Sunday, December 31, 2006


Any high school biology student in 1973 could have given the answer to the key question but the Supreme Court did not feel competent to do so. After denying their ability to answer "the difficult question of when life begins," the Court went on to, in effect, immediately answer it and answer it incorrectly! The Court began at once to speak of the unborn child in conclusionary terms as being a "theory of life" for the first two trimesters of pregnancy after which he or she graduates to the status of a "potentiality of life" during the final trimester. The child was held not to become alive prior to that time! This scheme of things clearly answers the question the Court said it could not answer regarding "when life begins." It answers it by contending that life begins at birth.

Friday, December 29, 2006


Yesterday was the Feast of the Holy Innocents in the liturgical calendar of the Roman Catholic Church. This feast celebrates the deaths of innocent children who literally died for (in place of) Christ and whom the Church has venerated as martyrs officially since about the sixth century. Their feast day has always been located in the Octave of Christmas to emphasize their intimate connection with the baby Jesus. We are reminded on this day of both the fragility of new life and our obligation to protect it and so it is fitting that as we enter this new year I challenge each of you to renew your commitment to the defense of innocent life.
First, contemplate. The Holy Innocents' feast day serves both as a reminder of a tragic historical event and as a grim reality check for those of us who live in this society where abortion is practiced as casually as shopping! A short moment of reflection on this scriptural passage will help us to discern the parallels to the abortion industry in our society: the irrational command of a powerful person to kill, the executioners with blood on their hands, the suffering of the innocent victims and the secondary victims who were scarred forever by the deaths of their children. We also contemplate the truth that "where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more," (Rom 5:20) in order to see how God brings good out of so much evil.
Second, pray. Pray for those who are blinded to this reality and ask God to grant them the grace of conversion. Remember that we are all tainted by this massacre of innocents because our lives are intertwined with the culture of death, so we must pray with humility for the gift of perseverance to bring it to an end. Prayer will bring the power of Christ to bear on this sinful institution of death. He alone can transform the world.
Third, act. God does not work through prayers only. We are His hands and feet in this world so our pro-life resolutions for 2007 have to be very direct and specific; if you are not sure what to do, I have given some suggestions below on how to meet the challenges set before us:
Find the local abortion clinic in your community and make a promise to pray there at least three times in 2007 - minimum.
While you're at it, find the local pregnancy care center and make contact with them. It is likely they are in need of volunteers. Be one of them! They all operate on shoe-string budgets too so support them!
Speak up in some forum and defend life, be it on the internet, in a letter to the editor, or in conversations with friends, family and co-workers. Of course they will call you a fanatic! It does not matter. You must think of that Day when the Lord will ask you what you did to defend His precious little ones. You must be able to say you spoke out on their behalf.
Boycott the businesses that fund the death industry. These groups don't deserve one dollar of our hard-earned money if they are material cooperators in the killing of innocents. The most reputable boycott group that I know of is Life Decisions International whose detailed corporate boycott list you can order from their website ( and who provide ongoing insight into the activities of Planned Parenthood.
I'm sure there's much more we can all do, but these things are good for starters! I will be praying for you and your families as we finish this year of pro-life election losses and enter into a year full of hope and promise. May the Holy Innocents guide our commitment to be more active in saving their innocent brothers and sisters!
Sincerely Yours in Christ, Rev. Thomas J. EuteneuerPresident, Human Life International

Thursday, December 28, 2006

The Court

There are many objectionable aspects to the Court's decisions. These include gross errors of fact, law and logic. After pointing out that the key to the entire matter is whether or not the fetus is a "person," the Court stated that, since members of various erudite professions throughout the centuries had differed on the issue, " . . . the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Of course if the judiciary is going to refrain from deciding issues because they are issues upon which people disagree, very little will ever be decided by our courts. It is, after all, precisely the function of the courts to resolve important matters upon which there is dis agreement. The above quoted statement of the Supreme Court also seems to be saying that we are in no better position today to answer the question than we have been at any prior time in history. This ignores the remarkable recent advances made by science in the fields of embryology and fetology.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Legal Personhood

3D Ultrasound of 18 Week Unborn Child

In a scholarly discussion, Professor Prosser cites a 1798 English case in which the court chides one of the attorneys for having argued the position that a fetus is not legally "a person." The court, obviously considering such an argument to be preposterous, responds as follows:

"Let us see what this non-entity can do. He may be vouched in a recovery, though it is for the purpose of making him answer over in value. He may be an executor. He may take under the Statute of Distributions. He may take by devise. He may be entitled to a charge for raising portions. He may have an injunction, and he may have a guardian." (Thellusson v. Woodford, 31 Eng. Rep. 117)

Prosser goes on to point out that modern law also recognizes the legal existence and personhood of the unborn child for many purposes. As he put it, " . . . medical authority has recognized long since that the child is in existence from the moment of conception, and for many purposes its existence is recognized by the law." He goes on to provide several examples:

The criminal law regards it as a separate entity, and the law of property considers it in being for all purposes which are to its benefit, such as taking by will or descent. After its birth, it has been held that it may maintain a statutory action for the wrongful death of a parent.

Prosser then discusses the hypothetical situation of a pregnant woman who is tortiously injured and whose unborn child, as a result, is also either injured or killed. He condemns several pre-1946 cases which denied recovery for the personal injuries or wrongful death of the infant pointing out that, "All writers who have discussed the problem have joined in condemning the old rule and in maintaining that the unborn child in the path of the automobile is as much a person in the street as the mother . . ." (emphasis supplied). Fortunately the old rule has been abandoned. Prosser portrays the current state of the law as follows:

The child, if he is born alive, is permitted to maintain an action for the consequences of prenatal injuries, and if he dies of such injuries an action will lie for his wrongful death.

Prior to the Supreme Court's decisions on abortion, American Jurisprudence summarized the legal "personhood" of the fetus as:

Biologically speaking, the life of the human being begins at the moment of conception in the mother's womb, and as a general rule of construction 'in the law', a legal personality is imputed to an unborn child for all purposes which would be beneficial to the infant after its birth. Thus in the law of inheritance a posthumous child is ordinarily deemed as born before the death of its parent, and in the construction of a will a posthumous child 'en ventre sa mere' at the time of the testator's death may ordinarily be included in the term 'children', 'grandchildren,' etc. A child unborn at the time of its parent's death has also been considered a 'child' of the decedent in determining beneficiaries of an award in a wrongful death action or in a workman's compensation case. The interest in an estate taken by the child at birth dates back to the time of conception or the later origination by intermediate proceeding to which it was not a party.
[To be continued]

Sunday, December 24, 2006

The Unborn is as much a person as a child already Born!

