Time Magazine: Why Newt Gingrich Converted to Catholicism

Newt Gingrich has eagerly embraced the role of political Catholic, taking on liberal Catholics and President Obama
By Amy Sullivan
Monday, August 24, 2009

Visitors to the Basilica of the National Shrine in northeast Washington often do a double take when they see Newt Gingrich and his familiar shock of white hair slip into a pew for the noon Mass on Sundays. The former Speaker of the House is known for many things, but religious zeal is not one of them. In fact, the social conservatives who fueled his Republican revolution in 1994 often complained about Gingrich's lack of interest in issues like abortion or school prayer.

This past spring, however, after several decades as a nominal Southern Baptist, Gingrich converted to Catholicism. With the fervor of a convert, he has embraced the role of defending both his new faith and religious liberty. In his 2006 book, Rediscovering God in America, Gingrich lambasted what he calls the "secular effort to reject any sense of a spiritual life as mattering." And days before he officially joined the Catholic Communion on March 29, he was among the first to criticize the University of Notre Dame for inviting Barack Obama to speak, Twittering (of course): "It is sad to see Notre dame invite President Obama to give the commencement address since his policies are so anti-Catholic."

Gingrich's spiritual awakening has struck more than a few political observers as a bit of positioning for the GOP nomination in 2012. (In the first half of 2009, the former Speaker raked in $8.1 million through his political committee, far outpacing his party rivals.) While he wouldn't be the first to experience a conversion on the road to Des Moines, there are simpler ways of understanding the new godly Gingrich. American Catholicism has been losing members at a remarkable rate; an April 2009 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life report found that for every person who joins the Catholic Church, four others leave. But a steady stream of high-profile political conservatives have bucked this trend by converting in the past decade, including columnist Robert Novak, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback and CNBC host Larry Kudlow.

Unlike Evangelicals, for whom conversion is often an emotional, born-again experience, Catholic converts tend to make more of a considered decision to join a theological and intellectual tradition. "Conservatives are especially receptive to the promise of there being some capital-T truth that one can embed one's convictions in," says Damon Linker, a former editor of the Catholic journal First Things.

Gingrich describes the appeal of Catholicism for him in just these terms. "When you have 2,000 years of intellectual depth surrounding you," he told me on a recent summer morning, "it's comforting." There's also cachet in conservative political circles to being Catholic. Until their deaths in the past year, Father Richard John Neuhaus and National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr. presided over an intellectual haven for conservatives put off by Evangelicals who rail against experts and élites.

Catholicism offers Gingrich not just a strong religious tradition and community. It also gives him peace at home. His wife Callista is a lifelong Catholic who sings in the basilica's professional choir. After the two married in 2000, Gingrich found himself dragged to church whenever they traveled — "she's adamant that we go to Mass" — and started attending services at the basilica to hear Callista sing.

It's not surprising that a man of Gingrich's ambitions would be drawn to the grandeur of worship at the basilica. Incense hangs in the air as the choir's descant reverberates off the highly polished walls of the Greek-style interior. "Isn't it just beautiful?" Gingrich asks. "That's part of what happened to me." (Her husband, Callista says, is an enthusiastic but limited singer: "He makes a joyful noise.")

Gingrich prepared for his conversion with Monsignor Walter Rossi, the Basilica's rector. Because the institution is not a parish church, Gingrich's baptism took place at St. Joseph's on Capitol Hill, where Robert Kennedy attended morning Mass when he served in the Senate. Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl performed the ceremony, with his predecessor Cardinal Theodore McCarrick in attendance. Afterward, a small group of Catholic luminaries celebrated with a dinner at Café Milano in Georgetown.

He may march to the beat of St. Peter these days, but Newt is still Newt. "I don't think of myself as intensely religious," he says. Asked about Pope Benedict XVI's latest encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, the first economic and social statement of his papacy, Gingrich admits he hasn't yet read the whole thing but opines that the parts he has examined are "largely correct." And before Mass one July Sunday, Gingrich took a seat near the aisle and bowed his head. But he wasn't praying. Instead, the famously voracious reader was sneaking in a few pages of a novel until the service began.

Doctors Formulate Prescription to Fix Broken Health Care System

Members of GOP Doctors Caucus include:

John Boozman,
Charles Boustany, M.D. (Cardiovascular Surgeon),
Michael Burgess, M.D.,
Paul Broun, M.D.,
Bill Cassidy, M.D. & Professor of Medicine,
John Fleming,M.D.,
Phil Gingrey,M.D.(PRO-LIFE, OB-GYN),
John Linder,(Dentist),
Tim Murphy, PhD (Child Psychologis),
Ron Paul, M.D. (OB-GYN),
Tom Price, M.D. (Orthopaedic Surgeon)
Phil Roe, M.D. (OB-GYN),
Mike Simpson(Dentist)

Rep. Fleming has offered a resolution (H.R. 615) that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan (which they are curiosly exempt from) to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan. Flemings rightly says,

"If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives."

Tell Congress:
You First! If you vote for a Government-run Health Care plan, then, promise to use the plan!

Sign the Petition Today! visit: http://www.fleming.house.gov/

To date: 0 Dems and 60 Republicans have signed the resolution!

"Are You People Insane?"

Daniel Hannan, a member of the British Parliament, articulates with utter clarity, the lessons Americans can learn from UK's socialized healthcare system. Consider this a warning of what's to come if the Bama-Pelosi-Reid-Rahm regime gets their way.

Democrat Congressman Yells at Doctor (also a Dem) for Asking Tough Questions on Healthcare

"You want a meeting with me on health care? I'll give it to you," shouted Georgia Congressman David Scott (D-13th) at Dr. Hill, who, is, in fact, one of Scott's constituants.
Then, Scott proceeded to shout at all those present at the town hall meeting,
"Not a single one of you, had the decency to call my office and set up a meeting."
Oh, on the contrary -- Dr. Hill had called Scott's office, several times, and was told, "no." So, he decided to attend a town hall meeting. And this is the ugly response he got for asking the tough questions on health care.


UPDATE: Today (Monday, August 10) Congressman Scott appeared on CNN. Interestingly, CNN contacted Dr. Hill to have him call into the show so that Scott could finally answer his question. At around 5:00 the interview becomes rather awkward:



(via: HotAir)

Sarah Palin: Obama's Health Plan is Downright Evil!

Statement on the Current Health Care Debate
August 7, 2009

As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.

We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.

- Sarah Palin

Watch Rep. Bachmann's AMAZING & ENLIGHTENING speech here:

Voters Send a Message to Washington and Get an Ugly Response

'You Are Terrifying Us'
By Peggy Noonan
The Wall Street Journal

We have entered uncharted territory in the fight over national health care. There’s a new tone in the debate, and it’s ugly. At the moment the Democrats are looking like something they haven’t looked like in years, and that is: desperate.

They must know at this point they should not have pushed a national health-care plan. A Democratic operative the other day called it “Hillary’s revenge.” When Mrs. Clinton started losing to Barack Obama in the primaries 18 months ago, she began to give new and sharper emphasis to her health-care plan. Mr. Obama responded by talking about his health-care vision. He won. Now he would push what he had been forced to highlight: Health care would be a priority initiative. The net result is falling support for his leadership on the issue, falling personal polls, and the angry town-hall meetings that have electrified YouTube.

In his first five months in office, Mr. Obama had racked up big wins—the stimulus, children’s health insurance, House approval of cap-and-trade. But he stayed too long at the hot table. All the Democrats in Washington did. They overinterpreted the meaning of the 2008 election, and didn’t fully take into account how the great recession changed the national mood and atmosphere.

