The Rule Is Clear --- No Communion For Pro-Choice Politicians

Here is something you wouldn't have necessarily known by listening to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops: It is an absolute rule in the Catholic Church that so-called "pro-choice" politicians should be DENIED Holy Communion (body and blood of Christ) at mass. That is according to Archbishop Raymond Burke:

[["I don't understand the continual debate that goes on about it. There's not a question that a Catholic who publicly, and after admonition, supports pro-abortion legislation is not to receive Holy Communion and is not to be given Holy Communion."

"The Church's law is very clear," said Archbishop Burke, who was appointed last year by Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the Church's highest court, the Apostolic Signatura. "The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [Canon Law] doesn't say that the bishop shall decide this. It's an absolute."]] (my bold)

See the entire interview and article on Archbishop Burke by clicking HERE.

The Christian Case Against Obama

To see the Christian case against voting for Obama, go here. Click the full page spandex thingie in the upper right of the page viewer. It fits on a single printable page, and holds links to supporting evidence on each point made for those who are interested.

The guide comes from CatholicVote.com, but no Christian can afford to draw divisive sectarian lines at a time like this. Heck, I'd say run with it if it were from JehovahsWitnessesVote.com. (Now that, ah say, that's a joke, son!)

An Old Pro-Abortion Argument Gets A Make-Over

Barack Hussein Obama recently referred to having babies as a punishment. This would be consistent with other things he's said and done on reproductive issues. It would also seem to be consistent with the liberal, pro-choice (<--so called) position on abortion, which I believe is primarily based in fear, whether it's fear of loss of liberty, fear of failure, or fear of the loss of monetary prosperity due to the cost of raising children. How unfortunate that unborn babies are caught up in such desperate rationalizations, where they can be demonized and/or dehumanized for mere convenience's sake.

And with this in mind I'd like to direct your attention to Matt Kaufman's latest column called Intruder Alert, about some variant forms of some very horrid pro-abortion arguments so warped they become difficult to address...but not too difficult for Mr. Kaufman. Here are a couple of excerpts from the column-- the arguments in favor of abortion rights.

First the old one:

[McDonagh didn't bother to deny that a fetus is a person. Instead, she argued that a fetus is, in effect, a criminal — a "powerful intruder" guilty of "kidnapping" a woman and holding her hostage for nine months — and thus could be dispatched like any violent assailant. "The fetus is not innocent," she wrote, "but instead aggressively intrudes on a woman's body so massively that deadly force is justified to stop it."]

And then the newer argument:

[The argument is this: It doesn't matter at what point a fertilized egg becomes a zygote or a zygote a fetus or a fetus a baby. Personhood is irrelevant. The state simply does not have the right to require any citizen to use their body to keep another citizen alive, much less for nine months. The state can't force us to donate blood or organs. The state can't make us sign up for bone marrow registries. If we choose to do these things, it is noble and good, but we still would never tolerate, as a society, being forced to do so. How much less, then, should we tolerate the state forcing women to use their bodies to keep other people alive for nine full months, with all the risks and permanent changes in the body this entails? How is this permissible if women are fully functioning moral agents with all the rights of citizenship and not state-owned incubators?]

You will have to click on the link HERE to see his response to them.

Matt Kaufman writes for Boundless Webzine, a website of Focus On The Family.

Obama...Pretty Sickening

Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com Editor in Chief and Editor At Large at Human Events.com, reminds us of a decision Presidential Candidate and Illinois Senator Barack Hussein Obama made about the Born Alive Infants Bill. He opposed it. In fact he was one of very few who opposed it.

I will reprint the entire article since it can be read for free at various websites. All due credit is given. The above cartoon I snagged from a similar article here.

Obama Is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever

By Terence P. Jeffrey

CNSNews.com Editor in Chief

January 09, 2008

Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.

He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."

"Persons," of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.

In 2004, U.S. Senate-candidate Obama mischaracterized his opposition to this legislation. Now, as a presidential frontrunner, he should be held accountable for what he actually said and did about the Born Alive Infants Bill.

State and federal versions of this bill became an issue earlier this decade because of "induced labor abortion." This is usually performed on a baby with Down's Syndrome or another problem discovered on the cusp of viability. A doctor medicates the mother to cause premature labor. Babies surviving labor are left untreated to die.

Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 2000 and 2001 about how "induced labor abortions" were handled at her hospital.

"One night," she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, "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 couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived."

In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby's rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother with a "beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles" should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

Stanek testified about these bills in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, where Obama served. She told me this week he was "unfazed" by her story of holding the baby who survived an induced labor abortion.

On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted "present" on each, effectively the same as a "no."

"Number one," said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it 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."

That June, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (although it failed to become law that year). Pro-abortion Democrats supported it because this language was added: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section."

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that with this language the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."

On July 18, 2002, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called for the bill to be approved by unanimous consent. It was.

That same year, the Illinois version of the bill came up again. Obama voted "no."

In 2003, Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate. Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services committee. The Born Alive Infant bill, now sponsored by Sen. Richard Winkel, was referred to this committee. Winkel also sponsored an amendment to make the Illinois bill identical to the federal law, adding -- word for word -- the language Barbara Boxer said protected Roe v. Wade. Obama still held the bill hostage in his committee, never calling a vote so it could be sent to the full senate.

A year later, when Republican U.S. senate candidate Alan Keyes challenged Obama in a debate for his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Bill, Obama said: "At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill."

In fact, Obama had personally killed exactly that bill.

(end of article)

Sheeeesh! That really gives me the creeps. To think that Obama or Hillary might be our next President gives me no faith whatsoever in the intelligence or character of Democrat voters.

We are but one Supreme Court Justice away from overturning Roe v. Wade, and our party acts unsatisfied with the current roster of candidates from which to choose? I would take even Ron Paul over any baby-killing Devilrats than have them regain power and set the pro-life cause back 20 years with Breyer-Ginsburg type appointments.

Mr. Jeffery makes his case very well. And we should never mince words or use euphemisms when describing the act of abortion. Infanticide or murder are the only other synonyms I can think of that are suitable substitutes.

Colorado Supreme Court Plants A Seed

In 1967 the state of Colorado became the first state to ease abortion restrictions, starting a domino effect across the country. But Tuesday the Colorado Supreme Court may have paved the way for all that to change, hopefully, by allowing the pro-life group, Colorado For Equal Rights, to circulate a petition for a ballot measure to give inalienable rights, justice, and due process to the unborn starting at conception. The ballot measure would, in effect, define a fertilized egg as a human being.

Although this notion of humans producing other humans through the fertilization process is obvious to many of us, the so-called pro-choicers still feel that a fertilized egg is human only if the mother wants to see the pregnancy through. This latter notion seems consistent with the mind-set of most children, some angry teenagers, and a few old, fat US Senators.

Seventy-six thousand signatures must be collected in Colorado within the next six months in order for this measure to be on the November '08 ballot. Makes me wish I lived there, just for a moment to sign and vote anyway. Read the whole story here.