Keeping Baby-Killing "Safe and Legal" for the Survival of Congressional Republicans

One of the most maddening phrases around is the "pro-life" slogan, which is meant to convey that someone is opposed to the surgical killing of innocent babies in their mothers' wombs. The slogan, however, is precisely that, a slogan. As I have tried to communicate endlessly in the past two decades or more since refusing to apply the slogan to careerist politicians of the naturalist "right" in the organized crime family of naturalism that is the Republican Party, the phrase "pro-life" is misused in the realm of partisan politics and public discourse, usually by leaders or representatives of "establishment" "pro-life" organizations such as the National Not So-Right-to-Life Committee and its state affiliates, who actually support the chemical assassination of children in all instances and who support the surgical slicing and dicing of children in what they call the "hard cases."

The National Not-So-Right-Life Committee itself, being a completely secular organization, although it grew out of the work Monsignor James T. McHugh, that notorious protege of a notorious criminal against the innocence and purity of children, Mary Calderone, who helped to devise and promote the rot of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandment (see Origins of Classroom Instruction in Matters of Purity in Catholic Schools and   The McHugh Chronicles), at the Family Life Bureau of the so-called United States Catholic Conference in the late-1960s, takes no stand against contraception and actually supports the nonexistent "right" of mothers to kill their innocent preborn children in the event that their own lives are said to be in jeopardy from carrying their babies to birth. What is thus considered to be the "leader" of the "pro-life" movement in the United States of America actually supports direct, intentional surgical abortion in cases where it is alleged that a mother's life is in jeopardy as a matter of principle, not as a matter of what they would consider to be legislative expediency.

No one should give a dime to this fraudulent organization or its various affiliated groups. No one should consider its "voter scorecards" of any use at all because, quite conveniently, the bought and paid for toadies of the Republican establishment do not "score" legislative votes on any piece of legislation or legislative action, including judicial appointments, that would cause one of their "pro-life" champions in the Republican Party to have a lower "score."

This has made it possible for all manner of Republicans in the United States Senate to "preserve" their "record" even though they have put out-and-out pro-aborts on the Federal bench (Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court of the United States of America) or to serve in various offices (such as George Walker Bush appointees Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Christine Todd Whitman, Alberto Gonzales, Michael Mukasey, Donald Rumsfeld, Tom Ridge and, among others, Michael Chertoff and such as Donald John Trump appointee Rex Tillerson, although it remains to be seen whether the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Chai Feldblum will receive Senate approval for her reappointment to serve on the “Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). It should also be pointed out that more and more pro-abortion Republicans are being nominated to run for office (state, local, federal) in “blue states.”

Most so-called "pro-life" Americans, including Catholics, do not think in terms of absolute truth. They do not want to think. They do not follow the details of current events or remember the little that they read, which is why I will append below for yet another time a brief summary of the actual anti-life, anti-family record of the "conservative" statist and war monger named George Walker Bush, whose record will always look bad to Christ the King, Who is Truth Incarnate, no matter how "good" it might look to facile minds who have permitted themselves to fall into the trap of seeing the world through the eyes of the false opposites of the naturalist "left" and the naturalist "right."

The leaders of these various "mainstream" "pro-life" organizations are to be found not all too infrequently, at least indirectly, on the payrolls of the politicians whose anti-life, anti-family records they indemnify at every turn. The grateful pols are more than happy to channel a few pesos over to the political action committees ("PACs") of these allegedly "pro-life" groups, thus creating quite a symbiotic (where two living organisms feed off each other to their mutual benefit) relationship that cannot be disturbed by such inconvenient little things as truth, no less the fullness of Catholic truth.

This is a situation that will never change. By never I mean never. Ever.

