‘No Easy Decision’ Indeed

The popular pop culture cable station MTV has two huge hits on their hands dealing with teen pregnancy – “16 & Pregnant” and the spinoff “Teen Mom.” 16 & Pregnant just finished up their second season and Teen Mom is heading into season two this month. All of the girls in the series chose to give birth to their children and some gave their babies up for adoption.

The stories are heart wrenching to say the least. A lot of the girls don’t have support from their boyfriends and families yet couldn’t bring themselves to choose to abort their child…until now.

But MTV aired a controversial follow-up to these two hit shows last week called “No Easy Decision.” It was about one of the girls on 16 & Pregnant, Markai Durham, who delivered her baby girl and then found out she was pregnant again with her boyfriend James only eight months later. No Easy Decision follows Markai as she weighs the decision to give birth or to have an abortion.

Your heart will ache for the teen since she’s so close to doing the right thing (she becomes distraught when James calls the unborn child a “thing” and a ball of cells and she points to her daughter and, in tears, says a “thing could turn out just like her”). She voices that she already loves the baby who is doing nothing but making her sick – she had the abortion at 6 weeks gestation.

Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek has a post up questioning the sponsors since the show ran without commercials, unheard of for MTV – plus she includes all the feminist cheerleaders for the girls having abortions.

Dr. Drew Pinsky, who wasn’t exactly an unbiased moderator, hosted the special as well as the reunions for 16 & Pregnant and Teen Mom. As a Catholic, watching Dr. Drew hoist condoms on these young couples as the best way to prevent another unwanted pregnancy was sickening. Not once did the issue of self-control, self-respect, the respect of their partners and love come up. Not once did anyone suggest – hey, I really don’t want to get pregnant again so we’re just not going to have sex. Not once. It was all about artificial birth control and contraception, which the Catholic Church adamantly opposes and deems “intrinsically evil.”

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote yesterday about the shock of reality TV that leaves out abortion because, maybe, it’s just a little too real. He said that it’s probably a victory for pro-lifers but also a denial of culture since one in five pregnancies ends in abortion in the US (so much for “safe, legal and rare”). But taking it a step further, Douthat tied in infertility and abortion:

 In every era, there’s been a tragic contrast between the burden of unwanted pregnancies and the burden of infertility. But this gap used to be bridged by adoption far more frequently than it is today. Prior to 1973, 20 percent of births to white, unmarried women (and 9 percent of unwed births over all) led to an adoption. Today, just 1 percent of babies born to unwed mothers are adopted, and would-be adoptive parents face a waiting list that has lengthened beyond reason.

 Douthat printed a poem from Kevin Young in last week’s New Yorker:

 The doctor trying again to find you, fragile,
fern, snowflake. Nothing.
After, my wife will say, in fear,
impatient, she went beyond her body,
this tiny room, into the ether—
… And there
it is: faint, an echo, faster and further
away than mother’s, all beat box
and fuzzy feedback. …

And then ended the column with these lines:

This is the paradox of America’s unborn. No life is so desperately sought after, so hungrily desired, so carefully nurtured. And yet no life is so legally unprotected, and so frequently destroyed. [our emphasis]

Share

What the Pope Really Said on Condom Use


Does the Pope approve the use of condoms?
Jenn Giroux
November 21, 2010

The media is at it again.
They are trying to say that the Pope approves the use of condoms

Below Professor Janet E.Smith. provides explanation and clarification of the Pope’s comments:

Conversion, Not Condoms

Pope Benedict on Condoms in the Light of the World (p. 119)
In Light of the World, these answers appear:

To the charge that “It is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms,” Pope Benedict replied (This paragraph is at the end of an extended answer on the help the Church is giving the Aids victims and the need to fight the banalization of sexuality.):

    “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

    “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

Commentary:

What is Pope Benedict saying?