And so the shock on the faces of Congressmen who’ve faced the grillings back home. And really, their shock is the first thing you see in the videos. They had no idea how people were feeling. Their 2008 win left them thinking an election that had been shaped by anti-Bush, anti-Republican, and pro-change feeling was really a mandate without context; they thought that in the middle of a historic recession featuring horrific deficits, they could assume support for the invention of a huge new entitlement carrying huge new costs.

The passions of the protesters, on the other hand, are not a surprise. They hired a man to represent them in Washington. They give him a big office, a huge staff and the power to tell people what to do. They give him a car and a driver, sometimes a security detail, and a special pin showing he’s a congressman. And all they ask in return is that he see to their interests and not terrify them too much. Really, that’s all people ask. Expectations are very low. What the protesters are saying is, “You are terrifying us.”


What has been most unsettling is not the congressmen’s surprise but a hard new tone that emerged this week. The leftosphere and the liberal commentariat charged that the town hall meetings weren’t authentic, the crowds were ginned up by insurance companies, lobbyists and the Republican National Committee. But you can’t get people to leave their homes and go to a meeting with a congressman (of all people) unless they are engaged to the point of passion. And what tends to agitate people most is the idea of loss—loss of money hard earned, loss of autonomy, loss of the few things that work in a great sweeping away of those that don’t.

People are not automatons. They show up only if they care.

What the town-hall meetings represent is a feeling of rebellion, an uprising against change they do not believe in. And the Democratic response has been stunningly crude and aggressive. It has been to attack. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, accused the people at the meetings of “carrying swastikas and symbols like that.” (Apparently one protester held a hand-lettered sign with a “no” slash over a swastika.) But they are not Nazis, they’re Americans. Some of them looked like they’d actually spent some time fighting Nazis.

Then came the Democratic Party charge that the people at the meetings were suspiciously well-dressed, in jackets and ties from Brooks Brothers. They must be Republican rent-a-mobs. Sen. Barbara Boxer said on MSNBC’s “Hardball” that people are “storming these town hall meetings,” that they were “well dressed,” that “this is all organized,” “all planned,” to “hurt our president.” Here she was projecting. For normal people, it’s not all about Barack Obama.

The Democratic National Committee chimed in with an incendiary Web video whose script reads, “The right wing extremist Republican base is back.” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse issued a statement that said the Republicans “are inciting angry mobs of . . . right wing extremists” who are “not reflective of where the American people are.”

But most damagingly to political civility, and even our political tradition, was the new White House email address to which citizens are asked to report instances of “disinformation” in the health-care debate: If you receive an email or see something on the Web about health-care reform that seems “fishy,” you can send it to flag@whitehouse.gov. The White House said it was merely trying to fight “intentionally misleading” information.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas on Wednesday wrote to the president saying he feared that citizens’ engagement could be “chilled” by the effort. He’s right, it could. He also accused the White House of compiling an “enemies list.” If so, they’re being awfully public about it, but as Byron York at the Washington Examiner pointed, the emails collected could become a “dissident database.”

All of this is unnecessarily and unhelpfully divisive and provocative. They are mocking and menacing concerned citizens. This only makes a hot situation hotter. Is this what the president wants? It couldn’t be. But then in an odd way he sometimes seems not to have fully absorbed the awesome stature of his office. You really, if you’re president, can’t call an individual American stupid, if for no other reason than that you’re too big. You cannot allow your allies to call people protesting a health-care plan “extremists” and “right wing,” or bought, or Nazi-like, either. They’re citizens. They’re concerned. They deserve respect.

The Democrats should not be attacking, they should be attempting to persuade, to argue for their case. After all, they have the big mic. Which is what the presidency is, the big mic.

And frankly they ought to think about backing off. The president should call in his troops and his Congress and announce a rethinking. There are too many different bills, they’re all a thousand pages long, no one has time to read them, no one knows what’s going to be in the final one, the public is agitated, the nation’s in crisis, the timing is wrong, we’ll turn to it again—but not now. We’ll take a little longer, ponder every aspect, and make clear every complication.

You know what would happen if he did this? His numbers would go up. Even Congress’s would. Because they’d look responsive, deliberative and even wise. Discretion is the better part of valor.

Absent that, and let’s assume that won’t happen, the health-care protesters have to make sure they don’t get too hot, or get out of hand. They haven’t so far, they’ve been burly and full of debate, with plenty of booing. This is democracy’s great barbaric yawp. But every day the meetings seem just a little angrier, and people who are afraid—who have been made afraid, and left to be afraid—can get swept up. As this column is written, there comes word that John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO has announced he’ll be sending in union members to the meetings to counter health care’s critics.

Somehow that doesn’t sound like a peace initiative.

It’s going to be a long August, isn’t it? Let’s hope the uncharted territory we’re in doesn’t turn dark.


Read Peggy Noonan’s previous columns.

Click here to order her new book, Patriotic Grace.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peggy Noonan is a columnist for The Wall Street Journal whose work appears weekly in the Journal's Weekend Edition and on OpinionJournal.com.

She is the author of eight books on American politics and culture. The most recent, "Patriotic Grace," was published in October 2008. Her first book, the bestseller "What I Saw at the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan Era," was published in 1990.

She was a special assistant to the president in the White House of Ronald Reagan. Before that she was a producer at CBS News in New York. In 1978 and 1979 she was an adjunct professor of journalism at New York University.

DNC Releases Ad Attacking Concerned Citizens Who Oppose Obamacare, Record Spending & Debt

Voice your opinion against out-of-control gov't spending and a healthcare bill that gov't officials haven't even read and we are called "Angry," "Swastika-wearing" "Mobs," by the Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Emmanuel regime. One good thing about all this craziness is that the truth about our corrupt Gov't is coming out. Undoubtedly, Obama will be a one-term president. That's the change I'm hoping for, anyway.



More craziness! ACORN bossing the police around--telling them to remove people who disagree with Obamacare. I cannot believe this is happening in our country!


MUST READ ARTICLE: Complete Information about Obamacare

"I would rather save my soul than vote on the health care bill," says Jesuit-trained Catholic congressman

New Orleans, La., Aug 3, 2009 / 02:06 pm (CNA).- Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao, (R-New Orleans), the first Vietnamese-American congressman and a Catholic, announced this past weekend that, because of the “stealth mandate” for abortion still present in the Health Care bill, he prefers to “save his soul” rather than vote in favor of it.

Cao, the only member of the Louisiana House delegation who had not weighed in on where he stands on the health reform bill, told the Times-Picayune on Saturday that he cannot support any bill that permits public money to be spent on abortion.

“At the end of the day if the health care reform bill does not have strong language prohibiting the use of federal funding for abortion, then the bill is really a no-go for me,” said Cao, who spent time in formation to be a Jesuit priest.

“Being a Jesuit, I very much adhere to the notion of social justice,” Cao said. “I do fully understand the need of providing everyone with access to health care, but to me personally, I cannot be privy to a law that will allow the potential of destroying thousands of innocent lives,” he explained to the Louisiana newspaper.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced that Cao will be one of seven Republican members of Congress targeted with radio ads that will play on radio stations with largely African-American audiences, urging him to support Obama's health reform efforts.

“I know that voting against the health care bill will probably be the death of my political career,” Cao said, “but I have to live with myself, and I always reflect on the phrase of the New Testament, ‘How does it profit a man's life to gain the world but to lose his soul.’”

Cao is the first native of Vietnam to serve in Congress and the first Republican to serve in his district since 1890. He won in a district that usually votes overwhelmingly Democratic.

