Tag Archives: jill stanek

Trusting God and His Methods

God is our Creator. He knows what is best for us. But don’t you find yourself sometimes as a perpetual teenager, thinking your Creator doesn’t know best?

 

Well, here’s yet another testament that He truly knows best. Dr. Lazar Greenfield, a highly respected surgeon and inventor, published an article recently that touted the Zen-like benefits of semen on women.  He cited research that said that women who had sex without any barriers (condoms, etc.) were significantly less depressed than women who used condoms or were abstinent. Unfortunately, Dr. Greenfield resigned this week because of significant public pressure from feminist groups who aren’t happy that a high-profile medical professional was touting the benefits of male-female relations or “sexism” as they call it. Confused? So are we.

 

When married couples engage in relations as God intended, without any barriers, they get some great rewards in the mental health department. The Catholic Church has always recognized the holiness of the marital act (Genesis even says that a man should leave his family and “cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh”) and in her wisdom, decidedly condemned the birth control pill when other faiths were saying that it’s fine to use for contraception, even in marriage (see Humanae Vitae).

 

Which is why it was really disappointing to see a study by the Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood) say that 98% of Catholic women use birth control methods banned by the Catholic Church. 98%! In several dioceses across the country, engaged couples have to go through a Natural Family Planning course before they get married where they learn all about why the Church teaches NFP and how to go about implementing it in their marriage. What happened to them? Or their parents?

 

For those who do adhere to NFP, the benefits are immense. Not only are these couples following the Church’s teachings, but they are a reflection of Christ and his bride, the Church, in that He gave fully of himself to her, holding nothing back. Husband and wives are called to imitate that love, holding nothing back from each other, including their fertility. If used correctly, NFP has a 99% success rate in helping couples avoid a pregnancy if they are called to hold off on having kids for the time being.

 

The marital act, as God intended it to be, is something wonderful for husbands and wives and gives each of them immense benefits not only spiritually but as science has proven, physically and mentally as well.

 

Time and time again, God shows us one way or another that He knows best. Let’s stop fighting Him like teenagers and follow His will because He surely has our best interests in mind.

Share

‘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

NCI Scientist Finally Admits to Abortion-Breast Cancer

You won’t find it reported on ABC, NBC, and CBS. You won’t read it on the front pages of any major national newspaper. Nor will we see any congressional investigation to learn more about the threat. For many years, the pro-life movement, as well as many scientists, doctors and medical professionals have warned about the risk associated between abortion and breast cancer.

Revelations from a well-known doctor at the National Cancer Institute confirm what many scientists, doctors and researchers have been saying for years.  Yes, there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. 

Earlier this year, Dr. Louise Brinton, chief of the National Cancer Institute’s Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, revised her comments and beliefs from a 2003 NCI study that suggested there was no link between abortion and breast cancer.

But now, six years later, after more thought and research, Dr. Brinton is now convinced of the link between abortion and breast cancer. Praise goes out to Dr. Brinton for studying the matter further and doing, well, what researchers, scientists, and medical professionals should be doing — finding the truth.

SMS congratulates our friend, and fellow blogger, Jill Stanek for a terrific story about Dr. Brinton’s concession.  Also, major congrats to pro-life Dr. Joel Brind, a biology and endocrinology professor who had co-authored a meta-analysis demonstrating an abortion/breast cancer link.  Dr. Brind is a true hero in this story as he has continuously pushed the connection between abortion and breast cancer and exposed the hypocrisy of the NCI on the issue.

Read it all here.

Share

Obama, The Gospel and Health Care

I had the oppotunity to attend daily Mass today at a large gathering for Catholic educators.  This was the part of the Gospel reading:

Jesus said to the crowds,
“When you see a cloud rising in the west
you say immediately that it is going to rain–and so it does;
and when you notice that the wind is blowing from the south
you say that it is going to be hot–and so it is.
You hypocrites!
You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky;
why do you not know how to interpret the present time?
(Luke 12:54-56, emphasis mine)

For the homily, the bishop focused in on those last two lines and reminded us that our job as educators is not merely to make students smart in the language of our disciplines, but to also give them the ability to “interpret the present time” – that is, to be able to have a kind of intelligence that alerts them when injustice, immorality, or irrationality are creeping in on society.  The purpose of education is not merely to be smart enough to get a job ‘someday’, but to be wise enough to be able to sense when people are taking advantage of you now, or are pushing an agenda that is contrary to good morality.

As he spoke, I could not help but think about all of the events happening in our government and how frustrating it is that we fail to interpret the times as we listen to the endless debate over health care.

Let’s look at some facts…

1.  President Obama and the other liberal Members of Congress are heavily funded by pro-abortion special interest groups.

2.  Special interest groups only heavily fund candidates that they think will further their cause once elected.

3.  Candidate Obama promised Planned Parenthood that his first actions as President would be to open more doors to the abortion industry.

4.  Every independent reading of the current health care bill results in the opinion that federally funded abortion is a possibility, which could result in a big payback to the special interest groups that heavily funded the campaigns of many liberal government officials.

5.  Obama and many others have INSISTED that federally funded abortion is not in the health care bill.

6.  Because of the disagreement about number 5, the bill is largely stalled because many Members of Congress (especially some notable Democrats) have called to amend the language to make sure that Obama’s promise of ‘no abortion funding’ is explicit and impossible to wiggle out of after it passes.

7.  Obama and the other liberal senators who are funded by pro-abortion groups refuse such language, citing that the bill already makes funded abortions impossible, and it would just complicate the bill.

8.  My reading of the situation tells me that this bill would pass much more quickly if he just allowed explicit language prohibiting abortion.

*************************

Now, I am not a rocket scientist (assuming that rocket scientists are better logicians), but something seems terribly wrong here.  As I see it, there are only a couple of possibilities.

Either Obama and the other liberals who are supported by the pro-abortion lobby are just die-hard linguistic purists who can’t stomach the idea of having a harmless redundant word or, two, added to any bill, EVEN IF it would mean that most of the resistance from his own party would melt away and he would be that much closer to passing the most important legislation of his presidency -

- OR, he CAN’T change the language because he knows that in actuality all of the people who say the bill will allow for federally-funded abortion are right, and changing it would mean another campaign promise to the abortion industry is down the tubes.

I know we can’t read hearts and minds.  But we are called to interpret the times, and we can do that by looking at past actions.  Having watched Obama govern over the past several months he has really been hands off on any specific language  - allowing senators and other groups take the lead on such things.  Which makes it seem strange that he steps in on a technicality.  “Do whatever you want, but please no redundant language.”  Seems odd to me.

In fact, the last time we saw him become such a stickler for simplistic language was when he was an Illinois State Senator opposing the Infants Born Alive Act.  There, he also cited redundancy as his motive in voting against it stating that federal law already applied in Illinois.

At least, that’s what he told voters in his national senate race who were dumbfounded by his resistance to such a reasonable law.  As we all know now, it turns out that was NOT his only motive at the time.  Jill Stanek has done a marvelous job chronicling what his real motives and thinking on the issue were.

Bottom line:  There are only two instances that I can find where Obama has claimed “redundancy” as his excuse for resisting language in a bill.  Both centered around abortion issues.  The last time he did so, we found out that he lied about the redundancy excuse, and was merely protecting his benefactors in the abortion industry.  The rhetorical question is “What about THIS time?”

Does it take a rocket scientist to figure this one out?  Are we really going to let our government pass a bill that provides unlimited funding of abortion in the name of “Health Care” – and do so while telling us they aren’t?

After hearing that Gospel today, I sure hope not.

- Patrick Looby

Share