Divided by Error, United in Amorality, part two

There is no need to belabor the points made in part one of this two-part series as they have made so many hundreds of times before in various articles on this website. Indeed, there is no reason to rewrite Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.'s., Ultimate Treason is Against Christ the King and Memorandum to Donald John Trump: The Inviolability of Innocent Human Life is Non-Negotiable even though this commentary covers much of the same material updated to reflect developments since each was published.

First, let it be stipulated that Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., is a serial liar, a plagiarist, a demagogue, and a crook whose fundamental lack of moral character and his practice of amorality to advance his own pecuniary interests and to punish those who get in his way long ago disqualified him from serving in any office of public trust in the United States of America. Those who want to delve into the intricate details of his senility, corruption, duplicity, and manipulative use of the levers of justice to protect Sonny Biden and to put Donald John Trump behind prison bars for the rest of his life can read one or more of the following secular commentaries: Five Facts That Compel Biden Impeachment Inquiry, Can Democrats Thread the Needle on Biden's Lies?, Politicized FBI Means Impeaching Biden Is Only Way Forward, Impeaching Biden Is About Corruption - Not Revenge, No Evidence? 22 Examples of Joe Biden's Involvement, America Deserves Truth About Biden's Corrupt Schemes, Without Impeachment Inquiry, We May Never Get the Truth,   What We Must Believe to Believe Biden Is Innocent, Joe Biden treatment of Merrick Garland shows he's just like Donald Trump, The seven biggest lies Biden told this week, President Pinocchio Joe is a truly terrible liar, All signs point to Joe Biden's corruption, Hunter Biden sold more than just an illusion, biz partners had direct access to Joe Biden while VP, Biden’s DOJ Is Where Justice Goes To Die, Impeaching Biden Is The Right Call, But Don’t Stop With Him,  Rep. James Comer: Biden's Use Of Pseudonyms Shows He Was Most Corrupt Vice President In American History, The Biden crime family is our own reality-TV mafia show, Ignorant, pathetic Merrick Garland wilts on the hot seat, Feds thwarted probe into possible 'criminal violations' involving 2020 Biden campaign, agents say, and White House, Hunter Biden’s team keep shifting goalposts in denying dad’s involvement with businesses.

Second, to reiterate what I wrote in Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.'s., Ultimate Treason is Against Chorist the King, more than anything else, including his unjustified retention and sloppy storage of classified documents, the hubris which characterizes his management of foreign and military affairs, including his decision to withdraw from Afghanistan without any security provisions being made for our armed forces nor for the Afghani nationals who provided them with assistance in one form or another for two decades, his influence peddling that resulted in changes to American foreign policy, the role he has played in helping to create an inflationary spiral by shutting down the drilling for natural gas and oil, his use of the Department of Justice to indemnify Black Lives Matter militants, the harsh prosecutions waged against ordinary people who merely trespassed onto the grounds of or into the premises of the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, and the relentless use of Federal force and prosecutorial efforts against peaceful pro-life advocates while at the same time shielding pro-abort zealots who have attacked crisis pregnancy centers from prosecution, the use of his Department of Justice against parents who have protested against the implementation of “critical race theory” and blatantly evangelistic curricula in support of the whole range of the sodomite agenda of perversity, including the mutilation of children, and his epic demagoguery, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., is unqualified to serve in any office of public trust principally because he supports sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, including his unapologetic support for the chemical and surgical execution of innocent preborn children and for everything desired by the shameless purveyors of the sin of Sodom and all of its ever-evolving mutations. Period. This alone would be grounds for a court-ordered rejection of a man’s qualification to be elected to any office and/or the grounds for immediate impeachment, conviction and subsequent removal from office if we lived in a world governed by right principles in accord with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Third, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., is every bit as thin-skinned, vengeful as the man he hates with a burning passion and desires to have imprisoned for the rest of his life, Donald John Trump, as he rails about “saving democracy” by constantly lying about events in his own life and by seeking to crush the expression of dissenting voices by using the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Centers for Disease Control, and the members of his own White House staff to pressure social media companies to flag such dissent as “disinformation” (see Courts Strike a Blow Against Biden Censorship Program) that are the subject of ongoing litigation that will make its way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America at some point before the 2024 general elections. The incompetent octogenarian statist readily does the bidding of those who whisper into his ear while being enabled by several Republican members of the United States Senate who simply do not care about their former longtime colleague’s assaults upon legitimate human liberties and his effort to ape former President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro to ignore Article II of the United States Constitution by issuing executive orders and presidential directives and memorandum, especially concerning the “climate change” agenda, to accomplish administratively what would be impossible to get done through the cumbersome legislative process of which he was a part for thirty-seven long and very destructive years. Republicrats always protect their own and many look the other way as they stuff themselves at the most expensive restaurants in and around Washington, District of Columbia, caring not for a moment about the socialists’ efforts to curb toaster ovens, gas stoves (see Biden Administration’s Plans To Restrict Home Appliances Confirmed), ban incandescent light bulbs (see Biden admin begins enforcing nationwide lightbulb bans, igniting backlash from GOP: 'Liberal fantasies'), and other household products in the name of “saving” the planet. Many more have not said a word about this current administration’s failure to enforce just immigration laws (see The Tragic Results of Biden's Open Border), to secure the border, and to abuse the asylum process to let in anyone who walks across the border before receiving a “free and clear” pass to go anywhere they want and then, mysteriously, of course, wind up on voter rolls in states such as Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, New Mexico, Texas, and North Carolina to stuff the ballot boxes even more than has been and will continue to be done by means of mail-in voting and automatic voter registration after one receives a state driver’s license or state-issued identification card, further rigging a system that has been rigged against Christ the King and his Catholic Church since July 4, 1776.

This is all by way of reminding those who read the commentaries that I publish that my continuing criticism of former President Donald John Trump, who is the principal focus of this commentary, is in no way meant to ignore the harm that Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., has done and continues to do. I have never carried any brief for Biden and, if you might recall, I did confront him personally on his support for baby-killing in a question-and-answer period following a presentation he made at Allentown College of Saint Francis des Sales in the Spring of 1980 when I was teaching political science there. To criticize a Republican naturalist is not to indemnify a Democratic activist. It is entirely specious to reach such an absurd conclusion.

Insofar as the forty-fifth president is concerned, therefore, it is sadly necessary to comment on some of his recent efforts to distance himself and the Republican Party from what he considers to be the “divisive” and thus electorally costly issue of the surgical assassination of innocent preborn babies. Despite everything that he has done to himself and that others are doing to him in an effort to make him the Republican presidential nominee and thus, they believe, to certain defeat before being fitting for orange jump suits of their choosing, it does appear that, barring any unforeseen circumstances, Trump will be the first former president to be nominated by a major political party for a second non-consecutive term since Stephen Grover Cleveland secured the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party in 1892 after having lost the electoral college vote and thus the presidency to Benjamin Harrison, the grandson of President William Henry Harrison, who served as president from March 4, 1841, to April 4, 1841, before dying of pneumonia he contracted during his inauguration. What appears to be the probable coronation of former President Donald John Trump, who is hated by approximately half of the country, should not be a cause for celebration, not that his Republican opponents, most of whom are national security state warmongers who want to continue to pour more and more American taxpayer dollars into the coffers of Volodymyr Zelensky and his corrupt oligarchs (see Graft accusations dog top Zelenskiy aides) in a conflict with Russia that Zelensky should have entered into negotiations to bring the way to a just end.

In this regard, therefore, it is important to state in the first place, that Donald John Trump lives in a world of narcissistic self-delusion in which he can never do anything wrong, always do and say that which is “perfect,” and can never take constructive advice from others, including many of his hand-picked attorneys that make cause him to reflect on prudent rather than rash courses of action, and boasts constantly that this or that policy or “deal” with make even Democrats “like” him, meaning that the seventy-seven year-old former president is, despite all that has happened and is happening to him, he labors under the gargantuan delusion that pro-death Democrats and independents, along with what he thinks are “sensible.” “non-extreme” pro-life Americans will “like” if he cuts a “deal” to create a “consensus” about just how much baby-killing is considered political acceptable.

Donald John Trump is as disqualified to hold any office of public trust as Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., as he does not understand anything about the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment. He believes that the inviolability of innocent human life is negotiable as a matter of principle, not as a matter of an ill-considered exercise in political expediency. He supports the slaughtering of innocent babies in the sanctuaries of their mothers’ wombs in cases of the bodily assault upon a woman, incest, and when it is alleged that a mother’s life is endangered, “exceptions” that I have discussed repeatedly on this site over the years, including in Memorandum to Donald John Trump: The Inviolability of Innocent Human Life is Non-Negotiable, when I cited an allocution delivered by Pope Pius XII in 1957 that I will append once again at the end of this commentary.

Indeed, it would appear that former President Donald John is obsessed with the conviction that he can change the minds of those who understand that fidelity to the truth cannot be compromised even the midst of diabolically farcical nature of American electoral politics, where the false opposites of the naturalist “left” and the naturalist “right” are divided by error while being absolutely united in amorality.