The poorest member of Louisiana's delegation, and a devout Roman Catholic, Cao served as a board member for Mary Queen of Vietnam Catholic Church's Community Development Corporation which assists Vietnamese-Americans with hurricane relief, and is a member of the National Advisory Council of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Cao also told the Times-Picayune that he is still undecided about the merits of including a public option in any health reform redesign. He believes that it may ultimately lead to the destruction of the private insurance market and a "government takeover" of health insurance.

"The View" Silenced by guest Michelle Malkin

(Newsbusters)It is not often that the women on “The View” are silenced by their own guest, but Michelle Malkin did exactly that when she appeared on the show August 2. Malkin’s new book, “Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Kronies” was bound to be attacked by the left-left leaning panel of “The View,” but Malkin did not give them an opportunity.



Malkin dominated the conversation from the beginning with facts and examples. When asked by Elisabeth Hasselbeck about the corruption her book uncovers, she had several examples. “I scoured from top to bottom,” and started to list some of the more known corruption scandals within the Obama administration, until Joy Behar interrupted and asked, “And there was nothing like that in the Bush administration?”

But Malkin obviously came ready to take charge. “Of course there was. And if you are familiar with my work, Joy, you know that I have been at the forefront of criticizing cronyism, corruption in the Republican Party. I was the largest voice against Harriet Myers and Michael Brown and cronyism at DHS. But guess what? News flash. George Bush is not in office anymore. And it's time for the American public to reckon with the fact that what they were sold was a huge bill of goods.”

Behar was barely able to get a word in, as Malkin continued to make her point. “I filled 400 pages over the last six months to talk about every broken promise. Transparency, accountability, ethics. And I think that there is a turning point in this country, and we’ve seen it over the last several months, and particularly over the last week, Joy, as people are going back to their home districts during this recess, and holding accountable not just Barack Obama but the Democrat majority for failing to deliver.”

Behar wasn’t the only one Malkin shot down. In answer to a question posed by Whoopi Goldberg, Malkin, first called her out for misrepresenting the book and Whoopi admitted she hadn’t written the question. Then Malkin explained what she meant by corruption. “What I'm saying, Whoopi, is that you have to measure this administration, the principal foremost agent of everything fresh and clean, hope and change, isn't that what we were sold this last campaign? And he road in on a horse, a white horse, taller than any other in recent memory…you can talk to any young person who voted for Obama, they thought they were going to get something fresh and clean. We got Tom Daschle, We got Bill Richardson. We got Joe Biden.”

Malkin outlined some of the specific cases of corruption in the Obama administration and told the audience, “And I want people to know that I dedicated this book to whistle blowers. It's not just us crazy right wingers who are calling attention to this. I wouldn't have been able to write this book if it wasn't for people who were knee-deep in the trenches working for Obama who now have buyer’s remorse because they understand that hope and change was a lie.”

Behar, of course, needed to get her two cents in, “But did you have the same feeling about blowing the whistle during the Bush administration when we went into a war that was uncalled for? To say the least.”

Malkin, however, stuck to her principles while at the same time pointing out yet another Obama lie, “Well I believed in the mission and I still believe in the mission in Iraq. And the fact is…despite Obama's promise that we weren't going to get another four years of the Bush administration, guess what? He's not only continuing the surge in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan.”

Malkin left the liberal voices of “The View” in shock, and scored a big win for conservatives.

**Get her book HERE**

Shocking! Obama Admits His Goal is to Eliminate Private, Employer Insurance

More double talk from The Bama. Really, you've gotta see this to believe it!



Please folks, we must utilize this time while the children of Congress are at recess, to go to as many townhall meetings as possible and make our voices heard! We have got to stop this madness!

"Do not fall for Sol Alinsky style tricks," warns Catholic Jesuit Priest, Fr. Mitch Pacwa

By Father Mitch Pacwa, S.J.

I recently became upset when Newsweek's "Without A Doubt" feature published an article by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend entitled, "Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope does."

She commends President Obama's "pragmatic approach to divisive policy" and his "social justice agenda." Meanwhile, she claims that the positions of the pope, the bishops and the pro-life activists do not. In fact, Townsend asserts that the Chicago community organizer president could teach the pope a lot about a Catholic approach to politics and the ability to listen to other people's points of view with empathy. Townsend continues her rant against the Church's teachings on various issues regarding human sexuality - contraception, abortion, homosexual unions and women priests, decrying the Church's unwillingness to listen to other points of view while ignoring the various documents on these issues which were written with an intent compassion for the people to whom they were addressed. Townsend shows no indication that she has listened to the Church's teachings on these topics, though the documents are easily acquired in print or on the Internet.

I recognize the community organizer approach that Townsend commends in this piece. I learned Sol Alinsky style of community organizing as a novice in Chicago when President Obama was a little boy living in Jakarta, Indonesia. Mr. Tom Gaudette, an associate of Sol Alinsky, trained a number of us Jesuits. I was the youngest man in the group, and I was certainly not well developed in the practice of organizing, but I tried my best in COUP - the acronym for Community of United People - on Chicago's near West Side. Most of the folks were African Americans trying to get their public housing projects brought up to city codes; I especially made contact with the Mexican community near Racine and Taylor streets, a line of housing between Italian residents and the public housing projects. I was particularly drawn to work with a street gang, which saw a lot of gang fights in the year I worked there. In fact, I eventually had to leave the area after having seen a friend of mine killed: they made him kneel down and shot him through the head; they merely beat me up.

Despite the trauma, I never forgot the lessons I learned about Alinsky's community organizing. The key to starting an organization was to find an issue that united the people. The issue should be small enough to win a victory, but large enough to matter to the folks. Second, after choosing the issue we had to identify an enemy the community could recognize as the personification of the issue. Usually this was some politician or businessman. Third, an action had to be designed by which the people could attack the enemy and force his or her hand on the issue, thereby giving the folks a victory. That would motivate them to take on bigger and more important issues, while the leaders among the people could emerge. This was a means of bringing power to the people.


Townsend certainly understands these tactics, as does President Obama. Notice how she has focused on issues of human sexuality, since these concern the most intimate areas of any person's life. People feel these issues quite strongly, so it would be popular to take them on. Second, she identifies the enemies who personify the problem: the Pope, the bishops and the pro-life activists. She develops the strategy of making popular popes - John Paul II, who motivated Paul VI to promulgate Humani Vitae, which continued the age old Christian rejection of artificial birth control and abortion, and Benedict XVI, whom she portrays as a man sheltered within the Roman Curia who is more concerned with papal power than with love of the people. Her approach reminds me of the battle cries after Humani Vitae: "I don't want the pope in my bedroom." My response is: "You flatter yourself; he does not want to be in there, either. But the pope will insist that God is Lord of the sexual realm, including everyone's bedroom."


Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, President Barack Hussein Obama, and a number of others will arise to make the pope and bishops into our enemies. This will be especially important as the politicians begin pushing the end of life and the prevention of life as money saving programs in the health care proposals. Already Speaker Nancy Pelosi has proposed three hundred million dollars for condoms as a part of this congress' first stimulus bill - a rather odd idea for a bill focused on stimulating the economy. However, her reason was to prevent births as a money saver for the states. That is one of the ways she sees the birth of children. There will be many more proposals for taxpayer funding of abortions and euthanasia, since early infancy and end of life are the most expensive periods in regard to health care. The proposed health care bill in the House of Representatives will require the elderly to consult with their doctors every five years about alternatives to long term care. The doctors may be required to inform the elderly about assisted suicide, or at least the need to refrain from long term, expensive procedures. "Grandma may just need to take a pain pill," President Obama told us in a town meeting recently.