Each of President Donald John Trump’s administrative actions that have been termed as pro-life are fully reversible by the next president, which is what happened, of course, when President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton used several strokes of a pen on January 22, 1993, reversed what little good, most of it filled with all manner of exceptions, that had been done in the administrations of President Ronald Wilson Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush in the previous twelve year and when President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro took pen to pear on January 22, 2009. In the meantime, though, despite all of the political posturing and meaningless “show votes,” the phony pro-life politicians of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” has done nothing substantive to roll back the effects of the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, forty-five years ago today, Monday, January 22, 1973. (Yes, it was a Monday also that year. I remember it well as I had just started my graduate studies at the University of Notre Dame. Upon learning of the decision after listening to WBBM Newsradio 780—as it was referred to at the time—that I walked into the faculty office of Dr. Charles Rice at the Notre Dame Law School. He agreed with my conclusion that there was need of a constitutional amendment. Here we are, six Republican administrations later, and no such amendment has ever emerged from the Congress of the United States of America to be sent to the states for ratification.)

It is almost invariably the case, however, that one of the greatest impediments to any worthwhile Congressional legislation eroding the decisions in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton has been the so-called National Right to Life Committee, whose lobbyists, upon whom most “pro-life” members of the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate rely for legislative direction so that they can “score” well on this fake, phony, fraud sycophantic behemoth fund-raising machine’s “scorecards,” have successfully opposed a House bill banning abortions after a preborn baby’ heart begins to beat, which is usually eighteen days. The bill, which was introduced by United States Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) on January 12, 2017, is entitled the “Heartbeat Protection Plan.” It has languished in two subcommittees (Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations and the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice) of the House Judiciary Committee since February 6, 2017. And yes, it is opposed by the so-called National Right to Life Committee.

A man named Andrew Schlafly, who is a son of the late Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly, expressed understandable outrage at this development, believing, it appears, that it is possible to throw the phony pro-life politicians out of office. This is an e-mail that he sent to his fund-raising list that was provided to me by the famed legal defender of those who have been victimized by perverted clergy, Mr. James Bendell:

The Swamp in D.C. blocks pro-life bills while pretending to be pro-life, and endorses pro-abort nominees to the courts while pretending otherwise. The problem is not Trump, who is the first president ever to fully address the March for Life from the White House. The problem is congressional Republican leadership, and the phony groups they control, such as National Right to Life.  his week they are blocking a vote on the Heartbeat Bill, and instead are going through the charade of pushing a different bill that won't actually protect any unborn children.

You don't have to take my word for it.  Rep. Steve King, our finest pro-life leader in Congress, and former Rep. Tom DeLay, our finest pro-life congressman before Steve, are both exposing National Right to Life for blocking this good pro-life bill.  Other real pro-life leaders are speaking out, too.

The Swamp plays its game of pretending to be pro-life while privately blocking real pro-life bills, in order to appease pro-abort donors, employers of spouses, and Fox News.  The phony pro-lifers think they can continue to treat the real pro-life movement like a cheap date.  The fakes will all be exposed.

Republican leadership in Congress passed nothing pro-life in all of 2017 -- zero -- and our window of opportunity is closing.  They have eroded the base of the Republican Party and Dems will take over Congress in the midterm elections in 9 months.  It won't be Trump's fault, who has done what he can.  It is Speaker Paul Ryan (whose wife is apparently pro-choice), Majority Leader McConnell (who is apparently pro-choice), and the phony pro-life groups in D.C.  Both Ryan and McConnell are expected to resign after losing control of Congress later this year.

The phony pro-lifers will be discredited, and our movement will be stronger without them.  Personally, this is the 10th consecutive year that I'm funding a busload to D.C. for the March for Life.  Hope you can fund Marchers too.

Andy Schlafly
Phyllis Schlafly Eagles

While Mr. Schlafly, who may or may not have maintained the Catholic Faith of his late mother, Phyllis Schafly as he is listed as a “Christian conservative activist,” which is usually associated with being some kind of “evangelical” Protestant, is certainly correct to denounce the absolutely farcical nature of most “pro-life” Congressional Republicans and those who enable them with loads of cash and meaningless “pro-life scorecards” such as the National Right to Life Committee, he is delusional if he thinks that he will ever rid the Republican Party of phony pro-life politicians.

