so, they really should remove the donate button and kill the 575 campaign. And of course you “judge” – we all do, every day of our lives. We just aren’t quite as transparent about it. The outrageously high out of wedlock birth rate today is a direct consequence of that same pious, kumbaya, old-hippy driven non-judgemental sentiment. As soon as society made it OK to not marry your baby-momma (don’t you just love that term!), men stopped. Thanks to that 60s era garbage we have a multi-generational trend of way too many kids growing up without fathers.
When the right-to-life movement fights just as hard for the living as it does for zygotes and embryos … I’ll join it. In the meantime, thank you all for a MOST enlightening conversation. Until this moment, I never realized I was a jaded abortion industry advocate or “for” child abandonment (and feeding the wee ones to forest critters!). Special thanks to Pope Shaun – to think I was baptized, confirmed, and spent all those years at mass and with my priest and ….OMG! … I wasn’t ever REALLY a Catholic! Jeez – whatta country!
Jay D, please forgive me, I obviously misunderstood your tone. I thought you were being sarcastic and now you tell me you were being sincere. Again, please forgive me.
@Kathy: Women dealing with unwanted pregnancies are in crisis; the work you do at the CPC isn’t simply admirable – it’s angels’ work. I dove into this conversation for 2 simple reasons:
#1 I was irritated by Shaun Kenney’s rude – and completely out of line – response to Britt Howard’s questions.
#2 I wanted to make plain Shaun’s opinions may reflect the Catholic wing of the pro-life movement, but they should not be mistaken as the unified voice of 70 million American Catholics.
The rest was completely self-inflicted, but tremendously revealing and useful. BTW – I keep this sermon bookmarked and handy – it’s one of my favorites. You already live ‘the lesson’, but you might enjoy the telling? And thank you very much for your last comment – most appreciated.
http://www.southyarrachurch.org/sermon_notes/elijah-17-oh-sweet-gentleness-1-kings-195-8
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.