Of course, Kennedy Townsend and Obama want to make the pope and bishops into our enemies. I, however, ask why? Do the politicians fear the Magisterium's authority to teach us the holiness of human sexuality, the sacredness of Matrimony, or the sanctity of the right to life which comes from God our Creator and never from the state? Do they fear the goodness of our popes or the deep joy in Jesus Christ which radiates from their eyes, attracting many people to the Catholic Church? Do they fear a solid Catholic critique of their proposals to use death of the unborn and elderly or the prevention of new life as a solution to their inability to pay for all of the medical care they have promised but cannot deliver without eliminating the most vulnerable people who might need care?


Let us not fall for the Alinsky tricks of letting community organizers set up our enemies. These organizers try to stay in the background, manipulating the folks to go after an enemy. We Catholics will do well to stand shoulder to shoulder with our pope and bishops as we move forward in history to promote life and love, all the way to heaven. Those who sow division between us and our leaders will march to their own chosen destinations.


In Christ Jesus,

Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J.

Tim Tebow, Football Superstar & Sports Illustrated Cover Model: "Yes, I am" Saving Myself for Marriage

Also says he is grateful that his mother's story has helped women choose not to have an abortion

July 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Last week Florida Gators Quarterback Tim Tebow's photo may have graced the cover of Sports Illustrated, the same magazine that is best known for its annual "swimsuit issue," but the contrast between the two cover stories couldn't have been more glaring.

At 21 years of age and graced with boyish good looks, Tebow is one of the most talked about rising stars of the NCAA; but the football superstar literally left reporters speechless last week when he answered a question during a press conference about whether or not he is "saving himself" for marriage.

"Yes I am," said Tebow briefly, who then indicated he was ready for the next question. However, in the video of the press conference, a reporter is heard stumbling over his words in the background as he tries to ask a follow-up question. Tebow then laughs, obviously reacting to the reactions of the reporters in the room.



"I think y'all were stunned by that," he says. "Y'all can't even ask a question. Wow. I mean, I was ready for that question. I don't think y'all were."

It wasn't the only controversial remark that Tebow made that day. In response to another question about whether or not people may be tired of the volume of coverage devoted to the young football star, Tebow, a devout Christian, said that the level of exposure he receives is a mixed blessing. However, he said, he looks at the positive side that, thanks to his fame, he has been able to share his Christian faith with so many people.

In addition, the football star told the reporters that he believes that the publicity given to his mother's story has helped other women choose not to abort their unborn children. Tebow's mother, who serves as a Christian missionary together with her husband, was pressured to abort Tebow following a life-threatening infection she suffered while pregnant with him. Doctors pressured her to abort her son to save her own life, but she ultimately resisted the pressure and both mother and child survived the birth.

"There has been a lot of people that have been encouraged not to have an abortion because they heard the story of my mom, or they have been encouraged because they have heard me give my faith on TV or in a report or something," said Tebow.

"You know what, although there has been a backlash, oh, well. You know what, I'll deal with it if I have to. It's not a big deal to me because of the kids and people that have been encouraged by the stories we have tried to tell and by the life that I've tried to live."

Growing up Tebow would often help his parents with their Christian mission work in the Philippines. He was homeschooled by his mother, who instilled in her children strong Christian values.

Tebow was the first home-schooled athlete to be nominated for the Heisman Trophy. "That's really cool," he said at the time. "A lot of times people have this stereotype of homeschoolers as not very athletic - it's like, go win a spelling bee or something like that - it's an honor for me to be the first one to do that."

NY Nurse Threatened, Forced to Participate in Abortion Speaks Out

New York City, N.Y., Jul 28, 2009 / 05:12 am (CNA).- "It felt like a horror film unfolding," said Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo, the Brooklyn nurse who says she was forced to aid an abortion against her will. Now Cenzon-DeCarlo is speaking out, describing the terror she felt as she was asked to sacrifice her religious convictions for the sake of her job.

Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo, a devout Catholic, says she has been having nightmares and difficulty sleeping ever since the incident took place on May 24, reports the New York Post.
"I couldn't believe that this could happen," Cenzon-DeCarlo told the Post, describing how she was threatened with charges of insubordination and patient abandonment, which could result in possible loss of a job and nursing license, if she did not participate in the abortion.

Although she was told that it was an emergency and the woman would die if she did not assist, Cenzon-DeCarlo observed that the woman had not received the treatments typically given to a patient whose life is in danger as the hospital claimed it was.

She later found out that the hospital itself had declared the case a "Category II," meaning that it was not immediately life-threatening, and that there was a six-hour window for the operation to take place, allowing ample time for the hospital to find a replacement nurse who did not have moral objections to the procedure.

"I felt violated and betrayed," Cenzon-DeCarlo said.

The nurse had clearly stated that she was unwilling to aid in abortions during a job interview with Mount Sinai. She says she had put her beliefs in writing.

Cenzon-DeCarlo went on to explain that she was later told by two supervisors that she would need to sign a statement agreeing to participate in abortions if she wanted any more overtime shifts. Over the next month, she was designated only one overtime shift, instead of the eight or nine she was usually assigned, reported the New York Post.

Now, the Alliance Defense Fund is representing Cenzon-DeCarlo in a lawsuit that seeks to force Mount Sinai to surrender their federal funding because it has violated a federal rule protecting employees who morally object to controversial procedures.

The lawsuit also seeks damages on behalf of Cenzon-DeCarlo, as well as a restoration of her overtime shifts and a respect for her objections to abortion.

Now, the married mother of a year-old baby hopes the litigation will be enough to restore protection to her religious convictions. "I emigrated to this country in the belief that here religious freedom is sacred," she said. "Doctors and nurses shouldn't be forced to abandon their beliefs and participate in abortion in order to keep their jobs."

Related Articles:
Lawsuit: Catholic Nurse Forced to Assist in Late-Term Abortion

ADF (Alliance Defense Fund) attorneys file lawsuit against hospital for violating Christian nurse’s rights of conscience

FACT SHEET on this lawsuit, including links to resources.

Planned Parenthood Labors to Bulldoze Law Requiring Doctors to Tell Women that Abortion Ends a Human Life

Watch Dr. Patti Giebink, a former abortionist at Sioux Falls, Planned Parenthood, tell her story about performing abortions at Planned Parenthood. Today Patti is a pro-life OB/GYN. (Read her article below video)



Planned Parenthood Must Obey the Law
By Dr. Patti Giebink, M.D.

Planned Parenthood again shows the extremes it will go to in disobeying the law. An informed consent law passed by the South Dakota legislature in 2005 requires, even mandates, using the words “human being” in referring to the result of abortion ending a life, in addition to other vital information.

The United States 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this law in June 2008 and Planned Parenthood has been in violation for over 10 months. It is not a question of language because that was settled last year. It is not a question about a woman’s right to choose, but her right to make an intelligent and informed choice.

Planned Parenthood’s lawyer implied in a hearing on Friday, July 17th, 2009 that the doctor’s right to withhold information from women is more important than a woman’s right to have the information she needs to make a serious, life-changing decision.

Statements made in court and on the form Planned Parenthood currently uses to “inform” women are blatantly inaccurate and misleading. They misrepresent current medical literature especially when it comes to the risks of elective abortion. There is no confusion that abortion increases a woman’s risk of suicide and significantly increases her risk of preterm delivery in following pregnancies.

Clearly, Planned Parenthood has no regard for the law and is more concerned about economics than providing safe and legal care to women. It is time for the Department of Health to enforce the letter of the law, impose sanctions or shut them down.

Please join me in calling Governor Rounds and the South Dakota Department of Health in telling Planned Parenthood that obeying the law is not optional.

1. Governor Rounds’s Office at 605.773.3212 or email by visiting http://www.state.sd.us/governor/

2. The South Dakota Department of Health at 605-773-6631 or by email at DOH.info@state.sd.us

Planned Parenthood must be required to obey the law!