The Fetus is Human, Thus a Person

What type of life is a fetus then? Science has devised an elaborate system of classifying all life in a manner which it denominates as "phylogenetic." This system groups life into categories such as Order, Class, Phylum, Genus, and Species. A human fetus can only be classified, phylogenetically, as homo sapiens. That is to say, as a member of the human species. Science, then, regards the fetus not only as life but as human life. Given then, that a fetus is alive and, further, that it is human it seems reasonable that the law should regard it as a human life that is to say, as a person.
[To be continued]

Saturday, December 23, 2006

British Data Shows Repeat Abortions Increasing at Alarming Rate

by Steven Ertelt Editor
December 21
, 2006

London, England ( -- New statistics from the British Department of Health show that more than 100 teenage girls every month have a second abortion and some of those girls are having a multiple abortion. The statistics show some teenagers are using abortion as a method of birth control and may prompt calls for tighter regulations.

According to the figures, 1,316 girls under the age of 18 had a second abortion during 2005 with 90 girls having a third abortion.

Another 44 women had undergone eight or more abortions including 20 who were under the age of 30.

A report in The Independent newspaper shows that 14 women under the age of 25 had their sixth abortion in 2005 and at least one of those women were under the age of 18.

Among the over 30s, 482 women had their fifth abortion in 2005, 92 were on their sixth and 29 were admitted for their seventh abortion.

The new data shows that repeat abortions for all age categories are up from the previous year.

Despite the grisly figures, the Department of Health claims it's making progress in reducing teenage pregnancies with a combination of abstinence and sexual education involving the promotion of birth control.

On its web site, the British health department claims "Between 1998 and 2004, the under-18 conception rate has fallen by 11.1 per cent and the under-16 rate by 15.2 per cent. Both rates are now at their lowest levels for 20 years."

In total, there were 186,416 abortions in the UK in 2005 including more than 60,000 on women who had had a previous abortion. Among the 18 to 24-year-old group, 16,474 had a second abortion while 3,060 were on their third.

Printed from:

The Fetus is Alive

If you'd like to use this great resource in your educational effort, please send an email for details, or phone 1-888-686-7600

Making the Case For Fetal Personhood:

My analysis of abortion has to begin with an inquiry into the nature of the object of the procedure, the fetus. Although the Supreme Court has spoken of the human fetus as a mere theory of life for the first two trimesters and then as a mere potentiality of life during the third trimester, I cannot take seriously the proposition that the fetus is not alive. My high school biology suffices to refute the absurdity of such a position. It may be possible to debate whether sponges or viruses are forms of life but it seems patently absurd to doubt that any mammalian fetus constitutes life. The very purpose of abortion quite obviously is to kill the fetus - this would seem quite unnecessary if it were not alive.

Friday, December 22, 2006


There's danger for the unborn too!

Nonpersonhood, then, is synonymous with a complete denial of legal rights. Much has already been written about the analogy between the decisions in Roe v. Wade and Dred Scott v. Sanford. Both involved the arrogant judicial pronouncement of nonpersonhood upon a certain class of human beings: children in utero in Roe and enslaved Blacks in Scott. A great deal has also been written to reveal the striking similarities between the Third Reich view of persons who were handicapped or Jewish and the contemporary view of the unborn. These are perhaps the most familiar previous examples of nonpersonhood but they are not the only examples. Nonpersonhood has also been reflected in the concepts of outlawry, presentment in Englishry, and apartheid.

[To be continued]

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Definitions: Personhood

Personhood, as used here, is primarily a legal concept. Whether a conceived but unborn child is alive and whether, if alive, such life is "human" are questions which the biological sciences have long since answered in the affirmative. The concept of legal personhood, however, is not a scientific question but is fundamentally a question of law. Only a "person" can have and exercise legal rights. The law is so adamant in this regard that it finds itself compelled to confer personhood by statute on such entities as corporations in order to endow them with the ability to exercise legal powers, privileges, and rights (i.e., so that they may own property, enter into contracts, bring suit, etc.)

[To be continued]

Wednesday, December 20, 2006


Mom Tells Advice Columnist: I May Force My Daughter to Have Abortion

by Steven Ertelt Editor
December 19
, 2006

Freeport, NY ( -- A New York mother has written to national advice columnist Harriette Cole saying she wants her pregnant 14 year-old daughter to have an abortion. The letter points to the alarming trend of parents forcing their children to have abortions when they discover their teenage daughters are pregnant.

Virginia, a Freeport, New York resident, writes to Cole, the author of the nationally syndicated advice column, "Sense and Sensitivity," that her daughter recently informed her she is five weeks pregnant.

The New York mom describes her home situation -- she's a single mother of two children who can barely make ends meet -- and tells Cole "I am so upset this has happened to my family."

"Since I am the head of the household, I feel I have a say in what action should be taken," Virginia says.

"I don't want her to have the baby. I want to force her to have an abortion, but I don't know if I should leave her with the option to make the decision on her own," Virginia concludes.

Cole's response appears to support Virginia's daughter having an abortion, though she mentions adoption as a possibility.

"Explain to your daughter you cannot afford to support her and a child. Break reality down to her financially so she gets a full picture of what she's facing," Cole responds. "Discuss her options -- including adoption. Abortion is not the only solution."

The letter points to the problem of some parents forcing abortion on their teenage daughters instead of finding them help for their pregnancy and giving them realistic options.

It also highlights two recent forced abortion cases.

In October, the parents of a 19 year-old Maine woman who allegedly attempted to take her to New York for a forced abortion have pleaded not guilty to charges of kidnapping, assault and terrorizing. Nicholas and Lola Kampf were arrested in New Hampshire after apparently tying their daughter up and forcing her into their car.

The Kampfs were arrested at a K-Mart in Salem, New Hampshire after their daughter Katelyn escaped when they let her out of the vehicle to use the restroom. She had obtained one of their cell phones and called police at a Staples store.

Cumberland County Sheriff Mark Dion previously told the Associated Press that Katelyn said her parents wanted her to have an abortion because Johnson is black.

Dion previously indicated that Katelyn said her mother "was pretty irate at the fact that the child's father was black, and she had made a number of disparaging remarks about that."

He said the Kampfs had treated Katelyn's boyfriend well until they received a phone call from her last Thursday indicating she was pregnant. That apparently "changed the dynamic" he said.

Dion indicated Katelyn told him her mother "kept referring to the baby as a thing, as 'It,' and there were other comments made."

Meanwhile, in September, Columbus, Georgia police arrested the mother and two cousins of a 16 year-old girl who are accused of forcing her to drink turpentine in an attempt to kill her baby in an abortion.

