No Need For Hidden Cameras To Know The Truth
Thomas A. Droleskey
There is a great deal of focus being placed at this time on efforts by Republicans in the United States House of Representatives to defund the baby-killing behemoth that is Planned Parenthood and related organizations of mass destruction.
What is called the Pence Amendment, named after United States Representative Michael Pence (R-Indiana), was passed by the United States House of Representatives on Friday, February 18, 2011, by a vote of 240 to 185. The amendment seeks to terminate all funding to Planned Parenthood, which was funded to the hilt by the supposedly "pro-life" administration of former President George Walker Bush and former Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney, from Saturday, January 20, 2001, to Tuesday, January 20, 2009, and to restore the Bush the Lesser "Mexico City Policy" that was a sham from the very beginning (see the Appendix A below), seeking as well to end Medicaid funding for surgical abortions in the District of Columbia. The Senate version of the Pence Amendment was defeated by a vote of 56 to 44 in the United States Senate on Ash Wednesday, March 9, 2011, as three supposedly "pro-life" Republican senators (Mike Lee of Utah, Jim De Mint of South Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky) joined with fifty-three Democrats to kill the measure because they did not support a Continuing Resolution to provide interim funding for the Federal government, preferring to vote for a final budget that reflects deeper cuts in Federal spending than either Republican leaders in the House and Senate desire.
It is certainly a laudable thing to seek to defund Planned Parenthood and related organizations, although any restoration of the "Mexico City Policy," described in detail in the appendix below for those of you who have not retained all of the information that is provided in these articles (smile!), would not be any kind of victory for the cause of moral truth that would result in the saving of a single baby from surgical execution.
Leave it to me, however, to me the perennial "ant" at the picnic, spoiling things for others. This is not my intention. Not at all. As I care about root causes and eschew false victories, I do believe it is important to remind the ever dwindling readership of this website that not even all of the readily available information about the evils of Planned Parenthood and related organization will stop the current caesar, Barack Hussein Obama, from vetoing any budget measure that passes with a defunding of Planned Parenthood even if such a measure passes in the United States Senate, which does not appear at all likely. And anyone out there in cyberspace who believes that there is any chance of finding 290 votes in the United States House of Representatives and 67 votes in the United States Senate to override a presidential veto of a budget measure containing a defunding of Planned Parenthood and related organizations is, shall we say, not thinking very clearly.
No, I am not disparaging the efforts of various organizations to "expose" Planned Parenthood. As noble and as well-intentioned as those efforts are, though, we do not need hidden cameras to know the truth about Planned Parenthood or any related organization. The particular truth about the racist and eugenicist founding of the Birth Control League by Margaret Sanger, who exchanged a lively correspondence with Nazi eugenicists in the 1930s, has been documented for decades now (see Appendix B below). Similarly, information concerning the anti-life, anti-family agenda of Planned Parenthood and the Population Council to encourage, if not require, married couples to limit the number of children they could have while systematically undermining the innocence and purity of children has been available for quite a long time (see http://uscl.info/edoc/doc.php?doc_id=49&action=inline). There is really nothing "new" about the fact that Planned Parenthood and related organizations lie about their hideous services. Those who make their money from the shedding of innocent blood are prone to lie in order to keep their blood money flowing. This is not very difficult to discern and accept.
We also know that the government of the United States of America has been in the business of promoting the "population control" agenda of Planned Parenthood for over four decades now, beginning with the administration of President Richard Milhous Nixon:
It is my view that no American woman should be denied
access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition.
I believe, therefore, that we should establish as a national goal the
provision of adequate family planning services within the next five
years to all those who want them but cannot afford them. This we have
the capacity to do.
Clearly, in no circumstances will the activities
associated with our pursuit of this goal be allowed to infringe upon the
religious convictions or personal wishes and freedom of any individual,
nor will they be allowed to impair the absolute right of all
individuals to have such matters of conscience respected by public
In order to achieve this national goal, we will
have to increase the amount we are spending on population and family
planning. But success in this endeavor will not result from higher
expenditures alone. Because the life circumstances and family planning
wishes of those who receive services vary considerably, an effective
program must be more flexible in its design than are many present
efforts. In addition, programs should be better coordinated and more
effectively administered. Under current legislation, a comprehensive
State or local project must assemble a patchwork of funds from many
different sources--a time-consuming and confusing process. Moreover,
under existing legislation, requests for funds for family planning
services must often compete with requests for other deserving health
endeavors. (President Richard Milhous Nixon, Special Message to Congress on the Problems of Population Growth, July 19, 1969.)