Trump has made it clear on at least four different occasions in the past few months that he believes that it is “stupid” to pass state legislative bans on surgical baby-killing after a child’s sixth week of life in his mother’s womb. Although I addressed the immorality of such age-based bans in the past, most especially in Beyond the Headlines: Making Catholic Sense of New Efforts to End Surgical Baby-Killing, The Supreme Masters of Sophistry: Unable to Admit the Fifth Commandment Exists (Combined Parts One and Two)Roe v. Wade is Gone, Baby-Killing Will Continue, part one, Roe v. Wade is Gone, Baby-Killing Will Continue, part two, and Roe v. Wade is Gone, Baby-Killing Will Continue, part three, there is nothing “stupid” about seeking to protect every innocent life from the moment of conception through all subsequent stages without exception. The infallible Donald John Trump, however, believes pro-life leaders who oppose all “exceptions” to binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law are as “extreme” as the merchants of the slaughter of the innocent who adhere to the organized crime family of the naturalist “left,” the same political party whose founders supported chattel slavery.

The former president spoke about baby-killing when it was brought up by a National Broadcasting Company television network disinformation anchorwoman named Kristen Welker, who hosts Meet the Press, which was created by a true journalist, Lawrence E. Spivak, and, as was the case when he was interviewed by Christopher Matthews in 2016 (see The Republican Waffle House on Defending the Innocent Preborn, part two). Trump, who speaks about baby-killing “on the fly,” made some valid points before lambasting efforts to ban baby-killing after a baby’s sixth week of life:


We are going to get to the war in Ukraine, but first, I do want to talk about the issue of abortion which is — 




– important to a lot of voters all across the country. Just this week, women in Idaho and Tennessee, I don’t know if you saw this, filed suit against their states saying their lives were put at risk after they were denied abortion services, because of their states’ restrictive laws put in place after Roe was overturned. So my question for you, Mr. President, is: How is it acceptable in America that women’s lives are at risk, doctors are being forced to turn away patients in need, or risk breaking the law?


Ready? Little bit of a long answer. I hope you have time.


I hope you have time. I’m here for as long as you have. 


So you have Roe v. Wade, for 52 years, people including Democrats wanted it to go back to states so the states could make the right. Roe v. Wade — I did something that nobody thought was possible, and Roe v. Wade was terminated, was put back to the states. Now, people, pro-lifers, have the right to negotiate for the first time. They had no rights at all, because the radical people on this are really the Democrats that say, after five months, six months, seven months, eight months, nine months, and even after birth you’re allowed to terminate the baby — 


Mr. President, Democrats aren’t saying that. I just have to, Democrats are not saying that.


Of course they do — 


That’s not true.                                


You have a Virginia governor, previous governor, who said, “After the baby is born, you will make a determination, and if you want, you will kill that baby.” The baby is now born.                                 


But Mr. President, Democrats writ large are not talking about that. Only 1% of late-term abortions happen, and always in the state of —  (Full transcript: Read Kristen Welker's interview with Trump,)  

First, Kristen Welker, a person whose name I had never heard before her interview with former President Trump, lied repeatedly concerning the support of Democratic Party leaders for the butchery of children after birth who survive efforts to exterminate them.

Second, Anchorwoman Welker would have us believe that women’s lives are at risk because of the overthrow of the decision of Roe v. Wade in the case of Thomas Dobbs, Mississippi State Health Officer v. Jackson Women’s Organization, June 24, 2022. This is nothing other than an emotional red herring as the conception of a child is the natural end willed by God of the human generative powers, not a “disease” or a “healthcare condition” that puts women’s lives at risk.

Second, as Trump noted, former Commonwealth of Virginia Governor Ralph Northam said that he, a baby-killing, would let a baby who survived an abortion die, and, more recently, the governors of Arizona and Kansas vetoed “born alive infant protection bills,” meaning that they have no problem letting abortion survivors die from starvation or even by direct efforts to kill them. Kristen Welker is either a liar or an incompetent “journalist” who is unfamiliar with facts, not that pro-death “journalists” in the mainslime media are interested in anything other than ideology, of course, which must be accepted without criticism or qualification.

A secular commentator, Mollie Ziegler Hemingway, noted the matter as follows:

Welker lied in her response. In fact, nearly every single elected Democrat supports forcing states to allow unborn children to be killed throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Given a choice of whether to vote for or against legislation requiring states to permit the killing of unborn children up to the moment of birth, nearly all elected Democrats vote enthusiastically for that.

It’s an extreme and radical position, but it’s one they hold, on the record. It is indisputable.

For example, on Feb. 28, 2022, only one Democrat senator voted no on a radical abortion bill. As Alexandra DeSanctis wrote, the bill “is an effort to ‘codify Roe,’ not only declaring abortion a fundamental right — for any reason, throughout all of pregnancy — but also nullifying any state law that prohibits or regulates abortion. The bill would forbid state laws protecting unborn children after they’re old enough to survive outside the womb. It would nullify bans on abortions chosen for discriminatory reasons, such as the unborn child’s sex or diagnosis with a disability. It would prohibit even the most modest regulations such as informed-consent laws, waiting periods, ultrasound requirements, and even safety standards for abortion clinics.”

It passed the Democrat House the previous year with only two Democrats voting against it. Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio, who for some time claimed to be pro-life, voted for the bill. That’s how much Democrats are embracing a radical pro-abortion agenda, contrary to Welker’s lies.

Guy Benson noted that the 2017-2018 Congress voted on a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks, with exceptions. Roughly 97 percent of congressional Democrats voted against it. “Only 7 countries on earth allow barbaric abortions after 20 weeks. This is their official position, as a matter of record,” Benson wrote.

Laws protecting children who have reached 15 weeks’ gestation are popular. Corporate media, however, lie about the extremism of Democrats’ stated position in an effort to help them politically.

When Trump mentioned that in a 2016 debate he had called Hillary Clinton out for her support of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy, Welker falsely claimed Democrats do not support that. In fact, Clinton struggled to respond precisely because she does believe there should be no protection from abortion for any child for any reason at any point in pregnancy.

When Trump referenced that some Democrats even support having newborn children die, Welker claimed no Democrat supports that. In fact, that was a major issue in 2019 in Virginia. A Democrat delegate in the Virginia legislature named Kathy Tran pushed legislation allowing abortion even when a mother is delivering a baby, to which Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam said in support of the legislation that if such a situation were taking place, the baby would be delivered and allowed to die.

Welker lied about Democrats’ actual position on abortion at least four times in her debate with Trump. Her panel of analysts to discuss her debate with Trump included Laura Jarrett, the daughter of top Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett, and two other left-wing journalists. (NBC's Kristen Welker Lied About Democrats' Abortion Extremism.)

While Mrs. Mollie Ziegler Hemingway had her facts correct about the “no exceptions” position of Democrats in the supporting baby-killing up to, including, and after the day of birth, she was fundamentally wrong to speak about what policies were “popular” as we know as believing Catholics that we must care about what is right in the eyes of Our Divine Redeemer, Christ the King. We are baptized and confirmed to please God, not men, and that includes Donald John Trump’s belief in his own “infallibility” and his “political insights,” which could not be more wrong about making a “deal” that everyone would like and be grateful to him for crafting it.

Furthermore, it is irrelevant what percent of babies are killed in the latter stages of their lives in their mothers’ wombs as the direct, intentional killing of any innocent human being from the moment of his conception through all subsequent stages is inviolable. The binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law do not depend upon human acceptance for their binding force or validity.

Third, as correct as former President Trump was to speak about the extremism of Democratic officeholders, each of whom almost without exception is a pro-death demagogue, he was just as wrong in the next part of his exchange with Kristen Welker, noting that I will make interjections where appropriate:

Trump: – abortion after five months and six months and seven months. And, now it’s going to — it gave people the belief — and pro-life, look, just so you understand, it’s pretty much 50/50. It’s a 50/50 issue, amazing. If you look at the charts, it’s been 49/51. It’s been like that for many years, goes both ways — 51 — both ways. Ready? I was able to do something which gave at least pro-life people a voice. Now it’s going to work out. Now, the number of months will be determined.  (Full transcript: Read Kristen Welker's interview with Trump,)  

Wrong, Mister President.

Human beings have no say about the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Civil law must be conformed to the immutable laws of God in all that pertains to the good of souls and moral truth. Period.

The “people” are not meant to have a “voice” in matters that are beyond the ability of mere mortals to obey. They only have a duty to obey God, Who has commanded us “Thou shalt not kill.”


Can you answer this question?


And you’re going to have something where everybody comes together.  (Full transcript: Read Kristen Welker's interview with Trump,)  

Mister President, there are those of us, no how matter relatively few in number who have always been opposed to the killing of innocent babies without any exceptions. No, it is impossible to bring “everybody together” as one either obeys God entirely or disobeys Him entirely, and to support even one “exception” to the inviolability of innocent human life is to disobey God entirely.

Pope Leo XIII put the matter as follows in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:

But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State. Here anew it becomes evident how unjust is the reproach of sedition; for the obedience due to rulers and legislators is not refused, but there is a deviation from their will in those precepts only which they have no power to enjoinCommands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God, and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws. You are fully aware, venerable brothers, that this is the very contention of the Apostle St. Paul, who, in writing to Titus, after reminding Christians that they are "to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey at a word," at once adds: "And to be ready to every good work."Thereby he openly declares that, if laws of men contain injunctions contrary to the eternal law of God, it is right not to obey them. In like manner, the Prince of the Apostles gave this courageous and sublime answer to those who would have deprived him of the liberty of preaching the Gospel: "If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge ye, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.'' To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.

