Musings of an Amphibious Goat

2003-07-23T00:16:00.000-04:00

The Passion of Mel Gibson

I have not seen this movie, so I have no idea if it's any good. But here are some trailers: Passion Trailers. Requires Quicktime. If you want, read the comments of Barbara Nicolosi (and followup here), who has seen the movie. (And, no, she cannot get you in touch with Mel Gibson.)

2003-07-10T18:47:00.000-04:00

Maternity Store Sued for Pregnancy Discrimination After Employee Fired

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
June 30, 2003

Philadelphia, PA (LifeNews.com) -- Cynthia Papageorge, who was formerly a district manager at the Philadelphia-based maternity clothes retailer Mother's Work Inc., has filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging that company officials fired her and other employees because of their pregnancies.

In the suit, which is being heard in U.S. District Court in Boston, Papageorge says that Frank Mullay, a vice president of the company, told her that she "wasn't able to handle [her] position 'in [her] state'" and "moved quickly" to fire her after visiting her in October 1999 during her 37th week of pregnancy.

Papageorge is seeking unspecified damages.

Mother's Work Inc. which operates 900 stores nationwide, including A Pea in the Pod, Mimi Maternity, iMaternity, and Motherhood Maternity.

In addition, Jan Dowe, who was Papageorge's boss at the time, in an affidavit said that Mullay told her to fire Papageorge while she was on maternity leave. Dowe refused to fire her after company personnel officials told her that dismissing Papageorge because of her pregnancy was illegal, according to the affidavit.

According to the lawsuit, Dowe was then fired after being told her job performance was "subpar," and Papageorge was fired after requesting medical leave for a shoulder injury.

Three other pregnancy discrimination lawsuits have been filed against Mothers Work, with two being settled out of court and one being dismissed.

One of the suits was filed by Dowe against Mothers Work, Mullay, and Rebecca and Dan Mathias. Rebecca started the company in 1982 when she was pregnant with her first child. Dan is her husband. The suit was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

Mark Itzkowitz, Papageorge's attorney, told the Boston Globe, "It seems that pregnant women are subject to termination by virtue of their pregnancy. That position was made known in meetings with managers at Mothers Work. The other women were terminated for the same reason."

Sheryl Rothrogers, vice president of marketing at Mothers Work, said the allegations were "as far from the truth as possible," adding, "We're a company founded by a pregnant woman and we're an organization of women."

According to Rothrogers, the company has policies in place to "affirmatively and proactively help [the] diverse workplace balance family and work." Rothrogers said that Mothers Work "believe[s] the suit is without merit and will be appropriately and successfully defended."

Serrin Foster, President of Feminists for Life, was surprised at the irony of a maternity clothing company potentially engaging in pregnancy discrimination.

"It is mind blowing to think that a company named Mothers Work that profits from selling apparel to pregnant women would terminate [women's employment] because of their maternity," Foster told LifeNews.com. "I don't think this will play well with their customers."

Papageorge had been a manager at stores in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island.

John Augustine's comment: Many of you will remember my posts called "Abortion: Liberation or Capitulation?", "Have an Abortion or Give Up Your Job!", and "Another Woman Pressured Into Abortion". Women are not having abortions because they think it will be a fun, fulfilling, or emotionally satisfying experience. Women are having abortions because their jobs and schools refuse to cooperate with the needs of pregnant women and mothers. As you see above, a few threaten to oust pregnant women. Many pregnant women are made to feel quite unwelcome even without the overt threat. Women are having abortions because they do not know anyone who will share or give them practical resources, like food, housing, medical and legal services, clothing, baby supplies, etc. Women are having abortions because their parents, husbands, boyfriends, and/or friends do not provide them any emotional or material support, and in many cases actually ask or expect them to abort. Frederica Mathewes-Green listened to women who had procured abortions to find out their reasons for making that choice. Her conclusion? "No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg."

This is why Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life, says "It is time for us to systematically eliminate the coercive factors that drive women to abortion --primarily the lack of practical resources and emotional support. We invite all organizations -- including women''s organizations that differ with us on abortion -- to join us. Every woman deserves better. We don''t have to settle for less." Since its founding, Feminists for Life of America has been working to do just that: to eliminate the coercive factors which lead pregnant women to believe they have no choice but to abort. Please see the links and books listed to the left of this blog for more information.

2003-07-09T19:07:00.000-04:00

View Serrin Foster's Testimony

In case you missed Serrin deliver her testimony on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act before the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee yesterday which was broadcast on C-SPAN, go here to watch it via webcast:
http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/jdrive/e070803_unbornvictims.rm?start=8.0
Serrin's testimony appears near the middle of the recording, after Juley Fulcher, around 45 minutes in.

In order to view this webcast you will need to download the free Real Player program which you can find here:
http://forms.real.com/netzip/getrde601.html?h=207.188.7.150&f=windows/RealOnePlayerV2GOLD.exe&p=RealOne+Player&oem=dl&tagtype=ie&type=dl

Please note that they will take this down in a week.

2003-07-08T17:18:00.000-04:00

Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
Hearing on H.R. 1997
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act
July 8, 2003
Testimony of Serrin M. Foster
President, Feminists for Life of America

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Serrin Foster and I am the President of Feminists for Life of America. Feminists for Life is an education and advocacy organization that continues the work of the early American feminists who championed both the rights of women and legal protection for the unborn.

