• Home
• News
  • DFW Spotlight
  • Diocesan News
  • US News
  • World News
  • Pro-Life
• Editorial
• MetroCatholic Blog
• K of C
  • Featured
  • Texas Knights
  • Supreme
  • Home Council
  • Father McGivney
• Lifestyle
• RealCatholicTV

More Pro-Life Censorship — At a Catholic University

MINNEAPOLIS, MN (MetroCatholic) - Twice in two weeks, pro-life advertisements from Human Life Alliance have been denied access to college students–this time at Gonzaga University.

“We’re saddened to learn Gonzaga University, a Catholic school, has refused to accept ‘We Know Better Now,’ our pro-life advertising supplement for ‘The Gonzaga Bulletin,’” said Joe Langfeld, Deputy Director for Human Life Alliance. “As a non-profit organization dedicated to educating students on the humanity of the pre-born child and gruesome realities of abortion we use college newspapers to reach 19-24 year-olds who are the number one age group of abortion participants.”

When asked to run the advertising supplement, officials from “The Gonzaga Bulletin” rejected the inserts stating, “There are articles in the insertion that cast a negative light on various organizations or individuals. While these statements may be true, we simply cannot insert them in our paper per our advertising policies.”

“Of course some statements in our publication are objectionable to ‘various organizations or individuals.’ We present documented truth about the largest abortion chain in the nation, Planned Parenthood, and its founder Margaret Sanger,” noted Langfeld. “The business of abortion is ugly and we think college and university students have a right to read the facts from someone other then abortion providers.”

The Gonzaga denial comes on the heels of another rejection at Allegheny College in Meadville, PA last week.

“Fortunately, there’s good news to report from Allegheny. After phone calls, emails and a visit form a local HLA supporter, student editors have agreed to insert ‘We Know Better Now’ in the January 19, 2009 issue of ‘The Campus’ student newspaper, Langfeld said. “We’re thrilled these students have communicated with HLA and agreed to give us a voice on their campus.”

Terri-Schiavo-Like Disabled Woman Allowed to Live after Parents Reconcile

By Kathleen Gilbert

DOVER, DE (LifeSiteNews.com) - A disabled woman’s mother has reconciled with her ex-husband after having fought to remove her daughter’s feeding tube, and after state legislation rescued the woman from death by dehydration. The woman’s mother now confesses that her daughter should be able to live.

Lauren Richardson suffered severe brain damage following a 2006 heroin overdose.  Richardson, who was pregnant at the time, was able to deliver a healthy baby girl in February 2007 while on life support.

Since then, Richardson has continued to require nourishment through a feeding tube.  While doctors claim Lauren is in a Permanent Vegetative State (PVS), her father contests that she is responsive to stimuli such as voice and touch, and not terminally ill.

Richardson’s mother, Edith Towers, had argued that her daughter would have wanted her feeding tube removed in such a state.  In a seeming re-enactment of Terry Schiavo’s fate, a court had awarded Towers custody of her daughter, following the advice of doctors who claimed Richardson would not recover. 

But Lauren’s father, Randy Richardson, appealed the decision, and pursued legal intervention on Lauren’s behalf while attracting media attention to her case.  In July, he won the battle for Lauren’s life when the Delaware House of Representatives passed a resolution making it illegal to remove the feeding tube of a non-terminally ill person such as Richardson. 

“It is against the public policy of this State and this State’s interest in life, health and safety, for hydration and nutrition that is not harming a patient to be involuntarily removed from a non-terminal, apparently brain-incapacitated patient if doing so will cause the individual’s death,” said the resolution, which also explicitly named Lauren’s case as the impetus for the legislation.

Towers, however, continued to fight for permission to remove the feeding tube until September when, because of religious conviction and heartfelt interaction with her ex-husband’s family, she decided to join cooperatively with Richardson’s father to care for their daughter and to drop the court request.

“Everyone deserves a chance to recover. Life should be protected - not destroyed,” said Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) Legal Counsel Matt Bowman about the case. “This change of heart and settlement has profoundly affected everyone involved. The miracle of life is not something that should be taken lightly.” 

Richardson’s father teamed up with the ADF in January to convince judges to investigate Richardson’s condition, which had been improperly placed in the PVS category - a diagnosis that has become increasingly undermined by the progress of medical science. 

