Newspeak, TEC style, or "Abortion is perfectly legal"

This is why I could not stay in the Episcopal Church.

From Stand Firm [boldface mine]:

". . . As a Christian who is privileged to be an Episcopal priest and equally privileged to be President of the New Jersey chapter of the Religious Coalition of Religious Choice, I couldn't be more proud of my church for its compassionate, pro-life stand.

Yes, I said PRO-LIFE. Even a quick read of the official position of TEC will leave no doubt that we, as a church, are supportive of the life of the embryo / fetus, the life of the mother, and the life of the family.

I am proud of my church that it, like I, and like many, many Episcopalians abhor abortion as a method of birth control - which is crystal clear after reading our position on abortion and our funding of the RCRC (let those who have ears, hear . . . and intellect, think).

I am proud of my church that we have resisted the emotionally manipulative pictures of abortion and pre-term abortion which are tragically necessitated by the harsh realities of those involved. . .

I am proud of my church that every woman - yes, including the life of a woman who is a priest, married or not, - can make the painful, awful, life-determining decision about whether or not she can make a commitment to the embryonic life she carries in her body, depending on the opinion of her physician and pediatrician, her assessment, based on the opinion of the probability of the support of the father of her potential child, and the ability of her family and community to support her decision. . .

I am proud of my church which understands that the advance of diagnostic procedures still falls far behind the information needed to make a timely decision about the lifelong commitment to a new life, necessitating the "pre-term" (aka "partial abortion"), which, at this point in time, is perfectly legal and, therefore, cannot be called "murder" - any more than the execution of a profoundly retarded person who has committed murder. . .

I am proud that The Episcopal Church supports the sex education which is championed by NCRC to avoid pregnancy in the first place, including the choices of abstinence, birth control, and, if tragically necessary, abortion.

I am proud that The Episcopal Church respects the "dignity of every human being" in our baptism covenant and prays, during that baptism, that the child receives "the gift of wonder of all of God's creation."

I am proud of The Episcopal Church and our baptismal covenant, which is not replicated throughout the World Wide Anglican Communion and, perhaps, ought to be.

What greatly distresses me is that there are those who would triumph the simplicity of their own state of sin so that others might feel guilty about the difficulty and complexity of the reality of their own morality.

Blessings,

(the Rev'd Dr) Elizabeth Kaeton"

Yes, you read that right. According to the Swan of Newark, our baptismal covenant requires that we support abortion.

Read it all. There is so much wrong with the reasoning and expression of the Rev. Kaeton that I don't even want to go there - from never using the word "baby" but only "embryo" and "fetus" to support of the RCRC to saying that since partial birth abortion is legal, it's okay - it's all too far away from what the Church universal has held and what I see in God's mercy, Christ's love, and the Holy Spirit's revelation that I can only conclude that this "reasoning" is truly evil.

(And for those who don't know, the RCRC is the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights Choice [oops, my bad], a political action group masquerading with a religious cover - and no, I won't link to it.)

Uncommon Knowledge: Interview with Archbishop Chaput

Check out Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson to see his 5-part interview with Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, author of Render Unto Caesar (a book well worth reading)!

H/t to Judith L.

British ethicist: Senile should be “put down”

From Ed Morrissey at HotAir [boldface mine]:

In yet another revealing moment for nationalized health care, a highly respected British ethicist said that dementia sufferers should get euthanized in order to preserve resources for healthier people. Baroness Warnock, described as “Britain’s leading moral philosopher”, said that the government should license people to be “put down” and stop being a drain on society:

The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are “wasting people’s lives” because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.

She insisted there was “nothing wrong” with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.

The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be “licensed to put others down” if they are unable to look after themselves. …

Lady Warnock said: “If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives – your family’s lives – and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.

“I’m absolutely, fully in agreement with the argument that if pain is insufferable, then someone should be given help to die, but I feel there’s a wider argument that if somebody absolutely, desperately wants to die because they’re a burden to their family, or the state, then I think they too should be allowed to die.

“Actually I’ve just written an article called ‘A Duty to Die?’ for a Norwegian periodical. I wrote it really suggesting that there’s nothing wrong with feeling you ought to do so for the sake of others as well as yourself.”

Shocking? It shouldn’t be. When the State has the burden of providing “free” medical care, that care will get rationed in ways that are, unfortunately, all too predictable. Human life stops being sacred and instead becomes a commodity with a balance sheet. If bureaucrats decide that a particular life, or a class of life, has become a net negative, then eventually they will find ways to eliminate the liability.

Totalitarian governments have always worked this way; the shock comes from the same impulse occuring in supposedly enlightened democracies. We’re seeing a new kind of government these nanny states, though — a democratic totalitarianism that makes all of the choices for its subjects after they willingly give the bureaucracy the power of life and death over them. It’s a voluntary totalitarianism, and it starts by assigning government the role of caretaker from cradle to grave, the latter point coming at their choosing.

Western civilization built itself on the sanctity of human life and the rights of the individual. It doesn’t take much for Westerners to give up that birthright. The only incentive for voluntary slavery appears to be low-cost prescriptions and catastrophic hospital coverage. Once we buy into that system, all manner of personal choices get removed: the foods you can eat, the beverages you can drink, your pastimes, and apparently your right not to be murdered just to clear a hospital bed. . .

Read it all.

‘Objectivist’ writer: Trig Palin a financial burden who should have been aborted

From Newsbusters:

In stunningly self-centered, cruel fashion, Nicholas Provenzo, writer for the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism suggests that Sarah Palin’s decision to give birth to a child with Down Syndrome, is a financial burden that others are forced to suffer with.