Rozelletta B. Blackshire was charged with cruelty to a child and criminal abortion Columbus Police Sgt. Debra Bohannon indicated. The teenager's cousins, 26 year-old Shonda Y. Blackshire of Columbus and 28 year-old Monica M. Johnson of Eufaula, Alabama, were also arrested.

Blackshire and the cousins forced the girl to drink turpentine twice between September 12 and September 20 and Bohannon indicated they may have tried to force her to have an abortion because they were supposedly worried about an unrelated health problem the pregnancy could have impacted.

ACTION: Send your comments about Harriette Cole's advice to Virginia to

Printed from:



In 1973 the United States Supreme Court outraged humanity by its edict declaring unborn children not to be "persons" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution. Many of those who were shocked by that decision were left incredulously wondering how something as self-evident as the personhood of living but as yet unborn infants could be so pompously denied. Naively we had assumed that each individual human life was, almost by definition, a "person." Some advocates of life, displaying a propensity to be more analytical, pointed out the differences between the concepts of "citizenship" and "personhood." One is a citizen by birth (or naturalization), they reasoned, whereas one is a "person" merely by existence. Birth, therefore, is not a prerequisite to personhood. This is a distinction that escaped the notice of the Justices. Pro-Life scholars further emphasized that, while "personhood" was a concept that government could legitimately broaden to include, for example, certain "artificial persons" such as corporations, it was not a concept that could legitimately be narrowed to exclude any categories of natural persons. To do so would be to depart from the basic premise upon which our civilization is predicated - the belief that personhood is ours by endowment from the Creator. We do not hold our personhood by grant of any government. Neither can any government dispossess us of it. Yet this is what the Supreme Court professed to do to an entire class of human beings.

[To be continued]

Tuesday, December 19, 2006


Reporter Further Exposes Abortion-Stem Cell-Beauty Treatment Scandal

by Steven Ertelt Editor
December 18
, 2006

London, England ( -- British reporter Matthew Hill has uncovered a grisly practice where babies from Ukraine are killed via infanticide or become victims of abortions for their stem cells for dubious beauty treatments. The practice involves ravaging the babies' bodies for organs and stem cells.

As previously reported, Hill produced a documentary for the BBC showing how a hospital is snatching newborns and aborted babies and giving their parts and cells to stem cell firms around the world for controversial beauty injections.

Hill writes in a Monday article in the London Daily Mail newspaper about how he uncovered the scandal, including a videotape of post-mortem examinations.

He says a charity worker at a hospital in the eastern Ukrainian city Kharkiv showed him the videotape.

"Officially, the cells are taken from aborted fetuses with the mothers' consent," Hill writes, but "there could also be hundreds of babies stolen to order, to feed demand for stem cells from around the world."

Hill says the first hint he found of the bizarre trade came from stem cell researcher Stephen Minger, from Kings College.

Minger told Hill that a Barbados clinic called the Institute For Regenerative Medicine, had contacted him to get his endorsement of the IRM beauty treatments involving the injection of stem cells from the dead babies.

Minger said he refused, saying there were no studies backing up IRM's claims the injections would have the desired effect. He also was upset at how the babies were harvested for their stem cells, saying some of the babies could have been "liquidized" to obtain the cells.

"I find it very distasteful that they are used for beauty treatments," Minger told Hill. "As far as I can tell from what's been published, a lot of people go to this clinic in Barbados feeling a bit run down, or that their skin has just lost some elasticity, and they are getting 'smoothies' or perk-me-ups."

The Daily Mail report says IRM buys the stem cells from the Ukraine hospital.

Hill went to Barbados to get more information and he eventually met with one of IRM's senior doctors, Shami Ramesh.

Ramesh said he would show Hill proof of how the beauty injections work or how they help patients with various diseases.

"This 'proof' turned out to be one study of a single patient with motor neurone disease and another of eight cardiac patients. The numbers were too small for proper analysis and the data had not been published in any reputable peer-reviewed journal," Hill wrote.

Ramesh said the best proof was in how many patients kept coming back for more injections.

Hill said Ramesh denied allegations that the stem cells his firm uses come from newborn babies snatched form their mothers and killed for their cells and body parts.

"He said he had faith in the Institute of Cryobiology in Kharkiv, the source of the stem cells used by the Barbados clinic, but added that 'maybe in the future we will go and check it out,'" Hill wrote in the newspaper report.

Hill then traveled to Ukraine and said Dr. Valentin Greshenko, head of the Institute of Cryobiology refused to be interviewed.

Searching for details, he went to the Maternity Hospital Number Six, located in a high-crime section of Kharkiv.

There, he interviewed a 26 year-old woman, Svetlana Plusikova, who had a normal pregnancy but was told after birth that her baby was stillborn. Doctors refused to let her see the baby.

"I think she was stolen. If she was dead I should have been allowed to see her. I think a lot of young mothers like me lost their children, but right now nobody turns to the police," she told HIll.

Dimitry and Olena Stulnev shared with Hill their own story of how their baby was shown to them and then doctors claimed the baby died the next day. Hospital officials refused to provide them more information or allow them to see their baby.

Hill said he eventually obtained videotaped evidence of the infanticides and abortions from Tatyana Zhakarova, from the Federation Of Families With Many Children.

"Tatyana discovered many more infants had died at the hospital in similarly odd circumstances. And after intensive lobbying, the authorities eventually agreed to have the tiny bodies of around 30 babies exhumed and examined," Hill wrote in the Daily Mail.

"Tatyana showed me the video she had been allowed to record of the post-mortem examinations that followed. The gruesome film shows the carcasses of babies, some of whom were full-term, with their organs and brains missing," Hill added.

In an attempt to prevent exposing the truth, officials have apparently apprehended Tatyana's 20 year-old son. He has been missing since October and she fears he's been killed.

Ultimately, Hill was granted five minutes to talk with Maternity Hospital Number Six's chief doctor Larysa Nazarenko.

"The children are not lost," she told Hill. "They are not stolen -- that's just somebody else's illusion."

"There is no such therapy," she said, according to the London newspaper. "No work in this hospital is connected with the use of cells. This is the wrong address. I deny everything."

Hill reports that the Council Of Europe has started its own investigation of the barbaric stem cell trade and it's first report talks of a "culture of trafficking of children snatched at birth and a wall of silence from hospital staff upwards over their fate."

Related news stories:
Clinics Use Tissue From Babies Killed in Abortions for Cosmetic Injections

Abortion, Infanticide of Ukraine Babies Fuels Stem Cell Research Industry

Printed from:


Ours is a nation of laws. Because the U.S. is a constitutional republic, the very fabric of American society has been woven on the premise that every citizen is subject to the law, and that the law itself is subject to constitutional limitations. Such a premise has served our country remarkably well and has produced one of the most effective legal systems ever devised. Unfortunately, the law's subjection to the Constitution has recently come to entail the law's subjection to the Supreme Court. In other words, at present, nine justices can place themselves "above the law," making a mockery of constitutional republicanism.