The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

Pope Pius XII explained the necessity of resisting unjust laws throughout the course of his nineteen-year pontificate. Here are but two examples:

Everybody knows that the Catholic Church does not act through worldly motives, and that she accepts any and every form of civil government provided it not be inconsistent with divine and human rights. But when it does contradict these rights, Bishops and the faithful themselves are bound, by their own conscience to resist unjust laws. (Pope Pius XII, Allocution on the Cardinal Mindszenty Arrest, as found at: New York Times, February 15, 1949.)

26. We earnestly exhort “in the heart of Christ” (Phil. 1. 8) those faithful of whom We have mournfully written above to come back to the path of repentance and salvation. Let them remember that, when it is necessary, one must render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and with greater reason, one must render to God what is God’s (Cf. Luke 20. 25). When men demand things contrary to the Divine Will, then it is necessary to put into practice the maxim of St. Peter: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5. 29). Let them also remember that it is impossible to serve two masters, if these order things opposed to one another (Cf. Matt. 6. 24). Also at times it is impossible to please both Jesus Christ and men (Cf. Gal. 1. 10). But if it sometimes happens that he who wishes to remain faithful to the Divine Redeemer even unto death must suffer great harm, let him bear it with a strong and serene soul.

27. On the other hand, We wish to congratulate repeatedly those who, suffering severe difficulties, have been outstanding in their loyalty to God and to the Catholic Church, and so have been “counted worthy to suffer disgrace for the name of Jesus” (Acts 5. 41). With a paternal heart We encourage them to continue brave and intrepid along the road they have taken, keeping in mind the words of Jesus Christ: “And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather be afraid of him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell . . . But as for you, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Therefore do not be afraid . . . Therefore everyone who acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I in turn will disown him before my Father in heaven” (Matt. 10. 28, 30-33). (Pope Pius XII, Ad Sinarum Gentes, October 7, 1954.)

No, President Trump, we will never be “happy” until all baby-killing stops without exception and full legal protection is accorded to every baby from the moment of conception thereon throughout his life.


Does it bother you though that women say their lives are being put at risk? Do you feel you bear any responsibility, because as you say, you are responsible for having Roe v. Wade overturned. (Full transcript: Read Kristen Welker's interview with Trump,)  

More emotional red herrings from an overwrought supporter of baby-killing.


What’s going to happen, this is an issue that’s been going on for a long time. And it’s a very polarizing issue. Because of what’s been done, and because of the fact we brought it back to the states, we’re going to have people come together on this issue. They’re going to determine the time, because nobody wants to see five, six, seven, eight, nine months. Nobody wants to see abortions when you have a baby in the womb. I said, with Hillary Clinton when we had the debate, I made a statement, “Rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, you’re allowed to do that, and you shouldn’t be allowed to do that.”

“Nobody wants to see abortions when you have a baby in the womb”?

In what alternative university are you living, Mister President?

Almost every Democrat in public life supports such killing. Moreover, there is a baby in the womb when he is conceived. President Trump. As noted before, the inviolability of a preborn child does not depend how many weeks or months old he is as he is conceived with such inviolability as his natural right that no one, whether acting individually or collectively with others in the institutions of civil governance, has the moral authority from the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, to deny.

Moreover, the former president seems to be oblivious to the fact that the Supreme Court decision in the case of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973, did indeed permit the killing of preborn children up to and including the day of birth. All that the Court ruled concerning the second and third trimesters is that a state might make a compelling interest argument about regulating the conditions under which a child can be killed in the later stages of pregnancy. It did not ban such killing, and it would not be until the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. William J. Casey, June 27, 1992, that the Court ruled in all of its black-robed sophistry that states could limit baby-killing after a preborn child had reached the stage of “viability,” an unworkable standard that was overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Organization last year.


Again, no one is arguing for that —  (Full transcript: Read Kristen Welker's interview with Trump,)  

Once again, Kristen Welker, you are living in your own quite alternative universe, something that two news stories from 2019 will prove beyond any doubt as none other than Andrew Mark Cuomo, the Governor of the State of New York from January 1, 2011, until his resignation on August 23, 2021, signed legislation that explicitly permitted child-killing until the day of birth:

On Tuesday, coincidentally the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the New York State Senate passed the Reproductive Health Act, and it was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo. The law, which is likely the most expansive abortion bill in the country, allows late-term abortion until the baby’s due date if it meets certain requirements. Not only is this kind of legal protection of late-term abortion an affront to the humanity of the unborn and the dignity of society, but New York celebrated it publicly, as if it had just won the Super Bowl.

When the bill passed, video shows the assembly chamber erupting into cheers, with politicians and audience members applauding the bill as if it were a victorious symbol of strength.

That night, One World Trade Center lit up in the color pink to honor the passage of the bill. Imagine, a beacon of capitalism, shining not to showcase freedom and prosperity but the “liberty” marking the path toward infanticide.

Cuomo says One World Trade Center's 408-foot spire, the Gov. Mario M. Cuomo Bridge, the Kosciuszko Bridge and the Alfred E. Smith Building in Albany will be lit in pink tonight to celebrate passage of Reproductive Health Act https://t.co/TmDEmj18Vy pic.twitter.com/XYdgxPNaoC

— Joseph Spector (@GannettAlbany) January 23, 2019

Of course, Planned Parenthood applauded the passage of the bill with words of affirmation and an emoji.

This. Is. Huge.@NYGovCuomo JUST signed the Reproductive Health Act into law — a big win towards securing safe, legal abortion & access to contraception for all!

Can't wait to see other states follow New York's lead to protect our health and rights. 

Two of the most heinous parts of the bill describe the new parameters of abortion: if “the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy” and second, and this is the worst qualifier, “or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” The wording of that second phrase is so comprehensive, even in legal lingo, protecting the patient’s health could mean almost anything.

This new bill ensures that New York remains the most progressive of all the states in pushing forward “reproductive rights” (an absurd term for baby-killing). Per the CDC, about one in three unborn babies are aborted in New York City. Statistics also show more black babies are aborted than born alive in New York City.

Still, New Yorkers not only fail to be discouraged by this news, they also celebrate it.

To be clear, this is not the passage of abortion rights, but the permission to commit infanticide and call it by another name — an eight-pound baby can survive outside the womb with very little medical aid. Late-term abortion procedures are ghoulish and graphic: The Lozier Institute reports that "Abortions performed after 20 weeks gestation, when not done by induction of labor (which leads to fetal death due to prematurity), are most commonly performed by dilation and evacuation (D & E) procedures. These particularly gruesome surgical techniques involve crushing, dismemberment and removal of a fetal body from a woman’s uterus, mere weeks before, or even after, the fetus reaches a developmental age of potential viability outside the mother.”

Did the State Assembly and Senate know this and still applaud, or are we to assume somehow in the age of information they are willfully ignorant of the procedure?

With thousands of families waiting to adopt, passage of a bill that allows and celebrates abortion of this magnitude is disgusting. The reaction to this bill demonstrates that politicians in New York have overlooked the dignity and sanctity of the least in our society to further their own progressive self-interests. (Disgusting: New York Not Only Legalized Late-Term Abortions but Celebrated it like it won the Super Bowl.)

ALBANY, N.Y. (NEWS10) - The Reproductive Health Act passed in the New York State Senate and Assembly on Tuesday. 

When it passed, the gallery erupted into cheers for about 20 seconds. After it died down, some protesters screamed out as well.

The bill protects abortion rights in the state's health law as opposed to penal codes. It allows for late-term abortions after 24 weeks if the mother's life is at risk or if the fetus is nonviable.

This has been a goal of the legislature now that the Senate is no longer Republican controlled. Similar bills had failed in the past.

The previous law was passed in 1970, three years before Roe v Wade. NEWS10 ABC has been told this is an update to the outdated law.

Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the bill into law Tuesday evening and reaction continues to pour in.

“If we as a New York State don't value life in the womb does your life matter, does my life matter?” Liz Joy with the Republican Women of Schenectady County says the law will mean more late term abortions.

Emma Corbett with Planned Parenthood says 89-percent of abortions happen before the 12 week mark. The new law maintains abortions are legal up to 24 weeks and after in rare and circumstantial cases.

“Often, when we look at late term abortions, it’s often a very wanted pregnancy, some other health crisis or extenuating health circumstances come up where that care needs to be administered. To kind of look at these isolate incidences as thoughh they’re going to become the norm is really inaccurate and not something that we’re seeing at our health centers,” she said

The New York State Catholic Conference saying, “Let us all pray for the conversion of heart for those who celebrate this tragic moment in the history of our state. And we pray in a special way for the lives that will be lost, and for the women of our state who are made less safe under this law.” (NY Lawmakers Cheer Upon Passing Monstrous Baby-Killing Law.)

Members of the New York State Senate stood up and cheered upon passing a bill crafted by agents of the devil and his demons who dwell in the lowest reaches of hell. They cheered. They applauded.

That’s right. Elected officials, including not a few Catholics who are in “good standing” within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, cheered for a bill that permits the vivisection of living human beings in the birth canal up to the moment of birth.