In other words, Nixon did not
want the government to force religiously run institutions to adopt
policies to their beliefs. He only wanted every American taxpayer,
regardless of religious convictions, to fund the evil of "family
Nixon's second Secretary of State, Dr. Heinz Alfred
Kissinger, who served succeeded Secretary of State William Pierce Rogers
on September 3, 1973, was a thorough supporter of abortion and
Kissinger, a former aide to the arch supporter of
contraception and abortion, the late adulterous former Governor of New
York and Vice President of the United States, Nelson Aldrich
Rockefeller, and Nixon sought to issue a National Security Study
Memorandum (NSSM-200) in 1974 which would have encouraging countries to
impose a one-child-per family policy in order to receive American
foreign aid. The Nixon Administration authorized the writing of National
Security Study Memorandum 200 in 1974 that was designed to implement a
variety of the “population control” measures that had been recommended
by the Rockefeller Commission, a panel appointed by President Nixon in
1969 following his own Special Message to Congress on July 18, 1969, on
the “necessity” of controlling population growth.
This particular Memorandum, which was the brainchild
of Nixon and Henry Kissinger and presidential counselor Donald D.
Rumsfeld, included such draconian measures as encouraging countries to
develop a one child per family policy and to regulate the control of
food to developing nations. As a result of pressure brought by several
Catholic "cardinals" in the United States, this NSSM was filed away and labeled "classified" until
1989, at which point its terms were released. (See also Foggy Bottom's Bloody Tradition.)
There has been a long, long alliance between the government of the United States of America and the anti-life, anti-family forces of Planned Parenthood, the Population Council, the United States Population Fund (UNFPA) and other such organizations. This is nothing new. Indeed, then President George Walker Bush, as noted in Appendix A below, directed that a subordinate send a letter to United States Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) in 2006 attesting to his personal support for contraception and for Federal funding of it.
Let me reiterate: we do not need hidden cameras to know the truth about Planned Parenthood and related organizations. As noted in a different context a few days ago, We Are Not Suffering From A Lack of Information. We have all of the information about Planned Parenthood and related organizations that we will ever need to point out their unbridled commitment to one abject evil after another. All we really need to know, my friends, is that contraception is in se evil as it denies the very Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage. We do not need hidden cameras or massive amounts of "information" to understand this. Contraception would never be an issue in land informed by the true Faith and submissive to the true Church in all that pertains to the good of souls.
It is that simple. Why not focus on that which is simple?
Yes, let me reiterate, the simple truth that what we are lacking is a country that is united by the true Faith, Catholicism. It is this simple fact that so many people who are "in the fight" forget or believe is inopportune to mention because career politicians would not "respond" to such a message.
We must focus on root causes. We will be doomed to play the role of modern day Sisyphuses if we do not do so.
The Protestant Revolution against the Divine Plan that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted man's return to Him through the Catholic Church is the proximate cause of the acceptance of contraception, which is of its very evil nature a violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, violating also, at least in most instances, the Fifth Commandment as most contraceptives abort and most contraceptives abort most of the time, something that the late Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., never tired of reminding us, and rightly so (see Never Give In To Compromise). (See also Appendix D for the Protestant influence on the spread of contraception. Theological relativism had to lead to moral relativism. Protestantism is of the devil himself.)
How do we expect the populace of a nation steeped in a ready acceptance of contraception that has resulted from the Protestant Revolution and the subsequent triumph of the forces of naturalism represented by Judeo-Masonry to support defunding an organization that provides pills and potions that most of them use themselves?
How do we expect Catholics in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to support the defunding of Planned Parenthood and related organizations when such a large percentage of them use contraceptive pills, potions and devices?
Even if national polling data demonstrates that a majority of Americans support defunding of Planned Parenthood and related organizations, do we really think that large percentages of them will base their vote for president or the House of Representatives or the United States Senate on the basis of the defunding of Planned Parenthood?
What percentage of Americans based their presidential vote principally on opposition to surgical baby-killing in 2008? Around one percent. The pro-abortion United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-Illinois) won fifty-four percent of the Catholic vote to forty-five percent for the partly pro-life/partly pro-abortion United State Senator John Sidney McCain III (R-Arizona).
What percentage of Americans based their vote in the mid-term elections held on November 2, 2010? Around one percent, although the "cultural issues" played a major role in many state legislative races, to be sure. Fifty-four percent of Catholics voted for Republicans to serve United States House of Representatives while forty-five percent voted for Democrats.