Feminists for Life is a member of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women. As a proud advocate of the Violence Against Women Act, we applaud the universal support by Members of Congress for VAWA. I thank the Members of Congress here who have supported VAWA. We can all be proud that statistics show violence against women has decreased since VAWA was enacted. But there is much more work to be done.

Feminists for Life has a track record of getting beyond deadlock on polarizing issues by addressing the root causes of the problems women face. One of the ways we do this is by listening to women and then prioritizing what women really want. Today I am pleased to speak from that perspective about an urgent question: What is the appropriate response to a woman who has lost her unborn child due to an assault that she survived? What is the appropriate response to survivors when an assault takes the lives of both a pregnant woman and the child she carries?

Sarah Norton, an early American feminist who was the first woman to seek admission to Cornell University, asked this question more than a century ago. Speaking of the then-common situation in which an unwilling father attempted to kill an unborn child, she asked, "Had the scheme been successful in destroying only the life aimed at, what could have been the man's crime-and what should be his punishment if, as accessory to one murder he commits two?" (Woodhull and Claflin's Weekly, November 19, 1870)

Today's victims are speaking loudly and clearly on this issue. We need to listen.

According to a recent two-year study by the Center for the Advancement of Women, run by Faye Wattleton, former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, reducing violence against women is the number one priority of women. Women who are pregnant are at particular risk of being targeted for violence. In fact, recent studies by two different state health departments have shown that a leading cause of maternal mortality is not complications during pregnancy or childbirth-rather, it's homicide. For example, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, a Maryland study concluded that, "A pregnant or recently pregnant woman is more likely to be a victim of homicide than to die of any other cause."

We are hearing more and more horrible stories via mainstream media of pregnant women who are assaulted by those who do not want them to carry a child to term.

A doctor was videotaped as he tried to poison his pregnant fiancée.
Another doctor attacked his girlfriend's abdomen with a needle.
A number of women have tried to kill the unborn child of another woman who is involved with the same man.
Unwilling fathers have hired thugs to intentionally kill the unborn child.

For every story we hear, there are countless more that go untold, such as the story of Marion Syversen, a board member of Feminists for Life, who lost her unborn child when her abusive father threw her down a flight of stairs when she was pregnant.

Women who have survived such unthinkable violence are unequivocal: justice demands recognition of and remedy for both their assault and the killing of their unborn baby. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would support justice for women who lose children as the result of a federal crime of violence.

Many women do not survive such crimes, and their grieving survivors are equally unequivocal: justice demands recognition of and remedy for the killing of both victims, the woman and her unborn child or children.

The gruesome and well-publicized case of Laci Peterson and her unborn baby, Conner, prompted Americans to examine their own convictions on this issue. The American people, too, were unequivocal. They recognize and mourn the loss of both mother and child. According to a Newsweek/Princeton Survey Research Associates poll released June 1, 2003, 84% of Americans believe that prosecutors should be able to bring a homicide charge on behalf of a fetus killed in the womb. This figure includes 56% who believe such a charge should apply at any point during pregnancy, and another 28% who would apply it after the baby is "viable," i.e., of sufficient lung development to survive outside the mother. Only 9% believe that a homicide charge should never be allowed for a fetus.

Feminists for Life and our partners in the Women Deserve Better® campaign support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act because it would provide justice for the victims of federal crimes of violence. As victims, survivors, and the American people clearly demand, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act would recognize an unborn child as a legal victim when he or she is injured or killed during the commission of a federal crime of violence.

Congresswoman Lofgren has introduced an alternative to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, called the Motherhood Protection Act of 2003. Instead of recognizing a woman's unborn child as an additional victim, it would "provide additional punishment for certain crimes against women when the crimes cause an interruption in the normal course of their pregnancies."

An "interruption?" That implies something temporary, as if it were possible for the victim's pregnancy to start back up again. Dare we ask: mother of whom? Motherhood is neither protected nor honored through the proposed Motherhood Protection Act. Instead, it tells grieving mothers that their lost children don't count. It ignores these mothers' cries for recognition of their loss and for justice. It is a step backward in efforts to reduce violence against women.

Ten days ago in the Bronx, a 54-year-old man allegedly kicked and punched his 24-year-old girlfriend in the abdomen. Julie Harris was nine months pregnant at the time. She went through labor only to deliver stillborn twins. The Motherhood Protection Act, which some call the single victim substitute, would only recognize one of these three victims.

The family of California murder victims Laci and Conner Peterson is explicitly urging Congress to pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also known as Laci and Conner's Law-not the single-victim substitute. Sharon Rocha, Laci's mother and Conner's grandmother, concluded a letter to Senators DeWine, Hatch, and Graham and Congresswoman Hart:

I hope that every legislator will clearly understand that adoption of such a single-victim amendment would be a painful blow to those, like me, who are left alive after a two-victim crime, because Congress would be saying that Conner and other innocent unborn victims like him are not really victims-indeed, that they never really existed at all. But our grandson did live. He had a name, he was loved, and his life was violently taken from him before he ever saw the sun.

The application of a single-victim law, such as the [Lofgren] amendment, would be even more offensive in the many cases that involved mothers who themselves survive criminal attacks, but who lose their babies in those crimes. I don't understand how any legislator can vote to force prosecutors to tell such a grieving mother that she didn't really lose a baby-when she knows to the depths of her soul that she did. A legislator who votes for the single-victim amendment, however well motivated, votes to add insult to injury.