Provenzo, who has written opinion pieces for the Washington Times, Capitalism Magazine, and the Atlanta Journal Constitution, as well as being a guest on Bill Maher’s former show, Politically Incorrect, makes his case for “the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome.”

The full first paragraph of the piece which is circulating amidst the blogosphere reads (emphasis mine):

Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin's decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.

Morally justifiable reasons for killing a baby? There is no justifiable reason for taking any child's life, and to call it a moral obligation to society is undeniably one of the more disgusting things to be written by a human being, about another human being.

In fact, advocating the abortion of a child based on the potential of that child having a disease or imperfection of some kind raises echoes of Nazi Germany’s quest for an Aryan race.

The suggestion that another life should be ended based on the presence of an extra chromosome, and that another healthy individual’s own life is more precious because of that, is over the top narcissism.

Maybe this shouldn’t surprise quite so much. After all, it wasn’t too long ago that sick individuals were offering up baby Trig on ebay. We live in a society where skeptics simply can't admire someone who stands on their principals. They must tear them down by insinuating that such a move is merely a political prop. Or, in this case, they argue that choosing life was actually a selfish move. A stunning argument to say the least.

However, Mr. Provenzo demonstrates his own level of selfishness in his rant. He doesn’t go the typical route of the pro-choice crowd, but reveals some very bizarre reasoning for why it is Palin’s obligation to have killed her baby boy. . .

Read it all. All I can think of to do is to pray for Mr. Provenzo - what a sad life.

Pro-life groups finally able to buy ads on Google after Google policy changes

From the Times (U.K.):

Christian and other religious groups opposed to abortion were allowed to advertise on Google for the first time from today, after the search engine capitulated in the face of a legal challenge.

Google had banned pro-life religious groups from buying adverts against search terms such as “abortion” and “abortion help” but was forced to abandon its policy after it was accused of breaching equalities legislation.

The challenge was brought by the Christian Institute, a cross-denominational pressure group, who said that Google’s change of heart was an acknowledgement of the rights of everybody to hold an opinion on the subject.

Mike Judge from the Christian Institute said: “Google were taking adverts from pro-abortion groups, and our view is that was a free speech issue. What we want to do is set out the acts in a pretty factual and pretty sensible way”.

Google had been taken to court by the Christian Institute earlier in the year, arguing that its policy was in breach of the Equalities Act of 2006. Initially, Google said it would fight in the courts, but changed its mind over the summer. Its new policy applies globally.

Acknowledging that the issue of abortion was “an emotive subject”, Google said that it reconsidered its policy following the Christian Institute’s challenge, and said it would be “creating a level playing field and enabling religious associations to place ads on abortion in a factual way”.

However, it was unclear how Google would define the introduction of factual advertising. . .

Read it all. This is very scary to me, as Google grows to control more and more of the content available.

Remember, Google's motto is (the very 1984) "Do no evil." They can say it, but if they don't do it, it means nothing. (And don't forget their capitulation to the Chinese Communist government in banning certain search words in China, for instance "Tiananmen.") Never forget, Google is a business with a decided secular corporate leadership.

Trig's breakthrough

From Michael Gerson at the Washington Post [boldface mine]:

. . . Trig's moment in the spotlight is a milestone of that movement. But it comes at a paradoxical time. Unlike what is accorded African Americans and women, civil rights protections for people with Down syndrome have rapidly eroded over the past few decades. Of the cases of Down syndrome diagnosed by prenatal testing each year, about 90 percent are eliminated by abortion. Last year the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended universal, early testing for Down syndrome -- not just for older pregnant women. Some expect this increased screening to reduce the number of Down syndrome births to something far lower than the 5,500 we see today, perhaps to fewer than 1,000.

The wrenching diagnosis of 47 chromosomes must seem to parents like the end of a dream instead of the beginning of a life. But children born with Down syndrome -- who learn slowly but love deeply -- are generally not experienced by their parents as a curse but as a complex blessing. And when allowed to survive, men and women with an extra chromosome experience themselves as people with abilities, limits and rights. Yet when Down syndrome is detected through testing, many parents report that genetic counselors and physicians emphasize the difficulties of raising a child with a disability and urge abortion.

This is properly called eugenic abortion -- the ending of "imperfect" lives to remove the social, economic and emotional costs of their existence. And this practice cannot be separated from the broader social treatment of people who have disabilities. By eliminating less perfect humans, deformity and disability become more pronounced and less acceptable. Those who escape the net of screening are often viewed as mistakes or burdens. A tragic choice becomes a presumption -- "Didn't you get an amnio?" -- and then a prejudice. And this feeds a social Darwinism in which the stronger are regarded as better, the dependent are viewed as less valuable, and the weak must occasionally be culled. . .

Read it all.

Archbishop George Niederauer, Nancy Pelosi to talk about communion

From The Hill newspaper [boldface mine]:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has accepted an invitation from San Francisco’s archbishop to discuss whether she should continue to receive communion at the Catholic Church in the wake of comments she made about abortion.

San Francisco Archbishop George H. Niederauer said he had received letters and e-mails from “many Catholics” expressing dismay over Pelosi’s remarks, in which she said the matter of when life begins remained controversial within the church. He said many of them questioned whether she should be able to receive communion from the church. . .

Her comments have been criticized by several Catholic Church officials, and Niederauer described them as being “in serious conflict” with the church in the Sept. 5 issue of Catholic San Francisco.

Niederauer concludes that, based on Catholic Church statements, it is up to him as Pelosi’s pastor to address whether she may continue to receive communion. He then invites the Speaker “into a conversation with me about these matters.”. . .

