The fight over Communion has taken on local significance for me.
Protesters urge bishop to deny communion to pro-abortion legislators
Thursday, June 17, 2004
By Ann Rodgers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
"A dozen people picketed the Downtown headquarters of the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh yesterday, calling on Bishop Donald Wuerl to deny communion to Catholic legislators who support legal abortion."
Generally I have found the media pretty servile in their coverage of stem cells:
they cannot mention adult stem cells without saying that some people do not think
them as versatile as embryonic stem cells, even though adult stem cells have treated
patients successfully and embryonic stem cells have yet to do so anywhere. There
is also the fact that you see people like Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox pressing
hard to get funding for embryonic research, implying
that wondrous cures are just around the corner if only obstructive politicians would
get out of the way. This is despite the fact that this technology is, well,
pretty embryonic itself, and candid scientists will admit that we’re decades from
any real treatment from embryonic cells.
Well, in the wake of Mr. Reagan’s passing, Wired
and the Washington
Post have more honest appraisals of what embryonic cells could really do for
Alzheimer’s disease. The Post is particularly valuable in that they bring attention
to the fact that Alzheimer’s destroys the architecture of the brain–how can one
unscramble an egg, and even if you do replace the tissue with normal brain tissue,
will the patient still have his or her own personality and memories? Perhaps even
more importantly, the Post shows how scientists and celebrities have manipulated
the public in order to get more funding–for this and other examples of journalistic
objectivity that I rarely see in papers like the NY Times, I am becoming quite a
fan of the Washington Post!
I just read an excellent story (“Presence”, by Maureen F. McHugh) about
a near-future family, where a wife watches her husband change after an experimental
Alzheimer’s treatment, and it deals with just this question, how regenerating someone’s
brain will inevitably alter their personality. You can read “Presence”
and a number of other excellent stories in Gardner Dozois’ Twentieth Annual The
Year’s Best Science Fiction. It is a very sensitive story about a woman’s
courage and love in dealing with a horrible illness that took her husband.
This site sheds some light on the popular idea that before Roe v. Wade made abortion
legal, 10,000 women died each year from botched illegal abortions.
Before
Roe v. Wade, did 10,000 women a year die from illegal abortions?
28-May-2004
Dear Cecil:
Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman recently wrote, “After all, those of us
who remember when birth control was illegal and when 10,000 American women a year
died from illegal abortions don’t have to imagine a world without choices. We were
there.” I write a blog about life after abortion, and one of my co-bloggers
says that the claim of 10,000 deaths is well known to be an urban legend. However,
Ellen Goodman is a famous journalist, and she clearly believes that it is the truth.
Is it? – Emily of After Abortion, via e-mail
Cases Revive Debate Over Childbirth Rights – and Wrongs
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) — Amber Marlowe was a seasoned pro at delivering
big babies — her first six each weighed close to 12 pounds. So when she went into
labor with her seventh last winter, she brushed off doctors who told her the 11-pound,
9-ounce girl could be delivered only by Caesarean section.
While I respect the rights of a well-informed woman to choose how she will birth
her children, I don’t believe those rights should be unrestricted.
“My impression is that we have a political culture right now that falsely pits
fetal rights against women’s rights, and that you are seeing a kind of snowballing
effect,” said Lynn Paltrow, of the New York-based group National Advocates
for Pregnant Women. “We’re at the point now where we’re talking about arresting
pregnant women for making choices about their own bodies, and that’s not right.”
If the fetus is a person – the crucial point in the abortion “rights”
debate – then it is entitled to protection. If a doctor fears for the health and
safety of a human being, he has a right and responsibility to do whatever is in
his power to protect that life. I’m sorry, Mrs. Marlowe, but that takes precedence
over any hurt feelings or inconveniences you may suffer. Feminists who cry foul
over the actions of Wilkes-Barre General Hospital are just as selfish as any woman
who aborts for any reason other than to save her own life.
Limitation on freedoms is not a new concept. Speech is, on the whole, free, but
there are some utterances that can get you in trouble with the law. Shouting “Fire!”
in a crowded theater or joking about shooting the president are good examples. In
other words, there is legal precedent for placing limitations on constitutional
rights. Technically, abortion is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. However,
the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and decisions of the Court carry the
weight of the Constitution until they are overturned. For a federal judge to say
that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban places “an undue burden on a woman’s right
to choose an abortion”, thus making it unconstitutional, is a mighty strong
statement and had better be backed up with legal precedence. It will be very interesting
to see if this makes it to the Supreme Court.
On a side note, if a fetus is not a person, and thus not protected, when it is essentially
birthed to be aborted, what makes it a person if such a procedure is not performed?
I really don’t think it’s reactionary to say that the next logical step is legalized
infanticide. If this ruling goes unchallenged, we may one day wake up to headlines
telling us that a law protecting newborns places an undue burden on a woman’s right
to kill her infant.
Judge:
Bush Abortion Ban Unconstitutional
SAN FRANCISCO – In a ruling with coast-to-coast effect, a federal judge declared
the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Tuesday, saying it infringes
on a woman’s right to choose.
Pro-Life Members of
Congress File Brief in Partial-Birth Abortion Case
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — A pro-life law firm has filed an amicus brief on
behalf of 25 pro-life members of Congress in an effort to help the Bush administration
defend the partial-birth abortion ban from pro-abortion lawsuits seeking to overturn
the law.