The advocates of the single-victim amendment seem to think that the only thing that matters is how severe a sentence can be meted out-but they are wrong. It matters even more that the true nature of the crime be recognized, so that the punishment-which should indeed be severe-will fit the true nature of the crime. This is a question not only of severity, but also of justice. The single-victim proposal would be a step away from justice, not toward it. For example, if Congresswoman Lofgren's legal philosophy was currently the law in California, there would be no second homicide charge for the murder of Conner.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would also avoid multiplying the pain of survivors of horrendous federal crimes of violence such as the bombing in Oklahoma City or the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

After years of trying to have a child, Carrie and Michael Lenz, Jr. were overjoyed to learn that she was carrying their son, whom they named Michael Lenz III. Carrying a copy of the sonogram, Carrie went to work early the next morning to show coworkers the first photo of baby Michael. She and Michael were killed, along with three other pregnant women and their unborn children, when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building exploded on April 19, 1995. This father's agony was multiplied later when he saw that the memorial named only his wife, not his son, as a victim. In the eyes of the federal government, there was no second victim. Timothy McVeigh was never held accountable for killing Michael Lenz's namesake.

If the legal system does not recognize the loss of the unborn child, it becomes an unwitting agent of the perpetrator who robbed the survivors of the child and the life they would have had together.

Women have a right to have children. When a woman has this right taken away from her due to violence that kills the fetus in her womb, she needs and deserves the support of all those who champion women's rights, including those who support legalized abortion. Columbia Law School Professor Michael Dorf, who is pro-choice, agrees: "Certainly pro-choice activists would oppose government-mandated sterilization. For similar reasons, they should support punishing feticide."

It is also worthwhile to note that outside the context of abortion, unborn children are often recognized as persons who warrant the law's protection. Most states, for example, allow recovery in one form or another for prenatal injuries. Roughly half the states criminalize fetal homicide. Unborn children have long been recognized as persons for purposes of inheritance, and a child unborn at the time of his or her father's wrongful death has been held to be among the children for whose benefit a wrongful death action may be brought. Federal law similarly recognizes the unborn child as a human subject deserving protection from harmful research.

Some have questioned whether it is reasonable to apply this law if the perpetrator is unaware that a woman is pregnant, especially if she is in the earliest stages of pregnancy.

Neither the Unborn Victims of Violence Act nor the Motherhood Protection Act makes a distinction about the age of the fetus. But would anyone seriously suggest-especially those who advocate a right to privacy-that it is a woman's responsibility to disclose her pregnancy to a potential attacker or murderer?

In 1990, the Supreme Court of Minnesota answered that question. In State v. Merrill, a man who killed a woman was responsible for two deaths, even though the woman was just 28 days pregnant. The court said: "The possibility that a female homicide victim of child-bearing age may be pregnant is a possibility that an assaulter may not safely exclude."

Knowing this may serve as a deterrent to future attacks on women of childbearing age.

We cannot tell grieving mothers like Tracy Marciniak, who testified here today, that her son Zachariah didn't count. We cannot tell Julie Harris, mother of twins, that there was only one victim when there were three. We cannot tell the families of Laci and Conner, or Carrie and Michael III, that they have only one loss to mourn. The Motherhood Protection Act would deny these victims the recognition and justice they deserve.

Women have spoken. Women want the justice promised by the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

We are asking our elected representatives to honestly answer the question in the case of Laci Peterson and baby Conner, was there one victim or two?

Those who support the single-victim substitute would deny women justice.

On behalf of women and families who have lost a child through violence, a father who has lost both his wife and child through terrorism, and Laci and Conner's family, I urge unanimous support for this bill, not the single-victim substitute.

2003-06-06T13:17:00.000-04:00

Remember This?

Now that the U.S. House of Representatives, by a two-thirds vote (282-139), has joined the Senate in approving a bill to ban partial-birth abortions, I think it's time we all reminded ourselves of this (requires PDF reader). Print it out for your friends & family too.

The Thirty Years War: Dem candidates need to learn that to be against abortion is not to be against feminism
by Norah Vincent
Jewish World Review Jan. 23, 2003/ 20 Shevat, 5763

Is the phrase "pro-life feminist" an oxymoron? The newly rechristened NARAL Pro-Choice America -- formerly known as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League -- would like you to think so. With two Supreme Court justices poised to retire, a cagey "anti-choice" president itching to replace them and a simpatico Congress at the wheel, the feminist establishment is very nervous.

In recent weeks, it has been gearing up an all-out public relations campaign aimed at undecided women voters and, more important, the six major Democratic presidential hopefuls, all of whom attended NARAL's fund-raising dinner in Washington on Tuesday, the eve of the 30th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. The distaff lobby is playing the sex card and the message is clear: Abortion is going to be the litmus test in 2004, and if you're not pro-choice, you're anti-woman.

The blistering irony of this unquestioned association between feminism and legalized abortion is that it flies in the face of history, logic and experience. It may come as a surprise to many people, for example, to learn that the earliest women's rights advocates, also known as "first wave" feminists, adamantly opposed abortion. In the Revolution, her newsletter, Susan B. Anthony called it "child murder" and "infanticide." Mary Wollstonecraft denounced those who would "destroy the embryo in the womb or cast it off when born." Elizabeth Cady Stanton, organizer of the first U.S. women's rights congress, in 1848 in Seneca Falls, N.Y., also condemned abortion as "a disgusting and degrading crime."