Regardless of my own oft-stated judgment concerning the naturalistic farce that is voting, that any percentage of Catholics would consider voting for anyone who was a full-throated supporter of chemical and surgical baby-killing under cover of the civil law is a scandal that is one of those ancillary proofs of the vast corruption wrought by the ethos of Americanism that helped, along with many other false theological currents from Europe, to provide the foundation for the falsehoods of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that have been enshrined in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo paraliturgical service.
The "economy" is what mattered most in 2008 and 2010, and it will be the state of the economy that will decide the national elections to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. Such must be the fate of a nation founded in false naturalistic principles. Material well-being must trump all other considerations in the modern civil state. Orestes Brownson saw this very clearly one hundred sixty-six years ago now (see National Greatness). So did true pope after true pope in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries prior to the death of our last true pope thus far, Pope Pius XII, on October 9, 1958. Why do we have such difficulty recognizing that false ideas lead to bad consequences that can never be retarded by a reliance upon the false ideas that deny that the principal end of civil governance is to foster those conditions in society wherein men can better sanctify and thus save their souls as members of the Catholic Church?
Here are just four papal statements reminding us that materialism can be the only end-result of nations founded on the false principles of naturalism and religious indifferentism:
For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this
time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious
and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach
that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress
altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without
regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at
least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and
false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and
of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the
best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as
attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties,
offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace
may require." From which totally false idea of social government
they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its
effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our
Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of
conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be
legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society;
and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which
should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil,
whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any
of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in
any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think
and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that
"if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there
will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in
the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very
teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and
wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."
And, since where religion has been removed
from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation
repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is
darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is
supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that
some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound
reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is
called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law,
free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order
accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are
accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and
clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of
religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the
purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such
circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the
unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)
This generative and conservative power of the virtues that make for
salvation is therefore lost, whenever morality is dissociated from
divine faith. A system of morality based exclusively on human reason
robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to
the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of
reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But
though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and
even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our
Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself
eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as
a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him
into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not
shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of
the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it
that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations
are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the
increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that
it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its
end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely
secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our
forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and
administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority
of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must
necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and
these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society.
Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken
away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will
strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy,
jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism.
There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is
stained with crime. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error.
Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any
religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to
God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and
preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him,
therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to
honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the
supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of
public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate
object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on
the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is
man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its
course. But as the present order of things is temporary and
subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it
follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way
of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)
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 whole. From 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. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)
Why do we continue to believe that "things" are going to get better as God Himself is blasphemed by the conciliar "pope" and "bishops" and by conciliar presbyters. Do we not think that the crimes against God committed by the conciliarists and the silence about, if not active support of, them by ordinary Catholics in the conciliar structures is not going to be punished by God. Crimes against the Fourth through Tenth Commandments in civil society are made more possible when men who pose, albeit falsely, as shepherds of the Catholic Church commit crimes against the First through Third Commandments. How can it be otherwise?
Indeed, the chastisement of the moment is such that the successes of Margaret Sanger and her successors in the war against the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage have shrunk the indigenous populations of Europe to such an extent that many of the formerly Catholic nations on that continent will have majority populations of Mohammedans within a few decades, if God Himself does not intervene, that is. And the successes of contraception have been such in this country that the non-Caucasian population here is approaching the forty percent mark. This will, as a naturalist who writes for the National Journal notes in a very scholarly article, have a definite impact on the 2012 elections, one that may very well help Barack Hussein Obama to win reelection in some of the swing states (see Majority Minority Nation & 2012). Yes, this is indeed a chastisement.
"Information" is not going to save the day here, ladies and gentleman, although I want to make myself clear once again that it is indeed worthwhile to provide people with facts about Planned Parenthood and related organizations. It is only a conversion of men and their nations to the Catholic Faith that can save the day nothing else.
Obviously, this does not mean that we remain inert and passive in the face of the advance of grave evils. It is nevertheless important to understood root causes and the reality of our particular situation in order not to get so agitated by the events of our day that we become despondent when certain measures designed to retard the advance of various evils do not become enacted into law or when other legislative measures that do advance various evils, such as ObamaCare, do get enacted into law.