Dr. Patti Giebink, M.D.
Board Certified Obstetrician
Member of ACOG
Board member of AAPLOG
Former abortion provider at Sioux Falls Planned Parenthood
(and last SD resident to do so)



Related Articles:
Judge to decide if SD abortion law goes to trial

Judge Vows to Rule Soon in Abortion Warning Case

Actress Uma Thurman to Play Heroic Catholic Nun

(CathNews)Actress Uma Thurman plays a Catholic nun in her latest movie "Girl Soldier", the true and tragic story of 140 Ugandan girls who were kidnapped and enslaved in 1996, known as the Aboke Abductions.

Set in Uganda, the film is based on the 1996 Aboke abductions, which saw 140 schoolgirls taken from their boarding school to be used as child soldiers and sex slaves. One of the nuns who taught at the school, called Sister Caroline in Kathy Cook's book on the subject, Stolen Angels, (Sister Rachele Fassera by birth), pursued the abductors and negotiated the release of 109 of the girls. She then set about rallying the people, government, United Nations and Pope to try to end the abduction and indoctrination of child conscripts.

The book recounts the story of girls who were kidnapped from their school by Joseph Kony, leader of Uganda's Lord Resistance Army. They were forced to become soldiers and sex slaves, and would have been forgotten had it not been for their mothers and a group of interfaith clerics who fought to rescue them from their captors.

Thurman will play one of the religious, a nun by the name of Sister Caroline. She tracked the LRA members back to their camp and demanded the release of the kidnapped. 110 girls were returned to her, but Caroline refused to turn her back on the rest.

She began a crusade to rally parents, the Ugandan government, the United Nations and even the Pope to assist in rescuing all of the children living in captivity.

Thurman says she was drawn to the role in part to help shed light on the situation so many children worldwide face. "This is a film that had to get made," Thurman said. "It's beyond me that in this day and age the exploitation of child soldiers goes virtually unnoticed and unchecked by Western media."

"Soldier" will be directed by Will Raee ("1000 Ways to Die") from a script by Karen Croner ("One True Thing") and newcomer Stephanie Pinola, and is being produced by Caspian Pictures.

Related Article: Tragedy of Child-Soldiers in Uganda

Angelina Atyam: The Forgiveness of a Mother

"Deny Coverage to Elderly and Disabled for the Greater Good," says Obama's Health Policy Advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel

By Kim Priestap
Betsy McCaughey brings to our attention the Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel's views regarding universal health care.

Dr. Emanuel is a health policy advisor to President Obama and brother of Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, so what he thinks may impact all of us. As Betsy points out, Dr. Emanuel has some very radical views regarding the rationing of health care. Take for example Emanuel's comments in a 2008 article in which he says cutting costs won't be easy:

Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change.

In other words, these procedural changes aren't really change at all. Instead, he thinks we need change in how we apply health care coverage. As Betsy notes, Dr. Emanuel believes doctors try too hard to apply the Hippocratic Oath to everyone as equally as possible, which is what drives up costs. Instead Emanuel thinks we need to ration basic, guaranteed care to only those who can fully participate in society. Betsy points out a 1996 Hastings Center article in which Emanuel wrote this:

This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.

So, according to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health care advisor to President Obama, the elderly with dementia and the young who have neurological disorders should be sacrificed for the common good. I can tell you that as a mom to a four year old girl with severe speech apraxia that prevents her from being able to speak intelligibly, this scares the living hell out of me. If you have a child with autism, cerebral palsy, Downs syndrome, or any other neurological disorder or chromosomal defect that prevents him or her from participating in society in the manner Dr. Emanuel or the government thinks they should, that neurological care would not be guaranteed as basic and would, therefore, not be covered in a government takeover of health care.

Making things even worse, private health care companies will be driven out of business, so that won't be an option for parents with disabled children, either, leaving them with no coverage whatsoever. This kind of policy would drive up the abortion rate, which Obama and other liberals want covered as a basic care, as doctors urge parents go out of their way to screen their unborn babies for any and all disorders and defects that would not be covered under basic care. If a child's disorder is undetected by prenatal testing, what happens when the disorder becomes obvious after birth? I shudder to think what the government would come up with then.

Emanuel's policies would lead to a further deterioration of our nation's culture as people begin to look at those with disabilities as objects that drive up collective health care costs instead of as individual human beings who have intrinsic value and rights endowed to them by God.

Watch this video, that shows Emanuel escaping after being confronted on this issue.
See further information below this post.


Related Articles:
Lawmakers Confirm House Health Care Bill Promotes Euthanasia Among Elderly

Forbes: ObamaCare Dives Into End-Of-Life Debate

Forbes: What To Know About The Health Care Debate

Nazi Genocidal Intent of Obama's Proposed Healthcare Reforms Exposed; Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm's brother) Escapes when Confronted

Panelists warn of the revival of eugenics under Obamas modern healthcare through the denial of care to millions of elderly, terminally-ill, and poor people, who would be judged not fit to live, just as in Nazi Germany. This would save, as President Obama says, $2-3 million, by taking lives not worthy to be lived.
Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, health policy advisor to President Obama and leader of a propaganda movement for euthanasia headquarted at The Hastings Center,

believes in witholding medical care from the elderly for the greater good.

Related Stories: Obama's Nazi Doctors and Their 'Reforms'


CBO deals new blow to health plan

Listen to the real-life stories of the victims of government-run healthcare.


Visit www.FacesofGovernmentHealthCare.com and Conservatives for Patient's Rights to learn more.

Does Ted Kennedy deserve his extended cancer care?

This is a brave--well-written article, something we seriously need to ponder while the children (Congress) are at recess.
July 22, 2009
By: James Lewis
American Thinker

Senator Ted Kennedy, who is now 76 years old and was diagnosed with brain cancer in May of last year, is telling the world that nationalized medical care is "the cause of his life." He wants to see it pass as soon as possible, before he departs this vale of tears.

The prospect of Kennedy's passing is viewed by the liberal press with anticipatory tears and mourning. But they are not asking the proper question by their own lights: That question -- which will be asked for you and me when we reach his age and state in life --- is this:

Is Senator Kennedy's life valuable enough to dedicate millions of dollars to extending it another month, another day, another year?

Because Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy agree with each other that they of all people are entitled to make that decision. Your decision to live or die will now be in their hands.

Ted Kennedy is now 76. Average life expectancy in the United States is 78.06. For a man who has already reached 76, life expectancy is somewhat longer than average (since people who die younger lower the national average); for a wealthy white man it may be somewhat longer statistically; but for a man with diagnosed brain cancer it is correspondingly less. As far as the actuarial tables of the Nanny State are concerned, Kennedy is due to leave this life some time soon. The socialist State is not sentimental, at least when it comes to the lives of ordinary people like you and me.

The socialist question -- and yes, it is being asked very openly in socialist countries all around the world, like Britain and Sweden -- must be whether extending Senator Kennedy's life by another day, another month or year is socially valuable enough to pay for what is no doubt a gigantic and growing medical bill. Kennedy is a US Senator, and all that money has been coughed up without complaint by the US taxpayer. Kennedy is already entitled to Federal health care, and it is no doubt the best available to anyone in the world.

Before he dies, Senator Kennedy wants to feel sure that you and I and our loved ones can put that personal decision about life or death safely in the hands of a Federal bureaucrat. It is "the cause of his life," we are told.

Now there are many people in this country who believe that Ted Kennedy has not spent his life very constructively. Mary Jo Kopechne's family might still want to trade his life for hers, if she could be brought back. Senator Kennedy has exercised more power over our immigration chaos than any other person in the last half century. 9/11 was committed by illegal entrants who slipped through our deliberately full-of-holes borders, using all manner of Kennedy-authored loopholes and enforcement gaps.