When you consider what abortion really is biologically, it's hard to refute our foremothers on the issue. The reasoning is simple and syllogistic. The womb is one of the defining features of the female animal. The defining feature of abortion, meanwhile, is a denial or negation of the womb, because its sole purpose is to stop the womb from fulfilling its normal function.

Thus abortion is the ultimate negation of the female animal and therefore the ultimate misogynistic act. This is a singularly feminist argument because it emphasizes a woman's interest rather than a fetus'. It is on this woman-centered foundation that modern pro-life feminists, some of them refugees of the vehemently pro-abortion "second wave" feminist movement of the 1960s and '70s, build their case against abortion.

Far from seeing legalized abortion as offering women more choices, exiled apostate second-wavers like Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life of America, see it as a choice that has been made for many women: a cheap, quick fix that allows society to shirk its responsibility to provide affordable day care, housing, counseling and prenatal checkups to students, the poor and abandoned women. Many of these women opt for abortion because they lack the financial, emotional and institutional support to carry their pregnancies to term. Abortion, says Foster, is "a symptom of, not a solution to, the continuing struggles women face in the workplace, at home and in society."

On this issue, the second-wave feminist establishment -- as represented most visibly by NARAL and the National Organization for Women -- does not speak for all women or all feminists, nor should it presume to when seeking to define the terms of the 2004 presidential debate. Feminism is not monolithic and never will be if it remains true to its founding principle that a woman has a mind of her own and the right to express it freely.

There is a third wave in feminism, represented by the generation of women now in their 20s to mid-30s who have challenged the orthodoxy of their predecessors on abortion as well as date rape, sex and body image. Other third-wavers have wholeheartedly embraced the second-wave agenda. Both are the future of feminism. Both must be welcome under the umbrella of a diverse movement whose only common concern is that all women's voices be heard and that their votes not be taken for granted by the political party in whose pocket they reside.

2003-04-04T12:17:00.000-05:00

Patricia Heaton Stirs More Controversy on A&E “Biography”

Two-time Emmy winner and Feminists for Life of America Honorary Chair Patricia Heaton was profiled Tuesday, April 1 on A&E during “Primetime Women Week” on "Biography."

Displaying the Feminists for Life website where Heaton appears in an ad stating, “Refuse to choose. Women deserve better,” the hour-long Biography noted that she was “a celebrity who’s not afraid of stirring up controversy whether the subject is politics, morality or herself.” In her work with Feminists for Life of America, “Heaton uses her fame, for instance, as a platform to campaign against abortion.”

Patricia Heaton is best known for her role as Debra in the hit CBS comedy, “Everybody Loves Raymond,” for which she has been recognized by her peers with back-to-back Emmys for Outstanding Actress in a Lead Role in a Comedy Series.

Her book, “How to Get a Job Like Mine in Hollywood,” which has just gone paperback, has made her a New York Times best selling author.

In real life Heaton is also the wife and mother of four beautiful boys. Heaton told Biography that her son Sam and the 3 boys that followed turned her into a better actress: “When I had kids, they took away all my free time, but they gave me tons of emotional life that I had never experienced before. Things came much more naturally to me, and I feel that my work loosened up and filled out because I had these other people in my life who were showing me a whole new way to live.”

When Heaton received the first of her two Emmys in 2000, she began with gratitude to her own mother. “I just want to thank God for thinking me up and my mother for letting me come out, because life is really amazing!”

By the year 2000, she was one of the most recognizable stars on television. She was being compared to some of the greatest actresses who’d ever been on television: “Audrey Meadows, Mary Tyler Moore. That’s a good league to be in, don’t you think?” asks Phillip Rosenthal, executive producer for “Everybody Loves Raymond.”

She is also in league with Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and other trailblazing women who refused to choose between women and unborn children,” said FFL President Serrin Foster. Feminists for Life continues the tradition of the early American Feminists who opposed abortion because of their belief in the worth of all human beings.

“I feel like everybody has the right to life according to the Constitution,” Heaton is pictured saying to an audience this past November at UCLA, as FFL President Serrin Foster, at her side, cheers her on with a resounding “Yes!” Heaton describes how she finds the courage to hold a position unpopular in her profession by explaining: “At the end of the day, I believe I have to answer to God for the actions in my life, the actions that I took and the actions that I didn’t take. So that’s scarier to me than somebody in the Hollywood community not liking me.”

“It’s not the sort of stance you usually hear from stars in Hollywood,” notes Biography.

But is a stance you will hear more and more. Actor Margaret Colin, noted for her roles in “Independence Day” and “Three Men and a Baby,” who serves as Honorary Co-chair, was pictured by her side along with Serrin Foster after a White House press briefing on human cloning by President Bush.

“Patricia’s stands are unusual for Hollywood. In a town where people obsessively chase fame, where she worked for years to achieve it herself, Patricia Heaton said if her career ever dries up, she will walk away with no regrets,” notes Biography.

2003-03-31T18:16:00.000-05:00

Reading Between the Lines of the "I'm Not Sorry" Chronicles

So I've been reading a bunch of the "I'm Not Sorry" stories over at ImNotSorry.Net, and I believe they are, for the most part, perfect evidence of what I have been arguing here from the beginning: women in our society are pressured into abortion by a variety of social and economic circumstances which seem insurmountable. If we really want to put an end to abortion (both legal and illegal), we have to work to eliminate these coercive social and economic pressures. Changes in the law and its application are insufficient!