In a Sept. 5 response hand-delivered to Niederauer on Friday, Pelosi thanks him for the invitation and his gracious remarks about her love for the church and her Catholic faith. . .

Niederauer quoted a section of the catechism of the Catholic Church to underline his point that when life begins is not controversial within the church. “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception,” according to the catechism. “Since the first century the church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”

Niederauer also criticized an Aug. 26 statement from Pelosi’s office about her comments on “Meet the Press.” In the statement, Pelosi’s office said that while the Catholic Church believes life begins at conception, “many Catholics” do not agree with this view.

“Authentic moral teaching is based on objective truth, not polling,” Niederauer wrote. He noted that in 1861, polls in different states showed different views on slavery, but this did not mean that slavery was moral in one state and not in another.". . .

Read it all.

And for another take on the Pelosi story: Kathy Shaidle

From Kathy Shaidle at five feet of fury:

The reason the MSM (and ordinary people) are ignorning the "Bishops smack down Nancy Pelosi on abortion" story is:

a) they are, as you [Hugh Hewitt] said on air, notoriously tone deaf about religious issues,

b) they agree with Pelosi on abortion anyhow; but most importantly:

c) they find it rich -- as I do -- that cardinals and archibishops can manage to shift themselves so rapidly when the issue is abortion, but kept their mouths shut for twenty years when children were being molested by their brethren.

The American Catholic hierarchy has NO moral authority now and may never recover it.

Pelosi is wrong and you and the cardinals are right.

It. Doesn't. Matter.

No one takes the American Catholic hierarchy seriously any longer, given their abdication of authority over the greatest in-house controversy in its history. . .

Check it out.

And now Cardinal Egan joins in. . .

From the Archdiocese of New York:

STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE, EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN CONCERNING REMARKS MADE BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

Edward Cardinal Egan
Archbishop of New York

August 26, 2008

H/t to Jeff via email.

"Washington archbishop rips Pelosi on abortion"

From the Roman Catholic Diocese of Washington, a statement by Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl:

On Meet the Press this past Sunday, August 23, 2008, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made statements regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church, human life and abortion that were incorrect.

Speaker Pelosi responded to a question on when life begins by mentioning she was Catholic. She went on to say, “And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition...” After Mr. Tom Brokaw, the interviewer, pointed out that the Catholic Church feels strongly that life begins at conception, she replied, “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.”

We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops. Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear: the current teaching of the Catholic Church on human life and abortion is the same teaching as it was 2,000 years ago. The Catechism reads:

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception…Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.” (Catechism, 2270-2271)

The Catechism goes on to quote the Didache, a treatise that dates to the first century: “’You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.’”

From the beginning, the Catholic Church has respected the dignity of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death.

And more on the story from The Hill:

In a rare public rebuke of a top politician, the archbishop of Washington said Monday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was incorrect when she recently said the moment of conception has long been a matter of controversy within the Catholic Church.

In a release issued Monday night, Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl said Pelosi's comments on "Meet the Press" on Sunday "were incorrect."

Wuerl noted that Pelosi responded to a question on when life begins by mentioning she was Catholic.

The release quoted Pelosi as saying the church has not been able to come with a definition of when life begins.

“After Mr. Tom Brokaw, the interviewer, pointed out that the Catholic Church feels strongly that life begins at conception, she replied, 'I understand. And this is, like, maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy,' " the release said.

Wuerl strongly disagrees.

He said, "We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops. Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record."

Wuerl pointed out that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear, and has been clear for 2,000 years. He cited Catechism language that reads, "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception … Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”

A Pelosi spokesman did not immediately comment for this article. . .

In an interview on C-SPAN that aired earlier this month, Pelosi was asked about how some church officials have raised objections about whether former presidential contenders — such as Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) — should receive communion.

Pelosi, a Roman Catholic whose district includes most of San Francisco, said she has not encountered such difficulties in her church.

“I think some of it is regional,” she said, “It depends on the bishop of a certain region, and, fortunately for me, communion has not been withheld and I’m a regular communicant, so that would be a severe blow to me if that were the case.”

Read it all.

Carl's most excellent comment: UK opposition leader backs abortion of babies with disabilities

A comment by carl at Stand Firm:

The ontological line between ‘born’ and ‘unborn’ is entirely arbitrary. If this argument rests upon the premise that parents should not be required to bear the burden of disabled children, then the argument justifies more than abortion. It justifies infanticide as well. For what if the condition is missed by the doctor? The parents could rightly say “We would have aborted if only we had known! It is not right that we be required to carry this burden involuntarily.” That arbitrary thin line which legally separates abortion from murder will not hold for long.

This attitude stems from one of the most pernicious presumptions of western man - that the purpose of life is to be ‘happy.’ The questions arise: “How can we fulfill our purpose in life if we can never escape the drudgery of caring for the needs of another; caring for one who will never have the capacity to materially repay the cost of silently carrying the load. And how can we continue on when the unfairness of it all is so visible; when we see others around us who have no such burden?” And always the question is asked by those who require no such care; who expect to never require such care. Woe unto them when they themselves need it.

The question of unequal burden is a question only God can answer. We have no proper recourse but to submit and do the work He requires, trusting that He does not require things without purpose. But we know that happiness is not His priority for man. I cannot imagine a more self-centered purpose in life than happiness. It is the very essence of pleasing the self, and a Christian should have no part in it. For us the purpose of life is not found in happiness, but elsewhere.

Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

I don’t see much about temporal happiness in that statement.

Testimony of Jill Stanek, R.N.