Lauren Richardson wept emotionally when her mother informed her of the settlement and the reconciliation of her parents, confirming to the mother that her daughter is indeed aware and responsive. Both parents and their families continue to interact with her daily.

Court Orders Approval of Ariz. ‘Choose Life’ License Plates

Order follows U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of state’s appeal

 

Arizona (LifeSiteNews.com) — A federal court on Wednesday ordered the Arizona License Plate Commission to approve a specialty license plate featuring the words “Choose Life.” 

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and the Center for Arizona Policy represented the applicants for the plates, the Arizona Life Coalition.

“Pro-life groups shouldn’t be discriminated against for expressing their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb.  “Many other groups have been allowed to participate in the Arizona specialty plate program.  The commission had no legitimate reason to selectively exclude this group.  We’re pleased that the plates will soon be available to the public.”

The Arizona Life Coalition, a 100,000-member organization, applied for a specialty license plate with the slogan “Choose Life” in 2002.  The Arizona License Plate Commission, which oversees such requests, denied the application.

In September 2003, ADF attorneys filed suit jointly with the Center for Arizona Policy on behalf of the coalition.  In January 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in Arizona Life Coalition v. Stanton that the commission had violated Life Coalition’s First Amendment right to free speech when the commission denied the request to create the license plate.  The commission appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the high court declined to hear the case (http://www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4702).

According to the judgment issued Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt, “Defendants shall hold a formal meeting in their official capacity as the Arizona License Plate Commission no later than January 23, 2009.  At that meeting, Defendants shall approve Plaintiffs’ application of September 27, 2002, for a specialty license plate.”

The full text of the judgment issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in Arizona Life Coalition v. Stanton is available at http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ALCjudgment.

The Coming “War” Between the Obama Administration and the Catholic Church

By John-Henry Westen
 
Washington DC (LifeSiteNews.com) - The possible signing of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) by President-Elect Barack Obama would be “the equivalent of a war” an unnamed senior Vatican official recently told TIME magazine. 

The startling comments make the second time this week that a Vatican official has forthrightly and in the strongest language condemned Obama’s extreme policies on abortion.  Speaking at the Catholic University of America a few days ago, Vatican Cardinal James Stafford labeled Obama’s anti-life policies as “aggressive, disruptive, and apocalyptic,” also noting that, “On November 4, 2008, America suffered a cultural earthquake” (see coverage: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111703.html ).
 
With Catholic, but outspokenly pro-abortion individuals occupying two prominent positions (Joseph Biden as vice president and Tom Daschle as Health and Human Services Secretary) the specter of public excommunication or denial of communion for prominent members of the Obama Administration has arisen. 
 
The focus of the Vatican’s concern, FOCA, is a bill that would do away with state laws on abortion, including laws mandating parental involvement, or banning partial birth abortion. FOCA would also compel taxpayer funding of abortions, and, of greatest concern to Bishops, would force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions.

Obama has in the past said that he would make signing FOCA one of the highest priorities of his presidency.
 
Last week at the meeting of US Bishops in Baltimore, Cybercast News Service asked Chicago Cardinal Francis George, the current president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, if voting for FOCA would bring a penalty of automatic excommunication for Catholic politicians. The Cardinal did not rule it out.
 
“The excommunication is automatic if that act is in fact formal cooperation, and that is precisely what would have to be discussed once you would see the terms of the act itself,” responded Cardinal George. When asked for more, he added: “The categories in moral theology about cooperating in evil, which make you complicit in the evil even though you don’t do it yourself, are material cooperation, which is usually remote and therefore doesn’t involve you in the moral action except in a very auxiliary and minor way, and formal cooperation, which would involve you even though you are not doing it, in the way that makes you culpable.

“So we would have to take a look at each case, and at each law, to determine whether or not the cooperation is material or formal. We’ve never done that.”
 
Cardinal George has, however, personally analyzed FOCA and expressed his grave concerns about the legislation.  In a message to the Obama Administration at the end of the USCCB meeting George wrote on FOCA, saying it would, “outlaw any ‘interference’ in providing abortion at will. It would deprive the American people in all fifty states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry. FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. It would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government and others of good will to reduce the number of abortions in our country.”
 
