Woman Kills Wrongly-Implanted Embryos with Morning-After Pill

June 29, 2010

By Peter J. Smith

HARTFORD, Connecticut, June 29, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a disastrous chain of events, a set of “wanted” embryos quickly became “unwanted” after an artificially impregnated women was informed by her fertility clinic that they had implanted the embryos of another woman by the same name instead.

The woman’s solution was to take the morning-after pill (which, ironically, pro-abortion forces insist is simply a form contraception and cannot cause an abortion) and abort the nascent life within her.

The Associated Press reports that the Center for Advanced Reproductive Services at the University of Connecticut Health Center has agreed to pay a $ 3,000 fine over the incident, which took place last April, according to state health records.

Apparently, a lab technician had taken out a batch of human embryos from the storage freezer without following proper procedure. She only matched the last name, but forgot to crosscheck with the last four digits of the woman’s social security number and the medical record number.

The lab technician discovered the error a day later – but by then it was too late. The woman had already been implanted with another client’s embryos, which had been on ice for approximately four years.

After being told about the error one hour after having the embryos implanted within her, the woman then decided she did not want to carry someone else’s baby, and so took the morning-after pill.

Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith commented on his blog about the event, saying it illustrates not only how children have come to be treated as a commodity through in vitro fertilization, but also how this process can sometimes snare “would-be birth and biological parents … in terrible, heart wrenching circumstances.”

The center has insisted that the mix-up is the first ever in their 24-year history, calling it “important and emotionally difficult for patients and center alike.”

Smith, however, pointed out that mix-ups have happened before at IVF clinics – although in at least one extraordinary case the birth mother made a painful, but life-affirming choice. Sean and Carolyn Savage of Ohio found out last year that their IVF clinic had transferred the wrong embryos. The Savages, however, refused to abort on account of their pro-life religious beliefs, and arranged to hand over the baby to his biological parents shortly after the birth.

“When the mistake was discovered in that case, the birth mother and her husband chose life for someone else’s baby,” remarked Smith. “Which choice reflects unconditional love?”

Carolyn Savage told Meredith Vieira of the TODAY Show back in September that the hardest experience would be the delivery of the child, where she would only have a chance to say “hello” and “goodbye.”

“Of course, we will wonder about this child every day for the rest of our lives,” she added. “We just want to know he’s healthy and happy.”

A follow-up with the TODAY Show in May, revealed that the baby Carolyn Savage carried to term was born Logan Morell, now approximately 8 months old. The Savages and the Morells have become friends through the painful experience. However the Savages declined to appear on the TODAY Show, saying that the months following Logan’s birth have been much more difficult for them to deal with than they expected, but they hope to write about their experiences in a book for 2011.

Bishops Urge Senate to Remove Abortion Amendment from Defense Bill

June 29, 2010

A Senate committee amendment that would authorize the performance of elective abortions at military hospitals in this country and around the world is “misguided” and should be removed from the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 3454), said the Chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities. In a June 29 letter, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston urged Senators to remove this amendment on the grounds that it breaks with longstanding federal and military policies on government promotion of abortion.

Cardinal DiNardo said it was disingenuous to suggest, as the amendment’s proponents have, that the amendment is “moderate” in requiring patients at military facilities to pay for their abortions. “Which is a more direct governmental involvement in abortion: That the government reimburses someone else for having done an abortion, or that the government performs the abortion itself and accepts payment for doing so?” the Cardinal wrote. He cited a 1989 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court saying that “the State need not commit any resources to facilitating abortions, even if it can turn a profit by doing so.”

Cardinal DiNardo also noted the longstanding nature of the current policy against providing abortions at military health facilities, which has been in place for 22 years with the exception of 1993-1995.

“During the brief period when these facilities were told to make abortions available, scarcely any military physician could be found in overseas facilities who was willing to perform abortions,” the Cardinal added.

Cardinal DiNardo also said that the current military policy is in keeping with federal policy in general, noting: “Other federal health facilities also may not be used for elective abortions, and many states have their own laws against use of public facilities for such abortions.”