Look, ObamaCare was a major issue in the 2010 midterm Congressional elections. What have Congressional Republicans done to reverse ObamaCare? They have punted, preferring to let the issue work its way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America for a decision rather than to force a fight over the defunding of ObamaCare. That's a pretty shallow and cowardly
We are, as noted just above, suffering through a chastisement that cannot be "defeated" in the voting booth. The evils of the day will only be defeated when the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is made manifest, which is why we must first of all be about the business of restoring right order in our own immortal souls, especially during this penitential season of Lent, by spending more and more time, if at all possible, before Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament and by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.
We need to accept every single personal penance that comes our way, thanking God for them as we rejoice in our crosses as they are the means by which we can give honor and glory to the Most Blessed Trinity while seeking to do penance for our sins as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary our Immaculate Queen.
It is to keep us humble that God does not permit us to see much, if any, of the fruit that will flower as a result of the seeds that we seek to plant by whatever merits we earn from patiently enduring the personal, social and ecclesiastical crosses of our times. We are, though, to remember these words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself:
 And the Lord said: If you had faith like to a grain of mustard seed,
you might say to this mulberry tree, Be thou rooted up, and be thou
transplanted into the sea: and it would obey you.  But which of you having a servant ploughing, or feeding cattle, will
say to him, when he is come from the field: Immediately go, sit down to
meat:  And will not rather say to him: Make ready my supper, and gird thyself,
and serve me, whilst I eat and drink, and afterwards thou shalt eat and
drink?  Doth he thank that servant, for doing the things which he commanded him?  I think not. So you also, when you shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do. (Luke 17: 6-10.)
The Bishop Challoner Commentary on the Douay-Rheims Bible explains what Our Lord meant when He called us unprofitable servants for simply doing our duty every day as befits redeemed creatures:
 "Unprofitable servants"... Because our service is of no
profit to our master; and he justly claims it as our bounden duty. But
though we are unprofitable to him, our serving him is not unprofitable
to us; for he is pleased to give by his grace a value to our good works,
which, in consequence of his promise, entitles them to an eternal
That's good enough for me. What about you? There's work to do to convert ourselves, others and our nation. Why murmur about the work given us by Christ the King Himself for us to do in order to save our immortal souls that He redeemed at the cost of shedding every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday?
Remember, today, the Feast of Saint Francis of Paola, who was defender of the truth and a counsellor of Kings Louis XI and Charles VIII of France as he sought to live a life of austerity and severe fasting from any meat products (Saint Francis of Paola lived to be ninety-one years of age, dying on Good Friday, April 2, 1507), and, of course the First Saturday in the month of April, the month of the Holy Face of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Those of us who are privileged to have access to Holy Mass can fulfill Our Lady's First Saturday requests as we receive our Communions of Reparation (see Appendix C below) and then spend fifteen minutes in prayer after the Most Holy Rosary to meditate upon the mysteries contained therein. It is fidelity to Our Lady's Fatima Message that will win the day for Holy Mother Church and the world, and don't let any latter-day Jansenist tell you otherwise!
Our Lady appeared to Jacinta and Francisco Marto and to Lucia dos Santos just a little under seven years after Pope Saint Pius X anticipated the essence of the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart with these telling words:
. . . . For there is no true civilization without a moral civilization,
and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven
truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, 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 Francis of Paola, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
A Reprise of Just Some, Some, Mind You, of the Anti-Life Record of the "Pro-Life" Sham Artist Named George Walker Bush
1) George Walker Bush was proud of the fact that his administration increased the amount of money being spent by our tax dollars on domestic and international "family planning" programs, which, of course, dispatched innocent preborn babies to death by chemical means. Here is a letter sent in behalf of then President Bush to United States Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) on May 25, 2006:
The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Ms. Maloney:
Thank you for your letter to President Bush to request his views on access to birth control. The President has asked that I respond on his behalf. This Administration supports the availability of safe and effective products and services to assist responsible adults in making decisions about preventing or delaying conception.
The Department of Health and Human Services faithfully executes laws establishing Federal programs to provide contraception and family planning services. The Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid are each significant providers of family planning services.
Additionally, this Administration strongly supports teaching abstinence to young people as the only 100 percent effective means of preventing pregnancy, HIV, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
I will provide this response to the other signatories of your letter.
Sincerely yours, John O. Agwunobi, Assistant Secretary for Health (Bush Supports Contraception Letter)
Contraception, of course, of its very evil nature, over and above the fact that most contraceptives serve as abortifacients that kill babies chemically or act to expel fertilized human beings from implanting in the uterus, is denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage.