Others might point to the socialist habit of importing vast numbers of voters from Pakistan and Somalia into Western Europe, to make for cheap socialist votes in order to defeat and scapegoat native Europeans. Socialism by immigrant vote buying is happening in every single socialist country in Europe. It is what keeps socialist parties there in power. Kennedy has opened our borders for precisely that kind of takeover by masses of illegal immigrants.

So there might be a rational debate over the social utility of Senator Kennedy's life. We could all have a great national debate about it. Maybe we should do exactly that, to face the consequences of what the Left sees as so humane, so obviously benevolent, and so enlightened.

Consider what happens in the Netherlands to elderly people. The Netherlands legalized "assisted suicide" in 2002, no doubt in part for compassionate reasons. But also to save money. There is only one money kitty for medical care in the socialist Netherlands. When you get old, the question is asked, either explicitly or by implication:

Do you deserve to live another year compared to young refugees from Somalia, who can use the same euros to have many years of life?

There's only so much money available. The Netherlands radio service had a quiz show at one time, designed to "raise public awareness" about precisely that question. Who deserves to live, and who to die?

But nobody debates any more about who has the power to make that decision. In socialist Europe the State does. It's a done deal.

The Netherlands legally recognizes four categories of euthanasia. One of them is:

Passive euthanasia: A physician may choose not to treat an recurrent disease or event in a patient with a terminal progressive disease.

I don't know enough about Senator Kennedy's condition, but I would suppose that he has "a recurrent disease or ... a terminal progressive disease." That would be the case if his brain cancer is not curable. In the socialist Netherlands Kennedy would be a perfect candidate for passive euthanasia.

Has anyone raised this question with Senator Kennedy? I know it seems to be in bad taste to even mention it. But if ObamaCare passes in the coming weeks, you can be sure that that question will be raised for you and me, and our loved ones. And no, we will not have a choice.

Pro-Life Catholic Nurse Threatened, Forced to Assist in Late-Term Abortion at Mount Sinai Hospital in NY

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City

A lawsuit has been filed against Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City for requiring a nurse who had a long record of expressing conscientious objection to abortions to help in the dismemberment of a live 22-week-old preborn child.

The case is being brought by the Alliance Defense Fund, which also is seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the hospital from retaliating against the nurse, Catherina Lorena Cenzon-DeCarlo.

"Compelling Mrs. DeCarlo to assist in this abortion against her religious beliefs exposed Mrs. DeCarlo to brutal psychological harm," said the document seeking the injunction. "By assisting she was forced to witness the killing of a 22-week-old preborn child by dismemberment.

"Because it was included in the requirements of her nursing duties as an assistant on the case, Mount Sinai forced Mrs. DeCarlo to watch the doctor remove the bloody arms and legs of the child from its mother's body by with forceps, and then after the surgery, to view the bloody body parts in the specimen cup, put saline in the cup, and take it to the specimen area," the injunction request explains.

This happened even though according to the hospital's own protocols, the abortion was not so urgent that it would have required her assistance, and there was more than enough time to summon another nurse, the complaint said.

A hospital spokesman declined to comment in a WND telephone call seeking information, instructing that the request for a statement be submitted via e-mail. An e-mail response said the hospital wouldn't comment.

The ADF explained that the hospital has known of the nurse's religious objections to participating in the death of a living unborn baby since 2004. Nevertheless, they ordered her to participate, threatening her with disciplinary measures if she refused, she allged. The hospital then dramatically cut her on-call assignments after she refused to sign a statement promising to participate in future abortions.

"Pro-life nurses shouldn’t be forced to assist in abortions against their beliefs," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. "Requiring a devout, Catholic nurse to participate in a late-term abortion in order to remain employed is illegal, unethical, and violates her rights of conscience. Federal law requires that employers who receive funding from tax dollars must not compel employees to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, but this nurse's objections fell on deaf ears."

The case alleges the abortion was set up by the hospital because the mother had been diagnosed with preeclampsia, but DeCarlo knew such a condition can be treated without the necessity of an abortion.

When she was told the unborn child was alive, she immediately objected to Dr. Noel Strong, the resident assigned to the case. A series of calls to the nursing supervisor, Fran Carpo, and her supervisor, Ella Shapiro, followed.

The orders came back from Carpo that DeCarlo must assist in the procedure.

"Mrs. DeCarlo repeated her longstanding objection and pleaded with Ms. Carpo that Mount Sinai not force her to assist in this abortion against her strongly held religious beliefs. Mrs. DeCarlo asked Ms. Carpo to call other nurses to the case since so little time had elapsed before Mrs. DeCarlo had voiced her objection. Ms. Carpo said that Ms. Shapiro had insisted that Mrs. DeCarlo assist on the case, and had prohibited Ms. Carpo from even trying to call other nurses to cover the case. Ms. Carpo also said that Dr. Silverstein had yelled at her over the phone in opposition to any delay in the case as a result of Mrs. DeCarlo's request for accommodation," the document explains.

Then the threats began.

"Ms. Carpo said that if Mrs. DeCarlo did not participate in the case, Mrs. DeCarlo would be brought up on charges of 'insubordination and patient abandonment,'" the complaint states. "A charge of patient abandonment would severely jeopardize Mrs. DeCarlo's employment and her nursing license and consequently her career and her and her family's livelihood."

Even DeCarlo's tearful pleas to be allowed to get her priest on the telephone to explain her religious objection were ignored.

The case at the time was designated by the hospital as Category II, which means the doctors wanted the procedure done within six hours – more than enough time to bring in a replacement nurse, the lawsuit said.

According to the request for the injunction, federal law doesn't allow the hospital to do what it did.

"Mount Sinai is bound to respect Mrs. DeCarlo's conscience rights by virtue of several laws, but most notably 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(c). Mount Sinai has voluntarily subjected itself to this statute by receiving hundreds of millions of federal Health and Human Services dollars in recent years," the request said. "This statute … states in no uncertain terms that Mrs. DeCarlo is protected from discrimination by Mount Sinai in the conditions or privileges of her employment on the basis of her religious objection to assisting in abortion.

"Mount Sinai blatantly violated Mrs. DeCarlo’s rights under 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(c) on May 24, and it continues to do so by condoning the violation and insisting that it can compel her or other employees again or penalize them by removing them from on-call shifts," it said.

It said the injunction is essential because of the imminent danger to employees.

"Mount Sinai must not and cannot force employees to assist in procedures they consider to be brutal murder. But rather than honoring that trust it has resorted to brash bullying tactics against the one employee to ask that her rights of conscience be respected," the request said.

DeCarlo's injuries include the trauma from the procedure.

"She has felt intense emotional, psychological and spiritual suffering from having to participate in something she considers profoundly immoral and unjust. She has missed several days of work, has had trouble sleeping, and has had nightmares about the killing of this child. She has even had to deal with feelings of estrangement from God and family members," the law firm said.

According to the allegations, after the incident, the hospital retaliated against DeCarlo "because of her request that it honor her religious objection to assisting in abortion, and because of the grievance procedure that she filed. First Mount Sinai officials failed to assign Mrs. DeCarlo to her usual 8–9 on-call shifts in August."

WND previously reported on a similar conscience rights case brought by a nurse in Louisiana in which the state Supreme Court ordered a trial.

The hospital in the case had demanded that the nurse's complaint be dismissed.

That case also is being handled by the Alliance Defense Fund. It was brought on behalf of nurse Toni Lemly, who had worked in the St. Tammany Parish Hospital. She sued when she objected to dispensing the "morning after" abortion pill because of her religious beliefs and was demoted.