We must note that the example that Pope Benedict gives for the use of a condom is by a male prostitute; thus, it is a reasonable to assume that he is referring to a male prostitute engaged in homosexual acts. The Holy Father is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense; an awakening that sexual pleasure is not the highest value but that we must take care that we harm no one with our choices. He is not speaking to the morality of the use of a condom but to something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them. If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature. The Holy Father does not in any way think the use of condoms is a part of the solution to reducing the risk of Aids. As he explicitly states, the true solution involves “humanizing sexuality.”

Anyone having sex that threatens to transmit the HIV needs to grow in moral discernment. This is why Benedict focused on a “first step” in moral growth. The Church is always going to be focused on moving people away from immoral acts towards love of Jesus, virtue and holiness. We can say that the Holy Father clearly did not want to make a point about condoms but wants to talk about growth in a moral sense, which should be a growth towards Jesus.

So is the Holy Father saying it is morally good for male prostitutes to use condoms?

The Holy Father is not articulating a teaching of the Church about whether or not the use of a condom reduces the amount of evil in a homosexual sexual act that threatens to transmit the HIV. The Church has no formal teaching about how to reduce the evil of intrinsically immoral action. We must note that what is intrinsically wrong in a homosexual sexual act in which a condom is used is not the moral wrong of contraception but the homosexual act itself. In the case of homosexual sexual activity, a condom does not act as a contraceptive; it is not possible for homosexuals to contracept since their sexual activity has no procreative power that can be thwarted. But the Holy Father is not making a point about whether the use of a condom is contraceptive or even whether it reduces the evil of a homosexual sexual act; again, he is speaking about the psychological state of some who might use condoms. The intention behind the use of a condom (the desire not to harm another) may indicate some growth in a sense of moral responsibility.

In Familiaris Consortio (On the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World), Pope John Paul II spoke of the need for conversion which often proceeds by gradual steps:

    To the injustice originating from sin … we must all set ourselves in opposition through a conversion of mind and heart, following Christ Crucified by denying our own selfishness: such a conversion cannot fail to have a beneficial and renewing influence even on the structures of society.

    What is needed is a continuous, permanent conversion which, while requiring an interior detachment from every evil and an adherence to good in its fullness, is brought about concretely in steps which lead us ever forward. Thus a dynamic process develops, one which advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God and the demands of His definitive and absolute love in the entire personal and social life of man. (9)

Christ himself, of course, called for a turning away from sin. That is what the Holy Father is advocating here; not a turn towards condoms. Conversion, not condoms!

Would it be proper to conclude that the Holy Father would support the distribution of condoms to male prostitutes?

Nothing he says here indicates that he would. Public programs of distribution of condoms run the risk of conveying approval for homosexual sexual acts. The task of the Church is to call individuals to conversion and to moral behaviour; it is to help them understand the meaning and purpose of sexuality and to help them come to know Christ who will provide the healing and graces that enable us to live in accord with the meaning and purpose of sexuality.

Is Pope Benedict indicating that heterosexuals who have the HIV could reduce the wrongness of their acts by using condoms?

No. In his second answer he says that the Church does not find condoms to be a “real or moral solution.” That means the Church does not find condoms either to be moral or an effective way of fighting the transmission of the HIV. As the Holy Father indicates in his fuller answer, the most effective portion of programs designed to reduce the transmission of the HIV are calls to abstinence and fidelity.

The Holy Father, again, is saying that the intention to reduce the transmission of any infection is a “first step” in a movement towards a more human way of living sexuality. That more human way would be to do nothing that threatens to harm one’s sexual partner, who should be one’s beloved spouse. For an individual with the HIV to have sexual intercourse with or without a condom is to risk transmitting a lethal disease.

An analogy:

If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it. It would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. But it is not the task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could not use bullets. Nonetheless, the intent of a bank robber to rob a bank in a way that is safer for the employees and customers of the bank, may indicate an element of moral responsibility that could be a step towards eventual understanding of the immorality of bank robbing.