It was thirteen years ago that the Calvinist named Chuck Baldwin wrote the following about the phony nature of the supposedly “pro-life” administration of President George Walker Bush:

It is time to ask some hard questions about the preponderance of leaders and organizations commonly identified as the Religious Right. Are they gullible, naïve, or willingly ignorant? How can anyone who truly believes that unborn babies deserve the right to life continue to support President George W. Bush? His track record on the life issue screams betrayal! Let's get real: on the subject of protecting the lives of unborn babies, Bush is just so much hot air!

American Life League president Judy Brown, columnist Thomas Droleskey, Howard Phillips, Covenant web host Jim Rudd, and many others have provided the American people with incontrovertible documentation regarding G.W. Bush's dismally pathetic record on the life issue. They have chronicled facts including:

Practically everyone in Bush's cabinet is pro-abortion. Bush is the first president to authorize stem cell research. In fact, his appointee to directorship of the National Institute of Health, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, is a pioneer in embryonic stem cell research. President Bush even blocked a vote on a congressional amendment that would have banned the patenting of human embryos.

President Bush has done nothing to remove abortifacients such as RU-486 from the shelves. He even supported the National Organization of Women (NOW) in their racketeering suit against Joe Scheidler and other pro-life advocates.

President Bush has approved millions of taxpayer dollars in funding for Planned Parenthood. He has authorized federal funding for abortion providers overseas to levels even higher than those authorized by President Bill Clinton!

Speaking of overseas funding for abortion, President Bush's $15 billion AIDS package provides payments to organizations that provide abortions including the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

President Bush even admitted his opposition to overturning Roe v Wade by stating emphatically, "there will be abortions. That's a reality." Of course, the President's wife Laura has also publicly said she is opposed to overturning Roe v Wade.

President Bush has repeatedly said that he has no litmus test on the life issue when it comes to appointing federal judges. Why does the Religious Right claim he intends to do something he has plainly and repeatedly denied? Again, are they gullible, naïve, or willingly ignorant?

Beyond that, how far will the Religious Right go in their compromise and surrender of the life issue? Indications are there is practically no limit to their sellout.

We are already hearing leaders within the Religious Right say they will support the Republican presidential nominee in 2008 even if that nominee is openly pro-abortion. Such talk is obviously an attempt to begin calming potential concerns among pro-life conservatives if and when the Republican Party nominates a pro- abortion presidential candidate, which appears very likely to happen.

For example, a recent national gathering of Republicans voted Rudy Guiliani and Condi Rice as the top two choices to lead the GOP ticket in 2008. Of course, both Guiliani and Rice are pro- abortion.

It will be more than interesting to listen to leaders of the Religious Right postulate on how a pro-abortion Democrat is evil but a pro- abortion Republican is righteous! Again, is the Religious Right gullible, naïve, or willingly ignorant?

Perhaps disgusting is a more appropriate word to describe the behavior of the Religious Right. In order to keep its most favored special interest group status, it has compromised and capitulated just about every cardinal principle, including the life issue.

As a result, Republican presidents and congresses will continue to come and go, the Religious Right will continue to bask in the warm glow of Republican acceptance, and millions of pre-born babies will continue to have their little bodies torn apart by the abortionist's scalpel.

Do not fear, however. At least a Democrat is not in the White House. Obviously, that matters little to the more than 4 million unborn babies who have been slaughtered in the wombs of their mothers since G.W. Bush became President. What does matter, of course, is that the Religious Right is happy to embrace the Republican presidential candidate, his or her commitment to the unborn notwithstanding.

Is the Religious Right gullible, naïve, or willingly ignorant? It really doesn't matter. Whatever the motive or whatever the cause, the Religious Right has ceased to be a credible proponent of protecting the lives of unborn children, which leads to the greater question: who will pick up the mantle as the voice for the unborn?  (Chuck Baldwin, who believes himself to be a Baptist "minister,"  Is The Religious Right Gullible, Naive, or Willingly Ignorant?)