2) George Walker Bush made announced at 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 9, 2001, that he was going to permitted the use of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research on embryonic human beings whose "lines" were created before the time of his announcement. In so doing, of course, Bush authorized the death of those human beings and at the same time justify the immoral, evil practice of in vitro fertilization while doing nothing to stop the privately funded death and destruction of such embryonic human beings on those "lines" created after the date and time of his announcement:
My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos. A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother. Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories. (Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research.)
This is what I wrote at the time in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos:
Indeed, this whole controversy is the direct result of the rejection of the teaching authority of the Church on matters of faith and morals, as well as on matters of fundamental justice. For it is the rejection of the Deposit of Faith our Lord entrusted to Holy Mother Church that gave rise to the ethos of secularism and religious indifferentism, which became the breeding grounds for secularism and relativism and positivism.
A world steeped in all manner of secular political ideologies comes not only to reject the Deposit of Faith but to make war against all that is contained therein, especially as it relates to matters of the sanctity of marital relations and the stability of the family.
Contraception gave rise to abortion. Contraception also gave rise to the mentality which resulted in artificial conception. If a child's conception can be prevented as suits "partners," then it stands to reason that a child can be conceived "on demand" by using the latest technology science has to offer.
The Church has condemned artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization on a number of occasions as offenses to the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity of marital relations. Yet it is the very rejection of the Church's affirmation of what is contained in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law which leads people, including George W. Bush, into thinking that artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization are morally licit to help couples deal with the problem of childlessness, ignoring the simple little truth that no one is entitled to a child.
Children are gifts from God to be accepted according to His plan for a particular couple. If a married couple cannot have a child on their own, they can adopt -- or they can use their time to be of greater service to the cause of the Church in the evangelization of the true Faith. No one, however, is entitled to a child.
Indeed, the whole tragedy of harvesting the stem cells of living human beings has arisen as a result of discoveries made by scientists experimenting on human beings conceived in fertility clinics to help couples conceive artificially.
That George W. Bush endorses this immoral enterprise (which is big business, by the way) and actually commends it as a way to "help" couples is deplorable.
It is as though he is saying the following: "We are not going to kill any more Jews for their body parts. We will only use the body parts of the Jews we have killed already. After all, we have people who will benefit from this research, do we not?"
Living human embryos do not have the "potential" for life, as Bush asserted on August 9, 2001. They are living human beings! To seek to profit from their destruction is ghoulish, and will only wind up encouraging the private sector to fund all stem-cell research, creating more "stem cell lines" from the destruction of living human beings. ("Preposterous," Christ or Chaos, September, 2001)
Mrs. Judie Brown, the president and founder of the American Life League, wrote a retrospective on Caesar Georgii Bushus Ignoramus's stem cell decision some years later:
You have probably heard that right at the top of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's agenda is the promise of "hope to families with devastating diseases."
What she is promising, of course, is a Congressional action that will result in tons of federal tax dollars being spent on failed research using the dead bodies of embryonic children.
The White House, of course, is saying "the president has made it clear he believes in stem cell research so much -- the administration has done more to finance stem cell research, embryonic and otherwise, than any administration in history."
You see, Bush never really banned research using the bodies of embryonic children, he merely curtailed how much research could be done using tax dollars. So it would appear that everyone ... Democrat and Republican ... is on the same page.
The tragic reality underlying such statements is that over the course of the last 34 years, politicians and a whole lot of pro-lifers have let the principle of personhood slide away into oblivion for the sake of winning elections. And the result is staring us all in the face. (Embryo Wars.)
7) The George Walker Bush version of the "Mexico City" policy, as the "gag" order that prohibited international family planning organizations from killing babies on an "elective" basis on their premises or referring women to abortuaries was called, was fraught with holes and exceptions as to make it an utter sham that convinces the average "pro-life" American that "something" is being done to save lives when the truth of the matter is that Bush's executive order permitted employees of international "family planning" agencies in foreign countries to refer for abortions on their own time in any off-site location of their choosing. In other words, the "Bush 43" "Mexico City" policy permitted an employee of the International Planned Parenthood chapter in Nairobi, Kenya, for example to say, "Look, there are things I can't tell you now. Meet me at the Nairobi McDonald's after I get out of work. I can tell you more then." The employee was then free to speak frankly about surgical abortion, to recommend the killing of a child as the only "sensible" option, to recommend a specific baby-killer and a specific place for the baby to be killed.
Here are the specific conditions outlined by the Bush executive order that re instituted the "Mexico City" policy in 2001:
1) American taxpayer funds are only denied to organizations that promote abortion as a means of "family planning." This means that direct counseling in behalf of abortion can be done if a woman claims some that she falls into one of the three usual "exceptions" (rape, incest, alleged threats to her life) for seeking an abortion.
