Still looking for the Perfect Christmas Gift? How about an Abortion?!

Indianapolis, Dec 2, 2008 / 04:23 am (CNA).- The Indiana affiliate of Planned Parenthood is offering gift certificates for birth control and other services, including abortion. While an announcement of the program encourages customers to purchase the certificates to “give the gift of health this holiday season,” one critic characterized the effort as “lethal.”

Indiana Planned Parenthood is offering the certificates in $25 increments through its web site or at its 35 locations in the state. Prospective customers are advised that the gift certificates could be used as co-pays in conjunction with partial insurance coverage.

[ . . . ]

The certificates may be used for breast exams and Pap smears, but may also be applied to defray the cost of an abortion, the Associated Press reports.

“I certainly don’t think anyone would consider giving it for that purpose,” Planned Parenthood of Indiana spokeswoman Kate Shepherd said.

Sure, Ms. Shepherd. And no one would offer a gift certificate to a liquor store to someone for the purpose of getting him drunk. You can read the whole story, from the Catholic News Agency, here.

I wonder, Is the idea that Christmas celebrates birth, the birth of the Savior of mankind, lost on these people as they proffer abortion gift certificates as holiday gifts? Pardon my language, but What the Fuck?

Advertisements

Wherein I actually discuss abortion

In the past, I have referred to abortion with respect to election politics, but, rather strangely, never have attempted to discuss this atrocity otherwise. In the wake of an election wherein a vehemently pro-abortion candidate defeated a tepidly anti-abortion Republican — and won the majority of Catholics’ votes — and John’s post, which elicited sixty-plus comments (Seriously, read it, and the multitudinous comments, here, before proceeding with my embarrassingly simple post.), and as a prologue to posts I intend to compose on federalism and the Republican Party and on the failures of the Catholic hierarchy to create and to sustain a flourishing Catholic culture whence might arise more Catholics who refuseto be expected to provide the possibly now-non-existent “Catholic vote” for the lesser of two evil candidates, neither of whose beliefs ever fit particularly nicely with a truly Catholic worldview, I’ve concluded that I ought to offer some thoughts, cogent, I hope, on abortion, both as moral and political (Can the two really be separated, anyway?) issue.

Notwithstanding Speaker Pelosi’s and Senator Biden’s faux-theologizing, that the Catholic Church unabashedly and uncompromisingly denounces, opposes, and rejects abortion is undeniable. From the Catechism:

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae, by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

That the Church prohibits abortion, then, is undeniable. To abort one’s child, or to cooperate in the procurement of an abortion, is to risk eternal damnation. Even excluding these passages, that a Catholic — or any Christian cannot support abortion should be Scripturally evident:

And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David: and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her:

“Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”

Who having heard, was troubled at his saying and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her:

“Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.”

And Mary said to the angel:

“How shall this be done, because I know not man?”

And the angel answering, said to her:

“The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren. Because no word shall be impossible with God.”

And Mary said:

“Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it done to me according to thy word.”

And the angel departed from her.

If life does not begin at conception, then so much of the Mystery becomes meaningless; the Visitation, too: If neither John nor Christ, both alive in their mothers’ wombs, had not yet reached personhood, then this great encounter, when the Blessed Mother pronounced the Magnificat, is nothing. Even Christ, who is God, as human either was or was not a person in His mother’s womb. I suspect that, facing the question posed this way, far fewer Catholics would support abortion.

What, then, of mere political support, the “pro-choice” “I’m personally opposed, but . . . ” line?

I seem to have misspoken!

Fortunately, Timothy Egan, of the venerable New York Times, has set me straight. Governor Palin is “[m]litantly anti-choice”.

Wake up America: Another reason not to vote for Barack Obama

From the 31 July 2008 Washington Times:

Legislation that would make it more difficult for workers to hold a private ballot vote in unionization drives, which critics say would lead to harassment and intimidation, has spurred a pitched battle between powerful labor unions supportive of Sen. Barack Obama and big business in the presidential campaign.

Seen by the AFL-CIO as a way to boost union rolls by hundreds of thousands of new members, the hotly-contested bill has become this year’s No. 1 election issue for organized labor. Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has promised union bosses that the Employee Free Choice Act will become law in 2009 if he wins the presidency in November. [My emphasis, of Orwellian double-speak at its finest. – NPO]

“We’re ready to play offense for organized labor. It’s time we had a president who didn’t choke saying the word ‘union.’ A president who strengthens our unions by letting them do what they do best: organize our workers,” Mr. Obama told the AFL-CIO in Philadelphia on April 2.

