First, pro-abortion “Catholic” US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi gave the Bill Clinton argument that, since the ECFs disagreed on “ensoulment,” abortion is OK.
So, Archbishop Donald Wuerl, hardly one of our more outspoken and zealous bishops, issued a rather mild, “pastoral” correction.
Several other bishops chimed in. Even Fr. Thomas Reese, SJ, said that Pelosi overstepped her bounds.
The Pro-Life Catholics in the House of Representatives criticized her, too.
So, now, her office has issued another “clarification,” saying that the Church *is* consistent on human life, but lots of Catholics disagree, so Catholics aren’t obligated to listen to the Church.
Boy, Catholics who want the bishops to stand up and be counted against heretics have no better friend these days than Nancy Pelosi.
At the end of C. S. Lewis’ The Magician’s Nephew, Uncle Andrew keeps refering to Jadis as a “Dem fine woman.” To wit, I found it hilarious to read the following headline:
Obama tells huge Dem crowd he’ll fix Washington (AP)
Is the US very far behind?
“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
Actually, it’s unfortunate for you, since your bishop doesn’t care enough about you to stop you from commiting Sacrilege.
But it ends with the mandatory pro-contraception comment.
As I’ve said before: can advocates of affordable food start attacking “organic” stores for not carrying the food we want to buy?
Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt’s blog cited Mary Jane
Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health
Association, saying, “it’s really not acceptable to the people I represent that
this administration is considering allowing doctors and nurses and pharmacists
that have received their education to provide services to now be able to not
provide those services if they don’t want to.”
So, in other words, people should be forced to provide whatever business “services” their customers demand??? I don’t get it.
Not every orthopedic surgeon does back work, or knee work, or rib work: they have specialties within specialties. Not every gastroenterologist treats colon problems, or ulcers, or whatever. Why should every OB/Gyn be forced to do abortions and contraception?
I can understand the argument that pharmacists working for other companies should have to choose, but that’s an internal matter to the company, and it’s a matter of white martyrdom.
But why should a company be forced to adopt a pro-contraceptive mentality?
I was replying to a student’s e-mail just now, and I wondered if there was a text-based way to do a “thumbs up”. I know that you’ll see smiley graphics for “thumbs up” on some of those drop-down things on message boards and stuff, but I was wondering if there was a text-only method.
I guess I’ve heard that before, but for some reason I’m always forgetting he’s one of the “Deadly Dozen.” Anyway, I predicted Obama would pick a pro-abortion “Catholic“. Now, let’s see McCain pick a pro-life Catholic.
So, he picks an old guy with experience in foreign policy, balancing McCain’s strong points. But Biden has also been around long enough to have a lot of baggage with conservatives, so hopefully that will help.
I’d really been hoping he’d pick Hillary after all, though.
Here’s the argument in a syllogism–
Premise 1: Women supposedly don’t feel guilty about abortions, and it’s pro-lifers who make them feel guilty.
Premise 2: Pro-life websites with graphic images of aborted babies and unborn babies make women feel guilty and damage their mental health.
Conclusion: Such websites should be banned.
Example they give: a woman has an abortion. *Then* she goes to a pro-life website, saying she hoped to ease her mind by seeing pictures of a “blob of cells”, and that seeing that the baby was so “human looking” disturbed her. In other words, she felt guilty to begin with.
I’ve been seeing the headlines on Marfan List, but I haven’t read any of the posts. Then I saw this article on my news ticker. Interesting thing is: Phelps, an Olympic swimmer who has arachnodactyly and hypermobility, says he has Marfan syndrome, and that he’s being treated at Hopkins. However, he allegedly has no problems with his aorta.
Long limbs and hypermobility are not enough for a diagnosis of Marfan. You have to have at least two major organ systems involved (usually the eyes and heart/aorta), Either he’s lying about his heart, or he’s not a Marf.
Here’s a nice (but short) article
on a 7-year-old girl named Rebecca who has Marfan syndrome, as well as Autism and something called Rubinstein-Taybi Syndrome, and her service dog, Fayth.
Whatever will they think of next?
If you’ve ever tried to get *anywhere* in a wheelchair, you’ll know that the ADA has done next to nothing. Or, if it has, I’d hate to see what it was like 20 years ago.
Here’s a question, though: if they can treat mice with human stem cells, why can’t they treat humans with animal stem cells?
Oh, yeah, right; because PETA won’t let them, because it’s unethical to do research on a mindless animal.
It used to be that “reform” movements were aimed at stopping practices where people compromised ethics to get selfish gains. Now, the term “reform” is being used in regard to *allowing* embryonic stem cell research, where people compromise ethics to get selfish gains.