2) Employees of international "family planning" organizations may meet with their clients off of the premises of those organizations to counsel them to use abortion as a means of "family planning" and to direct them where to kill their babies surgically.
3) International "family planning" organizations can propagate in behalf of abortion abroad as long as they "segregate" their funds. That is, such organizations must use "private" funds for promoting abortion, not the monies provided by the Federal government of the United States of America. There is, however, no accounting oversight to determine how these funds are "segregated," if they are in fact "segregated" at all.
Moreover, as noted above, the domestic and international "family planning" programs that were funded to the hilt by the administration of George Walker Bush and Richard N. Cheney killed untold hundreds of thousands of children each year by means of chemical abortifacients. Mrs. Judie Brown, the founder and President of the American Life League, explained it as follows on December 18, 2007:
While many are celebrating the Congressional passage of a bill that contains the Mexico City Policy, there are those of us who are not so quick to throw a party.
The policy was contained in a piece of legislation that also provides an increase in funding for Planned Parenthood. But that's not really the worst of it.
The Mexico City Policy contains exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother ... standard fare for the pro-life politicos these days. The problem is, they fail to point out that the Mexico City Policy does not and cannot prohibit our tax dollars from paying for abortion; it can only prevent our tax dollars from paying for some abortions. Why, you may ask, did I use the word "some"?
Well, the Mexico City Policy will pay for surgical abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother in addition to paying for chemical abortions caused by RU-486, the morning-after pill and the various birth control methods that can cause abortion.
Further, it is not clear what happens when an organization agrees to refrain from paying for abortion with U.S. tax dollars, but chooses to use those dollars to pay for other "services," thus freeing up other money to subsidize the killing.
In other words, the Mexico City Policy is fraught with problems that result in death.
So when some claim that America is no longer an "exporter of death," they are really not being totally honest with the public. America is still the number one exporter and subsidizer of preborn child killing, period. Of that there is no doubt. (AMERICA'S DEADLY EXPORT)
3) George Walker Bush's Food and Drug Administration not only did not reverse the Clinton Food and Drug and Administration to market RU-496, the French abortion pill, the human pesticide. The Bush administration fully funded the use of RU-486 in both domestic and international "family planning" programs. Moreover, George Walker Bush's Food and Drug Administration approved over-the-counter sales of the so-called "Plan B" "emergency contraceptive" that is, of course, an abortifacient:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced approval of Plan B, a contraceptive drug, as an over-the-counter (OTC) option for women aged 18 and older. Plan B is often referred to as emergency contraception or the "morning after pill." It contains an ingredient used in prescription birth control pills--only in the case of Plan B, each pill contains a higher dose and the product has a different dosing regimen. Like other birth control pills, Plan B has been available to all women as a prescription drug. When used as directed, Plan B effectively and safely prevents pregnancy. Plan B will remain available as a prescription-only product for women age 17 and under.
Duramed, a subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals, will make Plan B available with a rigorous labeling, packaging, education, distribution and monitoring program. In the CARE (Convenient Access, Responsible Education) program Duramed commits to:
- Provide consumers and healthcare professionals with labeling and education about the appropriate use of prescription and OTC Plan B, including an informational toll-free number for questions about Plan B;
- Ensure that distribution of Plan B will only be through licensed drug wholesalers, retail operations with pharmacy services, and clinics with licensed healthcare practitioners, and not through convenience stores or other retail outlets where it could be made available to younger women without a prescription;
- Packaging designed to hold both OTC and prescription Plan B. Plan B will be stocked by pharmacies behind the counter because it cannot be dispensed without a prescription or proof of age; and
- Monitor the effectiveness of the age restriction and the safe distribution of OTC Plan B to consumers 18 and above and prescription Plan B to women under 18.
Today's action concludes an extensive process that included obtaining expert advice from a joint meeting of two FDA advisory committees and providing an opportunity for public comment on issues regarding the scientific and policy questions associated with the application to switch Plan B to OTC use. Duramed's application raised novel issues regarding simultaneously marketing both prescription and non-prescription Plan B for emergency contraception, but for different populations, in a single package.
The agency remains committed to a careful and rigorous scientific process for resolving novel issues in order to fulfill its responsibility to protect the health of all Americans. (FDA Approves Over-the-Counter Access for Plan B for Women 18 and Over .)