The Cardinal added: “FOCA would have an equally destructive effect on the freedom of conscience of doctors, nurses and health care workers whose personal convictions do not permit them to cooperate in the private killing of unborn children. It would threaten Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Charities.” (see coverage: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111209.html )
 
In light of this possible attempt to revoke conscience rights under the Obama administration, Catholic League president Bill Donohue has urged President Bush to enact regulations, already in draft for months, which would protect the rights of doctors, nurses and health workers from being discriminated against if they refuse to perform or assist in abortions, as well as other morally contentious procedures. “At stake are the religious rights of these professionals,” said Donohue.
 
“To put it differently, were FOCA to become law (it needs to be reintroduced in the House), the culture war that the Vatican official was referring to would come to a boiling point,” he warned.  “In practical terms, this would mean the closure of every Catholic hospital in the nation: No bishop is going to stand by and allow the federal government to dictate what medical procedures must be performed in Catholic hospitals. Make no mistake about it, the bishops would shut down Catholic hospitals before acquiescing in the intentional killing of an innocent child. Were this to happen, it would not only cripple the poor, it would cripple the Obama administration.”
 
Donohue concluded: “It is for reasons like these that the Catholic League urges President Bush to move with dispatch in instituting rules protecting the religious rights of all health care workers. If Obama wants to undo them, it will set up a confrontation he will surely regret.”
 
See the TIME article:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1859856,00.html?imw=Y
 
See the Cybercast News article:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14369

New federal conscience protection regulations necessary, Doerflinger argues

Washington DC (CNA) - Proposed federal rules prohibiting recipients of federal money from discriminating against pro-life medical professionals and other conscientious objectors continue to attract opposition. However, an official with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops argues that the rules are necessary to enforce existing rights and to prevent conscience-burdening practices from dominating the medical profession.

The rules proposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would also bar hospitals, clinics, doctor’s offices and drug stores from requiring employees with conscientious objections to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity,” the New York Times reports.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals, both support the proposal.

Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, told the New York Times on Tuesday that in recent years “we have seen a variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations.”

President-elect Barack Obama has objected to the proposed rules, arguing they would raise barriers to women seeking abortions or contraceptives. According to Obama’s aides and advisers, he will try to repeal the regulations after he comes to office but the process could take three to six months.

Three officials from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), including Bush-appointed legal counsel Reed L. Russell, argued that the regulations are unnecessary because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, including moral and ethical beliefs about right and wrong.

“Federal law is explicit and unwavering in protecting federally funded medical practitioners from being coerced into providing treatments they find morally objectionable,” Russell told the New York Times.

Richard Doerflinger, Associate Director of Pro-life Activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, spoke about the proposed regulations and objections to them in a Wednesday phone interview with CNA.

He emphasized that the conscience protection regulations are broad in scope and are not limited to pro-life medical professionals.

“Some of these provisions protect people against discrimination for being willing to perform abortions,” he remarked, lamenting that many opponents of the proposed rules did not acknowledge this.

Doerflinger also criticized claims that conscience concerns are already addressed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, deeming it a “totally separate law that has totally separate scope.”

“It only covers religious freedom, it doesn’t specifically relate to objections to medical procedures,” he explained, saying the new regulations “simply implement statutes passed by Congress over the past 35 years” and specifically relate to health programs.

“Two of the three statutes even have nothing to do with religion,” he said, saying they apply in circumstances where the issue is not employment, which would otherwise be regulated by the Labor Department’s Equal Opportunity Commission.

Rather, the regulations are relevant to whether an organization is qualified to participate in a federal program and apply to applicants to nursing or medical schools and to hospital privileges, Doerflinger said.

Before a 1973 statute protecting applicants to medical school was passed, a congressional study found that medical students were being refused entry to medical school, Doerflinger told CNA.

Naming another threat to the freedom of conscience, he also referred to a recent case in Alaska where the state Supreme Court told a community hospital it was not allowed to have a policy against doing elective abortions.

“The court interpreted the Alaska constitution as providing right to abortion that is not only a right to be let alone, but a right to an entitlement,” declaring that everyone has an obligation to provide access to an abortion.

Explaining that a state legislative effort to overturn the decision failed by one vote, he reported the hospital was forced to provide access to its facilities for the local late-term abortionist.

General ignorance about legal rights and duties to protect conscience is another justification for the proposed regulations, Doerflinger said.

“A lot of people just don’t know these protections are out there, and they’re not respecting them.”

He cited a recent American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (ACOG) document on the limits of conscientious objection. The document claimed OB/GYNs should consider themselves ethically obligated to provide or refer abortions and should locate their practices near abortion clinics so their patients have easier access.