Calling on the Senate not to approve the bill unless it maintains current law, as the bill approved by the House of Representatives already does, Cardinal DiNardo concluded that “this amendment presents Congress with the very straightforward question whether it is the task of our federal government to directly promote and facilitate elective abortions. During the recent health care reform debate, the President and congressional leadership assured us that they agree it is not.”

Archbishop Broglio of the Archdiocese of Military Services had written an earlier letter to the Senate against the proposed policy change. Cardinal DiNardo endorsed his letter as well, noting that it urges Congress “not to impose this tremendous burden on the consciences of Catholic and other health care personnel who joined our armed services to save and protect innocent life, not to destroy it.”

Full text of the letter can be found online at: www.usccb.org/prolife/DiNardo-Ltr-Military-Abortions-6-29-2010.pdf

-

To go back to the blog home page, click here

To go back to the TCC home page, click here

For more information on the Texas Catholic Conference, visit www.TXcatholic.org.

Bishops Urge Senate to Remove Abortion Amendment from Defense Bill

June 29, 2010

A Senate committee amendment that would authorize the performance of elective abortions at military hospitals in this country and around the world is “misguided” and should be removed from the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 3454), said the Chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities. In a June 29 letter, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston urged Senators to remove this amendment on the grounds that it breaks with longstanding federal and military policies on government promotion of abortion.

Cardinal DiNardo said it was disingenuous to suggest, as the amendment’s proponents have, that the amendment is “moderate” in requiring patients at military facilities to pay for their abortions. “Which is a more direct governmental involvement in abortion: That the government reimburses someone else for having done an abortion, or that the government performs the abortion itself and accepts payment for doing so?” the Cardinal wrote. He cited a 1989 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court saying that “the State need not commit any resources to facilitating abortions, even if it can turn a profit by doing so.”

Cardinal DiNardo also noted the longstanding nature of the current policy against providing abortions at military health facilities, which has been in place for 22 years with the exception of 1993-1995.

“During the brief period when these facilities were told to make abortions available, scarcely any military physician could be found in overseas facilities who was willing to perform abortions,” the Cardinal added.

Cardinal DiNardo also said that the current military policy is in keeping with federal policy in general, noting: “Other federal health facilities also may not be used for elective abortions, and many states have their own laws against use of public facilities for such abortions.”

Calling on the Senate not to approve the bill unless it maintains current law, as the bill approved by the House of Representatives already does, Cardinal DiNardo concluded that “this amendment presents Congress with the very straightforward question whether it is the task of our federal government to directly promote and facilitate elective abortions. During the recent health care reform debate, the President and congressional leadership assured us that they agree it is not.”

Archbishop Broglio of the Archdiocese of Military Services had written an earlier letter to the Senate against the proposed policy change. Cardinal DiNardo endorsed his letter as well, noting that it urges Congress “not to impose this tremendous burden on the consciences of Catholic and other health care personnel who joined our armed services to save and protect innocent life, not to destroy it.”

Full text of the letter can be found online at: www.usccb.org/prolife/DiNardo-Ltr-Military-Abortions-6-29-2010.pdf

-

To go back to the blog home page, click here

To go back to the TCC home page, click here

For more information on the Texas Catholic Conference, visit www.TXcatholic.org.

Bishops Urge Senate to Remove Abortion Amendment from Defense Bill

June 29, 2010

A Senate committee amendment that would authorize the performance of elective abortions at military hospitals in this country and around the world is “misguided” and should be removed from the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 3454), said the Chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities. In a June 29 letter, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston urged Senators to remove this amendment on the grounds that it breaks with longstanding federal and military policies on government promotion of abortion.

Cardinal DiNardo said it was disingenuous to suggest, as the amendment’s proponents have, that the amendment is “moderate” in requiring patients at military facilities to pay for their abortions. “Which is a more direct governmental involvement in abortion: That the government reimburses someone else for having done an abortion, or that the government performs the abortion itself and accepts payment for doing so?” the Cardinal wrote. He cited a 1989 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court saying that “the State need not commit any resources to facilitating abortions, even if it can turn a profit by doing so.”