Although each abortion is infanticide, a point lost on many Americans who can themselves “pro-life” as the killing of a preborn child at any stage of his development is the same crime morally as his killing on the day of birth or at any time thereafter, it is nonetheless quite a telling commentary that Catholics in public life have become so shameless as to cheer evil in the name under the slogan of “reproductive rights” that is used to mask the reality that each surgical abortion kills a living human being. After all, why is it necessary to kill an innocent child in the womb if he, a distinct human being with his own rational, immortal soul and a unique DNA, is not alive?

It is not necessary to kill a person who is not alive. The only way to do this is to dehumanize the innocent child and to glorify his execution as an exercise of “women’s rights” and “reproductive health care.” There is no such thing as “potential” life, and the fact of one’s humanity comes from his creation in his mother’s womb, not from the recognition or lack thereof afforded him by the civil law.

I am going to skip over Kristen Welker’s repeated efforts to falsely claim that no one supports late term baby-killing to deal directly with Donald John Trump’s boasting about his deal-making abilities on a matter that admits of no “deals” whatsoever:


Would you sign federal legislation that would ban abortion at 15 weeks?


No, no. Let me just tell you what I’d do. I’m going to come together with all groups, and we’re going to have something that’s acceptable. Right now, to my way of thinking, the Democrats are the radicals, because after four and five and six months. But you have to say this, after birth. You have New York State and other places that passed legislation where you’re allowed to kill the baby after birth.


Mr. President, I want to give voters who are going to be weighing in on this election —




– a very clear sense of where you stand on — 


I think they’ll — I think they’re all going to like me. I think both sides are going to like me.  (Full transcript: Read Kristen Welker's interview with Trump,)  

Trump’s answer here is incoherent. Thus, let me inform this man who knows nothing of First or Last Things that human life begins at conception and that the inviolability of all innocent human life thereafter does not depend upon the condition of the preborn child nor the circumstances in which he was conceived. Human beings do not have any moral authority from God to permit the slaughter of innocent human beings at any age for any reason. This is not “extreme.” This is not “radical.” This is the simple obedience that mere creatures owe to their Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier.

Moreover, he is delusional to the point of being psychotic to believe that pro-death office-holders and or voters are going to “like” him when they remember full well that he appointed the three justices (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Michael Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett) to the Supreme Court of the United States of America that made it possible for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, something about which he never tires of reminding his supporters and that he mentioned specifically to Kristen Welker. The man’s mind is a morass of confusion and contradiction.


But, let me, let me — but Mr. President — 


What’s going to have to happen is you’re going to have to — 


Mr. President, let me just ask this question, please--


Kristen, you’re asking me a question. What’s going to happen is you’re going to come up with a number of weeks or months. You’re going to come up with a number that’s going to make people happy. Because 92% of the Democrats don’t want to see abortion after a certain period of time.

We care about pleasing God, Mister President, not about making people “happy.” A baptized and confirmed Catholic cares only about enjoying the Divine favor by being a state of Sanctifying Grace. It is irrelevant whether or not anyone “likes” us and, in merely secular terms, the job of one holding or seeking elected office is to act as a statesman by having the necessary moral courage to speak the truth with clarity and out of true love of God and the good of men and their nations no matter if he must suffer electoral defeat as a result.

There is no compromise on moral issues, Mister Trump. None.


If a federal ban landed on your desk if you were reelected, would you sign it at 15 weeks — 


Are you talking about a complete ban?


A ban at 15 weeks.


Well, people, people are starting to think of 15 weeks. That seems to be a number that people are talking about right now.

This is all so much fear mongering on the part of Kristen Welker and speaking on the fly by Donald John Trump as there is no way that the United States Senate, neither as currently constituted or if controlled by Republicans after the 2024 elections, will ever reach the sixty-vote threshold necessary to move such bills to its floor for an up or down vote, not that those bills would be any cause for celebration as they would make the inviolability of innocent human life subject to arbitrary considerations of age before birth just as the treatment of those with chronic physical conditions or are said to be terminally ill are subject in many cases to the arbitrary decisions of medical teams who, in effect, can place them on the path of an “early exit” by means of “comfort care.”


Would you sign that?


I would sit down with both sides and I’d negotiate something, and we’ll end up with peace on that issue for the first time in 52 years. I’m not going to say I would or I wouldn’t. I mean, DeSanctis is willing to sign a five-week and six-week ban.


Would you support that? You think that goes too far? 


I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake. But we’ll come up with a number, but at the same time, Democrats won’t be able to go out at six months, seven months, eight months and allow an abortion. And Kristen, you have to look at this, because you said “no.” You have some states that are allowed to kill the child after birth, and you can’t allow that.

Donald John Trump is so blinded by his rage that a man he endorsed to be the Governor of the State of Florida, Ronald DeSantis, that he must criticize him for everything he has done to make his state, which was once considered to be a “swing’ state, steady in its support of the organized crime family of the naturalist “right.” Although then President Trump withheld any comment about Governor Gregory Wayne Abbot’s signing the Texas “heartbeat bill” into law two years ago, he did not attack Abbot for doing something “terrible.” Trump is a child who cannot stand it when someone he believes should be “loyal” to him dares to challenge him for nomination, an act of temerity which he believes justifies using Democratic Party “talking points” to negate the effectiveness of his opponent’s governance.

Now, this having been noted, the Florida “heartbeat bill” is terrible because it cedes the nonexistent “right” to kill babies before their sixth week of life in their mothers’ wombs and because the bill itself contains the usual “exceptions” that make a mockery of any claims that it is a “pro-life” measure. It is not. Life begins at conception, not when a heartbeat can be detected and no institution of human governance—state, local, national, or global—has any authority from to God to permit the killing innocent children at any age. This is not a matter of states’ rights. This is a matter of obeying the laws of God. Thank you.

Moreover, while I carry no brief for any of the naturalists (especially not for the neoconservative national security state war hawks such as Michael Richard Pence, Christopher William Christie, Asa Hutchinson, Nikki Haley—and I certainly don’t want to see a pagan, Vivek Ramaswamy, be sworn in on the “Gita,” the Hindu “holy”  book that Hindus use to worship their devils) seeking the 2024 Republican Party presidential nomination, Governor Ronald DeSantis has been very courageous in opposing the march of the homosexual collective in Florida’s public schools and universities, and despite what even United States Senator Raphael Edward Cruz (R-Texas) said a few months ago about not wanting to “punish” children by supporting a boycott of Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida, DeSantis’s unyielding opposition to the Disney corporation’s efforts to maintain special tax privileges and its own status as a self-governing entity in Florida as its executives promote sodomy and all its perverse mutations, including the mutilation of children after they have been subject to ideological brainwashing and programming in their schools and by means of Disney’s own so-called “entertainment” products.

DeSantis can be criticized, however, is for signing a bill into law two years ago that establishes detention centers for vaccination refuseniks if public health officials believe it is “necessary” to start rounding up the usual suspects, something that, as a secular commentator noted, is almost identical to a bill that the draconian Kathleen Hochul, the Governor of the State of New York, signed into law recently:

The Governor and Attorney General of the state of New York are fighting hard for quarantine camps, and have officially appealed a court’s decision blocking them from carrying out such gross human rights violations. Attorney Bobbie Ann Cox gave oral arguments against the psychopathic authoritarians this past Wednesday when they filed their appeal.

I can only be grateful that I live in the free state of Florida. We fortunately have a Republican governor. We are also protected by a Republican super majority in the legislature. All is good in the sunshine state….

Wait! Not so fast! We may have a problem here.

It becomes difficult to argue the Tenth Amendment when the state legislature cedes their sovereignty to the federal government. In this interview I did a while back with James Roguski, where James and I were interviewing each other, James expressed the view that the WHO is planning on using the federal government, and then the federal government will use the states, to implement WHO’s mandatory policies. This Florida law seems to coincide with Roguski’s revelation.

There was a blanket health protection law called SB222 that got derailed earlier this year in favor of SB 252, which appears to offer no protections at all in this area. SB 252 does not nullify Florida Statute, Title XXIX, Chapter 381, Section 00315. In fact, it leaves a door open for WHO to dictate policies if the state mandates it. As far as I can tell, the state of Florida has to obey the federal government and must follow and integrate with federal plans because of F.S. 381, Section 00315.

It looks like there is deliberate intent.

How else could we explain such a law that leaves a path open for the federal government and the WHO to clamp down on Floridians?

As already stated it also appears that the State Health officer can force isolate, and force quarantine, and force any treatment on any Floridian, and use the police power of the state’s law enforcement to do it.

I’ve been critical of the Governor and the legislature in the past regarding SB 252. See lines 188, 243, and 446 of the amendment to get an idea why that is. After all of the crimes against humanity that have been committed since 2020, how is it possible that this law got passed in 2021? How does a Republican super majority pass this law? How can Governor DeSantis sign this law?

If Floridians can be force isolated and the definition of isolation means “the separation of an individual who is reasonably believed to be infected with a communicable disease from individuals who are not infected, to prevent the possible spread of the disease.” If Floridians can be forced quarantined and the definition of quarantine means, “the separation of an individual reasonably believed to have been exposed to a communicable disease, but who is not yet ill, from individuals who have not been so exposed, to prevent the possible spread of the disease”, and if the State Health Officer can use, “any means necessary to treat the individual”, then how exactly is Florida different than New York state?

If Chapter 381, Section 00315 says:

The department shall develop the plan in collaboration with the Division of Emergency Management, other executive agencies with functions relevant to public health emergencies, district medical examiners, and national and state public health experts and ensure that it integrates and coordinates with the public health emergency management plans and programs of the Federal Government.