Why are the women at "I'm Not Sorry" not sorry? Most did not believe they had workable and acceptable alternatives to abortion. Faced with the choice between being thrown out on the streets by her parents or getting an abortion, neither of which probably seemed appealing, a girl aborted her child. She's "not sorry" she was not rejected and evicted by her family. When people tell her the decision to abort was bad or wrong, she understandably thinks--and perhaps even says--something like "What the hell did you want me to do? Live alone and destitute on the streets with a baby born in a gutter?" The same could be said about most of these stories. Forced to choose between two horrors, these women chose one and are "not sorry" they did not have to live with the other. They resent the implication that being rejected and evicted, being beaten, etc., would have been a "good" choice or that they should be "forced" to endure those other alternatives (e.g. if abortion was not legal and/or accessible). So the website has a very defensive tone.

I don't believe that anything justifies killing an innocent human being, but these women's self-justifying stories--anti-apologetic apologia, if you will--are completely understandable. Women deserve better than abortion--and better than the abortion alternatives these women faced. I urge all my readers, if you have not already done so, to read Frederica Mathewes-Green's Real Choices. Join Feminists for Life of America, and contribute anything you can to their College Outreach Program! Learn more about the Nurturing Network and get involved! We can eliminate most, if not all, of the coercive factors that drive women to abortion. The first step is listening to women and finding out what those coercive factors are. The "I'm Not Sorry" crowd may not know it yet, but they're actually helping us to eliminate abortion.

Tune in Pro-Life Feminist Patricia Heaton

Feminists for Life's honorary chair, Patricia Heaton, is the subject of "Biography" on A&E on Tuesday, April 1, at 8 p.m. The show will discuss her career, her family and her role as FFL honorary chair.

Ms. Heaton, who currently appears on the television show "Everybody Loves Raymond", is a two-time Emmy winner for her role as Debra. She is also a New York Times bestselling author.

If you'd like to know more about this "Remarkable Pro-Life Woman" and hear her talk about Feminists for Life on national television, tune in!

Extremely Disturbing

Mike Epstein cited this article on his blog back in February, commenting, "Abortion's good for women, huh?" In case you missed it:

Tape: Blake Berates Wife Over Pregnancy, Recording Is Played During Hearing
By Linda Deutsch, Associated Press
Washington Post Thursday, February 27, 2003; Page C08
LOS ANGELES, Feb. 26 -- A retired homicide detective testified today that actor Robert Blake told him in 1999 that he had impregnated a woman during a one-night stand and he wanted her abducted to undergo an abortion, and if that failed, to have her killed.
"He said, 'We're going to hire a doctor, we're going to abort her and if that doesn't work we're going to whack her,' " William Welch testified during a preliminary hearing to determine whether Blake must stand trial on charges of murdering his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley.
Bakley, 44, was shot as she sat in the couple's car near Blake's favorite restaurant, Vitello's, where they dined on May 4, 2001. Blake, 69, has claimed he went back into the restaurant to retrieve a gun he carried for protection and found Bakley shot when he returned to the car.
Welch, who became a private detective in 1985 after 21 years as a Los Angeles police officer, said the actor described the plan in October 1999 during a walk by the Los Angeles River.
Welch said he had done private detective work for Blake and had become friends with him by the time of the conversation.
"He looked me in the eye and I believed him," said Welch, who testified he refused to carry out the plot.
Earlier in the day, Blake sat grimly as prosecutors played a taped phone call in which the actor berated his wife for getting pregnant.
"You lied to me. You double-crossed me. You double-dealt me, and that's who you are," the former "Baretta" star told Bakley.
On the tape, Bakley sniffled and cried as she insisted her only concern was to stay with Blake.
"All I ever wanted was to be with you," she said.
Blake urged her to get an abortion, suggesting "a pill from France."
At the hearing, Blake's lawyer challenged a coroner's work on the autopsy. Deputy Medical Examiner Jeffrey Gutstadt testified that a bullet that went through Bakley's cheek was fired in a slightly upward direction.
In a long cross-examination, lawyer Thomas Mesereau Jr. suggested the autopsy never exactly established Bakley's position when she was shot, the height of her assailant, or which of the two shots that killed her came first.
The coroner testified that Bakley was killed by one bullet that went through her right cheek and into her brain and another bullet that entered through her right shoulder. He noted that there were no defensive wounds on Bakley's arms.
The prosecution's key witnesses are expected to be two former Hollywood stuntmen who say Blake tried to pay them to kill Bakley. When that failed, prosecutors say, the actor shot her himself.
Earle Caldwell, a former bodyguard, driver and handyman for Blake, is charged with conspiring with the actor. Blake faces life in prison without parole if convicted.

"How quickly a 'woman's right to choose' comes to serve a 'man's right to use.'" --Juli Loesch

2003-03-10T18:22:00.000-05:00

Reading Between the Lines of the "I'm Not Sorry" Chronicles

I promise you all that I will be commenting on this soon.