“The fear among a lot of pro-life OB/GYNs was that ACOG’s ethics standards get worked into the board certification requirements for OB/GYNs to have hospital privileges. So this is very frightening. You could end up being kicked out of hospitals because you don’t subscribe to this ethics committee’s view.”

“That got the attention of the Secretary of HHS,” Doerflinger said, reporting that the secretary wrote to ACOG to inform them their ethical standards ran counter to the conscience protection policies of the federal government.

“This helped him realize that there is a need for people to know more about what is in the law. These regulations clarify what the protection is, and give them a place to go, the HHS Office of Civil Rights, if they are being discriminated against.”

The regulations also help health programs certify to the government that they understand and respect conscience protections rights.

“The regulation doesn’t create any new rights, they’re just being ignored by some,” he stressed.

CNA asked Doerflinger to respond to the argument that conscience protection regulations force the beliefs of pharmacists or doctors on their patients.

In fact, he argued, the regulations “keep the government from forcing its preferences upon doctors.”

“Most of these statutory protections basically have to do with whether the government can go after you because you’re pro-life. It doesn’t allow the physician to do anything to his patients, it’s just that nobody can force the physician to be involved in actions which violate his conscience. It leaves everybody’s conscience free.”

“If you go to a hospital, every hospital there is, there is something people might want that it does not provide. There is a little-known fact in this debate that over 80 percent of hospitals do not do abortions as part of their regular practice.

“If I go to hospital and they say ‘we don’t do that here,’ that doesn’t force me to do anything. I can go someplace else.

“Hospitals refrain from providing services for all sorts of reasons far less serious than moral or religious conviction,” he added, explaining they have decided some services are not cost effective.

Alluding to a popular argument, he noted the bumper sticker which reads: “Don’t want abortion? Don’t have one!”

“Why doesn’t that work the other way around? ‘In favor of abortion? You do them’!”

“Don’t make us do them,” Doerflinger said.

Tiller’s Attorney Loses Control in Court While Irrational Conspiracy Theories Abound

Wichita, KS (MetroCatholic) - Three witnesses took the stand on the third day of testimony in a hearing where late-term abortionist George R. Tiller is asking District Court Judge Clark Owens to dismiss 19 criminal charges against him based on “outrageous prosecutorial conduct.”

Investigator Tom Williams testified for the third straight day about his involvement in an investigation of Tiller that began under former Attorney General Phill Kline.

Williams was questioned about his interview with Dr. Ronald V. Erkin, a retired psychiatrist who reviewed ten abortion records that had been obtained by Kline through a subpoena with the permission of the Kansas Supreme Court.

Dr. Erkin told Williams that he believed that the diagnoses of mental health conditions used to justify the post-viability abortions were not irreversible conditions as required by law.  However, he also told Williams that he believed that the definition of “irreversible” was a matter subject to debate.

In an affidavit supporting 30 criminal charges against Tiller, Williams referred to Dr. Erkin’s opinion that Tiller’s diagnoses were not substantial and irreversible conditions.  Monnat tried to persuade the court that Williams engaged in deception and outrageous conduct when he did not include Erkin’s statements about the debate over the definition of “irreversible.”

Disney and Monnat sparred throughout the day.  At one point, Disney rose to object to a question and Monnat lost control of his emotions and began angrily shouting in a tremendously loud voice over Disney’s objections.  The outburst shocked courtroom observers.

“Monnat seems to process everything through a faulty filter of paranoia, which leads him to find evil motives behind every action of those who were investigating Tiller,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.  “His frequent inflammatory questioning was obviously meant to play to the media in the courtroom.  Mr. Monnat needs to keep his day job because an Academy Award just is not in his future.”

Monnat was also suspicious that Williams may have had contact with “anti-abortionists.”  He asked Williams if he ever visited the Operation Rescue web site and if he ever interviewed OR representatives Troy Newman and Cheryl Sullenger or a number of other pro-life persons.  Williams could not recall doing so.

Also testifying was Jared Reed, a minor employee under Kline, and Eric Rucker who worked with Kline in both his tenures as Attorney General and Johnson County District Attorney. 

Thursday, witnesses could include Steven Maxwell, an attorney who worked for Kline during the Tiller investigation, and disgraced former Attorney General Paul Morrison, who resigned after his adulterous affair and attempts to impede abortion investigations became public.