That means SB 252 offers no protections if the Federal government creates a forced isolation, quarantine, forced ‘vaccination’, or any other program under the guise of an emergency for the state to implement. Doesn’t that mean that even the Covid 19 protections in SB 252 are void if the federal government creates another emergency and dictates to the state?

I’m not an attorney, and maybe attorneys can argue back and forth on this legislation, but it sure looks like a shell game to me. By the way, I would be happy to find out that I got this totally wrong, and someone were to tell me this law has been repealed and is no longer in effect. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case.

Governor DeSantis needs to immediately call a special session of the legislature and fix what he and the legislature created.

With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats? (Florida’s Forced Quarantine and Forced Vaccination Law.)

What have been saying about divided by error, united in amorality?

Statist totalitarianism is the logical end that must occur when men and their nations reject the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His Catholic Church in all that pertains to the good of souls.

All right, back to the Kristen Welker interview with former President Donald John Trump:


But Mr. President, again, no one is calling for a child to be killed after birth. No one is calling for that to be allowed — 


But you have legislation — 


But let me just ask you — 


Kristen, you have legislation in certain states where it’s allowed.


Mr. President — 


The governor of Virginia, previous governor, who was a whack job — 


Previous governor.


I call him the Michael Jackson governor.


No one’s talking about that as part of their platform — 


That governor — 


I want to know what you want — 


Excuse me, that governor said you can kill the baby after birth.


But Mr. President, this is about what you would do if you were reelected. As you know, you upset some anti — 


We will agree to a number of weeks, which will be where both sides will be happy. We have to bring the country together on this issue.


Mr. President, when you talk about negotiating, I think a lot of people think to themselves, this is an issue that they care about deeply in their hearts — 


I care about it too. Oh, I care about it too.


And they know where they stand, and they want to know where you stand. As you know, some anti-abortion groups are really looking for some clarity from you. So let me just ask you to put a fine point on this. Should the federal government impose any abortion restrictions, or should it be completely left up to the states?


No, I don’t think you should have — I don’t think you should be allowed to have abortions well into a pregnancy.


But what about the question I just asked you — 


We’re going to agree — no — we’re going to agree to a number of weeks or months or however you want to define it. And both sides are going to come together and both sides — both sides, and this is a big statement, both sides will come together. And for the first time in 52 years, you’ll have an issue that we can put behind us.


At the federal level?


It could be state or it could be federal. I don’t frankly care.


So you’re not committed to a ban at the federal level.    


I will say this. Everybody, including the great legal scholars, love the idea of Roe v. Wade terminated so it can be brought back to the states. 

“I don’t frankly care.”

Any person with a semblance of understanding about the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law must care very much about the shedding of innocent human blood, and we must also care about the supremacy of God’s laws over that of civil law as human beings are not enabled to legitimately do anything about the killing of innocent human beings except to determine in their institutions of civil governance what kind of penalties should be enacted upon those who procure, perform, or assisted the killing of any innocent human being.


It sounds like that’s what you think too, that it should remain a state issue —  


Well, I, I would, I would say this: From a pure standpoint, from a legal standpoint, I think it’s probably better, but I can live with it either way. It’s much more important, the number of weeks is much more important. But something will happen with the number of weeks, the amount of time, after which you can’t do it. And you know what? The most — the most powerful people that are anti-abortion are okay with that now. And you know what? They weren’t okay with that even a year ago.

This is just a repetition of earlier colloquies in the interview. It is clear that former President Donald John Trump, who, apart from knowing nothing about First and Last Things, is also not conversant with any kind of moral reasoning. He believes that the issue of the surgical slaughter of the innocent preborn is a “losing” one for Republicans, which is why he told failed Michigan gubernatorial candidate Tudor Dixon from no exceptions to the inviolability of innocent human life to supporting the usual “exceptions”:

(LifeSiteNews) — Failed Republican candidate for Michigan governor Tudor Dixon told former President Donald Trump that he was “right” to help tone down her “no exceptions” abortion platform during her 2022 campaign.

Dixon lost to Democrat incumbent Gretchen Whitmer 55 to 44 percent last fall. Whitmer’s campaign made Dixon’s opposition to abortion at any stage of pregnancy a key aspect of her successful re-election bid.

Dixon was interviewing the 45th president last week on her podcast when she told him he was “absolutely right” in urging her to not be so outspoken.

“I just want you to know that — and I’ll tell my viewers — that you came to me and you said, ‘You got to talk differently about abortion,’” she remarked. “And we could not pivot — we could not pivot in time.”

Trump famously came under intense scrutiny by members of the pro-life movement for comments that were interpreted as him blaming them for the GOP’s lackluster performance in the 2022 midterms. Trump had said pro-lifers should focus their efforts on calling out the “radical” policies of Democrats who support late-term abortion, and to not broadcast their own “no exceptions” stance so much lest they be “destined to doom” electorally.

“I hope that you are able to navigate that issue in ‘24 and that we can win those women back,” Dixon further told Trump. “They are already putting out attack ads, and it is not a fair issue for them to attack on.”

“Yep, that’s what happened to you,” Trump replied. “And that’s what happened to a lot of other people and didn’t happen to me because, you know, there’s a way of talking about it… [The Democrats are] the radicals, and you have to explain [that]. And I think exceptions are very important.”

Pro-lifers point out that life begins at conception, that the deliberate killing of an unborn baby is never medically necessary, and that unborn babies are not at fault for the conditions of their conception. Candidates, they argue, simply need to better explain those facts and voters will come to embrace a more pro-life stance.

Until June of this year, Trump had resisted supporting a role for the federal government in the regulation of abortion. Before then, he told journalists that he was going to “look into” the issue. But at the Evangelical Faith & Freedom Coalition’s annual conference in Washington, D.C. this summer, he unexpectedly said “there of course remains a vital role for the federal government in protecting unborn life.”

“We will bring everybody together to protect our precious unborn babies in a very, very big way,” he added. (Trump told GOP gubernatorial candidate to soften her 'no exceptions' abortion platform in 2022.)

Donald John Trump is giving bad advice to Republican candidates. He is, in effect, willing to cast aside moral truth, not that he knows what that it is, obviously, for political expediency, which is how formerly pro-life Democrats such as Edward Moore Kennedy, Hugh Leo Carey, Mario Matthew Cuomo, and even Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., become full-throated pro-aborts and, from there, enthusiastic supporters of the homosexual collective’s agenda of perversity and degradation. It is also how a later generation of supposedly pro-life Democrats, most notably Jesse Louis Jackson and Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., became vocal in their support for baby butchery and how Republicans such as Rudolph William Giuliana, Richard Riordan, George Elmer Pataki, Susan Molinari, Rick Lazio, and others were able to metamorphosize into pro-death advocates.

No compromise, President Trump.

No compromise on contraception.

No compromise on the surgical execution of the innocent preborn.

No compromise on the inviolability of innocent human life from conception until death.

No compromise on sterilization.

No compromise on “brain death” and human organ vivisection.

No compromise on the starvation and dehydration of innocent human beings.

No compromise on “palliative care”/hospice.

No compromise on embryonic stem cell research.

No compromise on monstrous scientific creation of human embryos and of hybrid animal-human chimera.

No compromise on the funding or development of bioengineered viruses.

No compromise on the poisons marketed to fight viruses of one sort or another but are really instruments of sterilization, chronic illness, and death, especially sudden death.

No compromise on any part of the homosexual collective’s agenda.

No compromise on any matter of Faith or Morals.

No compromise. Not now. Not ever.

You want a “consensus” on abortion: Try this: The Only "Consensus" on Abortion: Stop it All, Stop it Now, and Catholicism is the Only Way How?

To the final part of the Kristen Welker interview/debate with President Donald John Trump about baby-killing:


Your former vice president, Mike Pence, believes that a fetus should have constitutional rights. Do you believe that, Mr. president?             


Well, Mike Pence said something about 15 weeks too, which was a big change for Mike Pence, because Mike Pence had no exceptions. I have exceptions, by the way. I think people should have exceptions. I think if it’s rape or incest or the life of the mother, I think you have to have exceptions. It’s very important.

Important to have exceptions, Mister President?

You are unqualified to hold any office of public trust. You are amoral. Although you and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., are united in amorality.


Does a fetus have constitutional rights, Mr. president?


And a lot of people, when they don’t have exceptions — now, I will tell you that I think most people, most Republicans are willing. You go: life of the mother, rape, incest. I think most of them are there.


But should a fetus —  


That’s a big statement.


– have constitutional rights, Mr. president?                         


Well, I don’t know, I don’t know what he’s saying, because before, he wanted, you know, you couldn’t have abortions at all — 


But what are you saying? What do you think — 


Now all of a sudden — excuse me — now all of a sudden he’s saying 15 weeks. I said, “Wow, where did that come from? That’s a radical change.” Look, something is going to happen that’s going to be good for everybody. And that’s what I’m — I’m almost like a mediator in this case. They wanted Roe v. Wade terminated because it was inappropriate. We got it done. Something is going to happen. It’s going to be a number of weeks. Something is going to happen where the both sides are going to be able to come together. And then we’ll be able to go onto other things, like, the economy, our military — 


Are you saying a federal ban with exceptions, is that what you’re saying?