Where was the outrage from Catholics when this decision was announced? Where were the e-mails sent out in a frenzy to oppose this decision? Where were the voices to denounce George Walker Bush for what he was, a consummate "pro-life" fraud from beginning to end? Where? Where? Indeed, I have met Catholics, both in the clergy and laity alike, who, upon being informed of this fact, shrug their shoulders and say, "Gore or Kerry would have done worse. Obama is doing worse now " And this is supposed to exculpate one from not have denounced Bush at the time did did these terrible things? Reprehensible. Absolutely reprehensible.
4) The partial, conditional ban on partial-birth abortions remains little more than a political ruse designed to convince "pro-life" voters that something substantive was being done to stop the killing of babies. There is a needless "life of the mother" exception in the ban, meaning that babies are still being killed by this method if it can be claimed that a mother's life is endangered. Moreover, killing a baby by which is termed medically by the euphemism of "intact dilation and extraction" is no more morally heinous than killing a baby by any other method at any other age. Killing a baby by means of a suction abortion or by a saline solution abortion or by a dilation and evacuation abortion (where the baby is carved up by a butcher inside of the birth canal) is no less morally heinous than partial-birth abortion. Each is the same crime before God: willful murder, one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
Also, as I have pointed out repeatedly since this issue came to forefront of public debate over fifteen years ago, there are two methods--the hysterotomy and dilation and evacuation--by which babies may be killed in the later stages of pregnancy. These methods can still be used to kill babies in the later stages of pregnancy with complete legal impunity. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy specifically referred to these two methods when upholding the constitutionality of the partial-birth abortion ban in Gonzales v. Carhart:
D&E and intact D&E are not the only second-trimester abortion methods. Doctors also may abort a fetus through medical induction. The doctor medicates the woman to induce labor, and contractions occur to deliver the fetus. Induction, which unlike D&E should occur in a hospital, can last as little as 6 hours but can take longer than 48. It accounts for about five percent of second-trimester abortions before 20 weeks of gestation and 15 percent of those after 20 weeks. Doctors turn to two other methods of second-trimester abortion, hysterotomy and hysterectomy, only in emergency situations because they carry increased risk of complications. In a hysterotomy, as in a cesarean section, the doctor removes the fetus by making an incision through the abdomen and uterine wall to gain access to the uterine cavity. A hysterectomy requires the removal of the entire uterus. These two procedures represent about .07% of second-trimester abortions. Nat. Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 467; Planned Parenthood, supra, at 962-963. (Text of the Court's Opinion; see also An Illusion of a Victory.)
5) George Walker Bush's first Solicitor General of the United States of America, Theodore Olson, submitted the following brief to the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Joseph Scheidler v. National Organization for Women to argue that the sidewalk counseling activities of pro-life champion Joseph Scheidler, the founder of the Pro-Life Action Network, constituted "banditry" under terms of the Hobbs Act of 1946 as he was depriving legitimate business, abortuaries, of their income. Can anyone say "pro-life fraud," thank you very much?
"It is irrelevant under the Hobbs Act whether the defendant is motivated by an economic purpose, as the lower courts that have addressed the issue have correctly recognized. The text of the Hobbs Act contains no requirement of an economic motive. As explained, when a person uses force or threats to compel a business to cede control over what goods or services the business will offer, the defendant obtains the victim's property by acquiring the power to decide how the business will be conducted. That conclusion holds true whether or not the defendant has a profit-making objective.
"A contrary conclusion would allow a defendant to hijack legitimate businesses by wrongful acts of violence, threats, or fear simply because the defendant had a non-economic objective. That result would defeat the government's strong interest in protecting interstate commerce under the Hobbs Act by prosecuting extortionists who are motivated by causes other than financial gain. For instance, an economic motive requirement would immunize a defendant from prosecution under the Hobbs Act even though the defendant threatened acts of murder against a bank that loaned money to foreign nations whose policies the defendant opposed, against a retail store that sold products to which the defendant objected, or against any other business that used its land or other valuable property for a purpose that the defendant found unpalatable.
"Those acts have deleterious effects on interstate commerce, whether or not the defendant directs the use of such property for his own financial gain. To exempt such conduct from the Hobbs Act would retreat from the Act's purpose to 'protect the right of citizens of this country to market their products without any interference from lawless bandits.' In sum, when the defendant uses wrongful force or threats to wrest control over the victim's business decisions, the defendant obtains that property interest." (Brief of United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson in the case of Joseph Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, December 4, 2002.)