The hearing is expected to be extended into next week.  If Tiller’s motion to dismiss is denied, he is scheduled to stand trail on March 16, 2009.

New York council committee considers fresh attack on pro-life free speech

WASHINGTON, DC (MetroCatholic) – The New York city council’s civil rights committee will hold a public hearing today over a proposed measure designed to create 15-foot buffer zones around the city’s abortion facilities in an attempt to restrict peaceful opposition to these centers. According to David Bereit, national campaign director of 40 Days for Life, “This proposal is an outright attack on both freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. While this bill is likely to be passed out of committee, we are optimistic that reasonable New Yorkers will not stand for this infringement of constitutional guarantees and will urge their council members to reject it.”

The draconian proposal, backed by major abortion organizations, would also permit clinics to file harassment charges against anyone within the 15-foot area without having to prove intent.

“Since 27 of the council’s 50 members are currently co-sponsoring the measure, passage would appear to be imminent. However we are confident these council members will listen to the people they are supposed to be serving,” said Bereit. “Even if council members disagree on the fundamental right to life, surely they understand that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free assembly must be respected and protected. We are urging all pro-life and pro-freedom New Yorkers to contact their council members to express concern about this clearly unconstitutional measure.”

On the first day of the fall 40 Days for Life campaign, New York city council speaker Christine Quinn announced the proposal at a at a news conference that included representatives of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the New York Civil Liberties Union and Dr. Emily’s Women’s Health Center – an abortion corporation whose Bronx location was the site of a 40 Days for Life prayer vigil.

The measure appears to target, among others, Chris Slattery, who directed 40 Days for Life campaigns in the Bronx and Queens and has a history of effective pro-life activism as president of Expectant Mother Care-EMC FrontLine Pregnancy Centers. Slattery will join many other pro-lifers opposing the measure at today’s council hearings. Also expected to testify are mothers who chose life for their babies after being counseled on the sidewalk in front of abortion facilities.

“This legislation is clearly intended to harass and intimidate peaceful people who are often simply standing and praying; when they do speak to women outside the facilities, they’re not ‘harassing’ anyone, they are offering alternatives and help in a time of need,” said Bereit.

“The bottom line is, street counselors who lovingly reach out to women in crisis pregnancies cut in to the abortion businesses,” said Slattery. “People are drawn to the truth and because of this counselors oftentimes peacefully dissuade abortion patients from entering these clinics by offering free help, education, medical care and housing.”

Slattery says he is most concerned about the way the proposed legislation would be enforced. “We intend to fight this measure if and when it begins to infringe upon our rights,” he said. “We have already begun assembling a legal team and activist support network to stand up against this unfair, biased and blatantly unconstitutional bill,” he said.

Pro-Abortion Religious Groups Lobby Obama

WASHINGTON DC (MetroCatholic) - President-Elect Barack Obama should quickly enact a series of pro-abortion laws, including federal funding of abortions, according to a new letter sent to him by a group of liberal religious organizations.

The letter, signed by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) and several RCRC member Jewish and Mainline Protestant bodies, including the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, calls for Obama to support the Freedom of Choice Act, which would remove all restrictions on abortions passed by state legislatures. Catholics for Free Choice, another RCRC member, also signed on.

The religious groups likewise call to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortion services, and the Mexico City Policy, first established by President Ronald Reagan, which prevents government funding of overseas organizations that provide abortions.

IRD UMAction Director Mark Tooley commented:

“RCRC has long lobbied for unrestricted abortion on demand, with its member denominations acting as a religious veneer for its extreme abortion rights ideology.

“Many churchgoers in RCRC member denominations would be horrified to learn how RCRC is exploiting their church’s name to promote unlimited abortion on demand.

“Especially abhorrent is RCRC’s advocacy of government funding for unrestricted abortions. This mindset illustrates how RCRC and its member denominational agencies are morally vapid and divorced from traditional Christian and Jewish teachings.

“Many on the Evangelical and Catholic Left promoted Obama’s candidacy, promising his administration would work to reduce the number of abortions in America. Such advocates should now work to counteract RCRC’s squalid campaign.”