Nothing in the United States Congress has changed since in the pas thirteen years, and nothing ever will change in the United States Congress. State legislatures have become the principal political battleground in efforts to chip away at the nonexistent “right” to kill innocent preborn children that was invented by seven justices (five of those seven were Republican appointees, by the way—Chief Justice Warren Burger, Associate Justices Harry Blackmun, who wrote the Court’s opinion, Potter Stewart, Lewis Powell and William Brennan). Congress? As we would say in New York, Fuhhgeddaboutit.

Readers of this site will understand that the devil has raised up false opposites on the "left" in politics to make those on the "right" seem "good" by way comparison even though both believe in the same naturalistic, anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity and refuse to accept the truth that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order, and unlike the “life of the mother” exception made that has been made as a matter of principle by the National Right to Life Committee since its inception, the Catholic Church teaches us that it is never permissible to directly cause the death of any innocent human being at any time for any reason. Period.

We must think supernaturally at all times.

We must think as Catholics at all times no matter the natural pull of human emotions and heartstrings that will certainly affect each of us at various times. We are flesh and blood human beings.

Sure, we would be heartless creatures if we were not torn in difficult circumstances of facing an earthly separation from our loved ones by means of what is considered to be an "early" death. However, we must love God's Holy Will first and foremost, praying to His Most Blessed Mother to send us graces to accept His will so that we can obey it as we observe every precept of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Naturalists, of course, do not understand this, which is why almost all of those in public life who say that they are "pro-life" support the direct, intentional taking of innocent human lives in their mothers' wombs under any conditions at all. Such people cannot see the contradiction represented by claiming to be "pro-life" while supporting the direct killing of babies in some instances.

To wit, then Texas Governor George Walker Bush simply shrugged his shoulders as he smirked during a televised debate in New Hampshire in December of 1999, saying the following with a sense of exasperation after Dr. Alan Keyes asked him how he could be said to be opposed to abortion while supporting it in some circumstances: "I can't explain it. It's just how I feel."

Pope Pius XII Slams the National Right to Life Committee All Other "Pro-Life" Pols

God's law is not a matter of feeling or political expediency, something that Pope Pius XII pointed out in his October 29, 1951, Address to the Association of Large Families.

Consider these very telling words from the early part of this address, begging your pardon that they are from a Google translation of the original text, which is in the Italian language:

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.)

Let me repeat: Pope Pius XII slammed the National-Not-Right-to-Life Committee and  all supposedly "pro-life" pols who support any exceptions to the inviolability of innocent human life at any time, including that for the "life of the mother."

Don't feed the money monster that is the National Not-So-Right-Life Committee. And don't put your trust in phony pro-life politicians who support the very thing that they say they oppose. They care only about one thing: the reelection as they concentrate on the "money issues" that have worsened precisely our debt clock to God keeps ticking with every innocent child that is killed, whether by chemical or surgical means.

The "Strategy" of the Conciliar "Bishops"

"Ya gotta do something. Nothing else will work."

It is upon that false premise that the conciliar "bishops" have embraced a ready acceptance of the "right to life mother exception" in legislative proposals without even attempting to pressure supposedly pro-life members of various legislatures, including those in both houses of the Congress of the United States of America, believing that doing so will help to convince "reasonable" people that they and the politicians they support are not "radicals" or "extremists," that such concessions are "necessary" to make in the realm prudence.

This is, of course, the exact same moral casuistry that gave us "natural family planning" and explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments that has corrupted what passes for Catholic moral theology in so many places that high level officials in the Vatican itself can speak of "therapeutic" abortions as being within the moral law (see So Long to the Fifth Commandment and Rotten To The Very Roots).

Some tried very hard to warn the "bishops" as early as the first years after the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 2, 1973, that the acceptance of "exceptions" would lead to the further institutionalization of baby-killing under the cover of the civil law in the mistaken belief that some killings would be prevented.