Only by understanding the power the Court wields, and the nature of the problem such power creates, can we understand the ramifications of the abortion decisions.

[Starting tomorrow, I will post a series of condensed articles from "A Resource Manual" on the horrors of abortion, infanticide & euthanasia]

Monday, December 18, 2006


Today is one of the most inspiring days preceding Christmas! It is the feast of "Our Lady of Expectation," mostly unknown to many in these modern times, but still kept alive in many countries like Spain, Portugal, Italy and Poland as well as in a few religious orders. In older editions of missals, this feast is still listed as a votive Mass.

The feast is celebrated on the 18th of December, a week before Christmas Day. Our Blessed Lady, well advanced in pregnancy, is portrayed in the highest dignity of her Divine Motherhood. Dressed in royal apparel as daughter of David the King, she awaits with joy the arrival of her divine Son, Jesus, the Prince of Peace. Her whole posture suggests how she remains wholly consumed in contemplation of her Son under her heart. Her immaculate womb has become a living portable sanctuary of divinity. There are special prayers and novenas to "Our Lady of Expectation" available for women who cannot conceive or bear a child.

The votive Mass of "Our Lady of Expectation" is theologically enlightening and spiritually enriching for the time of Advent and Christmas. With the entrance antiphon, the Church prays with the prophet for the coming of the Just One from heaven that the earth may be ready to welcome the Savior: "Send victory like a dew, you heavens, and let the clouds rain down the just. Let the earth open for salvation to spring up" (Is 45:8). In the opening prayer, the Church offers the prayer to God through Mary's intercession: "O God who wished that your Word would take the flesh from the womb of the Virgin as announced by the Angel and whom we confess to be the true Mother of God, may we be helped by her intercession."

This wonderful feast also reminds us that it has been almost nine months since the Annunciation/Incarnation (March 25) and that Jesus developed in Mary's womb just like we did in our mother's womb. Think of all the millions of babies who never make it through the nine months because their mothers have aborted them. May God, through the intercession of the Expectant Mother Mary, take their souls into His Kingdom.

Sunday, December 17, 2006


Holy Mother Church

As believers in a transcendent God, we hold that truth is distinct from and independent of circumstances. We further believe that truth is ultimately measured and, in fact, defined by the character and nature of the absolute, unchanging God of the universe. Each of us must individually consider how best to proclaim the measure of God's truth revealed to us. History teaches as certain, however, that the withholding of that truth creates a vacuum into which unrestrained men will place all manner of self-serving philosophies that ultimately promote the denigration of any truth and justice. We who are entrusted with the truth must raise it as a banner. In so doing we must be both circumspect and compassionate. Our banner must lift up Jesus who offers hope to the lost, comfort to the hurting and restoration to the broken. Only in Jesus Christ can we achieve compassionate solutions to society's problems without compromising the truth. May our efforts in His Name be also in His strength and direction. As we lift Him up, may we draw closer to Him, and draw others with us; only by this will we succeed.

[From 'A Resource Manual']

Saturday, December 16, 2006


In the mid-1800's, the United States was polarized on the issue of slavery. Congress repeatedly attempted compromises that would mollify both sides without ever addressing the fundamental moral issue. As states were added to the union, however, the short-sighted flaws of these compromises were exposed and violence seemed increasingly imminent. Finally, the Supreme Court took action. The primary issue addressed by the infamous Dred Scott Decision was whether Dred Scott, a slave held by an army officer in a northern state which prohibited slavery, was a free man, entitled to constitutional protection. The decision rendered denied personhood to slaves and declared them "beings of an inferior order . . . unfit to associate with the white race . . . and so inferior that they had no rights . . ." Ignoring the basic moral injustice, Chief Justice Rodger Taney, a slave owner himself, chose expediency. Northern laws prohibiting slavery were deemed unconstitutional and toleration of slavery was forced on citizens who found it odious and unconscionable.

The consequences of this decision was war. Today all morally thinking people regard the Dred Scott Decision as a travesty. It stands as an embarrassing blemish on American judicial history, which is mitigated only given a civil war and the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. Sadly, however, these amendments seem to have escaped the notice of the current Supreme Court. The clear intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, that "no person . . . shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property . . .," is being ignored daily in the case of unborn people who cannot speak for themselves. Can we draw on our national historical experience or must we accommodate the grossest injustice in the name of pluralism? Will we press the truth in the face of ridicule or choose the wide road of conformity? Our answers to these questions will shape our country's history.

[From 'A Resource Manual']

Friday, December 15, 2006


On January 22, 1973, by a 7-2 vote the Supreme Court handed down the infamous Roe vs. Wade decision along with that for the companion case, Doe vs. Bolton. In terms of human life, these decisions have been more costly than all of man's wars combined. Even the Nazi holocaust provided no numerical comparison to the destruction of humanity directly resulting from these capricious and ill-conceived decisions.

The most devastating legal aspect of the Roe vs. Wade decision was its denial of personhood to the unborn. Ignoring both legal precedent and medical evidence to the contrary, the court relegated the baby to a legal status amounting to zero and struck down legislation in every state prohibiting abortion at any stage of pregnancy. When any individuals or groups are stripped of legal personhood, neither their God-given right to life, alluded to by the Declaration of Independence, nor their basic rights, guaranteed to all by the U.S. Constitution, can be protected. In the case of the unborn, this stripping of rights came through the court's invention of the nonsensical term "potential life" to describe the baby in utero. Without legal or medical definition, and without bothering to explain this phrase himself, Justice Harry Blackman simply evaded the fundamental question of when human life begins.

Since the discovery of the human ovum in the 1820's, medical science has uniformly agreed that the union of a sperm and ovum begins the life of a genetically unique individual, and that life proceeds on a continuum through birth until interrupted by death. This fact is reflected in the American Medical Association's strong opposition to abortion through the 1960's. By 1971, however, the A.M.A. had completely reversed its position, endorsing abortion when it "serves the best interest of the patient." The incentive for this reversal came not from fresh scientific evidence, but rather from internal and external pressure. Internal pressure was provided by pro-abortion physicians with an eye for expedience and profit. External pressure to accommodate was provided by the radical feminist movement and the A.C.L.U., both armed with the dictum the court chose to dismiss entirely the question of when life begins by pleading ignorance. This was, of course, the court's only option, admitting life begins at conception would mandate protection, and denying it would contradict over a century of medical and biological findings. Although the court opted not to face the question of when life begins, it cannot forever postpone reckoning with the truth.
[From 'A Resource Manual']

Thursday, December 14, 2006


Archbishop Chaput & President Bush

"Democracy is not God. Only God is God", Says Archbishop Chaput
Corrects politically correct redefinitions of Tolerance, Choice,Consensus, Pluralism, Democracy

By Peter J. Smith

DENVER, Colorado, December 12, 2006 ( - Denver Archbishop Chaput encouraged a crowd of nearly 700 Christians at the 1st Annual Orange Country Prayer Breakfast to "see clearly" the meaning of Christmas in their lives, but also that they cannot allow secularist forces to redefine the character of America.