Cardinal DiNardo also noted the longstanding nature of the current policy against providing abortions at military health facilities, which has been in place for 22 years with the exception of 1993-1995.

“During the brief period when these facilities were told to make abortions available, scarcely any military physician could be found in overseas facilities who was willing to perform abortions,” the Cardinal added.

Cardinal DiNardo also said that the current military policy is in keeping with federal policy in general, noting: “Other federal health facilities also may not be used for elective abortions, and many states have their own laws against use of public facilities for such abortions.”

Calling on the Senate not to approve the bill unless it maintains current law, as the bill approved by the House of Representatives already does, Cardinal DiNardo concluded that “this amendment presents Congress with the very straightforward question whether it is the task of our federal government to directly promote and facilitate elective abortions. During the recent health care reform debate, the President and congressional leadership assured us that they agree it is not.”

Archbishop Broglio of the Archdiocese of Military Services had written an earlier letter to the Senate against the proposed policy change. Cardinal DiNardo endorsed his letter as well, noting that it urges Congress “not to impose this tremendous burden on the consciences of Catholic and other health care personnel who joined our armed services to save and protect innocent life, not to destroy it.”

Full text of the letter can be found online at: www.usccb.org/prolife/DiNardo-Ltr-Military-Abortions-6-29-2010.pdf

-

To go back to the blog home page, click here

To go back to the TCC home page, click here

For more information on the Texas Catholic Conference, visit www.TXcatholic.org.

Still Pushing: Catholic Health Association Lauds Obama’s ‘Strong Leadership’ in Pro-Abort Health Reform

June 29, 2010

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C, (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Catholic Health Association (CHA) prolonged its fight with the U.S. bishops over the health care reform last week. The organization issued a statement reinforcing its continued support of President Obama’s legislation despite unequivocal condemnation from bishops and other pro-life groups over the measure’s expansion of abortion.

After Obama met with health insurers and state insurance commissioners last week about implementing health care reform, CHA took the opportunity to heap praise on the controversial legislation, which CHA’s support was widely acknowledged as critical in pushing through.

“Once fully enacted, we are confident that the Affordable Care Act will provide access to more affordable insurance products and a greater sense of security for over 32 million people in this country that currently lack these protections,” stated the trade association.

“We continue to applaud the President for his strong leadership in this important area.”

The statement also came on the heels of remarks by Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), who re-emphasized earlier this month that CHA’s endorsement dealt a “wound to Catholic unity” and “weakened the moral voice” of the Catholic hierarchy by giving Catholic Democrats political cover to vote for the bill.

Cardinal George explained that attempts by bishops to dissuade CHA president Sr. Carol Keehan from endorsing the bill had failed. At the same time, it was earlier revealed that President Obama played a personal role in convincing Keehan to back the bill. Obama later rewarded Keehan with one of the ceremonial pens used to sign the legislation.

CHA’s latest statement nowhere mentions the bill’s major flaws in terms of taxpayer funding of abortion.

Pro-life leaders last week issued a challenge to CHA to prove its fidelity to the pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church by supporting the Protect Life Act, which would amend the federal health care legislation to bar public funds from going to abortion. The Catholic Health Association has not answered LifeSiteNews.com’s request for comment on the letter as of press time.

Salon’s Walsh Jumps the Shark — Calls GOP Senators Bigots for Invoking Manhattan’s Upper West Side

June 29, 2010

By Jeff Poor Business & Media Institute

Did you know that calling attention to an area where a Supreme Court justice nominee is from, which happens to be a well-known bastion of liberalism, is bigoted?

If you didn’t, you want to take a look at the wisdom of Salon.com’s Joan Walsh.  In her June 28 post “It’s not even coded bigotry anymore,” Walsh argued that references to SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan’s Upper West Side of Manhattan roots are bigoted –since the neighborhood has Jewish features, references to it are anti-Semitic and as she puts it, “not even coded.”

