Contrary to what Sen. Rick Santorum said yesterday, I’ve always held that politician’s wives are the real litmus test to their positions on abortion.
For example, former South Carolina governor David Beasley’s father-in-law was an abortionist. This came out after this “pro-life,” NRLC-endorsed, Baptist Republican was elected governor. “The Beez” said his father-in-law’s profession had no bearing on his own views. As a general rule, I’d support that claim. However, in four years, he did squat to help the pro-life cause.
Similarly, whatever their husbands have said, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush & Laura Bush have all been openly in favor of _Roe_ in some form or another. Nancy Reagan fired Pat Buchanan from the speech staff for being too pro-life, and of course she’s a big crusader in favor of ESCR.
So, despite John Roberts’ apparent “moderate” stance on abortion, I find it highly suggestive that his wife is so active in Feminists for Life and other groups.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says that Judge John Roberts, if appointed to the Supreme Court, is not bound by his 2003 statement that, as an Appeals Court judge, he accepts _Roe v. Wade_ as “settled law.”
In short, an Appeals Court judge has no power to overturn Supreme Court precedent; therefore, an Appeals Court judge *must* accept Supreme Court decisions that stand. A Supreme Court justice, however, is not bound by the Court’s own precedent.
This is also noteworthy, considering how many of us were worried about Gonzales as an SC possibility, precisely because he’d made similar statements as a jurist.
In response to an inquiry for Debra Vinnedge of Children of God for Life from 2003, the Vatican established a panel to examine the issue of vaccines derived from aborted babies, since US Catholics who try to conscientiously object have been left in the wind by a void of Church statements.
Well, after the usual explanations of direct, indirect, formal and material cooperation in evil, the statement condemns the inherent guilt of governments and researchers who have created these vaccines to begin with, and the guilt of those who continue to distribute them.
But the bottom line is that the use of such vaccines by individuals constitutes, “at least a remote passive material cooperation,” and that it is morally illicit to use such vaccines, unless a serious and immediate health risk is at stake. For example, Rubella is only serious if a pregnant woman who was not exposed in childhood gets it. So an adult woman considering pregnancy, who has never had rubella as a child, could licitly use the vaccine, but doing it for purely preventative, “what if” conditions, does not apply.
If there are morally acceptible alternatives, we must use the alternatives.
The statement also states a moral duty to protest against the use and production of these vaccines by voicing our concerns to our governments and the pharmaceutical companies.
Obviouslly, if someone is unaware of the problem, there is no guilt. And there is no guilt of someone is constrained by law to use the vaccines–however, in a case of constraint, the guilt of the government is all the greater.
This statement is amazing! It’s even stronger than I would have hoped!