One of those who did so was Mrs. Randy Engel, the Director of the U.S. Coalition for Life, who testified in 1974. before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the United States Senate Committee for the Judiciary. Mrs. Engel saw things with prophetic clarity: there could never be any compromise with the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment, and for this, of course, she has been hated by the "pro-life establishment" ever since:

I am Randy Engel, National Director of the United States Coalition for Life, an international research center and clearing- house specializing in domestic federal anti-life programs within the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the Agency for International Development. Thank you for your invitation to appear before the sub-committee today in order that I may express the views of the Coalition, its distinguished national and international board of advisors, some of whom have already testified at earlier Senate hearings on the Human Life Amendment, and that of thousands of grassroots people whom we have had the honor of serving on a day to day basis since the Coalition opened its offices almost two years ago.

Mr. Chairman, about four months ago, the Coalition filed with your office, the transcript of a speech made by Louise Tyrer , M.D. , Family Planning Division of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, before the Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians' 12th Annual Meeting, Memphis, Tennessee on Tuesday, April 16, 1974, on the status of the various Human Life Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. (Attachment A) According to Dr. Tyrer' s assessment of the Congressional scene there are two basic approaches. One - a "state's rights" approach which would return the power of lawmaking in the area of abortion to the individual States. The second - which would guarantee the full protection of the law to the unborn child from the moment of fertilization. The "State's rights" approach she states, and correctly so, is unacceptable to the majority of Pro-Life people yet very attractive to the legislators because " it sought of takes the ones off their backs from making any decisions."

The remainder of her talk stresses the necessity of stalling the hearings of this sub-committee by having Planned Parenthood physicians flood the sub-committee with requests to testify. This, Dr. Tyrer suggests would be politically expedient and politically NECESSARY for you Mr. Chairman, in order to keep the amendments bottled up in sub-committee until you had gone through the election process in the Fall. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to embarrass you in any manner. Not because I fell Dr. Tyrer was incorrect in her judgment of the political realities of the Senate and House Committees dealing with the abortion issue or her assessment that stalling these subcommittee hearings by dragging them out month by month would be politically expedient for you and others who might prefer not to have a roll call vote on a Human Life Amendment before election time. But rather, because with few exceptions, almost every Senator and Representative in Congress would like nothing better than to get rid of the abortion issue tomorrow, if not before, or at least dump the matter back into the lap of the State legislatures.

This is not our affair - they say.

The massive slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent unborn children is not a federal matter - they say.

We are not responsible for the Supreme Court decision of January 22, 1972 which is now the law of the land - they say.

Well, I am here Mr. Chairman to tell you and every other Senator and Congressman that like it or not - Abortion IS your affair. That the massive slaughter of unborn children in this country IS a proper matter of federal concern. Moreover that this Congress IS directly responsible for the almost inevitable Supreme Court decision which stripped unborn children of their inalienable right to life. Congress IS responsible because over the last ten years it has permitted an anti-life philosophy and anti-life programs and policies to become matters of NATIONAL POLICY , promoted and supported by tax dollars.

It is the Federal Government - at all levels - Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches - which has posed the greatest threat to unborn children in recent years. The Executive Branch because it has failed to correct the anti-life abuses primarily within the bureaucracies of HEW and AID and has permitted key anti-life leaders such as Dr. Louis Hellman the Office of Population Affairs and Dr. R. T. Ravenholt, Director Population Bureau for Population and Humanitarian Affairs [and the man who coined the phrase "Natural Family Planning"] to remain in office. The Legislative Branch, because it has authorized legislation and appropriated funds year after year to initiate, promote and sustain anti-life programs in virtually every conceivable federal bureaucracy including the Office of Economic Opportunity, Office of Environmental Education, Office of Education, Department of Defense Office of Population Affairs (HEW), National Institutes of Health, Agriculture Department, Food and Drug Administration, Public Health Service Social Security, MedicAID, Aid to Dependent Children, U.S. Information Agency Population Office(AID). Contraceptive Research Branch (NIH) Federal Communication Commission).