“That said, Republicans on the Senate Judicial Committee are trying to make the case she’s outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence, by attacking her clerking for (and admiring) legal giant Thurgood Marshall, the first African American Supreme Court justice, while singling her out as a denizen of ‘Manhattan’s Upper West Side’ – you know, the neighborhood known for Zabar’s and bagels and, well, Jews,” Walsh wrote.

Walsh wasn’t clear about what she thinks these Senate Republicans are trying to accomplish. Conventional wisdom suggests Kagan will be easily confirmed, but pointing out the neighborhood she is from, with documented evidence of having an ideological liberal leaning, is going to accomplish what?

She also took a stab at ranking Senate Judiciary Committee Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, with her own efforts to be coded – by invoking his middle name, “Beauregard.” (Remember when liberals hemmed and hawed over using President Barack Obama’s middle name, “Hussein,” as if that were a coded effort to suggest he was Muslim?) Her beef with Sessions was that he voiced his disapproval of judicial activism.

“Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions of Alabama, who wasn’t crazy about Sonia Sotomayor, you’ll recall, denounced Kagan having ‘associated herself with well-known activist judges who have used their power to redefine the meaning of our constitution and have the result of advancing that judge’s preferred social policies,’ and he cited Marshall, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund leader who argued Brown vs. Board of Education,” Walsh wrote.

Therefore with that evidence, Walsh declared any GOP senator that opposes Kagan a bigot.

“So there you have it. Unable to find any personal statements by Kagan they can use to prove she’s beyond the pale, so to speak – no ‘wise Latina’ moments on her transcripts – they deride her for coming from the Upper West Side, and admiring one of the heroes of American justice, who happens to be black,” Walsh wrote. “Stay tuned for more not-so-coded bigotry from the GOP.”

DELEGATION FROM CONSTANTINOPLE PATRIARCHATE MEETS POPE

June 29, 2010

VATICAN CITY, 28 JUN 2010 (VIS) - The Pope today received in audience the members of a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, who have come to Rome for the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul Apostles.

The delegation, sent by His Holiness Bartholomew I, is composed of His Eminence Gennadios (Limouris), metropolitan of Sassima, joint secretary of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and vice moderator of the central committee of the World Council of Churches in Geneva, Switzerland; His Eminence Bartholomaios (Ioannis Kessidis), bishop of Arianzos, assistant to the metropolitan of Germany, and Deacon Theodoros Meimaris of the patriarchal see of Fanar.

At the start of his English-language address to the group, the Holy Father rendered thanks unto God “that the relations between us are characterised by sentiments of mutual trust, esteem and fraternity, as is amply testified by the many meetings that have already taken place in the course of this year”.

“All this gives grounds for hope that Catholic-Orthodox dialogue will also continue to make significant progress”, he added.

Referring to the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue, the Pope noted how it is now “at a crucial point, having begun last October in Paphos to discuss the ‘The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium’. With all our hearts we pray that, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, the members of the commission will continue along this path during the forthcoming plenary session in Vienna, Austria, and devote to it the time needed for thorough study of this delicate and important issue. For me it is an encouraging sign that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I and the Holy Synod of Constantinople share our firm conviction of the importance of this dialogue”.

Benedict XVI then noted how the forthcoming Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Middle East, due to be held in October, will dedicate particular attention to “the theme of ecumenical co-operation between the Christians of that region”. And he highlighted the fact that that “the difficulties that the Christians of the Middle East are experiencing are in large measure common to all: living as a minority, and yearning for authentic religious freedom and for peace. Dialogue is needed with the Islamic and Jewish communities”.

“In this context I shall be very pleased to welcome the fraternal delegation which the Ecumenical Patriarch will send in order to participate in the work of the Synodal Assembly”, the Pope concluded.

Finding Heaven

June 28, 2010

“What is heaven?” the little girl asked, big blue eyes staring at the Sunday school teacher with curious wonder. 