“I will make it the law of the land when I’m president of the United States,” Mr. Obama told the labor federation.

Is it any wonder that the attractiveness of organized labor has declined as precipitously as it has when its leaders seek to deny could-be union members the right to vote to organize, or not to, in secret?* Really, only Obama’s support of this draconian policy boggles my mind more than the proposal’s very existence. Notice that Obama makes no claim, as quoted supra, of supporting the working man; rather, he saves his heroism for the unions. He wants “to play offense for organized labor“, rather than for organized laborers**. Accuse me of parsing to the most painfully minute degree; I stand by the importance of the difference here. Barack Obama has more interest, it would seem, in maintaining the financial support of the unions than in protecting the rights of the American working class. Change, indeed.

It is, perhaps, worthy of note that Obama has promised to enact the Freedom of Choice Act, guaranteeing further the “right” to “choose” to abort an unborn child and to enact the Employee Free Choice Act, which, in fact, severely limits the choice the American worker has. Baffling. Even George McGovern, stalwart union supporter, writing in the Wall Street Journal, says no to this egregious legislation, as Paul M. Weyrich notes

From McGovern’s opinion piece:

I worry that there has been too little discussion about EFCA’s true ramifications, and I think much of the congressional support is based on a desire to give our friends among union leaders what they want. But part of being a good steward of democracy means telling our friends “no” when they press for a course that in the long run may weaken labor and disrupt a tried and trusted method for conducting honest elections. [My emphasis, for awesome truth-telling. – NPO]

Reasonable Republican words on the Act, from Congressman John Kline, MN:

It is beyond me how one can possibly claim that a system whereby everyone — your employer, your union organizer, and your co-workers — knows exactly how you vote on the issue of unionization gives an employee free choice. . . . It seems pretty clear to me that the only way to ensure that a worker is free to choose is to ensure that there’s a private ballot, so that no one knows how you voted. I cannot fathom how we were about to sit there today and debate a proposal to take away a worker’s democratic right to vote in a secret-ballot election and call it “Employee Free Choice”.

For what it’s worth, as the article in the Times notes, McCain opposes this act.***

Update: Clive Crook has a good piece on EFCA, unions, and the Democrats. The comment box conversation is worth your time, too.

*For the love of God, I realize that this has come up long after the unions began to lose their luster, so, please, avoid trying to disprove my argument on such grounds. This policy, rather, I believe, is just the newest manifestation of the corruption that plagues organized labor, which perpetuates itself by positing continuously the chimera of a level of economic security that the working man can achieve onlythrough union membership.

**The reader ought not to construe this piece as indicative, at all, of my opinions on voluntary organization.

***The reader ought, of course, not to construe this piece as indicative of my support for or endorsement of Senator McCain.

****I should also note — insist, vehemently, even — that the fact that Wal-Mart and I fall on the same side of this in no way should be construed as being indicative of my support of, approval for, or interest in siding with this most evil bastard mutation of “free-market economics”.

The Democrats’ schizophrenia on abortion

Steve Waldman posts the draft for the 2008 platform plank on in utero infanticide and then comments on it.

It’s interesting — and a bit confounding: On the one hand, as Waldman acknowledges, pro-lifers within the party’s ranks had more of a chance than ever in recent years to participate in the drafting of the plank; however, gone is the “safe, legal, and rare” line, still missing is the long-sought-by-Democrats-for-life conscience clause, and, violating both pro-life and libertarian principles, the plank implies the approval of government funding for abortions.

This, to me, inclusion of pro-life liberals in the process notwithstanding, sounds more like a radical shift further to the pro-choice side, covered up with a veneer of disingenuous courting of the Joe Donnellys, Bob Conleys, and Travis Childerses of the party, than any sort of real spirit of big-tent inclusion.

He might actually be pro-abortion

(I realize that I’m late in commenting on this; oh well.) I’m no fan of mis-leading abortion war language such as “anti-choice” or “pro-abortion” (or “pro-life” when used by anti-abortion types who have no problem with endless war or capital punishment). However, I can’t help thinking that anyone who, sucking up to the abortion industry, claims, “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing that I’d do” merely espouses pro-choice views. As other, more active bloggers have noted, Obama’s voting record is one of the most consistently pro-abortion rights records around. Unborn children be warned: The potential next American president, he might just be evil.