"I believe that Americans are a blessed people," said the Archbishop. "Most of us believe in God. We go to church at higher rates than any other developed country. We still work hard. We still have a deep love of family and personal integrity."

However, Archbishop Chaput said that while Americans have so many blessings in abundance, more "than any other country in history", he warned that in the United States, "We face a decline of ideas and public service; growing moral ambiguity; a spirit of entitlement with rights exalted over responsibilities; a cult of personal consumption; and a civic vocabulary that seems to get more brutish and more confused every year."

Chaput then proceeded to explain that words "can form or deform the human conscience," and gave the real meanings of other words that like Christmas, have become victims of years of political correct thinking.

Tolerance and Consensus: "Words like 'tolerance' and 'consensus' are important democratic working principles. But they aren't Christian virtues, and they should never take priority over other words like charity, justice, faith and truth, either in our personal lives or in our public choices."

Choice: "Choice is usually a good thing. But it's never an end in itself. Choice is worthless - in fact, it's a form of idolatry - if all the choices are meaningless or bad."

Pluralism: "These days pluralism usually serves as a codeword for getting Christians to shut up in the public square out of some misguided sense of courtesy. But pluralism is just a demographic fact. It's not an ideology. And it's never a valid excuse for being quiet about our key moral convictions."

Community: "Community is more than a collection of persons. Community requires mutual respect, a shared future, and submission to each other's needs based on common beliefs and principles. It's not just an elegant name for an interest group. Talking about the 'abortion rights community' makes as much sense as talking about the 'big tobacco community.'"

The common good: "The common good does not mean the sum of what most people want right now. The common good is that which constitutes the best source of justice and happiness for a community and its members in the light of truth. The common good is never served by killing the weakest members of a community. It's also not served when the appetites and behaviors of individual members get a license to undermine the life of the wider community.

Democracy: Democracy does not mean putting aside our religious and moral beliefs for the sake of public policy. In fact, it demands exactly the opposite. Democracy depends on people of character fighting for their beliefs in the public square - legally, ethically and nonviolently, but forcefully and without apology."

"Democracy is not God. Only God is God," remarked Chaput, adding, "The passengers in a car can democratically elect to go in the wrong direction. But they're still just as dead - with or without a majority opinion - when they go over a cliff."

However the word that Christians had to clearly understand was secularism, which the Archbishop called "actively destructive" undermining both human identity and community by rejecting "the sacred while posturing itself as neutral to the sacred."

"The American Experiment … is the product of religiously shaped concepts and tradition. It can't survive for long without respecting the source of that tradition. A fully secularized public life would mean policy by the powerful for the powerful because no permanent principles can exist in a morally neutral vacuum."

"We have wealth and power and free time and choices and toys -- but we no longer see clearly who we are, said Chaput. "If we can't find a way to heal that interior emptiness, then as an experiment in the best ideals of human freedom, America will fail."

Wednesday, December 13, 2006


Pro-Lifers protest
"Death Boat"!

Dutch Abortion Ship to Head for Argentina in 2007

By Hilary White

BUENOS AIRES, December 11, 2006 ( - The Dutch abortion ship is in the news again, this time heading for Argentina. Argentine media have dubbed it the "ship of death" and report that the converted fishing trawler will be coming to Argentine waters to lend its support for the legalization of abortion in Argentina.

The abortion ship is the brainchild of Rebecca Gomperts, an abortionist and political activist from Amsterdam. Gomperts was in Argentina in 2004 promoting legalization of abortion and has been warmly received by some members of the Argentine Congress.

Gomperts' original plan was for the ship to sail to countries where abortion is illegal or restricted and bring women for onboard abortions in international waters outside the 12-mile limit. In 2004, a Dutch court refused permission for this plan but later the Dutch ministry of health allowed the ship to carry the abortion drug, RU-486. As a Dutch-registered vessel, the ship is governed by the law of the Netherlands where there are few if any restrictions on abortion.

Noemí Oliveto and Gerardo Romagnoli, members of the Self-Determination and Liberty party in the Argentine Congress, told media that they are "in communication" with Gomperts and hope for the ship to come to their country in 2007. They said the visit of Gomperts and her ship is being arranged in conjunction "several women's' organizations" who are interested in legalizing abortion in Latin America.

Gomperts, who started her activism with the Greenpeace boat "Rainbow Warrior II," formed a company, Women on Waves in 1997. Since then she has made periodic trips to countries in which abortion is banned or legally restricted, including Ireland, Poland, Malta and Portugal, offering "information, contraceptives, counselling and the abortion pill for very early pregnancies,"

In 2004, Portugal refused permission for the ship to land. Portuguese Secretary of State for Maritime Affairs Nuno Fernandes Thomaz said, "If we accept that third parties come and violate our laws it would become much more difficult to impose authority amongst the Portuguese."

Archbishop of Gdansk, Tadeusz Goclowski was more blunt; when the ship landed, he described the boat crew's objective as "killing Poles." A large demonstration was held at the dock and Poles pelted the ship with eggs and red paint and shouted "murderers," and "Gestapo" at those onboard.

In Malta, government officials vowed to prosecute anyone who assisted Gomperts to procure abortions on Maltese women.

In 2004, Gomperts, a favourite in the abortion and population control movement, was awarded the Margaret Sanger 'Woman of Valour Award' from Planned Parenthood of New York City.

See Revealing articles on Margaret Sanger and the real agenda of international pro-abortion militants funded usually by wealthy anti-people foundations and UN agencies

Margaret Sanger & 'The New Woman

Black History Month Becoming Obsolete?

The 'wisdom' of Margaret Sanger

This story makes sense. Mass is where we receive all the graces to correct our consciences; where Almighty God grants us Grace and Mercy! We become holy and sanctified through the Holy Sacrifice!