From the Congressional Record, the oral statement and prepared statement by Jill Stanek, R.N., who testified at a hearing on the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001 (signed into law by Pres. Bush in August 2001) before the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary in July of 2001 [boldface mine]:

Statement by Jill Stanek of Mokena, IL

I am a registered nurse who has worked in the labor and delivery department at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois for the past 6 years. In the year that has elapsed since I last testified before this Committee, I have continued to work in the same hospital at the same position.

Christ Hospital performs abortions on women in their second or even third trimester of pregnancy. Sometimes the babies being aborted alive are healthy and sometimes they are not. The abortion technique that Christ Hospital and other hospitals use is called induced-labor abortion, and sometimes results in babies being aborted alive because throughout this particular procedure, the baby is not killed in utero. The focus of this procedure is to forcibly dilate a woman's cervix so that she will prematurely deliver a baby who dies during the birth process or soon after.

The cervix is the opening that's at the bottom of the uterus that normally stays closed until a woman is about 40 weeks pregnant and goes into labor. There are a few ways to force the cervix to open early. At Christ Hospital, the most common way this is done is by the physician inserting a medication called Cytotec into the birth canal close to the cervix. Cytotec irritates the cervix and stimulates it to open early. After the cervix is prematurely dilated, the small pre-term baby drops out of the uterus, sometimes alive.

In the event that a baby is aborted alive, he or she is given what my hospital calls comfort care. Comfort care involves wrapping the baby in a blanket and offering her to her parents to hold until she dies. If parents do not want to hold their baby, as I have been told is most often the case, it is left to staff to care for the baby.

Up until recently, staff options were to hold the baby until death, or put the baby in our soiled utility if we got too busy or if the baby lingered too long. Indeed, it is not uncommon for one of these babies to live for an hour or two or even longer. Last year, of the 16 babies that Christ Hospital states were aborted, at least five were born alive. Four of those babies, two boys and two girls, lived between one and a half and 3 hours. At Christ Hospital, one aborted baby lived once for almost an entire 8-hour shift. At least two of the second-trimester babies who were aborted last year at Christ Hospital were healthy babies.

One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our soiled utility room because his parents did not want to hold him and she did not have the time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in the soiled utility room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was between 21 and 22 weeks old, weighed about a half a pound, and was about ten inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe.

Toward the end, he was so quiet, I couldn't tell if he was still alive unless I held him up against the light to see if I could see his heart beating through his chest wall.

After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where we take all of our other dead patients.

Other co-workers have told me about incidences of live aborted babies whom they have cared for. A support associate told me about an aborted baby who was left to die on the counter of the soiled utility room wrapped in a disposable blanket—I'm sorry—towel. This baby was accidentally thrown into the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to try and find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and onto the floor.

A nurse co-worker told me about an abortion she was involved in where the baby was supposed to have spina bifida but was born with an intact spine. Since I spoke before you last year, this nurse that was involved in this particular abortion told me that what actually happened was that there was an incompletely formed twin who appeared as a mass on his brother's back during ultrasound. The nurse told me that the father came into the soiled utility room to see his son, took one look and saw that he had been involved in aborting a completely healthy baby, turned and left the room without saying a word.

I was recently told about a situation by a nursing co-worker who said, ''I can't stop thinking about it.'' She had a patient who was just over 23 weeks pregnant, and she was not going to be able to complete her pregnancy to term. This baby was completely healthy and had up to a 39 percent chance of survival according to the national stats, but the patient chose to abort. The baby was born alive. If the mother had wanted everything done for this baby, there would have been a neonatologist, a pediatric resident, a pediatric nurse, and a respiratory therapist present for this delivery and the baby would have been taken to our NICU for specialized care. Instead, the only personnel present for this delivery were a resident and my co-worker.

After delivery, the baby, who showed early signs of thriving—she began to breathe on her own and her FR scores improved—was merely wrapped in a blanket and kept in the labor and delivery department until she died two and a half hours later.

Just 3 weeks after this baby was aborted, another mother came to the hospital under similar circumstances, identically aged gestation, and was offered the same options. But she wanted to keep her baby, and so present at her delivery were those four aforementioned NICU personnel, and for the 2 days that I tracked her, that little girl lived.

When I testified before you last July, another nurse who worked at the hospital named Allison Baker also testified. Allison described walking into our soiled utility room on two separate occasions to find live aborted babies left naked on a scale one time and on a metal counter another time. She told about the patient she herself had who didn't know that her baby was going to be aborted alive and who did not want to hold him. After he was taken to the soiled utility room, she kept asking, ''Is he dead yet? Is he dead yet.''

Lest you think that Christ Hospital's live abortion practice is uncommon, I am entering into the congressional record today literature from a March 30th, 2001 symposium sponsored by Waukesha Memorial Hospital in Wisconsin wherein Dr. Washington Hill wrote, that one of three potential complications of a mid-trimester abortion is a live birth.

After I testified last year, Christ Hospital stopped putting babies into the soiled utility room to die. Seven months ago, it unveiled its comfort care room. This is a small, nicely decorated room complete with a First Foto machine in case parents want pictures of their aborted babies, baptismal supplies if parents would like their aborted babies baptized, and a footprinter and bracelets if parents would like keepsakes of their aborted babies. There is also a wooden rocker in the corner to rock the babies to death. And I am entering pictures of the comfort care room into the hearing record with your permission.

Prepared Statement of Jill L. Stanek

I am a Registered Nurse who has worked in the Labor & Delivery Department at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, for the past six years. In the year that has elapsed since I testified before your committee regarding the same bill under discussion today, I have continued to work at the same hospital in the same position.