Prof Janet E. Smith
Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics
Sacred Heart Major Seminary
Detroit, MI
profjanetsmith@comcast.net
734 883 4080
http://www.aodonline.org/SHMS/Faculty+5819/Janet+Smith+9260/Dr.+Janet+Smith+-+Welcome.htm

Resources:

Edward C. Green, “The Pope May Be Right” Washington Post (Sunday, March 29, 2009); http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

Edward C. Green and Allison Herling Ruark, “AIDS and the Churches: Getting the Story Right” First Things (April, 2008) http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0126.htm

Edward C. Green, Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries (Praeger: 2003)

Matthew Hanley and Jokin de Irala, Affirming Love, Avoiding AIDS: What Africa Can Teach The West, (National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2009)

Susan E. Wills, “Condoms and AIDS: Is the Pope Right or Just “Horrifically Ignorant?” The Linacre Quarterly, 77:10 (Feb 2010) 17-29.

Edward C Green AIDS, Behavior, and Culture: Understanding Evidence-Based Prevention (Left Coast Press: 2010) forthcoming


Jenn Giroux is the new Executive Director of HLI America, a program of Human Life International. (You can visit HLI America at www.hliamerica.org)

Before joining Human Life International, Jenn was the CEO and Executive Director of One More Soul. Prior to that in 2003, Jenn began Women Influencing the Nation (WIN), an organization dedicated to reclaiming traditional morals in our society with special emphasis on encouraging women to have more children once again in America.

Women Influencing the Nation was heavily involved in supporting the efforts of Former Attorney General Phill Kline in his criminal charges against Planned Parenthood and to enforce the Late Term Abortion Law inside Kansas, the abortion capital of the World. Jenn testified before the Kansas Legislative Committee on September 6, 2007 representing over 5500 petitions asking Kansas official to prosecute George Tiller for doing illegal abortions.

Jenn has been a Registered Nurse for 24 years where she has witnessed first hand the devastating physical, mental, and spiritual fall out from the feminist movement, especially in areas of birth control and abortion. This has been the foundation of her inspiration to form this nationwide network connecting women to counteract the negative impact that the feminist influence has had over the past 40+ years in destroying families.

Jenn was a former radio talk show host with Salem Communications and also worked as Assistant to the President for Citizens for Community Values where she led the Catholic outreach for school presentations to parents on how to keep their children away from Internet Pornography. Jenn has been a regular guest on Catholic Radio to discuss women’s issues in the Church and politics. Jenn has also been seen debating many political and religious issues on MSNBC, CNN, FOX, and COMCAST NEWS NETWORKS.

Jenn regards God’s gift of motherhood as her most important and fulfilling work. She and her husband, Dan, have 9 children. They are the owners of The Catholic Shop and currently live in Cincinnati, Ohio.

© Copyright 2010 by Jenn Giroux
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/giroux/101121

Share

New “Morning After” Takes Life Up to Five Days After Conception

Please join us in supporting this petition drive by Students for Life.  The FDA Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs just approved what they claim is a contraceptive drug, ella.  But the ella drug is more than a contraceptive drug, it is also a pill which destroys the life of a human embryo. 

Read more below from Students for Life and please sign the petition

For Immediate Release
Contact: Lucy McVicker, 703-351-6280, lmcvicker@studentsforlife.org
 

SFLA Reaction and Petition Against FDA Approval of New Abortifacient Drug
www.ellacausesabortions.com

Arlington, VA – On June 17th, the Food and Drug Administration’s  (FDA) Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs approved  “ella”,  a dangerous abortifacient drug, for sale within the U.S.  The drug now goes before the FDA for final approval.

While being billed as a contraceptive pill,  “ella” does not only prevent conception from occurring but it can also terminate the life of an existing human embryo. Women can take the drug up to five days after intercourse, well after life has been created. Because “ella” blocks the progesterone receptors needed for the continued development of the human embryo, “ella” causes an abortion if taken after conception occurs. This makes “ella” an abortion drug, not a contraceptive drug.