This could go on interminably. Although wearying, I have compiled this list yet again because I know that people forget and need to be reminded of basic facts that are always fresh in my mind as this my area of study and of active personal involvement for a long time. It is important to keep these facts in mind, especially to realize that Theodore Olson, who is now helping clients to reverse California Proposition 8 (see Meathead Meets Meathead), believed that saving babies from death was akin to stealing money from baby-killers in violation of interstate commerce! He made this argument in behalf of the "pro-life" administration of President George Walker Bush and Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney.
The fact that the current completely pro-abortion team of President Barack Hussein Obama and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., are doing more terrible things should not make us pine for the "good old days" of Bush-Cheney. Those days were not so "good" for preborn babies in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world, to say nothing for innocent lives in Iraq and Afghanistan who were subject to indiscriminate American bombing or other military action and/or who have suffered from the destabilization of their countries by the American presence there.
The Goals of Planned Parenthood as Contained in Margaret Sanger's Own Words
"I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's
branch of the Ku Klux Klan...I saw through the door dim figures parading
with banners and illuminated crosses...I was escorted to the platform,
was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple
illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen
invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret
Sanger: An Autobiography, p.366)
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932
On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12
On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:
"This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly
and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young
minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable -
these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who
indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the
cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger
generation." Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro
population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more
rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for
eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included
in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory
sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107
A woman's physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11
On the Catholic Church's view of contraception:
"...enforce SUBJUGATION by TURNING WOMAN INTO A MERE INCUBATOR." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.
"I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is
some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine." What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger (Max Maisel, Publisher, 1915) [Jesus said: "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep... for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed (happy) are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts which never gave suck." (Luke 23:24)]
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923) (Margaret Sanger Quotes.)
To Make Reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on First Saturdays
There are five specific offenses against the
Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for which the Five First
Saturdays devotion was instituted, explained by Our Blessed Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ Himself to Sister Lucia on Ascension Thursday, May
- Attacks upon Mary's Immaculate Conception
Attacks against her Perpetual Virginity
- Attacks upon her Divine Maternity and the refusal to accept her as the Mother of all mankind
- For those who try to publicly implant in children's hearts indifference, contempt and even hatred of this Immaculate Mother
- For those who insult her directly in her sacred images.
Anglican Protestantism and Contraception
Resolution 15 of the Seventh Lambeth Conference, 1930
The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit
or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian
principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from
intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and
self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in
those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit
or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for
avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods
may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same
Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of
the use of any methods of conception control from motives of
selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience. (Resolution 15 - The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage.)
American Protestants and Contraception
March 22, 1931 Editorial, "Forgetting Religion," in The Washington Post
Droleskey foreword: As noted in several commentaries
on this site, the dawn of radio programming began to attack the
regularity of prayer in the family and interrupting family patterns of
meals, conversation and sleep. Contraception and divorce were promoted
with abandon, although there was a bit of resistance to contraception
even such a secular source as The Washington Post, which
editorialized as follows on March 21, 1931, following a report issued by
the so-called Federal Council of Churches in America that called for
the use of a certain type of contraceptive between married couples in
"hard" cases," a report that following in the wake of the decision of
the Anglican Lambeth Committee to endorse contraception in 1930 (a move
that promoted Pope Pius XI to issue Casti Connubii on December 31,
The Federal Council of Churches in
America some time ago appointed a committee on "marriage and the home,"
which has now submitted a report favoring a "careful and restrained" use
of contraceptive devices to regulate the size of families. The
committee seems to have a serious struggle with itself in adhering to
Christian doctrine while at the same time indulging in amateurish
excursions in the field of economics, legislation, medicine, and
sociology. The resulting report is a mixture of religious obscurantism
and modernistic materialism which departs from the ancient standards of
religion and yet fails to blaze a path toward something better.
The mischief that would result from an
an attempt to place the stamp of church approval upon any scheme for
"regulating the size of families" is evidently quite beyond the
comprehension of this pseudo-scientific committee. It is
impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of
marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of
human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the
Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls.
Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried
into effect would lead to the death-knell of marriage as a holy
institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage
indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized
contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous. If the
churches are to become organizations for political and 'scientific'
propaganda they should be honest and reject the Bible, scoff at Christ
as an obsolete and unscientific teacher, and strike out boldly as
champions of politics and science as substitutes for the old-time
religion. ("Forgetting Religion," Editorial, The Washington Post,
March 22, 1932. I have given you part of this quote in the past. This
is the full editorial. I had to purchase the editorial in order to do
so. No expense is spared, good and few readers, to bring you these