The hospital's lawyers sought to have her case dismissed out of hand, and when that attempt failed, went to the state Supreme Court. The high court, however, issued a single-word ruling on the hospital's demands: "Denied."

"The hospital declined several reasonable suggestions made by Lemly, a nurse for 23 years, that would have enabled the facility to continue administering the pill while allowing her to abstain from dispensing it herself," the ADF report said. "The hospital chose not to act on any of her suggestions."

WND reported earlier when Donna Harrison, president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, urged people to contact the White House to express their views on the subject of conscience rights.

"We don't want to kill our patients," she said in an interview with Greg Corombos of Radio America/WND.

There also is an online petition campaign on the issue at Freedom2Care through which people can contact the Department of Health and Human Services.

The issue is getting hotter under President Obama's leadership. Since his election, Obama also has repealed a ban on U.S. taxpayer funding of foreign abortions and overturned the nation's ban on experimenting on human embryos for stem cell research.

He's also installed in his administration's highest levels several strongly pro-abortion politicians, including former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, now health secretary.


If this is not a case that proves the importance for upholding Conscience Protection, I don't know what is. Be advised folks, obama is trying like hell to overturn conscience protection, despite his flowery rhetoric to the contrary. If you believe that our healthcare professionals should be free to object to procedures that are morally wrong and contrary to their beliefs, then you MUST ACT TODAY, before it's too late. Please, contact your state representatives and tell them to,
"Retain the conscience regulation & stop abortion mandates! Enforce the laws protecting the right of health care providers to serve patients without violating their moral and religious convictions. The government has a special responsibility to ensure that the conscience rights of health care providers are fully protected.”
God Bless! ~Georgia

Join the Freedom2Care Campaign
Contact Elected Officals:
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden
U.S. Senators
U.S. Representatives
State Governor
State Legislators

Obama "Not Familiar" with Key Provision in Healthcare that Outlaws Private Insurance

Heritage Foundation: During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: "Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?" President Obama replied: "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."


Obama able to quote a republican before he can quote the healthcare bill he is trying to push:


Related Aricles: Obama May Have to Wait for Healthcare Passage

State-run healthcare in Oregon tells dying cancer patient: Your policy does not include life-extending drugs; only physician-assisted suicide

Now, more than ever, I am convinced that "O"care is really: NoCare.
But, don't take my word for it.
Folks, before you fall into the trap of believing that universal healthcare is the answer to the healthcare problem in our country, I strongly urge you to DO YOUR RESEARCH, NOW!! Don't let others do it for you. The answers you find will speak for themselves. These articles are a good starting point. Time is of the essence. All our lives wait in peril.

(See a related articles below)
Eugene, Oregon(CNA).- An Oregon woman suffering from lung cancer was notified by the state-run Oregon Health Plan that their policy would not cover her life-extending cancer drug, telling her the health plan would cover doctor-assisted suicide instead.

Barbara Wagener discovered her lung cancer had recurred last month, the Register-Guard said. Her oncologist prescribed a drug called Tarceva, which could slow the cancer growth and extend her life.

The Oregon Health Plan notified Wagner that it would not cover the drug, but it would cover palliative care, which it said included assisted suicide.

“Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan,” said the letter Wagner received from LIPA, the Eugene company that administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County.

“I think it’s messed up,” Wagner said. She said she was particularly upset because the letter said doctor-assisted suicide would be covered.

“To say to someone, we’ll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it’s cruel,” she said. “I get angry. Who do they think they are?”

A doctor appealed to Genentech, the company that markets Tarceva in the U.S., to cover Wagner’s medication. On Monday Wagner was told the company would cover the drug treatment for a year, after which she could re-apply for the drug.

“I am just so thrilled,” Wagner said. “I am so relieved and so happy.”

According to the Register-Guard, Oregon oncologists say they have seen a change in state health policy, saying their Oregon Health Plan patients with advanced cancer are no longer covered for chemotherapy if it is considered comfort care.

“It doesn’t adhere to the standards of care set out in the oncology community,” said Dr. John Caton, an oncologist at Willamette Valley Cancer Center. He said many studies have found that chemotherapy in a palliative setting decreases pain and time spent in the hospital and increases quality of life.

Officials of LIPA and the state Health Services Commission, which sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan, say they have not changed their coverage of recurrent cancer patients, but have only clarified the rules.

Related Article: Oregon Offers Terminal Patients Doctor-Assisted Suicide Instead of Medical Care (July 2008)

Hitler's T4 Program Revived in Obama's Healthcare 'Reform'

Liberal Smear Tactic Against Liveaction.org's Lila Rose: Labels her "mean, vindictive and harsh" in her attempt to "take down" Planned Parenthood

Be forwarned folks: what you are about to read is casuistry at its' finest: what really goes on in the mind of a liberal. This could be hazardous to your health. My advice: take a few deep breaths in between sentences. Then, smile and be HAPPY that you are NOT a liberal. And, if you are, take a deep breath and consider having a change of heart, FAST! Moms for Life is a blog by someone who was once an ignorant liberal and is now a happily informed conservative.
Decide for yourself. Watch this video (dated July 13, 2009)
Then, read Julie Driscoll's atrocious article from D.C.'s Examiner.com below:


Liveaction.org’s Lila Rose claims to care about women and girls: Are you kidding me? By Julie Driscoll.

The right-to-lifers were in Chicago this week, standing on Michigan Avenue with their fetus signs and pro-life message. They stood quietly, they didn’t protest, they didn’t harass passersby, they just stood for hours with their signs, silently transmitting their message. Two blocks away there’s a Planned Parenthood clinic, but from what I could see, its patrons came and went unmolested by these protesters.

I disagree with the message, but I respect the right of those men and women who stood on Chicago’s Michigan Avenue to deliver it.

On the other hand, we’ve got young Lila Rose of liveaction.org, who lurks around Planned Parenthood clinic and baits workers into allegedly making statements contrary to law and Planned Parenthood's own policy. I cordially invite Rose to come on out to Chicago, slink into Planned Parenthood clinics with a tape recorder taped to her thigh, and do her little lights, camera, action gig. See, in Illinois – and about a dozen states in all -- state law requires the consent of all parties to a recorded conversation. Take a look at this screen grab of liveaction.org's map – apparently Rose’s dedication to her cause doesn’t extend so far as to risk her own fanny in jail, or risk being sued, or risk any other unpleasant legal matter. The states with red dots indicate locations where Rose has launched her vendetta against Planned Parenthood. Notably absent from her map are any red dots in Illinois. Illinois law allows for both criminal penalties and civil suits in cases of Lila-Rose-like surreptitious taping. I’m guessing we’re safe from her antics here.

She did, however, launch a few in California and a couple in Connecticut, other states where the all-party consent rule is in place. From liveaction.org’s website:

“Los Angeles California 2007
Live Action Investigation"
Lila Rose went undercover into two Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles clinics, posing as a 15-year-old girl impregnated by her 23-year-old boyfriend. Rose was told by clinic staff, ‘Just figure out a birth date that works. And I don’t know anything.’”
Violation: California law required Planned Parenthood to report this clear case of statutory rape to law enforcement, but both clinics investigated failed to do so.
Action Taken: Planned Parenthood admitted no wrongdoing, but threatened to sue Lila.”

Hmm . . . since she apparently didn’t record this conversation, or the ones in Connecticut, I suppose we’re just supposed to take her word that these things actually happened? And how good is the word of a woman who admittedly spends a lot of her time lying – specifically, to Planned Parenthood workers all over the country? Planned Parenthood claims the tapes are edited, but Rose denies it -- I guess, again, we’re supposed to believe Rose’s statements that it’s all true, despite her history of lying for the cause. Liveaction.org claims to post the “full footage” of the videos on its website – uh, sorry guys, but entire segments can be edited out of tapes. I’m not bitin’.