Kristan Hawkins, SFLA’s Executive Director, stated, “Because of the deceptive tactics by Planned Parenthood and their abortion industry allies,  many women will take this drug thinking it will only prevent pregnancy. However, if they take it after fertilization – when a new human life, separate from the mother and father is created – ‘ella’ will cause an immediate abortion.”

In response to the FDA Advisory Committee’s decision of this new super-abortifacent, Students for Life of America has launched a petition, www.ellacausesabortions.com, against the FDA decision, addressed to the Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. “We want the Secretary to know that pro-life Americans will not tolerate these new life destroying and deceptive tactics from the abortion industry,” said Kristan Hawkins.

Students for Life of America is a non-profit organization dedicated to equipping the pro-life generation with the resources they need to end abortion in America. Since launching its historic Field Program in 2006, SFLA has helped start over 350 new student pro-life organizations and trained thousands of pro-life students. For more information on SFLA, please visit www.studentsforlife.org.

###

Students for Life of America
4141 N. Henderson Rd., Suite 7
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 703.351.6280 Fax: 866.582.6420
www.studentsforlife.org

 

Share

The Dawn of Demonic Deception

To commemorate the 50th anniversary of “The Pill” the Wall Street Journal ran a lengthy and misleading article (“The Birth Control Riddle” April 20, 2009) by Melinda Beck, calling the arrival of The Birth Control Pill the “dawn of dependable contraception” which “ignited the sexual revolution, ended the post-war baby boom and helped millions of women enter the work force.” Ms Beck then proceeds to lament all of the “unplanned pregnancies” which still occur today before detailing for us how safe it is now to use new and improved birth control methods.

Marshall McLuhan, the late, great expert on the media, who converted to Catholicism before he died said, “The major media are engaged in a Luciferian conspiracy against the truth.” How true! Ms Beck’s column is a prime example of this conspiracy, including such blatant lies and misrepresentations as:

“the benefits outweigh the risks” when taking “The Pill”

“…the longer a woman uses the pill, the lower her risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer”, and

“…the pill does not seem to increase the risk of getting [breast cancer]“.

Beck then goes on to reassure the readers with sources such as the Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood’s own research arm) and a quote from Planned Parenthood’s VP of Medical Affairs who explains away the damaging side effects by saying, “We have to keep these things in perspective. A woman’s risk for problems is substantially higher during pregnancy.”

“The Pill” and the widespread use of other contraceptives in reality ushered in the ‘Dawn of Demonic Deception’ in America. One needs only to review some of the bitter fruits of “The Pill” to appreciate why.

  • A Mayo Clinic study said that women who use hormonal contraceptives for a minimum of 4 years prior to their first full term pregnancy have a 52% higher risk of developing breast cancer
  • Women who use a hormonal contraceptive for more then 5 years are 4 times more likely to develop cervical cancer
  • Prior to the sexual revolution and “The Pill” there were known to be 5 sexually transmitted diseases: Today there are more than 30.
  • There are over 50 medical studies which indicate that use of oral contraceptives and Depo-Provera place women at higher risk for almost all known risk factors of HIV.

As we look around today, we see how accurately Pope Paul IV predicted what would follow if contraception were adopted on a wide scale: a general lowering of moral standards, an increase in infidelity, ever-greater objectification of women, and the use of contraception as a weapon. Smaller and more broken families, rampant homosexuality, pornography, and China’s coercive one-child policy are just some of the sad and obvious reminders of Pope Paul’s wisdom in reaffirming the Church’s perennial teaching against contraception in Humanae Vitae.

Exposing the lies of contraception is, indeed, the great moral challenge of our day. It is not only a battle for life, it is a battle for souls.

When asked recently by a major publication to name her greatest regret, Martha Stewart replied, “Not having a dozen offspring.” This neatly summarizes the widespread “post-contraceptive regret” that weighs heavily on the hearts and souls of women who bought into the lies of the abortion industry. Even Catholic families have since the 1960′s dropped from 5.5 to 2.1 children today, increasingly rejecting the joys and challenges of larger families for the lesser goods of greater material comfort, “freedom,” and professional accomplishment.