Poll: Catholics Who Regularly Attend Mass Don’t Support Abortion

By Gudrun Schultz

SYRACUSE, New York, December 12, 2006 ( - Catholics who attend mass at least once per week are much more likely to oppose abortion, compared to Catholics who attend mass less than weekly, according to a new survey by Le Moyne College in conjunction with Zogby International.

The college released the results of the latest Contemporary Catholic Trends poll in conjunction in a recent press release. The survey found that while just half of all Catholics believe all abortions should be illegal, that number increased significantly if the respondents were regular mass-goers.

Sixty percent of Catholics who go to mass weekly or more believe all abortions should be illegal, the poll found. Among Catholics who never attend Mass, only 30 percent believe all abortions should be illegal.

Overall, 49 percent of Catholics did not agree that all abortions should be illegal. Fifty percent agreed that all abortions should be illegal, and one percent was unsure.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International between Oct 5-10, 2006. The poll method consisted of nationwide phone interviews with 1,505 Roman Catholics selected from previous Zogby polls database information, from respondents who self-identified as Roman Catholics.

The margin of error for the survey was +/- 2.6 percentage points.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006


Today is the Feast Day of Our Lady of Guadalupe,
Intercessor of the Unborn & Patroness of the Pro-Life cause!

Please spiritually adopt an unborn baby. Every day over 4,000 babies are killed by abortion. They have so little protection, only the hand of God can end this massacre. Prayer is the best weapon to help them - the most effective.
Say this prayer every day for nine months to save a babies life!

Jesus, Mary and Joseph, I love you
very much. I beg you to spare the life
of the unborn baby that I have spiritually
adopted who is in danger of abortion.

Prayer of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." (Jeremiah 1:5)

Adoptive Baby's Name _______________________

Spiritual Adoption Date _______________________

Please pray!
This baby is counting on you.


Monday, December 11, 2006


Because Christianity is inextricably rooted in history, we must bear our Christian witness in the context of our cultural history. Until fairly recently, our laws reflected a morality grounded in the Judeo-Christian ethic. This ethic, while not necessarily indicating a Christian majority, constituted a consensus of recognized values, supreme among which was the inviolable sanctity of human life. Consequently, abortion was historically forbidden, including by English Common Law. Until 1967, no state permitted abortion except to prevent the death of the mother and by 1973, sixty percent of the states had statutes expressly forbidding abortion for any other reason. One notable exception to this came in 1967. Legislation sponsored by a little known state legislator named Richard D. Lamm was passed in Colorado, permitting abortion in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal malformation, or when the health of the mother was demonstrably threatened. While this law seemed to restrict abortions to a few narrowly defined exceptions, in fact it sanctioned Colorado's becoming one of the nation's largest centers for abortion. Colorado so defined the "health of the mother" to include mental health, such that abortions were allowed when certification from any compliant physician was forthcoming that a given pregnancy was a threat to that woman's mental health. As predicted by pro-life defenders, such certification became merely a routine formality and what was promoted as compassionate limits on abortion, in practice became a license to kill any of the unborn. When California and New York followed suit, abortion statistics began to rise to unconscionable levels. In the early seventies, the pro-abortion forces, perceiving that they had a sympathetically liberal Supreme Court, began to search for a test case with which a national precedent could be established. No one, however, not even the most militant pro-abortion activist, anticipated what happened next.
[From 'A Resource Manual', page 13]

To be Continued . . .

Sunday, December 10, 2006


As concerned citizens, our leadership responsibilities are clearly set before us. Both corporately and as individuals we are called to be salt and light in our culture. St. Paul identifies the Church as the "pillar and ground of the truth." (I Timothy 3:15) Alongside this ideal, we see our society self-destructing around us. Immorality is exalted, families are disintegrating and traditional values are regarded with contempt. As of this writing, the death of over forty million preborn babies is being rationalized by the spirit of our age, moral relativism. Into this social climate, we are called to speak the truth compassionately, however unfashionable truth may be. Fundamentally, what is being assailed in our day is the doctrine of the Imago Dei, the image of God. When the basic nature of man is seen apart from his fundamental and ultimate relationship with his Creator, there ceases to be a standard by which truth and morality may be measured. If we assume that man is no more than a chance accumulated aggregation of biologically active molecules then not only is abortion justifiable, but so also are euthanasia, infanticide, and even genocide. However, because in His word God continually affirms man's dignity and worth, ultimately demonstrated by Jesus' death on the cross, man has inherent value. This value of man is therefore a crucial element of the Gospel and necessarily extends to all of mankind, preborn or aged, strong or handicapped. Whenever or wherever a society or government violates the worth of one group in that society, we who are entrusted with the Gospel are compelled to defend those violated. When we consider both horrific violation and our Lord's injunction to minister to the least of these, we can but conclude that we must defend the unborn. In His strength, may we not flinch in their defense.

Those of us who condemn abortion must, with the same conviction and determination, support its alternatives. On whatever ground the enemy chooses for warfare, there will be found casualties and refugees, and it is to them that this Blog 'Deacon For Life' is dedicated. Women and families struggling to resist social pressures to kill their unborn need refuge. Concerning those who have already been victimized we should remember Blessed Mother Theresa's observation that "Abortion is a crime that kills not only the child, but the consciences of all involved." No other earthly agency is better qualified or has surer mandate to minister to these needs than the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ. It is our prayer that God will empower each of us to answer this call, uphold the truth, and compassionately minister to the needs of our day.
[Adapted from 'A Resource Manual', page 12]

Saturday, December 9, 2006


Every person in America, and in the world for that matter, fits into one of three positions regarding the Abortion Issue.

In spite of your age, occupation, economic viability, education or religious persuasion, you hold a particular view as to the rightness or wrongness of killing unborn babies. The three positions are:

Abortion on demand for any reason or no reason.
The Supreme Court legalized it and it's a
woman's Constitutional right - case closed!

Approves of abortion under certain conditions.
A person should have a "good" reason to have
an abortion.

Opposes any and all abortions. In spite of the horrible
tragedy of an "unwanted" pregnancy, there are far
superior solutions than killing the baby. Every human
born or unborn has an inherent right to life.

You now must now examine the evidence
and make up your own mind.

We will continue to post the historical and legal facts so as to enlighten you and help you make your choice to be Pro-Life or pro-death! Check back each day for our follow-ups!

Deacon John

Friday, December 8, 2006

I read tis today on another Blog and thought you would like to read it:

either human or not

The French bishops have caused a ruckus, the New York Times informs us, by raising questions about a popular telethon to benefit medical research. The sticking point is embryonic stem-cell research.

“For us, these embryos are not things, but human beings,” Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, the archbishop of Lyon, told journalists on Tuesday.

Let's hope the cardinal is the victim of some awkward translation here. Because as it stands, his statement sends exactly the wrong message.