What I say is very simple, because you can’t put words in my mouth like that — 


I just want to understand. 


– because you’ve been hearing me talk about this--


– issue — 




– and I think talk about it very productively. It could be a state ban, it could be a federal ban, but Democrats want that too. Democrats don’t want to see abortion in the seventh month, okay. I speak to a lot of Democrats. They want a number. There is a number, and there’s a number that’s going to be agreed to, and Republicans should go out and say the following. They — cause, I think the Republicans speak very inarticulately about this subject. I watch some of them without the exceptions, et cetera, et cetera. I said, “Other than certain parts of the country, you can’t — you’re not going to win on this issue. But you will win on this issue when you come up with the right number of weeks.” Because Democrats don’t want to be radical on the issue, most of them, some do. They don’t want to be radical on the issue. They don’t want to kill a baby in the seventh month or the ninth month or after birth. And they’re allowed to do that, and you can’t do that.

Preborn children are loved by God, Mister President, and He loves them from the moment of conception and not after they have reached a certain age in their mothers’ wombs.

Some believe that the former president is trying to “smoke out” the Democrats who support the butchery of innocent human beings from conception until after birth in the case of babies who survive attempts on their lives, but such a contention is absurd as pro-death advocates within the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” have been vocal and entirely unapologetic about their support for child-slaughter. To project such thoughts into Donald John Trump’s mind is to do the same thing that reflexive defenders of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did for nearly eight years even when he praised false religions, esteemed their symbols and entered into their false temples with signs of admiration and awe, promoted dogmatic relativism under the aegis of the “hermeneutic of continuity,” religious liberty as one of the never-ending “keys” of peace, separation of church and state, false ecumenism, and the new ecclesiology because he issued the since rescinded Summorum Pontificum.

Trump had given similar answers about ‘making a deal” on baby-killing to Megyn Kelly several days before his interview with Kristen Welker while remaining firm in his support for those who have undergone chemical and surgical treatments in a vain effort to achieve the ontologically possible goal of changing their genders:

Republican presidential candidate Gov. Ron DeSantis and other conservative critics took aim at former president Donald Trump for hedging this week on the explosive issue of transgenderism — and refusing to give a clear answer on whether he believes it’s possible to change one’s sex .

Trump responded with a long-drawn-out “Ummm” and an uncomfortable laugh when host Megyn Kelly, in a Thursday interview on her “The Megyn Kelly Show” on Sirius XM, asked: “Can a man become a woman?”

“In my opinion,” he finally said, shaking his head slightly, “you have a man, you have a woman.”

“I, I, I think part of it is birth,” he continued.

“Can the man give birth? No.”

But he seemed to leave the door open on that criterion.

“They’ll come up with some answer to that also someday,” Trump went on.

“I heard just the other day they have a way that now the man can give birth. No, I would say I’ll continue my stance on that.”

His feeble answer drew derision from conservatives.

“Don’t tell me a man can become a woman because it’s not true,” DeSantis said Friday in a speech to the Concerned Women for America in Washington, DC.

“Don’t tell me a man can get pregnant because it’s not true.”

“There is value in standing up for what is true,” the Florida governor said in comments that did not call out Trump by name.

“And what woke agenda is, is it represents a war on the truth itself.”

Longtime Trump antagonist Erick Erickson joined in.

“When a former president cannot and does not immediately say ‘no’ when asked if a man can become a woman, he does not need to be president again,” the right-wing commentator posted on X, formerly Twitter.

Trump’s halting exchange with Kelly came moments after he railed against puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors.

“I’m so against it,” Trump said of what he called “the mutilation of children.”

“Many of them, I’ve heard like 62%, when they grow up, when they’re older, they say, Who did this to me? Why did you do this to me?”

Trump insisted that his stance on the issue has never wavered — even though he allowed biological men to compete in the Miss Universe pageant when he owned it.

“I don’t think I’ve changed,” he said.

“I think I just, you know, at the beginning it was such a small subject.”

The wide-ranging interview — Kelly’s first sit-down with the former president since they clashed during a Republican debate in 2016 — sparked uproar over Trump’s claim to have no idea who gave Dr. Anthony Fauci a Trump-signed presidential commendation for spearheading the White House response to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Trump fumbles Megyn Kelly query: 'Can a man become a woman?'.)

Donald John Trump is a shallow man who has always supported the homosexual agenda and promoted several, including Richard Grennell, to positions during his administration and was supported in 2016 by Peter Thiel. Trump told Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes five days after his election 2016 that “I’m a supporter” when referring to the lavender crowd. The former president is a man of viscera, not a man of the mind.

Now, to his credit, the former president did say on September 15, 2023, that he would pardon or grant executive clemency to the Biden administration’s political prisoners, something that referred principally to those who have received monstrous prison sentences for simply trespassing in the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, but also included courageous pro-life rescuers such as Mrs. Joan Andrews Bell and John Hinshaw, who were convicted of violating the so-called Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) when they undertook a traditional rescue at a notorious late-term baby-killing mill in Washington, District of Columbia, three years ago and then imprisoned as they and the others, who had engaged in a peaceful resistance without using or threatening violence, even prior to formal sentencing because they were deemed by the judge to be “violent” offenders (see Trump promises to pardon jailed pro-life rescuers, 'every political prisoner' of Biden admin).Trump’s commitment in this regard is commendable. However, the fact remains he is adamant in his support for “exceptions” and in his delusional belief that he can be a “deal maker” on a matter of moral truth that admits of no negotiable “deals” whatsoever.

It was also in the Megyn Kelly interview that Trump, when confronted about his support for Anthony Fauci and the lockdowns in 2020, revised history in the expectation that no one would remember the facts of how he trampled on constitutional liberties in the belief that he could hailed as a “hero” for stopping the “pandemic.” He even expects us not to remember that he stood at attention as Anthony Fauci hogged the spotlight while giving us his “science” du jour during the daily press briefings held at the White House, and he also refuses to see the incalculable harm done by the “vaccines” developed under his very warped “Operation Warp Speed, something prompted a scholar to write the following:

One reporter has proven brave enough not to take the deal. The deal is: you can interview Trump provided you don’t ask perfectly obvious questions about his COVID response that shredded the Bill of Rights, wrecked his presidency, enabled mass mail-in ballots, elevated agencies to the status of dictators, and kicked off the biggest national crisis of our lifetimes from which we aren’t even close to recovering.

We still do not know when or if we will get the Constitution back. Inflation still rages, education nationwide is slipping more by the day, there is a resulting crime epidemic, and the cultural demoralization is like nothing we’ve ever seen – which is what happens when leaders dare to imagine that their power and prowess is some kind of match for the microbial kingdom.

We’ve watched in amazement as myriad reporters have entirely avoided the topic, including the otherwise intrepid Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck. This is because Trump forbids it and it is where he is most vulnerable. He wants it to go away, while many people on the center-left let him off the hook because they approve of how he handled COVID. As a result, the country and the world are not getting anything close to the answers we seek.

Finally, Megyn Kelly stepped up and did it. She barely scratched the surface. She didn’t know the right follow up questions. She let him get away with nonsense. But the interview is still notable, at least a beginning. She is the first to have begun the grilling process.

This isn’t really just about placing personal blame, as much as he deserves it. Everyone has a right to know what happened to their basic rights and liberties. We need to know why the churches, schools, and businesses were closed at the urging of the White House. We need to know why we faced travel restrictions, why government printed and spent multiple trillions that produced crushing inflation, why the hospitals were shut to elective surgeries and diagnostics, and how it came to be that the fourth branch of government – the administrative state – became the only government in the last year of his term and largely remains so today.

The government was under the leadership of Donald Trump. He greenlighted the entire thing, starting on March 12, 2020, with his travel restrictions against Europe and the U.K., continuing the next day with his state of emergency that put the National Security Council in charge of a virus, and continuing the next day with his edict that “bars, restaurants, food courts, gyms and other indoor and outdoor venues where groups of people congregate should be closed.”

When Fauci read those words from the podium on March 16, 2020, Trump pretended not to be paying much attention. Someone got his attention in the room and he waved and smiled, even as millions of businesses were wrecked and the whole of our lives upended.

Fauci – behind the scenes it was Dr. Deborah Birx and her sponsor – presided as the head of government for weeks, then months, then long after the election was declared for Joseph Biden. When Megyn Kelly pointed out that Trump made Fauci a star, he asked “You think so?” and then feigned a brief moment of internal reflection.

There ought to be some other phrase than “rewriting history.” This is Orwellian gaslighting on a different level, as if Trump truly believes that he can reconstruct reality based on what he wants to be true rather than what everyone knows to be true and all facts point to as true.

There are so many questions crying out for answers. In this interview, however, he says that he left it up to the states under a federalist idea. This is the line bandied about in Mar-a-Lago and no one around him dares question it.

It is demonstrably untrue. The one state that stayed almost entirely open – South Dakota – was in defiance of the White House in doing so. The first state to open up after that was Georgia under Governor Kemp, whom Trump blasted for the decision. Moreover, Trump has repeatedly bragged about how he shut down the country, as if that makes him awesome.

Even his discussion of which governors did well is disingenuous. The sole basis of his reasoning is a loyalty test, detached from the substance of COVID policies. He celebrates South Dakota’s Kristi Noem and South Carolina’s Henry McMaster because they have endorsed him for the 2024 election. Meanwhile, he derides the two governors who received the most backlash for opening up their states, Georgia’s Brian Kemp and Florida’s Ron DeSantis.