As I said the Supreme Court abortion decision was an inevitable one. All the cliches of that decision - terms like "unwanted children", "a woman's right to control her own body.", the population explosion stem from the Sangerite ethic. It represented the culmination of more than half a century of dedication and tireless efforts by the Sangerites and the Malthusians to convince the American public of the righteousness of the CAUSE and to elevate the SANGERITE-MALTHUSIAN philosophy to that of Public Policy .

This final achievement is portrayed quite candidly in this book Breeding Ourselves to Death - the Story of the Hugh Moore Fund by abortion leader Lawrence Lader. In the section on gaining Congressional Support, former N.Y. Senator Kenneth Keating, then newly appointed National Director of the Population Crisis Committee tells about eating in the Senate Dining Room where he could spread the gospel of family planning among old friends, particularly among the Republican leadership. This fight to influence by other population control leaders in Congress goes on today.

But what does all this have to do with this subcommittee hearing on the Human Life Amendment? Simply this:

For more than a year the Hogan-Helms Human Life Amendment and similar bills have been buried in the House, where Representative Don Edwards has refused to hold hearings, and in the Senate - hearings are dragged out month after month to get Senators and Representatives through the November watershed without a floor vote on such as the HLA.

Obviously there is no sense of urgency about the matter, with the exception of a handful of dedicated men, the Congress doesn't appear to be the least concerned that its inaction will result in the death of hundreds of thousands of unborn children. The fact that millions of federal tax dollars are used to promote a myriad of anti-life schemes- from direct abortion payments (Medicaid-ADC; to the research development and promoting of new abortion techniques to the indoctrination of young children of an anti-life ethic appears to raise no particular concern at family planning authorization or appropriation hearings.

Equally obvious is the fact that under these conditions we will have a difficult time getting a Human Life Amendment passed by both Houses. of Congress and on its way to the states for ratification. My purpose here today is to point out the current commitment of the Federal Government including this Congress to the anti-life establishment, and briefly how such a commitment was obtained and at what price.

Mr. Chairman, this Congress OWES its vigorous support for a Human Life Amendment which would protect Human Life from conception until natural death to the American people. The Coalition would agree that the Hogan-Helms Amendment or the newer Roncallo Amendment would provide such protection.

Apart from the merit of these amendments themselves, we feel that Congress should recognize the fact that through its indifference, ignorance and its inability to withstand the pressures of the anti-life movement, it must bear its share of guilt for the 1972 Abortion decision, and its share of responsibility in seeing a Human Life Amendment is passed to protect the unborn child.

Your responsibility, Mr. Chairman, in this matter is very plain. As for our part, I believe the Coalition and the Pro-Life Movement in the U. S. will continue to fight at all levels - including the Halls of Congress and yes, even in Senate dining rooms - to educate and to promote an ideal that is as revolutionary in our day as the Sangerite ideal was fifty years ago. That ideal is based on the sanctity and innate goodness of all human life. (Full text of "Abortion : hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments.)

Even though the efforts made by Mrs. Engel and others were valiant, we can see now with perfect hindsight that which was not understood by very many at the time: that these noble efforts were doomed to failure precisely because the "pro-life establishment," headed by the National Not-So-Right to Life Committee, rallied around the constitutional amendment that had been proposed by United States Senator James Buckley (C-New York; the "c" reflects Buckley's election in a three-way race in 1970 as the candidate of the Conservative Party of the State of New York) that permitted the "life of the mother" exception.

Only four American bishops, Timothy Cardinal Manning of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, John Cardinal Krol of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Humberto Medeiros of the Archdiocese of Boston and John Cardinal Cody of the Archdiocese of Chicago testified against the Buckley Amendment on the grounds that the civil law could never permit the direct taking of a single, solitary innocent human life from the first moment of conception through all subsequent stages until natural death. These cardinals, however, although part of the conciliar church by that time, were opposed by the entire "pro-life" establishment whose machinations were being orchestrated, at least to a very large extent, by the then Monsignor James Timothy McHugh of the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey. McHugh did not have a qualm of conscience whatsoever about the "life of the mother exception" as a matter of legislative expedience or as a core moral principle of the National Right to Life Committee his work at the then named Family Life Bureau of the United States Catholic Conference helped to launch.