If the embryos are human beings, they are not just human "for us;" they are human, period. As I observed yesterday, the truths of natural law (and in this case of biology) do not apply only to Catholics. If they are true, they are equally true for everyone.

A human embryo is a human person. That either is or is not a fact. Either way, your opinion will not change the reality. The challenge for Catholics and other pro-lifers is to persuade others that they must face the facts. When they do, they will be unable to resist the evidence.

On the other hand, those who support the manipulation of human life are working to convince us all that the humanity of an unborn child is a matter of opinion. If we don't recognize the embryo as a person, then it isn't a person, they argue; if the mother doesn't want to have a baby, then the thing in her womb is not a child. These creatures are not human beings "for us," they would have us believe.

So to argue that a defenseless human is a person "for us" is to concede the main point. Every human being has innate dignity. To suggest that the person's dignity is important "for us" is to accept the notion that we assign value to the human life-- and thus to lose the argument before it begins.

Thursday, December 7, 2006

Abortion Raises Risk of Miscarriage of Subsequent Pregnancy 60
by Steven Ertelt Editor
December 5, 2006
Washington, DC ( -- A team of British doctors has
released the results of a new study showing that women who have
an abortion run a higher risk of having a miscarriage in a
subsequent pregnancy. The study also showed that women using
in-vitro fertilization have higher miscarriage risks as well.
The doctors, affiliated with the London School of Hygiene and
Tropical Medicine, said the reasons behind the increased
miscarriage risk were vague.
However, they confirmed that women who had had a previous
abortion experienced a 60 percent higher risk of having a
miscarriage in another pregnancy.
Women using the in-vitro technique had a 40 percent greater risk
of suffering a miscarriage.
In the study, Dr. Noreen Maconochie examined data from 603 women
between the ages of 18 and 55 who had experienced a miscarriage
during the first 13 weeks of their pregnancy. They compared those
results with 6,116 women whose pregnancies advanced beyond 13
The team published their findings in the British Journal of
This isn't the first study to show that abortions adversely
affect a woman's fertility as other research shows that abortion
can lead to infertility by increasing the risk of miscarriages.
A 1986 report in the medical journal Epidemiology reveals women
with a history of abortion have a greater risk of fetal loss than
women who had no previous abortions. Women with two prior
pregnancies carried to term and no abortions had the lowest risk,
while women with two prior abortions had the highest risk.
Meanwhile, a 1991 British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
article revealed that women with a history of abortion had a
1.5-1.7 times higher risk of ectopic pregnancy than women who had
previously carried a pregnancy to term.

Wednesday, December 6, 2006


LifeSiteNews headlines, Dec. 4th

Tuesday, December 5, 2006




* Whereas, it has been proven beyond reasonable scientific dispute that the union of a human sperm and human ovum produces a living human being; and

* Whereas, the humanity of each individual is not in any way affected by the circumstances surrounding human conception, location, state of genetic perfection (or imperfection), or stage of development: and

* Whereas, human life at every stage of biological development is deserving of respect and protection; and

* Whereas, it is documented that IVF programs include the objectionable practices of discarding, freezing and/or experimenting upon human embryos, and voluntary elimination of these basic human rights violations from the current programs by their administrators is not forthcoming; and

* Whereas, by its very nature IVF exposes the human embryo to extraordinary risks, hazards and rigors beyond its capacities for survival, as evidenced by the documented high rate of IVF embryo mortalities; and

* Whereas, IVF often involves continuous monitoring and testing, both before and after transfer of the developing embryo, thereby increasing the possibility of increased eugenic abortions either mandated or encouraged.

* Whereas, the National Right to Life Committee realizes the deep sorrow and frustration experienced by married infertile couples, and empathizes with their desire to become parents; now therefore

* BE IT RESOLVED that NRLC emphasizes the disturbing social, moral, and legal issues involved with this technique and urges further study and research into the causes and increasingly successful "in vivo" treatment to infertility; the promotion of public awareness of the findings of the above-mentioned study and research; and the dissemination of information of currently available alternatives to IVF for infertile married couples;

* BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NRLC condemns current IVF procedures and urges a halt to these practices.

Approved by the Board of Directors, National Right to Life Committee, Inc.
January 20, 1985, Washington, D. C.

Monday, December 4, 2006


Is abortion acceptable in cases of rape or incest?

* First of all, we need to understand that pregnancies resulting from assault rape and incest are very rare, and "hard cases make bad laws," as they set precedents for all cases:

* "Perhaps more of a gross exaggeration than a myth is the mistaken and unfortunate belief that pregnancy is a frequent complication of sexual assault. This is emphatically not the case, and there are several medically sound reasons for it" [American Medical Women's Association]

* Most reliable figures of assault rape put resultant pregnancy at far less than 1% of pregnancies. A scientific study of 1,000 rape victims who were treated medically right after the rape reported zero pregnancies [L. Kuchera, "Postcoital Contraception with Diethylstilbestrol,"]

* Two Denver sexual assault detectives reported pregnancies in 1500 rape cases [Interview with Christian Research Associates]. In 3500 cases of medically treated rape victims in Minneapolis/St Paul over a 10 year period, there were no pregnancies [Zero Pregnancies in 3500 Rapes," The Educator]

* Pregnancies resulting from incest are also rare: 1% or less [G. Maloof, "The Consequences of Incest," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, University Publications of America]

* Unfortunately, some women, though very few, do become pregnant in these circumstances. They should be treated with compassionate care and not encouraged to attempt to correct one evil (rape or incest) with another (killing an innocent human being). Abortion will not "unrape" the woman or reduce her trauma; it will only add the guilt of violence that she does to the trauma of the violence that was done to her. In addition, no child should be condemned to die (abortion) for the crime of its father (rape or incest). From a Christian perspective, god is still the creator of life regardless of the circumstances: for example, well-known Christian singer Ethel Waters was a product of rape.

Sunday, December 3, 2006


OCTOBER 5: Today my life began. My parents do not know it yet, I am as small as a seed of an apple, but it is I already. And I am to be a girl. I shall have blond hair and blue eyes. Just about everything is settled though, even the fact that I shall love flowers.

OCTOBER 19: Some say I am not a real person yet, that only my mother exists. But I am a real person, just as a small crumb of bread is yet truly bread. My mother is. And I am.

OCTOBER 23: My mouth is just beginning to open now. Just think, in a year or so I shall be laughing and later talking. I know what my first word will be: MAMA.

OCTOBER 25: My heart began to beat today all by itself. From now on it shall gently beat for the rest of my life without ever stopping to rest! And after many years it will tire. It will stop, and then I shall die.