Christ Hospital performs abortions on women in their second or even third trimesters of pregnancy. Sometimes the babies being aborted are healthy, and sometimes they are not. The abortion technique that Christ Hospital and other hospitals use, called ''induced labor abortion,'' sometimes results in infants being aborted alive, because throughout this particular abortion procedure the fetus is not killed in the uterus. The focus of this method is to forcibly dilate a woman's cervix so that she will prematurely deliver a baby who dies during the birth process or soon afterward.

The cervix is the opening at the bottom of the uterus that normally stays closed until a woman is about 40 weeks pregnant and goes into labor. There are a few ways to cause the cervix to open early. At Christ Hospital the most common way this is done is by the physician inserting a medication called Cytotec into the birth canal close to the cervix. Cytotec irritates the cervix. The FDA does not approve Cytotec for this use. It is a drug that is supposed to be taken by mouth to help control ulcers. The manufacturer of Cytotec issued a public letter in August 2000 warning that this drug may be harmful to women if used to induce labor, up to and including causing the uterus to rupture and causing death. But Christ Hospital continues to use Cytotec for pregnancy terminations.

After the cervix is prematurely dilated, the small, preterm baby drops out of the uterus, sometimes alive. In the event that a baby is aborted alive, he or she is given what my hospital calls ''comfort care.'' ''Comfort care'' involves wrapping the baby in a blanket and offering him or her to the parents to hold until the baby dies. If parents do not want to hold their baby, as I have observed is most often the case, it is left to staff to care for the baby. Up until recently, staff options were to hold the baby until death or put the baby in our Soiled Utility Room if we got busy or if the baby lingered too long. Indeed, it is not uncommon for one of these babies to live for an hour or two or even longer. Last year alone, of the 16 babies that Christ Hospital states were aborted, I am aware of four who were born alive. Each of these babies—two boys and two girls—lived between 1 1/2 and 3 hours. At Christ Hospital one of these babies once lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift. At least two of the second-trimester babies who were aborted last year at Christ Hospital were completely healthy.

One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end he was so quiet that I couldn't tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.

Other co-workers have told me about incidences of live aborted babies whom they have cared for. A Support Associate told me about an aborted baby who was left to die on the counter of the Soiled Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel. This baby was accidentally thrown into the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor. A nurse coworker told me about an abortion she was involved in where the baby was supposed to have spina bifida but was born with an intact spine. She said that what actually happened was that there was an incompletely formed twin who appeared as a mass on his brother's back during an ultrasound. The nurse told me that the father came into the Soiled Utility Room to see his son, took one look and saw that he had been involved in aborting his completely healthy baby, and turned and left the room without saying a word. I was recently told about a situation by a nursing coworker who said, ''I can't stop thinking about it.'' She had a patient who was just over 23 weeks pregnant, and she was not going to be able to complete her pregnancy to term. The baby was healthy and had up to a 39% chance of survival, according to national statistics. But the patient chose to abort. The baby was born alive. If the mother had wanted everything done for her baby, there would have been a neonatologist, pediatric resident, neonatal nurse, and respiratory therapist present for the delivery, and the baby would have been taken to our Neonatal Intensive Care Unit for specialized care. Instead, the only personnel present for this delivery were an obstetrical resident and my coworker. After delivery the baby, who showed early signs of thriving, was merely wrapped in a blanket and kept in the Labor & Delivery Department until she died 2 1/2 hours later. Just three weeks after this baby was aborted, another mother came to the hospital under similar circumstances, carrying an identically aged baby and was offered the same options. But she said that she wanted her baby. And so present at her delivery were the aforementioned NICU team, and for the two days that I tracked her, that little girl lived.

When I testified before you last July, another nurse who worked at Christ Hospital, Allison Baker, also testified. Allison was not asked back today due to the new limit on the number of witnesses allowed. But last year Allison described walking into the Soiled Utility Room on two separate occasions to find live aborted babies left naked on a scale and the metal counter. She told about the patient that she herself had who didn't know that her baby might be aborted alive and who did not then want to hold him. After he was taken to the Soiled Utility Room she kept asking, ''Is he dead yet? Is he dead yet?'' (This testimony is being entered today into the Congressional Record.)

Lest you think that Christ Hospital's live birth abortion practice is uncommon, I am entering into Congressional Record today literature from a March 30, 2001, symposium sponsored by Waukesha Memorial Hospital in Wisconsin that was ''reviewed and is acceptable'' by the American Academy of Family Physicians, wherein Dr. Washington Hill writes that a ''complication'' of a mid-trimester labor induction is a ''live birth.'' The American College of Obstetricians and gynecologists also gave credit hours to physicians for taking this course.

After I testified last year, Christ Hospital stopped putting aborted babies to die in the Soiled Utility Room. This past December it unveiled its ''Comfort Room.'' This is a small, nicely decorated room complete with a First Foto machine in case parents want pictures of their aborted babies, baptismal supplies if parents would like their aborted babies baptized, and a foot printer and baby bracelets if parents would like keepsakes of their aborted babies. There is also a wooden rocker to rock these babies to death. (Pictures entered into Congressional Record.)

When Christ Hospital opened its Comfort Room, I was honestly galled. It became clearer to me than ever that a law must be enacted that specifies that all babies born alive are indeed humans and American citizens with civil rights to equal protection. This is a point that is obviously not clear to extremists in our great country who believe that the right to obtain an abortion must be extended to include the right to commit infanticide. If a hospital named ''Christ'' does not willingly stop committing infanticide but handles public and legal scrutiny by merely trying to make those whose lives they're snuffing out more ''comfortable,'' I have grave concerns about children whose lives are being ended at abortion clinics and hospitals where there is no spotlight of attention.