2003-02-05T21:54:00.000-05:00

Even More Absurdity from Planned Parenthood

Some of you may remember my post about the supreme irony of Planned Parenthood's teen poster contest, i.e. that contest entry required parental consent. Here's a new one for ya. On the Planned Parenthood 2003 calendar of "Save Roe" events for Washington, DC, I found this offering: "From Elizabeth Cady Stanton to Nancy Pelosi: Celebrating Generations who Fight for Women's Freedom" (Jan. 29, 2003) sponsored by Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, DC.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton? Excuse me? I love Stanton---I even made a special trip to visit her Senaca Falls home in 2001. She was indeed a freedom fighter, both for women and for slaves. So what's the irony of Planned Parenthood celebrating Stanton? Elizabeth Cady Stanton was entirely opposed to abortion!

Yes, my friends, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, like all her suffragette companions, was decidedly PRO-LIFE. Stanton would never support their stupid "Save Roe" events! She and Susan B. Anthony soundly denounced abortion and totally banned all abortifacient advertisements from their newspaper The Revolution. Absurdity!

And speaking of absurdities, please don't miss my favorite Planned Parenthood product of all time: Planned Parenthood Chocolate Birth Control Pill Packs! This is no joke---this is a REAL Planned Parenthood product.

2003-01-26T01:16:00.000-05:00

Feeling Like a Tongue-Tied Pro-Life Feminist?

Here's some help answering those tough questions from your abortion-advocating family members, friends, coworkers, etc.! Check out Pro-Woman Answers to Pro-Choice Questions.

2003-01-25T23:59:00.000-05:00

Serrin Foster Explains to the Washington Times That "Women Deserve Better!"

"Women experiencing an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy," notes two-time Emmy-award-winning actor and New York Times best-selling author Patricia Heaton, who also serves as honorary chair for Feminists for Life.
The sad reality, however, is that this is so rarely true. In fact, the very opposite is usually the case: Women experiencing an unplanned pregnancy often end up experiencing the tragic violence of abortion.
Why is it this way? Or maybe more to the point, why should it be this way?
It is certainly not because women want abortion. We know even from numbers provided by abortion supporters themselves that the primary reasons women with unintended pregnancies turn to abortion are lack of financial resources and emotional support. Many women also say they felt abandoned, or coerced into having an abortion.
Despite child support laws, some pregnant women are threatened by the fathers of the child, who vow to withhold support.
Jennifer O'Neill, actor, model, author and spokeswoman for the Silent No More campaign, reluctantly had an abortion after being coerced by her powerful and wealthy fiance who threatened to take away her baby if she gave birth. She subsequently suffered nine miscarriages. "Nothing in the world could ever make me opt for that choice again," she said.
College-age women represent almost half of those having an abortion. Through FFL's College Outreach Program, women report almost universally that upon receiving a positive result from a pregnancy test they are told by campus clinic staff, "I'm so sorry" and are handed a business card to the local abortion clinic. Some colleges offer $300 loans for an abortion, but no financial aid for a live birth. Too often university clinic workers, counselors and professors tell women they can't possibly continue their education and have a child - as if women are suddenly incapable of reading, writing or thinking once pregnant. And those who are visibly pregnant are stared at like exotic animals crossing the campus. Forcing women to choose between sacrificing their education and career plans or sacrificing their children doesn't seem like much of a free choice.
Women in the workplace continue to hope for support through benefits - health care that includes maternity coverage, job sharing, flex time, telecommuting and the ability to make a living wage.
Many hope for support from well-meaning family and friends who - rather than offering congratulations, unconditional support and asking, "How can I help?" - tell her a child will "ruin" her life.
In other words, most women "choose" abortion precisely because they believe they had no other choice. As we note this month the 30th year since the Supreme Court handed down its Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion, this is no reason for women to celebrate.
Abortion is not a measure of our society's success in meeting the needs of women, but of our failure. And why celebrate failure?
Instead, this month the Women Deserve Better Campaign - supported by several pro-woman and pro-life groups - begins a long-term public education campaign highlighting this failure of abortion. The campaign is an effort to refocus the nation on why women feel pressured into abortion and to promote women-centered solutions to these problems.
Many women who have had an abortion carry emotional scars from the experience. Studies from Finland, Great Britain, Canada and the United States reveal higher rates of suicide, attempted suicide and psychiatric admissions for women who have had an abortion compared to women who gave birth. Feminists for Life board member Marion Syversen had two abortions as a teenager while living in an extremely abusive home. She supports studies of the impact on women who experienced the most common surgery in America. Reminded that former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said that it was problematic to study the impact of abortion because half of women would lie about their abortion, Ms. Syverson responded: "Well doesn't that tell you something? If it was such a great thing we'd all be talking about it!"
Women deserve better than this. FFL's honorary co-chair, actor Margaret Colin, recently asked members of Congress to "remember the woman" as we observe 30 years of legalized abortion and asked all of us "is this the best we can do for her?"
Abortion is a symptom of - not a solution to - the problems faced by women. As Americans, we like to say that "failure is not an option." Thirty years of abortion is a tragedy. Abortion has completely failed as any type of social policy designed to aid women. Abortion is a reflection that we have failed women.
After 30 years, let's put an end to this failure.

This article was originally published in the Forum section of The Washington Times on Sunday, January 19, 2003.

ABC News on Feminists for Life

The original ABC News article appears here.