The 1920′s-era story (ironically, the same time that Margaret Sanger was beginning her efforts to legalize contraception and abortion in America) comes to mind of the small boy who was peering out a window at dusk as a man came along to light the gas street lights.

His mother asked, “What are you looking at?”

As if explaining the obvious, the boy replied, “I am watching a man poke holes in the darkness.”

Today as confirmed Catholics this is all that God is asking of us – to stand in bold witness and poke holes in the spiritual darkness that surrounds us. Encountering the demonic deceptions forwarded by Ms. Beck and others who ignore the devastation wrought by contraception, we must answer with the light of truth.

Our daily faithfulness to God’s perfect plan for sexuality and marriage through the rosary and sacraments is the only way to reclaim the culture and our nation. Only by using these gifts can we help bring about a countercultural comeback of chastity and the family.

 Jenn Giroux is the new executive director of HLI America, mother of nine and a Registered Nurse.

 This article was originally written for Human Life International newsletter.

Share

One More Soul CEO Rips Hole in Guttmacher Abortion Study

Jennifer Giroux, CEO, One More Soul

Jennifer Giroux, CEO, One More Soul

Revealing and terrific piece  in Cincinnati Enquirer by Jennifer Giroux, CEO of the Catholic non-profit One More Soul, on the latest Guttmacher Institute study re: (“Unsafe abortions kill 70,000 a year,” Oct. 14).  Guttmacher is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. 

Not only does Giroux blow a gaping hole in the study, she also  outlines the devastating impact of contraception.

Read here: http://bit.ly/2PujrI

Share

It’s Not Just Health Care, Climate Change Policies Take Aim at The Unborn

While many Catholics and pro-life organizations have rightly focused their efforts on keeping abortion and euthanasia out of health care, population control advocates are pushing hard for global populationist  policies as a way to neutralize climate change.  Steve Mosher has a story revealing these efforts from a few days ago here. http://bit.ly/3nmoE

Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the Pro-Life Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, recently took issue with environmentalists pushing for population control, via abortion (including vacuum abortions), abortifacients and other forms of contraception, as a way to confront climate change.  The Cardinal also advocated for larger families when he emphasized that small family sizes are bankrupting Social Security and Medicare.

Cardinal Rigali criticizes population control as way to curb climate change

Cardinal Rigali criticizes population control as way to curb climate change

Cardinal Rigali:

“It should not be surprising that the neglect, and even the death, of some people are offered as a solution to rising health care costs. Population control advocates have long espoused aborting children in the developing world as a misguided means for reducing poverty.

“Some environmentalists now claim that the most efficient way to curb global climate change is to make ‘family planning’ more widely available in the developing world. They report that an average of 2.3 pounds per day of exhaled carbon dioxide can be eliminated from the atmosphere by eliminating one human being. As used by population control advocates, the innocuous term ‘family planning’ includes abortifacient contraceptives, sterilization, and manual vacuum aspiration abortions …

Since the advent of widespread contraception and abortion, a cultural hostility to children has grown. They are often depicted as costly encumbrances who interfere with a carefree adult life. No fewer than six recent books are dedicated to defending the childless-by-choice lifestyle – for selfish reasons, or to counter ‘overpopulation,’ a thoroughly discredited myth. In fact, if married couples were to have more children, Medicare and Social Security would not be hurtling toward bankruptcy.

“Since 1955, because of fewer children and longer life spans, the number of workers has declined relative to the number of beneficiaries, from 8.6 to only 3.1 workers paying benefits to support each beneficiary. Without substantially more young people to enter the work force as young adults, in 25 years, there will be only 2.1 workers supporting each beneficiary. Eliminating our young does not solve problems even on pragmatic grounds. It adds to them.”

Amen.

Share