Once a fetus is aborted, the pregnancy has been terminated. But when what emerges on the other of the vaginal vault is alive, ''it'' by medical definition is no longer a fetus but is now a ''neonate'' or ''baby,'' with rights as human beings and American citizens that must be zealously protected. If we all cannot at least agree that civil rights begin at birth, then we will have to initiate the debate as to when after delivery a living person does begin to have rights, and a Pandora's Box will have been opened, the depths of which none of can possibly ascertain today.

The Department of Health & Human Services wrote me that, ''civil rights laws do not cover abortion procedures or the rights of newborns.'' The Illinois Attorney General determined that ''there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital'' at this time . . . in regard to Christ Hospital's labor induction abortion practices. (Both letters entered into Congressional Record.) Alan Keyes recently observed, ''If we reflect for a moment upon the example of the Declaration of Independence, we will remember that sometimes even self-evident truths need to be declared.'' I think it is obvious that this is one of those times.

And from Priests for Life:

Jill has shared with us the photos of the "Comfort Room" which was established at Christ Hospital, for the babies to die in.

Photo1 -- entrance to the Comfort Room

Photo2 -- the "First Foto" machine, for professional photos of the aborted baby

Photo3 -- Babies are rocked to death in this chair.

Photo4 -- The evil of child-killing is given spiritual trappings, with the option of baptism for the child who is killed.

Photo5 -- the scale to weigh the aborted babies

Sigh . . . the campaign season begins

I hate politics.

Not because I don't believe in the system, I do, very much so. And not because I don't like politicians - some of my best friends (and family) are politicians. I think they have a generally thankless job that requires them to open their (and their families') lives to public scrutiny and constant fundraising. A necessary but contentious part of the American life.

I hate the bickering and the one-up-manship and the gotcha games and the party hacks (on all sides) that always agree with their party line, illogical or not - if something is proposed by their party, it's the best thing ever and if that same thing is proposed by the other party, it's a complete waste and failure.

So I do not plan to post much at all on politics this fall. This, however, because of the tangential connection with Lambeth 2008 seemed appropriate.

President Bush’s pastor to appear in pro-Obama ad

Christian Leaders Release Pro-Family Obama Ad
By the Matthew 25 Network

To Run During Saddleback Presidential Forum

This Saturday, in their first appearance together, Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain will be attending the Saddleback Civil Forum on National Leadership held at Rick Warren’s megachurch.

The Matthew 25 Network will release our first TV ad entitled “Families” that will air during the Saddleback Forum.

The religious leaders that appear in the ad will be speakers on the press call to talk about the important issues to people of faith when making their choice for president, including the character and faith of each candidate.

We will discuss the contrast in efforts made by Senator Obama’s and Senator McCain’s campaigns to reach out to religious voters in the lead up to Saturday’s Forum on National Leadership.

Join us Friday, August 15th at 10:30am Eastern

Press Conference Call

Join:

Mara Vanderslice, Founder and Director, Matthew 25 Network

Brian McLaren, Pastor and Author, Leader in the Emergent Church movement

Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell, Senior Pastor, Windsor Village United Methodist Church, Houston, TX
Spoke at President Bush’s Inauguration and officiated Jenna Bush’s wedding

Lisa Cahill, Catholic theologian,Professor of Theology, Theology Department, Boston College

Sounds pretty innocuous (don't forget that separation of church and state thingy that the political left is always going on about) until you find out more about the Matthew 25 Network PAC (yes, that's Political Action Committee):

Called “The Matthew 25 Network,” the new organization, which is still in its earliest stages, is being spearheaded by Mara Vanderslice, who was director of religious outreach for the Kerry-Edwards campaign in 2004 and did similar work for several statewide Democratic candidates, including Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio, Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.

Mr. Obama, the presumed Democratic nominee, is beginning to step up his outreach to the religious community, and met Tuesday in Chicago with a group of about 30 leaders, including the Rev. T. D. Jakes, the black mega-church pastor.

Ms. Vanderslice, who has been active in the budding movement over the last few years to encourage Democrats to be more willing to discuss matters of faith, declined to detail the group’s plans, because she said the organization is planning an official rollout later in the month.

Nevertheless, according to a description of the group that came with the invitation to its fund-raiser tonight in which the suggested contribution is $1,000, the committee is hoping to reach out to “targeted religious communities that are key to electoral success for Senator Obama, including Catholics, moderate evangelicals, Hispanic Catholics and Protestants.”. . .

And, of course, we all remember Brian McLaren from Lambeth. (You know, I thought he was a young guy just because of his association with the emergent church movement, but he's older than I am! It reminds me of the college students of the '60's who thought they were so revolutionary and rebellious, but when you look into it, you realize that they were led by older professors and activists.)

So by appearing in a pro-Obama ad, we can only assume that Brian McLaren is comfortable with Senator Obama's position on abortion, which we have all learned more about this week [boldface mine]:

. . . When [Senator Barack] Obama was in the Illinois Senate, the Born Alive Infants bill came up three successive years.

In 2001, three bills were proposed to help babies who survived induced labor abortions. One, like the federal Born Alive Infants bill, simply said a living "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

On all three bills, Obama voted "present," effectively the same as a "no." Defining "a pre-viable fetus" that survived an abortion as a "person" or "child," he argued, "would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

In 2002, Obama voted "no" on the bill.

When Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate in 2003, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee. The Born Alive Infants bill and an amendment to add exactly the language [Senator Barbara] Boxer [of California] said protected Roe in the federal bill (which President Bush had signed into law in 2002) was referred to this committee.