No, the well-intentioned efforts of Mrs. Engel and her associates were doomed from the start as, unbeknownst to them, a false church had arisen filled with men who had lost the Catholic Faith, men who had surrendered to the prevailing ethos of Judeo-Masonry, a surrender that has devastated the world in which we live and that must be considered nothing other than one of the worst chastisements of our time for neither Popes Pius XI or XII consecrating Russia collegially to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart with all of the world's bishops. Treasonous priests and their leftist apparatchiks and toadies worked against efforts to provide full constitutional protection. And this is what must happen when men who claim to be Catholic make their "reconciliations" with the anti-Incarnational principles of Modernity.

It is no wonder that "conservatives" and even tradtionally-minded priests and presbyters praise the late "Bishop" James Timothy McHugh for his "pro-life" work as they have become so accustomed to the moral casuistry of conciliarism and of its embrace of the ethos of naturalism that they are incapable of seeing Catholic truth clearly, less yet of embracing it openly as the one and only foundation of personal and social order.

Where the Moral Casuistry of Family Planning, Including "Natural" Family Planning, and "Exceptions" Must Lead: to Death, Temporal and Eternal

The ethos of conciliarism's "reconciliation" with false premises of the Protestant Revolution's overturning of the Social Reign of Christ the King that gave the scions of Judeo-Masonry a chance to exploit the "wars of religious conflict" to call for a putting aside of "useless debates about religious dogma" in the name "toleration" as men of "good will" attempt to pursue the common good leads to the embrace of one "mental reservation" after another to "achieve" some kind of mythical goal, thereby resulting in the redefining of what constitutes "pro-life" politicians and "pro-life" legislation. And it is what has resulted in such an almost complete and utter corruption of what is called the Catholic healthcare system that moral theologians today, who are but the ideological descendants of those who tried to deconstruct Pope Pius XII's October 29, 1951, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, can justify outright baby killing in "Catholic" hospitals without too many "bishops" giving them a word of rebuke.

Consider this example from the year 2011:

FRONT ROYAL, Virginia, July 29, 2011 ( - When a child is delivered stillborn, a small flower or other token often marks the door of the mother’s recovery room to help staff recognize the loss.

According to one Catholic doctor, the same symbol was used in at least one Catholic hospital where doctors routinely induced labor to hasten the death of a child diagnosed with a genetic defect - a practice she says occurs in “a handful” of Catholic hospitals across the United States.

Dr. Lorna Cvetkovich told a bioethics conference at Christendom College in Virginia this month about her experience at one Catholic hospital she declined to name, where she says abortions had been routinely performed on disabled children for twenty years. Cvetkovich currently works at the pro-life Tepeyac Family Center and is medical director of Sanctity of Life Ministries in Fairfax, Virginia.

“They would place a little flower on the door of a woman to her room to indicate the baby had died - except they also placed a flower on the door of a woman who was being induced with a live baby,” Cvetkovich told the audience. “Most of these were hydrocephalics, or genetic anomalies, that kind of thing.”

Cvetkovich said the hospital’s policies and procedures allowed for the procedure, but were written such that “you really had to read it with a fine-toothed comb to figure out that this was allowable.”

Soberingly, Cvetkovich said the hospital claimed the protocol had even been approved by the local ordinary. “One of the hardest situations I’d ever went through was sitting in the MD’s office and having him tell me, ‘I only did what your bishop told me I could do,’” she recalled.

“It’s hard to have a response to that.”

The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, a document promulgated by the U.S. Bishops’ Conference, defines abortion as “the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus,” something that is “never permitted.” The document also prohibits contraception and sterilization.

According to Cvetkovich, faithful doctors must be a “sign of contradiction” even within an ostensibly Catholic system, which have been taken over by modern sexual values and even disregard for unborn human life.

“Most Catholic hospitals, their networks, their clinics, even on the labor delivery floor, do allow prescription of contraceptives. Some also allow sterilization ... sometimes even elective sterilizations,” she said, adding that “a very few, I think a handful” perform abortions.