Feminists for Life
Groups Seek to Change Terms of Abortion Debate
By Dean Schabner, ABC News Jan. 15

Michaelene Jenkins has always considered herself a feminist, but 18 years ago she stopped believing that abortion should be legal — after she had one herself.
Nothing prepared her for the emotional devastation she felt after she had the abortion, she said, but equally shocking to her was what she encountered as she was trying to decide what she wanted to do.
It was that experience — one that she said is all too common for women who find themselves with unexpected or unwanted pregnancies — that led Jenkins, now executive director of the Life Resource Network, to support a new campaign spearheaded by a group called Feminists for Life to make a case about "the failure of abortion to meet the needs of women."
The Women Deserve Better campaign, which is being unveiled in the Washington, D.C., area this month, seems to be an attempt to change the terms of the abortion debate on the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision, which cleared the way for the legalization of abortion.
That debate, Serrin Foster, the president of Feminists for Life, admitted, has reached a stalemate "with one side chanting, 'What about the baby?' and the other chanting 'What about the mother?'"
The thrust of the campaign is that legalized abortion is not only bad for the unborn children, it's been bad for women and for all of society, because it has allowed employers, lawmakers, colleges and even health care providers to treat pregnancy as an easily avoidable condition.
"Babies don't ruin people's lives," Foster said. "Poverty ruins people's lives. Unemployment ruins people's lives. A lack of education ruins people's lives. Violence ruins people's lives."
Pregnant women grappling with the decision of what to do too often find themselves pressured by economics, by their employers or by their families or boyfriends to get an abortion, the campaign's backers say.
"Women say to me they don't feel like it's much of a free choice," Foster said. "I know women who have had arguments being pressured by their university health clinics to have an abortion. We believe that abortion is a reflection of how we have failed women."
That could change if there were social programs and laws to support mothers, and in its support for those issues the campaign shares common ground with abortion rights groups such as NARAL Pro-Choice America and the National Organization for Women.
Who’s Fighting for What?
Those issues have been at the heart of the feminist movement since its inception in the 19th century, but according to Foster, they have gotten lost as the groups currently identified as feminist have focused on the abortion fight.
That's not the case, NARAL legal director Elizabeth Cavendish said.
"I'd say, 'Welcome to the club,'" Cavendish said when asked about the Women Deserve Better campaign. "NARAL has long been fighting for measures supporting women to make informed, reasoned choices and helping them bear healthy children should they decide to.

[Editorial Note: Elizabeth Cavendish says "welcome to the club"?! Pro-life feminists predate NARAL by more than a century and a half!]

"To the extent that it's about giving women more options, we say, 'Go for it, great, get it done,'" she added.
But if there is agreement between abortion foes and supporters that women are still shortchanged, there is no common ground on what role the Roe vs. Wade decision played.
"We agree in some areas and part company in others," Cavendish said. "We support giving women acces to all their options."
A Forced Decision?
Options are what Jenkins said she did not feel she had 18 years ago, when she found herself unmarried and pregnant. Abortion was not her first choice. She said she initially wanted to have the child and give it up for adoption, but found no support for that decision.
"At the time, I was pro-choice," she said. "I felt abortion was very necessary for women to be able to advance their education and career goals."
Not only was her boyfriend adamantly against her tentative decision to carry the child and give it up for adoption, but her employer all but told her she would lose her job if she did not terminate the pregnancy, she said.
"I was young, I was living in a new state with a new job," she said. "All I could think was that I would have no place to live and have no job if I went through with the pregnancy."
A Revolution
She decided to have an abortion, but even then, she said, she wound up feeling shortchanged.
"It was even obvious going through the procedure that I wasn't being told everything," she said. "It didn't seem very pro-woman to me. I wasn't thinking in terms of ending the life of my child or facing the grieving process, and yet after it was over, that was what I went through."
She said it changed her entire view of the world.
"Something that I imagined would be empowering and necessary certainly wasn't," she said. "I felt violated. It made me rethink what it meant to be a feminist. It created a revolution for me."
Oxymoron or Rediscovery of Roots?
A woman's right to an abortion has played such a central role in the feminist movement over the last 50 years that the two have become wedded in most people's minds, though Feminists for Life's Foster said that the earliest American feminists [all of them, without known exception], such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, believed that abortion was degrading to women.
In the 1960s, though, abortion became a major part of the feminist platform.
Foster says the rationale for supporting abortion rights was that women could not gain equality in the workplace with men as long as employers had to worry about female workers getting pregnant and missing extended periods of time or leaving work altogether to care for their children.
Modern feminists, though, have never [?!] spoken in those terms. Abortion has been called a fundamental right because it concerns a woman's right to control her own body.
"I think it's an oxymoron to say Feminists for Life," Cavendish said. "You can't be a feminist and be anti-choice, or a feminist as I understand it, meaning that women are trusted to make their own decisions."

[The link between abortion advocacy and feminism (in groups like NOW, which Feminists for Life leaders left in 1972) is, in reality, extremely recent. All the "first wave" feminists opposed abortion because it exploits and degrades women (the link provides only a sampling of quotes). They even worked to outlaw abortion. Of course, pro-life feminists are still around, continuing the true feminist tradition. REAL feminists are pro-life!]

People on both sides say they agree that a woman should be trusted to make her own choice, but they still don't agree on what those choices should include.

2003-01-25T21:55:00.000-05:00

Embryo Adoption: Please Aid My Research!

I am currently researching the moral issues surrounding "embryo adoption" (a.k.a. "embryo rescue," etc.). As you all know, thousands and thousands of human embryos, artificially conceived for couples who chose to have children by the immoral means of in vitro fertilization (IVF), are frozen in various storage facilities around the world. Many "leftover" or "surplus" embryos are abandoned to die in cold storage "concentration cans," are doomed to die after being thawed by facilities which no longer wish to store them, or will be submitted to further indignities in various kinds of embryo-based research (e.g. embryo stem cell research). Some people have proposed that one of the best alternatives to such hideous fates would be for the embryos to be adopted, implanted in the adoptive mother's womb, and born into loving families.