Italian Nuns Refuse to Kill Eluana Englaro

By Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

MILAN  (LifeSiteNews.com) – The nuns who run the hospice in which Eluana Englaro has been living for 14 years have refused to carry out the court order to remove her food and hydration tube. On Friday, the highest court of appeals of Italy upheld a previous court’s ruling that Eluana Englaro, the young disabled woman who has been in a state of diminished consciousness since being in a car accident in 1992, may be killed by the removal of her food and hydration tube.

In a letter published in yesterday’s Avvenire, the daily newspaper of the Italian Bishops Conference, the Misericordine nuns of Lecco said, “Our hope, and that of many like us, is that the death by hunger and thirst of Eluana, and others in her condition, will not be carried out.”

“That is why, once again, we maintain our availability, today and into the future, to continue to serve Eluana. If there are those who consider her dead, let Eluana remain with us who feel she is alive. We don’t ask anything but the silence and the liberty to love and to devote ourselves to those who are weak, poor and little in return.”

At the same time, the Secretary of Welfare, Eugenia Roccella, said in a statement today that there is “no obligation” for government-funded health care facilities to implement the decision of the Court of Cassation that patients can be dehydrated to death.

Legal experts have said that it is possible under Italian law for the sisters to apply for permission from the courts to be appointed Eluana’s legal guardian. Monsignore Ignacio Barreiro, the head of the Rome office of Human Life International told LifeSiteNews.com that such a possibility could be a real glimmer of hope for saving Eluana’s life.

“It’s more than reasonable,” he said, “that someone who wants to keep the person alive should be appointed the guardian, rather than the person who’s ready to kill her. You don’t have to have a doctorate in theology to say that; it’s just common sense.”

Msgr. Barriero, who was an attorney before being ordained to the priesthood, added that it is a basic principle of law that “you cannot have a conflict of interest between the guardian and the person who is under guardianship. The purpose of a guardian is to look after the well being of the person.”

550 delegates of the Movement for Life, meeting in Montecatini for the 28th National Congress of the Centers for Aid to Life, have written to President Giorgio Napolitano to ask him to “enforce his highest moral authority” to allow Eluana Englaro “to continue to be cared for and loved by the Sisters of Lecco.”

Giulio Boscagli, Assessor to the Family and Solidarity in the region of Lombardy in which Eluana lives, agreed with the nuns, saying, “The ruling of the Court of Cassation seems to have lost sight of the reality” that Eluana is not dead but alive, although currently in a “seriously disabled condition.”

The desire of the nuns to care for Eluana as though she is “a daughter,” he said, “is the right path, the path taken by all those who daily take care of people who are in a vegetative state or very seriously disabled.” Boscagli pledged the “closeness and support” of the Regione Lombardia for the nuns.

At the same time, the decision of the Court of Cassation has alerted lawmakers to a legal loophole that could be used to sanction euthanasia. Justice Minister Angelino Alfano said that parliament must “fill the legislative vacuum in place” that has allowed the court to rule against Eluana.

40 Days for Life Campaign seeks advice: Thousands respond in one day

College Station, TX (MetroCatholic) – David Bereit, National Campaign Director for the “40 Days for Life”, is seeking input and advice regarding pro-life activities.

Wednesday, in a message to supporters, Bereit emphasized:

“This is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT request I have sent to you throughout this fall 40 Days for Life campaign cycle, and your response is crucial.”

“The unprecedented growth and widespread impact of 40 Days for Life is a direct result of the input received from many people over the last year.”

“Now it’s your turn!”

“Regardless of your level of involvement in this campaign, please fill out a short survey to let us know your thoughts about 40 Days for Life — AND MORE IMPORTANTLY — to help shape the future of this collective effort!”

“There are enormous opportunities for us all to build on the momentum of this campaign, and your input will be vital in shaping the direction of these collective efforts in the future.”

Despite some “glitches” with an e-mail list, the survey link, and user overload, nearly 4,000 people responded the first day.

To take the short survey, visit http://www.40daysforlife.com/survey.

Bereit sent a follow-up message on Thursday:

“If you have experience any problems filling out the survey due to the heavy web site traffic, please wait a few minutes and then try again.”

“I am very excited by all the insights and ideas that have been submitted thus far. After getting everyone else’s input by the end of this week our national team will be conducting a focused strategic planning session starting next Monday to analyze your answers and make decisive plans to take this effort to a whole new level!”

Next Page »

Advertisement

Advertisement

Copyright © 2008 MetroCatholic, Inc · Designed and Hosted by Klemens Raab · Log in