“It is paradise.” The teacher answered. 

The little girl pondered her answer while twirling the lace on her shoe.  She looked up again with the same curious look, “What is paradise?”

“It is a place where everyone is happy and has everything they ever wanted.” The teacher seemed pleased with her answer as a smile started to spread across the little girl’s face. 

The girl’s eyes began to dance as she imagined the dolls, doll houses, and endless doll playthings.  “What a wonderful God we have!” thought the little girl.  She couldn’t wait to get to heaven.

As I grew older, I learned that heaven is where God is, and when we get there, we will spend eternity worshipping Him.  The little girl in me couldn’t help but be disappointed that there would be no time for dolls.  I couldn’t quite wrap my brain around the idea that just worshipping God would be paradise.  I loved God.  I wanted to meet God.  I wanted to live forever in heaven.  But really, spending forever worshipping Him? Was that my destiny?  Was that paradise?

In the Baptist Church where I was raised, there was a lot of preachin’ about heaven and hell.  My Daddy likes to call them “fire-and-brimstone” sermons.  At the end of these sermons, we were pretty much scared to death of hell or anything we could do to earn a place there.  Those of us who were saved were inspired to evangelize to those who had not yet committed their lives to Christ and were in danger of spending eternity in hell.  If you were not saved, then after listening to these sermons, you were inspired to sprint to the altar in order to avoid a “fire-and-brimstone” destiny.  So, growing up, I had a fear of hell and thus desired heaven as a way to avoid it.  I knew that heaven would be great, but I just didn’t have any idea what it would be like.  Worshipping God forever wasn’t a concept I was mature enough to grasp.

But now that I’m older, and somewhat more mature, the concept of heaven seems quite different to me.  It has helped because I have walked a little farther along in my journey with the Lord.  I’ve had experiences with Him I can’t quite explain.  I have had moments with Him I don’t quite understand.  But they have all been wrapped up with this overwhelming Divine Love that I am completely unworthy of feeling. With each new step I take, I fall completely head-over-heels in love with Jesus all over again.  Now that I have been nourished by the waters of life, I can’t seem to leave the river.  I just want to live on the river bank and bathe in the Divine Love that holds me together.  I imagine that heaven is where I will experience this divine love with all my senses, completely adore its beautiful source and wholly give myself over to Him forever.

So, now I think I get it.  The desire for heaven is the Father’s goal for our lives.  He doesn’t want us to desire it because it is better than hell, or because it is paradise.  He wants us to desire it because it is where He is.  To desire heaven is to desire the presence of God.  Our purpose in life is not to get to heaven, but to grow in love for God so that heaven, or being in the presence of God, is the desire of every fiber in our being.  He longs for us to grow in His divine love so that we willingly give up our lives to Him just as he gave up His life for us.  And when we let go of ourselves and replace the empty space with His love, mercy, and will, we will find ourselves in that place where our hearts beat for Him and our soul’s deepest, overwhelming desire is to bask in the glory of God forever.

And who knows, when I finally get to heaven, maybe Jesus will play dolls with me after all.

 Lori is a stay-at-home mom to her two boys and the children she loves on during the day at her home daycare.  She loving supports her Husband’s calling as a High School Band Director.  Originally from New Orleans, she was raised in the Southern Baptist Church and converted to the Catholic faith while in college.  When she has a rare free moment, she publishes her thoughts and musings at www.lorislifeandtimes.blogspot.com and is a volunteer columnist for www.catholicmom.com.

Catholic Retailing Leader Announces the Launch of Catholic Digital Product Sales

June 28, 2010

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., (MetroCatholic) — For the first time, Catholic digital products are now available through a national Catholic online retailer — Aquinas and More Catholic Goods.

Catholics finally have an alternative to secular outlets, like Amazon or Barnes & Noble, to buy Catholic digital products.

Leading Catholic online retailer, and Catholic information provider, Aquinas and More Catholic Goods has just begun selling eBooks, digital music, and other digital audio, from several Catholic publishers.