Kemp drew the ire of Trump when he refused to support claims of voter fraud in 2020. Trump unsuccessfully attempted to get Kemp out of office by endorsing challenger David Purdue in the Georgia gubernatorial primary. DeSantis has challenged Trump’s re-election, which led Trump to argue that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo “did better” on the pandemic response than DeSantis.

For Trump, there is no prospect of sustained self-reflection. There is no nuance or comparative analysis. The conversation is not about federalism or civil servants; it is about loyalty to himself and his campaign.

Even in this interview, he again claims that he did everything right, even upping the names of lives he saved from 5 to 10 to 100 million, while ignoring vaccine injuries and deaths to say nothing of deaths of despair and suicides or the lifespan loss that massively accelerated since his lockdowns.

As for the award to Fauci, his commendation was not only for him but also for Deborah Birx and all her cohorts. In the interview, he claims that he did not do this.

This was only the beginning of the dissembling, and only the beginning of the questions. And we need much more than a deep inquiry of Trump himself. There are dozens of officials involved and many agencies. We need a genuine commission and it needs to last for years. We cannot continue with these absurd lies that are nothing but an insult to the intelligence of any informed American.

Everything he said in this interview on this point is false. He is lying to the public and probably to himself. The truth is that he attempted to shut down the country, blasted governments that opened, criticized Sweden for its response, backed multiple gargantuan spending bills while intimidating the one lawmaker who wouldn’t vote for them, and kept Fauci and his crew in their positions even while hosting Scott Atlas around the White House while getting nightly earfuls of truth.

Once his error became unbearably obvious, he washed his hands of it.

This remains his approach today. (Trump's gaslighting on COVID lockdowns is finally called out in Megyn Kelly interview.)

This is a superb analysis.

Donald John Trump is an insecure narcissist who acts like a Mafia chieftain. Loyalty or disloyalty to him is all that matters. He can never be wrong, and he can never admit that he has been wrong. Everything he does is “perfect,” and he expects people to have such short memories that they will accept his revisionist histories even though they themselves lived through the horrors of what he approved, horrors that played a large, if not decisive, role in securing his defeat as the pathological, sociopathic liar from Delaware hid in his basement because of the “pandemic” and lied his own way right into the White House. Many who support Donald John Trump believe that he can "save" the United States of America. However, I will note (1) that no country can be "saved" by any means other than the conversion of its people to the to the Holy Faith, noting that problems will always occur because of fallen human nature; and (2) how can a man who is not concerned about the salvation of his own immortal soul "save" anything, including an entire nation?

One of the greatest ironies of the moment is that the warring tribes of Judeo-Masonic naturalism are as united in modes of operation that are based entirely on amoral self-seeking that calls to mind how the Nazis and the Soviets got drunk and enjoyed themselves following the signing of the Ribbentrop-Molotov treaty on August 24, 1939:

The deal with Stalin was struck the following night. It was the culmination of a series of contacts between the Soviet and German governments which went right back to the weeks following Lenin's putsch. They had been conducted, according to need, by army experts, secret policemen, diplomats or intermediaries on the fringe of the criminal world. They had been closer at some periods than others but they had never been wholly broken and they had been characterized throughout by total disregard for the ideological principles which either party ostensibly professed a contempt, indeed, for any consideration other than the most brutal mutual interest-the need of each regime to arm, to arrest and kill its opponents, and to oppress its neighbours. For two decades this evil stream of exchanges had flowed underground. Now at last it broke the surface. That night of 23-4 August there was a gruesome junket in the Kremlin. Ribbentrop reported: 'It felt like being among old party comrades.' He was as much at ease in the Kremlin, he added, 'as among my old Nazi friends'. Stalin toasted Hitler and said he 'knew how much the German people loved the Fuhrer'. There were brutal jokes about the Anti-Comintern Pact, now dead, which both sides agreed had been meant simply to impress the City of London and 'English shopkeepers'. There was sudden discovery of a community of aims, methods, manners and, above all, of morals. As the tipsy killers lurched around the room, fumblingly hugging each other, they resembled nothing so much as a congregation of rival gangsters, who had fought each other before, and might do so again, but were essentially in the same racket. (Paul Johnson, Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties, Revised Edition, HarperCollins, 1991, p. 360.)

A perfect description of the bunch of gangsters who fight each other constantly at present even though they can come "together" when it is in their interests to do so. "A congregation of rival gangsters, who had fought each other before, and might do so again, but were essentially in the same racket."


We are only witnessing the logical demise of the facade of an "order" that has been premised upon the promotion of sin as compatible with realization of material prosperity and national security. While it is one thing to sin, it is quite another to promote sin under cover of the civil law and to celebrate it unashamedly in every aspect of what passes for "popular culture." Nations that do this will be abandoned by God as they degnerate into a near-constant state of civil war, a condition that will help to usher in the Antichrist as the "saviour" of social order. Judeo-Masonry itself will give way to Antichrist, who will then fight the final battle with Holy Mother Church.

Remember these words of Pope Pius XI, contained in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, and remember them well:

To these evils we must add the contests between political parties, many of which struggles do not originate in a real difference of opinion concerning the public good or in a laudable and disinterested search for what would best promote the common welfare, but in the desire for power and for the protection of some private interest which inevitably result in injury to the citizens as a wholeFrom this course there often arise robberies of what belongs rightly to the people, and even conspiracies against and attacks on the supreme authority of the state, as well as on its representatives. These political struggles also beget threats of popular action and, at times, eventuate in open rebellion and other disorders which are all the more deplorable and harmful since they come from a public to whom it has been given, in our modern democratic states, to participate in very large measure in public life and in the affairs of the government. Now, these different forms of government are not of themselves contrary to the principles of the Catholic Faith, which can easily be reconciled with any reasonable and just system of government. Such governments, however, are the most exposed to the danger of being overthrown by one faction or another. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

As readers of this site know, it is impossible to pursue temporal justice while protecting heinous sins under cover of the civil law, crimes that are also promoted in every aspect of popular culture.

Sin is what caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer once in time in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death. Sin is what caused His Most Blessed Mother's Immaculate Heart to be pierced through and through with Seven Swords of Sorrow.

Sin is what wounds His Mystical Body, the Church Militant, here on earth in this passing, mortal value of tears.

No one who is an agent in the promotion of grievous sin, no less sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, is a fit holder of the public wear.

While such a person is an object of our prayers and while his actions must prompt us to make much reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, he is not deserving of anyone's "support" or "approval,” something that applies equally to the narcissist liar named Donald John Trump, who plays fast and easy with the lives of others to the point of asking them to risk prosecution by lying to provide him cover (see Trump warned personal assistant to tell feds: 'You don't know anything about these boxes’), and the master of corruption schemes and cover-ups, the fully pro-abortion, pro-perversity statist named Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.

There may very well come a day when simply holding, no less expressing publicly, beliefs that are proscribed by the Censorship Industrial Complex at the direct of the Federal government’s thought police will be a cause for rounding us all up into those detention centers that have been prepared recently for vaccine refuseniks and that were actually used by the government of Australia against their own citizens. If and when that time comes, good readers, may the words that Joan Andrews Bell, who was getting arrested long before Operation Rescue began, wrote to her supporters provide us with some exemplary Catholic inspiration:

 The following letter was sent to LifeSiteNews last night by Joan Andrews Bell’s husband Chris Bell. He told LifeSite that Joan has been able to call him from Alexandria City Jail every night “so far” since her incarceration and that she has a message to share. Joan was taken into custody on Friday immediately after being declared guilty of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and conspiracy against rights. She and seven of her companions are in prison awaiting sentencing for their part in an October 2020 attempt to rescue unborn babies scheduled for death at a late-term abortion business in Washington, D.C. 

I am so very grateful for everyone who would want to send me commissary money, or write me a letter (letters are most special gifts), or visit me in prison. But I hope you will be able to understand why I am pleading with you not to do any of these. Please!

The short explanation is that I want my prison stay to be a time of undistracted prayer, as well a time of penance – for myself and our nation. I want to make my cell as it were a cloistered monastery cell. In a Carmelite monastery the nuns are only allowed 2 visits a year from family, and depending upon the specific monastery, they are only allowed 2-4 letters a year from family. Therefore, that is what I want to emulate.  My family will visit when they are able and will write. So I will have that.

I love each of you so very much! We in the prolife movement are as much family as could possibly be. At this point I cannot be on the front lines with you, but in my prayers and in my heart I am with you and our precious unborn brothers and sisters who are suffering martyrdom.

I am afraid that the only way I can bear not being with them and you at the killing places is by making of my life behind these walls a time of constant prayer, and whatever little additional sacrifice I can embrace.

I join my prayers with yours. We are united in Him Our Savior and Our Blessed Virgin Mary.

Thank you, and may God bless you beyond measure!

Yours in the United Hearts of Jesus and Mary,

Joan Bell (Joan Andrews Bell writes from prison: I want to live like a cloistered nun in her cell

This is a simple, humble expression of Catholic serenity in the midst of great injustices, injustices of the sort that Joan Andrews Bell has known almost all of her adult life. If anyone can effect the conversion of Donald John Trump away from his narcissism to the true Faith she can by means of her sacrifices and prayers, especially her devotion to Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary. Her husband, Christopher Bell, who is a pro-life champion in his own right as the co-founder, along with the late Father Benedict Groeschel, in 1985 of the Good Counsel homes for single mothers, especially expectant mothers, will be united with his wife by means of his own prayers and sacrifices. It is Catholics such as the Bells whose activism and whose lives of prayers will effect the conversions of so many.