NOVEMBER 2: I am growing a bit every day. My arms and legs are beginning to take shape. But I have to wait a long time yet before those little legs will raise me to my mother's arms, before these little arms will be able to gather flowers and embrace my father.

NOVEMBER 12: Tiny fingers are beginning to form on my hands. Funny how small they are! I'll be able to stroke my mother's hair with them.

NOVEMBER 20: It wasn't until today that the doctor told mom that I am living here under her heart. Oh, how happy she must be! Are you happy, mom?

NOVEMBER 25: My mom and dad are probably thinking about a name for me. But they don't even know that I am a little girl. I want to be called Kathy. I am getting so big already.

DECEMBER 10: My hair is growing. It is smooth and bright and shiny. I wonder what kind of hair mom has.

DECEMBER 13: I am just about able to see. It is dark around me. When mom brings me into the world it will be full of sunshine and flowers. But what I want more than anything is to see my mom. How do you look, mom?

DECEMBER 24: I wonder if mom hears the whispering of my heart? Some children come into the world a little sick. But my heart is strong and healthy. It beats so evenly: tup-tup, tup-tup. You'll have a healthy little girl, mom!

DECEMBER 28: Today my mother killed me.

Saturday, December 2, 2006


Standing Strong in the Face of Death

Latin America never ceases to amaze me. In particular it is Central America with tiny countries smaller than the size of most of our states which is shining a light to the rest of the world right now. Despite our own disappointments, weeks after significant pro-life defeats (such as in Missouri and SD), we can rejoice that our neighbors in Nicaragua have succeeded in outlawing abortion in all circumstances! American pro-lifers, still stinging with the pain of defeat will find encouragement, consolation and insight in the heroes of Latin America whose refusal to cave in to the anti-life agenda has earned them the admiration of the worldwide pro-life community. The little pro-life David fought off the anti-life Goliath, and now we know it can be done.

Nicaragua's action comes as the latest in a series of actions by Central American countries that astound us for their amazing feistiness. In 1999 El Salvador re-wrote its Constitution to insert protection of human life "from the moment of conception," the first country on record to ever do that. In 2005 the United Nations issued a non-binding resolution on all forms of human cloning after a three year campaign led by Costa Rica - imagine the United Nations actually doing something moral for a change! Also in 2005, another Central American country, Honduras, steadfastly rejected attempts to legalize the morning after pill there. I am proud to tell you that these efforts were spearheaded by HLI's affiliates and great pro-life friends in these countries and supported by you, our extended HLI family.

With regard to Nicaragua, in early October HLI's Dr. Rafael Cabrera and other pro-life leaders, working with the Church, called a pro-life march demanding the removal of the one provision in their criminal code which allowed abortions for "therapeutic" reasons. This weasel word is of course a loophole in any law allowing doctors to kill babies for the flimsiest of reasons or lie about the reasons and avoid prosecution. More than two hundred thousand people came to the march! That this country of only three million people was able to muster a courageous outcry in defense of the unborn was due both to the effective organizing efforts of a few but also to their disgust with the intrusions of international agencies like UNICEF and arrogant western governments like Germany and Finland who intervened fiercely to stop the abortion ban. It's about time the smaller nations are throwing off their rich exploiters.

In the face of this kind of public display of values, Nicaraguan politicos, typical of politicians everywhere, blew with the wind - they voted 59-0 to outlaw abortion! As I have mentioned before, politics change when culture changes, and culture changes when hearts change. Would that America had the heart of our feisty little neighbors to the south!

The foundation of such a social renewal movement is found in the dynamic and powerful leadership of Church leaders who stand up to the powers that be and rebuke them. In all of these countries, the bishops have refused to be silent and instead have led their people to victory. A special mention must be made of Miguel Cardinal Obando of Managua for marching in the front of the multitude of his people like the Good Shepherd in the Gospel (cf. Jn 10:4).

Let us continue to pray for our Central American neighbors, that they maintain their strength and courage and persevere on the pro-life battle front. They have been mightily threatened with reprisals. Let us also pray for our own country, and our bishops, that we too may find the courage as they did, to stand strong in the face of death.

Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer
Human Life International

Friday, December 1, 2006


ISTANBUL, November 30, 2006 ( - Pope Benedict XVI signed a joint declaration today with the leader of Orthodox Christians, Patriarch Bartholomew I. In their declaration, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox leaders commit to joint action to protect life. "We must all commit ourselves to the renewed service of humanity and the defense of human life, every human life," says the declaration. The leaders note their willingness to carry on the work of their predecessors toward unity. They express the necessity of their joint work in reforming the culture of death. "Moreover, we cannot ignore the increase of secularization, relativism, even nihilism, especially in the Western world. All this calls for a renewed and powerful proclamation of the Gospel, adapted to the cultures of our time," said the declaration. "This is why we must strengthen our cooperation and our common witness before the world." In the declaration, the Pope and the Patriarch also speak of the formation of the European Union urging that "Those engaged in this great project should not fail to take into consideration all aspects affecting the inalienable rights of the human person." "Catholics and Orthodox are called to work together," the joint declaration says, "to promote respect for the rights of every human being, created in the image and likeness of God." The document also addresses religious freedom, economic, social and cultural development, and protection of the environment.

Thursday, November 30, 2006


Spreading Life Affirming Ads 24 hours a day!
Breaking the Silence - Spreading the Truth

Presently, Life Ads have 75 billboards, 20 exterior bus ads, 25 transit shelters ads, 5 interior bus ads, and 6 Metro-Rail station ads, 100 interior bus ads and 25 interior Metro-Rail ads. Life Ads are on Florida's Turnpike, I-75, I-10, I-4, US1, A1A, major highways and byways from east to west, north to south and from coast to coast.

According to official traffic count, Life Ads impacts on average, 6,000 men, women and children every day, some for 24-hours a day, or over 45 million impressions a month, over 540 million positive pro-life impressions in 2006! If for every one million impressions delivered, only one child is saved, you can begin to see the great impact you are being part of when you donate to this cause!

God is truly faithful and for every effort, He multiplies and magnifies our feeble efforts for His greater good. We are called to be faithful and leave the results to Him. Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me" -St. Matthew 25:40.

"It is right for us to speak up for those
who cannot speak for themselves" -Prov. 31:18

"It is right for us to warn those who would take life,
that it endangers their soul" - Ezekiel 3:18-21

Please help spread Life Ads with a tax-deductible gift, changing hearts and minds and saving precious lives. LIFE is a 501(c) 3 non-profit organization, approved by the IRS & registered with the State of Florida [Reg. CH-10418].

Life Ads, 5445 Woodham St.

Palm City, Fl 34990.
Phone 772-219-1144