“Millions of iPads, Kindles, and other digital media readers have been sold in the last two years and sales aren’t slowing. Secular publishers and music companies are offering more of their products in digital formats every day and that is one of the only areas where they are seeing real growth. Catholic publishers are just now beginning to catch on. We see this as a new opportunity for our business and we want to be able to offer our customers as many Catholic digital products as we can at this time. In the coming weeks and months we will be offering an even larger selection and are happy to assist Catholic publishers in getting up to speed in this new publishing format.” says Ian Rutherford, President of Aquinas and More.

Aquinas and More is currently offering over 400 Catholic digital downloads for sale.

“Over the past several months we have had an increasing number of customers ask us for Catholic digital products. Its important to us that we are able to meet all of our customer needs. We hope that more Catholic publishers and music companies partner with us in this important effort.” says Mike Davis, Sales and Product Manager at Aquinas and More.

Aquinas and More Catholic Goods, founded in 2003, is the nation’s largest online Catholic retailer, offering over 23,000 Catholic products online.

DC Protests, June 28, Over Elena Kagan and Republican Silence

June 28, 2010

Please Gentlemen - for the Love of God, and the Love of Human Life - Filibuster Kagan; and Leave the Results in the Hands of God.’

Protests on Monday, June 28; details below

WASHINGTON, (MetroCatholic) — The following is submitted by Randall Terry:

What: Protests Regarding Elena Kagan, and the Duplicity of Senators Graham, McConnell, and Kyl.

When: Monday Morning, June 28, 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon

Where: Dirksen Building, Corner of 1st St. S.E. and C St. S.E.

On Monday, June 28, Pro-lifers from the Washington DC area and beyond will gather at the Dirksen Senate Office Building to draw attention to the cowardice and treachery of Senate Republicans, especially Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, SC Senator Lindsey Graham, and Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl regarding the nomination of a Lena Kagan to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

They will have a public demonstration from 8 AM. to 12:00 noon, coinciding with the opening of the Judiciary hearings for Kagan’s nomination.

Senators McConnell, Graham, and Kyl, have all in turn discussed filibustering Obama Supreme Court picks, but then backed away when it was time to act.

Mr. Randall Terry States:

“These men have used unborn babies as political pawns. They say they are pro-life - and talk a good game on the talk show circuit or in campaigns - but they refuse to fight for the babies when it really matters. They put the ‘T’ in treachery.”

Mr. Terry further states:

“Senator Kyl is a case study in trash-talking and duplicity. Obviously, the record is clear that Elena Kagan will uphold Roe. If Senator Kyl does not have the courage and moral compass to filibuster someone who promotes the wholesale slaughter of the unborn, then he is worse than useless as a ‘pro-life senator;’ he is a collaborator with the other side.

“Please gentlemen - for the love of God, and the love of human life - filibuster Kagan; and leave the results in the hands of God. If the lives of the innocent are not worth an attempted filibuster, then nothing is.”

Times and Locations for Monday, June 28.

Outside Dirksen Senate Office Building, Corner of 1st St.S.E. and C st. S.E. 8 - 12 Noon.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Home | About | Archives | Advertising | Contact | Privacy Policy

MetroCatholic, Inc · 5604 Belton Ln. · Suite 400 · McKinney, TX 75070
Ph. (972) 400-2423 · Fax (888) 248-7696

The sites and respective links above offer additional information on the Catholic faith. Please note that DFW Catholic is not officially associated with any of these sites and is unable to effectively monitor all information contained therein. Please use your own judgement when visiting these or any websites. If you find information that is objectionable, contact us.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish an article without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "MetroCatholic". Any Internet re-publishing of original MetroCatholic articles MUST additionally include a live link to http://www.dfwcatholic.org. Republishing of articles on DFWCatholic.org that have come from other news sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources. MetroCatholic may at times publish content that is taken from the internet and thus considered to be in the public domain. Anyone contrary to the publication of said content need only to contact the editorial office which will immediately proceed to remove the content.