According to the records made by committee Republicans, the amendment to include in the Illinois bill the language Boxer said protected Roe was approved by a 10 to zero vote of the committee. (This vote, Republicans say, was a common procedural courtesy extended to the sponsoring senator.) The bill as amended was then put to a committee vote. It lost four to six, with Obama voting "no.". . .

The heart weeps. And that's all I have to say about that.

H/t to the BibleBeltBlogger.

Peter Toon: From Lambeth 1930 to Lambeth 2008

From Mere Comments at Touchstone, an article by Peter Toon:

The Lambeth Conference of 1930: Its continuing influence on the Morals and Behavior of Anglicans.

“It is about as clear as any historical chain can get that the continuing implosion of The Episcopal Church is a direct consequence of the famous Lambeth Conference in 1930” [First Things, August 2008, page 40].

So what happened in 1930 of such consequence? Whatever did the assembled Bishops (mostly from the West in those days) do or say to be so important and far-reaching?

Do not be surprised! They spoke about sex and family life in which they said many helpful and even wise things (see Resolutions 9-20 of the Conference). However, in one Resolution, in which they were also trying to be helpful (and relevant!), they gave advice that was wholly innovatory in 1930 for a traditional Christian Church, be it Catholic or Protestant. Here is Resolution 15:

The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.
Voting: For 193; Against 67.

In the Early Church, in the Medieval Church, in the Churches of the Protestant Reformation and in the Christian tradition to the 1920s (e.g., see the Marriage Service in The BCP 1662), any form of artificial birth control in order to make the sexual act sterile was regarded as a serious sin against God’s holy law. In 1930 the Anglican Council of Bishops, for what seemed to be good pastoral reasons, suggested ways for Christian couples in certain circumstances to reject this law.

By this Resolution, which went around the world like wild-fire, the Anglican Way was changed permanently. No attempt has been made in any Lambeth Conference since 1930 to reverse it, and no national or regional synod of the Anglican Communion has officially rejected it. Thus it stands as part of the modern, Anglican teaching on sexual relations within marriage.

To quote from First Things again: “By giving benediction in 1930 to married heterosexual members purposely seeking sterile sex, the Anglican Church lost, bit by bit, any authority to tell other members — married or unmarried, homosexual or heterosexual — not to do the same. To put the point another way, once heterosexuals start claiming the right to act as homosexuals, it would not be long before homosexuals start claiming the rights of heterosexuals” (page 40). . .

Read it all.

An Interview with Georgette Forney: Lambeth, GAFCON, Bishops & The Great Divide

From Sarah Hey at Stand Firm:

Yesterday while at the Marketplace I went by the Anglicans For Life booth. Unlike many of the bishops I have spoken with -- and as you will hear from the interview -- Georgette was on a high, having had a very successful two-week stint at the Marketplace. The comparison between meeting the many allies around the world at the Lambeth Conference and, oh, say, The Episcopal Church's General Convention is indeed stark.

Listen to the audio to hear more about the successes of her work at the Marketplace, as well as her analysis of the Anglican Communion as seen through the eyes of a pro-life warrior.

Check it out!

Britain's pathway to euthanasia - NHS protocols for dehydrating disabled patients to death

From LifeSiteNews.com [boldface mine]:

A British "end of life" care protocol approved for use by the National Health Service (NHS), has created a systematic, and legal, method of euthanising elderly and disabled patients, even while "mercy killing" remains officially illegal, says a prominent expert in elder care. The "Liverpool Care Pathway" will be used to eliminate patients deemed to be "blocking beds" in the increasingly financially strapped public health system.

For years, Dr. Adrian Treloar, a psycho-geriatrician and senior lecturer at the Greenwich Hospital and Guys', King's and St. Thomas's Hospitals in London, has been sounding the warning that the NHS has an unofficial system in place to authorise the killing of vulnerable disabled patients with an unwritten policy of "involuntary euthanasia" by deep sedation and dehydration.

On April 26, 2008, Dr. Treloar wrote a letter to the British Medical Journal, saying that the protocol known as the "Liverpool Care Pathway" for dying patients, is a blueprint for systematic euthanasia of disabled patients. The Liverpool Care Pathway, which allows for "continuous deep sedation" for patients judged to be incurable, was developed between the Royal Liverpool hospital and Marie Curie cancer hospices in order to standardise the medical approach to dying that could then be used as a template nationally. Combined with withdrawal of fluids, deep sedation leads quickly to death.

In 1999, the NHS dismissed Dr. Treloar's warnings as "ludicrous." But media coverage of families resorting to lawyers to stop the killing of their relatives has made it increasingly difficult for health officials to deny that there is an accepted euthanasia procedure in place. Dr. Treloar maintains that the motivation for killing patients judged to be incurable is not the relief of extreme suffering but the enormous pressure on the socialised health care system to make hospital beds available and the "triaging" of costly tax-sponsored medical care.

Since that time, the government passed legislation in 2005 - the Mental Capacity Act - that, following existing guidelines from the British Medical Association, allows doctors to withhold all "treatment," including food and water, from patients who are judged to be incapable of making decisions for themselves. Under this law, doctors, and not the family and not the patient, have the last say in whether a patient is judged mentally capable. Once this judgement has been made, withdrawal of fluids can be ordered on the grounds that it is in the patient's "best interests" to die. If families try to intervene to save their loved ones lives, social services and police can be, and have been, called to intervene. . .

Read it all. And thank God for people like Dr. Adrian Treloar.
H/t to Stand Firm.

Group says Georgia case highlights problem of coerced abortions

From LifeNews.com:

Atlanta, GA (LifeNews.com) -- A leading post-abortion group for women who have had abortions and regret their decision says a recent Georgia case highlights the problem of coerced abortions. Representatives of the Silent No More Awareness campaign say they know women who have been pressured into abortions they don't want.