“On our labor delivery floor, you could go after delivery and punch in an order for depo-provera, and that is not too unusual,” she said.

After the lecture, Cvetkovich told that the moral theologian at her facility had justified elective sterilizations as a means of keeping patients’ business for the sake of helping other low-income patients. “He was trying to tell me that amount of money is what’s going to be their commitment to serve the poor,” said Cvetkovitch. “It’s just hogwash.”

The doctor also lamented that the problem of abortions and other immoral practices at Catholic hospitals is “very intractable” because bishops have been erroneously led to believe they lack power to reform such facilities.

“The bishops have been convinced that they have no control over the Catholic hospitals because they are usually owned by a religious group whose authority line goes to the Vatican, not the diocese,” she said. “But that’s not really true, because there’s a canon law that says they really are responsible for every catholic entity in their diocese.”

Cvetkovich pointed to the example of Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, who took severe national criticism last year for cutting an abortion-performing hospital out of the diocese, as proof that such action is rare.

“They [U.S. bishops] will not move against Catholic hospitals,” she said.

In a world where even Catholic hospitals push abortion on their staff - Cvetkovitch recalled watching a head nurse “roll her eyes” when a lower nurse asked to be excused from a procured abortion - the medical doctor had dire predictions for the future of conscience rights.

“We will have the choice to either practice anti-Hippocratic, pro-choice type medicine and keep our jobs - or practice Hippocratic, Catholic, pro-life medicine and lose our jobs,” she said. in 2008 uncovered that the chief ethicist for the diocese of London, Ontario admitted that its St. Joseph Catholic Hospital had performed early-induction abortions on disabled children for twenty years, and that the procedure had been approved by the bishop. (‘Flower on the door’ used to mark abortions at Catholic hospitals: doctor.)

As noted earlier in this commentary, men who participate in a liturgical sacrilege and who blaspheme God by perverting and misrepresenting the immutable truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith will, at least in some instances, come to lose all understanding of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as to justify even the hideous actions described in the news story above from There is a direct connection between defects from Catholic Faith and Worship and open support for crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

This just didn't "happen," something that I tried to explain in an article published on August 1, 2011, the Feast of Saint Peter’s Chains and the Commemoration of the Holy Maccabees,  in Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change. What is happening in Catholic hospitals today is the result of all of that rationalization and moral casuistry found in those old 1940s and 1950s ethics textbooks whose authors were trying to "find a way" to accommodate the desire of Catholic married couples to "limit" the size of their families without restoring to contraception. Compromise begets compromise to such an extent that one might as well be an open disciple of the devil.

The fight we are fighting is not, as we should know by now, political or constitutional. It is principally spiritual.

We are fighting the forces of darkness. This is a fight we cannot win on our own. It is a fight we can win only if we are serious about building up the Kingdom of Christ in our own hearts and souls by means of Eucharistic piety and total consecration to Him through Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. If we are assiduous about doing this, we will be empowered from on high to plant the seeds for the conversion of our fellow citizens and our nation to the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ and the Queenship of His Blessed Mother as the fruit of the Triumph of that same Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Nothing is impossible with God. The subordination of men and their nations to the Social Reign of Christ the King is the absolute precondition to the right ordering of human law to the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law, and abortion, as horrible as it is, is merely the consequence of the revolution against the Divine Plan that God instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church that was begun by Martin Luther and taken advantage of to the fullest extent possible for the agents of naturalism found in the various nooks and crannies of Judeo-Masonry.

We must speak Catholic truth clearly and without equivocation, also keeping in mind, however, that we may not see the fruit of our efforts in our lifetimes. We must plant the seeds, however, that might result, please God and by His ineffable grace, in the restoration of Christendom.

Pope Pius XII warned us about the "life of the mother" exception. Why do so few listen?

Then again, so few listen as the conciliar authorities before that they have the right to make "exceptions" to the truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Christ the King entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Snows, 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.

Saints Vincent and Anastasius, pray for us.