Rose’s Mona Lisa Project cites this mission statement: “We hope that our project will lead to criminal prosecution of Planned Parenthood so that their business practices will be forced to comply with governing laws that protect young girls.” Ah, yes, this is a woman who is all about protecting young girls and women. What Rose doesn’t mention in her pro-life mission is that abortions constitute only about 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services – the other services it offers benefit women, girls and men nationwide, including abstinence counseling, breast/testicular exams, child sexual abuse prevention, date rape education, dating violence, eating disorders, menopause, pregnancy, labor and delivery, safe sex, sexually transmitted infections, and women’s reproductive health. Ninety-seven percent of the services offered are preventive services.

So, let me get this straight: Rose claims to be on a mission to protect girls and women – by targeting an organization that devotes its resources to doing just that. Rose, this paragon of pro-life virtue, is campaigning to eliminate funding to Planned Parenthood clinics – clinics that provide valuable health services to women and girls. According to Planned Parenthood Federation of America spokesperson Diane Quest, “Any removal of public funding would only serve to deny women, men, and young people critical preventive health care.”

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Ms. Rose spends a whole lot of time slithering into Planned Parenthood clinics, in the hopes of catching a worker off guard and saying something questionable – all in the name of protecting women and girls. Assuming that a Planned Parenthood worker doesn’t immediately call the authorities upon hearing the confession of a bogus “14-year-old” who was allegedly impregnated by her adult boyfriend, where’s the report of Rose’s follow-up to see if, in fact, Planned Parenthood did report these incidents at a later time? Does she really think she’s providing a valuable service to women and girls in this country by callously attempting to deny them affordable counseling and health services?

I think otherwise. Like any fanatic, Rose doesn’t seem to care much about those she harms, as long as she accomplishes her pro-life mission. She’s apparently latched on to what she considers a wellspring of opportunity – the alleged compromising of young girls -- to attempt to get Planned Parenthood clinics in hot water, and I’d be surprised if she gave one thought to the fate of the young girls she outs.

Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition said of Lila Rose, “So now with Lila, you bring this young, fresh college student that completely blows any stereotypes away. No one is going to accuse Lila of being mean, vindictive and harsh.”

Except, maybe, me – I’ll say it. Lila Rose is not only mean, vindictive and harsh, she’s also astonishingly careless with the lives of women and girls who depend on the very organization she works to bring down.

Hidden Abortion Mandate in Healthcare Reform Bill

Healthcare Reform Bill Rejects Freedom of Choice

This brilliantly written article explains how this bill rejects our freedom to choose a provider and the freedom of the provider to choose not to perform abortions.
Don’t let the government strip patients of choice and innovation in health care. Join HandsOffMyHealth.org today and make your voice heard!


Rejected 'conscience clause'
Possible stumbling block for health care reform
By Mary Claire Kendall | Friday, July 17, 2009
The Washington Times

Just before Independence Day, President Obama, Rome-bound, told reporters he favors a "robust" policy protecting health care workers whose consciences forbid them to perform abortions and other morally objectionable practices. His words, however, diverge from his deeds.

While almost everyone agrees abortion is terrible, somehow, when inconvenient unborn human life intrudes, it too often becomes the default "choice."

Promises of "robust" conscience protections notwithstanding, the president's $635 billion off-budget reserve fund for remaking American health care includes eight principles that deny both consumers' freedom to choose their health care provider and health care providers' freedom to choose not to kill unborn babies through abortion.

In February, Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, tried to remedy this situation by attaching a conscience clause to the budget. This ninth principle -- although nonbinding -- was defeated 56 to 41 along mostly party lines. Three Republican senators -- Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania (now a Democrat), Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine voted against; three Democrat senators -- Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania voted for the provision.

On Monday, Mr. Coburn reintroduced his amendment in the key Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pension, where it was again promptly voted down along party lines -- though Mr. Casey broke ranks -- clearing the way for passage of the committee's health reform bill two days later.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, acting chairman while Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, continues to convalesce, claimed current law protects consciences. However, according to a Senate source, this is a "manifestly phony argument" since the Hyde Amendment forbidding federal funding of abortion, thereby protecting consciences, is a rider attached to the health appropriations bill requiring annual renewal. Given the current climate, this is a tenuous protection at best. Furthermore, my source indicated, Mr. Dodd looked pained to make this argument knowing just how phony it was.

Make no mistake, if Congress does not deal honestly with this issue, it has the potential to derail health care reform.

But, consider the even greater consequences of failure to include a conscience clause.

Health care reform without a conscience clause would force Catholic and other faith-inspired health care facilities, true to their mission, to shutter, thus depriving the poorest of critical health care. In Virginia alone, 11 Catholic hospitals serve one-third of the population.

The possibility that health care reform could be fast-tracked through reconciliation, rendering it filibuster-proof -- potentially enacting abortion-on-demand nationally by a simple majority vote -- would be the worst possible outcome.

Far better to work through this very difficult issue -- which is every bit as difficult, if not more, than bridging the differences over health care reform strategy -- than to shove through "phony" conscience protections just to get a bill. It won't be easy. But, then, like John F. Kennedy, Mr. Obama's mantra is apparently not to shy away from challenges.

In early May, the White House worked to meet this challenge by bringing together those on opposite sides of abortion's divide; yet by month's end, a crazed fanatic had snuffed out the God-given life of Kansas late-term abortion doctor, George Tiller.

Cormac Burke -- Irish priest and prolific author -- reflected earlier this year on the root causes of this cultural divide at a Witherspoon Institute/Ethics & Public Policy Center forum on "feminine identity," commenting that he found the United States in the 1950s palpably wholesome. But, when he returned in the late '60s, he was stunned to see how jaded Americans had become.

The twin sexual and psychedelic revolutions were pivotal to this cultural change, paving the way for the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, making it official that "free love" is not free.

Now, 36 years later -- 50 million aborted children having paid the "free love" tab with their lives -- if health care reform liberalizes abortion laws further, the cost will climb. And, the wounds will fester, causing increasing radicalization on both sides in the same way black enslavement catalyzed the fanaticism of John Brown -- in Herman Melville's words, the "meteor" of the Civil War.

Only by respecting consciences can we avert the tragedy of America becoming an even larger killing field -- both of doctors who practice the healing arts, however misguided they might be; and of the unborn, who will never know the beauty of life, let alone the thrill of liberty.

What a wholesome change if, as he has promised, Mr. Obama's health care bill, in fact, offers "robust" conscience protections for health care providers and patients.

But, in the spirit of Ronald Reagan, should we "trust but verify" and ask if this means Mr. Obama now backs the Coburn conscience clause? From the Senate Health Committee's vote, the answer is apparently not, which makes Mr. Obama's promise of "robust" conscience protections sound like more smooth-talking from a man desperate for a health care bill, no matter the cost.

Mary Claire Kendall was special assistant to the assistant secretary for health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in 1989-93.


Related Articles:

Inside the Monstrous Obamacare Beaurocracy

House health care bill 'outlaws private insurance'
Obama on cost of 'reform': 'There's no such thing as a free lunch'

Abortion mandate slipped into bill
Despite detection by pro-life senators' radar

Silent FOCA: Abortion Expands in Health Care

Health Care Bill Will Fund State Vaccine Teams to Conduct ‘Interventions’ in Private Homes

Senate Dems Call for Government-Run Insurance Option; Want Fee on Companies Not Offering Insurance