Thus, do not put your trust in the princes of men in whom there is no hope of salvation.

Follow the paths of the saints, among whom is Saint Thomas Villanova, whose feast is celebrated today, Friday, September 22, 2023, which is also the Commemoration of Saint Maurice and his Companions:

Today is the feast of the great Spanish Augustinian, Saint Thomas of Villanova, who was thirty years of age when a German Augustinian, Father Martin Luther, commenced his warfare against the Catholic Faith and thus of the Social Reign of Christ the King. The saintly life of this son of the Spanish soil should inspire us to make no compromises with error and to call ourselves to correction by living more austerely and simply on a daily basis:

Thomas of Villanueva was born of excellent parentage, in the town of Fuenlana, in the Diocese of Toledo in Spain, in the year of our Lord 1488, and was early taught godliness, and an especial pitifulness towards the needy. Of this grace he gave many ensamples while he was still a lad, whereof it is an eminent one that he more than once stripped himself of raiment of his own, in order to clothe the naked. He was become a man when the death of his father called him from Alcala, whither he had been sent to work as a student in the great College of St Alonzo. He gave all the inheritance which fell to him to feed poor unmarried women, and forthwith returned to Alcala, and finished his course in Theology. He was so eminent in learning that he was commanded to take a Professorship in that University, and delivered remarkable Lectures upon Philosophy and Theology. Meanwhile he ceased not earnestly to entreat of the Lord in prayer the knowledge of the Saints, and to know what was the path of life whereunto he was called. In course of time, by the inspiration of God, he entered the Institute of Hermits of St Austin [Saint Augustine].

In the Order wherein he had professed, he was marked for all that maketh a good and edifying Friar, for lowliness, for long-suffering, for cleanness-of-heart, but, above all, for the warmth of his charity. Amid divers and hard works, he let his spirit never faint from prayer and study of the things of God. On account of his holiness and learning he was bidden to undertake the work of preaching, and, by the help of God's grace, was the means of drawing countless souls out of the slough of sin into the way that leadeth unto life. Being raised to rule over his brethren, he so joined wisdom, justice, and gentleness with watchfulness and firmness, that he either established or restored in many places the original discipline of his Order.

He was named to the Archbishopric of Granada, but, with excellent lowliness and firmness, he refused to take so high a place. However, not long after, he was forced by the commands of his superiors to accept the government of the Church of Valencia, which he discharged for nearly eleven years with the reputation of a most holy and watchful shepherd of souls. His elevation changed nowise his way of life, except to give greater scope to his wonderful charity by placing the revenues of a wealthy Church at his disposal to distribute to the poor. He did not leave himself even a bed that on which he was lying when he was called to heaven, he had only on loan from a person to whom he had shortly before given it as an alms. He fell asleep in the Lord upon the 8th day of September, in the 69th year of his own age, and of our Lord 1555. God was pleased to approve the holiness of His servant by miracles, both during his life and after his death, whereof are specially remarked that when he had utterly emptied his barn by giving away all his corn to the poor, it was suddenly found full again, and that a dead boy was raised to life at his grave. Finding him famous for these signs, and not a few others, Pope Alexander VII. enrolled him in the list of the Saints, and ordered that his memory should be held in remembrance upon the 18th day of September. (Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Saint Thomas Villanova.)

May we ever have recourse to Our Lady, to whom Saint Thomas of Villanova was so entirely devoted, to pray for the conversion of all of those who are attacking the true Faith as we continue to pray each day for our own conversion away from our sins as we seek to offer up reparation for them to the throne of the Most Blessed Trinity as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Christ the King through her own most Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order, and it is because the lords of conciliarism have abandoned the Catholic Faith and exalted "Man" and his "ability" to "better" the world that we find ourselves deep in an abyss caused by the concentration of almost all philosophical errors and theological heresies that have been known in salvation history from which the only escape is through that same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Viva Cristo ReyVivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.  

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Thomas Villanova, pray for us.

Saint Maurice and Companions, pray for us.


Pope Pius XII Demolishes the "Exceptions" Argument

If there is another danger that threatens the family, not since yesterday, but long ago, which, however, at present, is growing visibly, it can become fatal [to societies], that is, the attack and the disruption of the fruit of conjugal morality.

We have, in recent years, taken every opportunity to expose the one or the other essential point of the moral law, and more recently to indicate it as a whole, not only by refuting the errors that corrupt it, but also showing in a positive sense, the office the importance, the value for the happiness of the spouses, children and all family, for stability and the greater social good from their homes up to the State and the Church itself.

At the heart of this doctrine is that marriage is an institution at the service of life. In close connection with this principle, we, according to the constant teaching of the Church, have illustrated a argument that it is not only one of the essential foundations of conjugal morality, but also of social morality in general: namely, that the direct attack innocent human life, as a means to an end - in this case the order to save another life - is illegal.

Innocent human life, whatever his condition, is always inviolate from the first instance of its existence and it can never be attacked voluntarily. This is a fundamental right of human beings. A fundamental value is the Christian conception of life must be respected as valid for the life still hidden in the womb against direct abortion and against all innocent human life thereafter. There can be no direct murders of a child before, during and after childbirth. As established may be the legal distinction between these different stages of development life born or unborn, according to the moral law, all direct attacks on inviolable human life are serious and illegal.

This principle applies to the child's life, like that of mother's. Never, under any circumstances, has the Church has taught that the life of child must be preferred to that of the mother. It would be wrong to set the issue with this alternative: either the child's life or that of motherNo, nor the mother's life, nor that of her child, can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. For the one side and the other the need can be only one: to make every effort to save the life of both, mother and child (see Pious XI Encycl. Casti Connubii, 31 dec. 1930, Acta Ap. Sedis vol. 22, p.. 562-563).

It is one of the most beautiful and noble aspirations of medicine trying ever new ways to ensure both their lives. What if, despite all the advances of science, still remain, and will remain in the future, a doctor says that the mother is going to die unless here child is killed in violation of God's commandment: Thou shalt not kill!  We must strive until the last moment to help save the child and the mother without attacking either as we bow before the laws of nature and the dispositions of Divine Providence.

But - one may object - the mother's life, especially of a mother of a numerous family, is incomparably greater than a value that of an unborn child. The application of the theory of balance of values to the matter which now occupies us has already found acceptance in legal discussions. The answer to this nagging objection is not difficult. The inviolability of the life of an innocent person does not depend by its greater or lesser value. For over ten years, the Church has formally condemned the killing of the estimated life as "worthless', and who knows the antecedents that provoked such a sad condemnation, those who can ponder the dire consequences that would be reached, if you want to measure the inviolability of innocent life at its value, you must well appreciate the reasons that led to this arrangement.

Besides, who can judge with certainty which of the two lives is actually more valuable? Who knows which path will follow that child and at what heights it can achieve and arrive at during his life? We compare Here are two sizes, one of whom nothing is known. We would like to cite an example in this regard, which may already known to some of you, but that does not lose some of its evocative value.

It dates back to 1905. There lived a young woman of noble family and even more noble senses, but slender and delicate health. As a teenager, she had been sick with a small apical pleurisy, which appeared healed; when, however, after contracting a happy marriage, she felt a new life blossoming within her, she felt ill and soon there was a special physical pain that dismayed that the two skilled health professionals, who watched  her with loving care. That old scar of the pleurisy had been awakened and, in the view of the doctors, there was no time to lose to save this gentle lady from death. The concluded that it was necessary to proceed without delay to an abortion.

Even the groom agreed. The seriousness of the case was very painful. But when the obstetrician attending to the mother announced their resolution to proceed with an abortion, the mother, with firm emphasis, "Thank you for your pitiful tips, but I can not truncate the life of my child! I can not, I can not! I feel already throbbing in my breast, it has the right to live, it comes from God must know God and to love and enjoy it." The husband asked, begged, pleaded, and she remained inflexible, and calmly awaited the event.

The child was born regularly, but immediately after the health of the mother went downhill. The outbreak spread to the lungs and the decay became progressive. Two months later she went to extremes, and she saw her little girl growing very well one who had grown very healthy. The mother looked at her robust baby and saw his sweet smile, and then she quietly died.

Several years later there was in a religious institute a very young sister, totally dedicated to the care and education of children abandoned, and with eyes bent on charges with a tender motherly love. She loved the tiny sick children and as if she had given them life. She was the daughter of the sacrifice, which now with her big heart has spread much love among the children of the destitute. The heroism of the intrepid mother was not in vain! (See Andrea Majocchi. " Between burning scissors," 1940, p.. 21 et seq.). But we ask: Is Perhaps the Christian sense, indeed even purely human, vanished in this point of no longer being able to understand the sublime sacrifice of the mother and the visible action of divine Providence, which made quell'olocausto born such a great result? (Pope Pius XII, Address to Association of Large Families, November 26, 1951; I used Google Translate to translate this address from the Italian as it is found at AAS Documents, p. 855; you will have to scroll down to page 855, which takes some time, to find the address.)