As LifeNews.com profiled, 44-year-old Cindi Cook is headed to jail for one year for lying about being the mother of a teenager girl supposedly seeking an abortion. However, Cook had talked the girl into having an abortion she otherwise didn't want.

Janet Morana, co-founder of the post-abortion group, told LifeNews.com, “This Georgia case shows just how far reaching the pressure to abort can be.”

“The claim of the pro-abortion lobby that terminating a child’s life is ‘a choice between a woman and her doctor or her God’ is empty rhetoric to the countless women I know who were intimidated or threatened by boyfriends, husbands, or relatives,” she added.

Georgette Forney, another co-founder, told LifeNews.com the burden should fall on abortion centers to make sure women are not pressured or coerced.

“Abortion clinics will not voluntarily ask girls or women if they’re being coerced into ending their children’s lives,” she explained.

“Abortion clinics are in business to make money and the more abortions they perform, the richer everyone involved becomes; everyone, that is, except the woman who’s just had her life shattered and the baby who’s just had his life ended," she added. . .

Read it all. Georgette Forney is the national president of Anglicans for Life! Anglicans for Life will be at both GAFCON and Lambeth this summer, so any and all donations are appreciated.

Abortion: the largest cause of death in Europe

From Cranmer, a European perspective on the abortion debate in light of Europe's declining population [boldface mine]:

“We condemn torture, rape - anything that uses another's body for our own purpose. Shouldn't we show embryos similar respect?”

So asks the Archbishop of Canterbury.

As the Government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is debated in detail in the House of Commons, they shall consider ‘saviour siblings’, and animal/human hybrid embryos. And some shall ask why ‘religious bigots’ should seek to impose their irrational views on the enlightened part of society, while those of a religious hue (joined undoubtedly by many concerned non-believers) shall ask why science presumes to instruct legislators and dispense with the conscience.

Dr Williams asserts: ‘Conscientious objections about the Bill are not a matter of blind superstition. They arise from serious concerns about where the direction of some sorts of research might lead society.

"Slippery slope" arguments don't settle the question, but they can't be ignored. And I, for one, am grateful that both scientists and politicians are willing to recognise there is a serious debate to be had on these matters of conscience, and more is at stake than just a set of irrational prejudices.”

The Archbishop also notes ‘the pressure from some quarters to take this opportunity to reduce the time limits for abortion’.

And this is to be a very interesting battle, and one which is worthy of cross-party support. But in the blue corner is Nadine Dorries MP with her demand for a reduction to 20 weeks, and in the red corner is a Labour counter-amendment, demanding a reduction to 22 weeks. Never has a division on a point of morality assured such mutual destruction, and it is madness. One might think, if Labour members were really concerned with this, that they would have supported the Dorries amendment, but no. They have made the issue party political, seeking to bring in their own (much less effective) amendment, and a house divided against itself cannot stand.

And this comes amidst a report that establishes that there is a marital breakdown and an abortion in Europe almost every 30 seconds:

‘Marriage and birth rates are falling dramatically, pensioners now outnumber teenagers, and more and more people are living alone, says the Institute for family policy in a survey of life in the 27 EU countries.’

And perversely ‘one in every five pregnancies ends in abortion’, which amounts to 1.2 million a year - equivalent to the population of Slovenia. This makes abortion the largest single cause of death in Europe. . .

Read it all.

Post-abortion group upset Planned Parenthood exploited Mother's Day

From LifeNews.com [boldface mine]:

A leading post-abortion women's group is upset that Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards exploited Mother's Day for fundraising for the nation's largest abortion business. Planned Parenthood also came under fire for saying promoting abortion is more important than civil rights.

As LifeNews.com reported this week, Richards honored Mother's Day by sharing part of an editorial her daughter wrote saying she got her pro-abortion views from her mother and grandmother, former Texas Gov. Ann Richards.

Richard couldn't wait until the third paragraph of her Mother's Day letter to PPFA supporters to ask them to open their wallets.

"This Mother's Day, I'm honoring that legacy with a Planned Parenthood Federation of America Mother's Day gift. Join me," she wrote.

But Georgette Forney, a co-founder of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign and an abortion victim, told LifeNews.com she found the sentiment appalling.

"The irony of Planned Parenthood asking for Mother's Day donations in honor of mothers and daughters hardly needs pointing out," she said. "Planned Parenthood already took our money when they aborted our children; I guess now they want money for the ones they missed."

"Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood's president, writes with pride that one of her daughters is carrying on her family's legacy of fighting for abortion," she added. "Ms. Richards has admitted, but refused to discuss, that she aborted one of her other children. I wonder what legacy she thinks she left that baby?"

Janet Morana, another SNMAC co-founder and a leader at Priests for Life, told LifeNews.com Richards and Planned Parenthood should be ashamed for exploiting the Mother's Day holiday for money. . .

Read it all, and it's not noted here, but Georgette Forney, in addition to being a co-founder of Silent No More, is the national president of Anglicans for Life.

First Things: The politics of bioethics

Okay, so I'm just a little behind in my reading. From First Things (November 2007), I like this definition by Richard John Neuhaus [boldface mine]:

. . . A human being is a ­person possessed of a dignity we are obliged to respect at every point of development, debilitation, or decline by virtue of being created in the image and likeness of God. Endowed with the spiritual principle of the soul, with reason and with free will, the destiny of the person who acts in accord with moral conscience in obedience to the truth is nothing less than eternal union with God. This is the dignity of the human person that is to be respected, defended, and indeed revered. . .

Read it all.