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has not yet made any explicit statement regarding the morality or immorality of embryo adoption. Catholic moral theologians are divided on the issue--some favor and laud embryo adoption as a heroic saving act (e.g. Wm. May, Geoffrey Surtees, & Germain Grisez), others condemn it as a participation in the evils of IVF (or other immoral acts; e.g. Wm. B. Smith & Mary Geach).

I am currently researching the moral issue for a variety of reasons. If any of you find any Catholic sources (books, articles, etc.), whether online or in print, whether in favor of embryo adoption or opposed, including documents by the authors previously mentioned, please email me with more details on where I can locate those resources for my own research! Thanks!

2003-01-14T13:44:00.000-05:00

Christmas Gift Idea

Every year for Christmas I donate money I've saved to a variety of charities like Feminists for Life, Nurturing Network, the Houston Catholic Worker's Casa Juan Diego, etc. Next, I get a pack of Christmas cards and insert a page in each which says "For Christmas this year, a donation has been made in your honor to [name charities and/or describe what they do]" (some charities like Habitat for Humanity, American Red Cross, and Heifer Project International make their own special cards for this purpose), and then I add a brief note to each of my adult friends and family members to personalize their cards. (Note: I probably wouldn't give this gift to a child unless I also gave a book, clothes, toy, or candy. A good explanation should also be given. Some kids may even want to contribute themselves!)

I recommend this practice: these donations make the perfect gift. You never have to fight your way through the holiday traffic at the mall, if you spend "over budget" it will really benefit someone, no one has to worry about the right color or fit (these gifts never need returning!), these gifts don't clutter anyone's home, they never have to be dusted, they benefit and are appreciated by more people than the addressee, they don't contribute to the "commercialization" of Christmas, etc. Each gift to your nearest and dearest is transformed into a work of mercy for others in need.

This works for other holidays as well. A donation to Nurturing Network, for example, makes a great mother's day gift (for mom or wife) with a card that says something like "I want to help other women become great mothers like you." Or give your parents an anniversary donation to Habitat for Humanity with a note that thanks them for "making a home" for you over the years. There are lots of possibilities. Use your imagination!

Don't have money for a charity donation? Remember that most charities will accept any donation, no matter how small. And if you really don't have any money to give, consider donating blood ("This year, a pint of blood will be donated in your honor...") or putting in some volunteer hours building a house! Be creative!

Of course there will be times when you see something in a store somewhere that "would just be perfect for so-and-so," or when you know an item a friend actually needs. You could always do the donation for Christmas and still give the "perfect" item as a birthday (or other special occasion) gift.

2003-01-11T00:19:00.000-05:00

Editorial Offerings from the USCCB's Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities

Here are some interesting editorials from the USCCB site:

2003-01-09T14:31:00.000-05:00

Pro-Life Feminist Gear

The 22 January 2003 March for Life is coming up quickly! If you're looking for pro-life feminist gear, including t-shirts, mugs, stickers, postcards, and such, check out these online stores:

The inspiring postcards and notecards in each design are a new addition. All of these items are sold "at cost," meaning the store's designer & owner is not making any profit so the items are cheaper for you. For folks who don't want to wear the word "feminist" (some guys don't self-apply the term, though many cool guys, like Pope John Paul II, do), or for folks who just want a little variety, the design in store 2 ("Protest Violence & Injustice") is the one for you.

2003-01-01T01:32:00.000-05:00

Thirty Years After Roe v. Wade: Women Deserve Better Than Abortion

Coinciding with the 30th year of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade abortion decision this January, the Women Deserve Better Campaign is launching a public educational effort highlighting the failure of abortion to meet the needs of women. The campaign is a long-term effort to refocus the nation on the reasons why women feel pressured into abortion and to promote women-centered solutions to these problems.

The primary reasons women with untimely pregnancies turn to abortion are a lack of financial resources and emotional support. Abortion has been promoted as the answer, but it has instead been an obstacle to developing real solutions that truly address women's needs and concerns.

Partners in the Women Deserve Better Campaign who will bring their own perspectives and areas of expertise to the effort are Feminists for Life, Life Resource Network's Women's Task Force, The Second Look Project, Women and Children First, Solidarity With Women (Priests for Life), and the Silent No More Campaign, co-sponsored by NOEL (National Organization of Episcopalians for Life).

Campaign efforts in January will include ads appearing in Washington, D.C. subway trains, buses, and commuter trains as well as in print media. The ads are being sponsored by the Pro-Life Secretariat of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Knights of Columbus.

The ads read: "Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women. Women deserve better than abortion."

Thousands of placards featuring this message will also feature prominently at the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. on January 22nd.

To see the ads or download them for your pro-life group's use, go to http://www.womendeservebetter.com and click "Join."

2002-12-27T14:01:00.000-05:00

Join FFL at the 2003 March for Life

On January 22, 2003, Feminists for Life members from across the country will commemorate the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. You are invited to join us at the annual March for Life in Washington, DC. We will be meeting at noon at the corner of 15th and Constitution Avenue NW (the Elipse corner).

Wear your pro-life feminist t-shirts and buttons, hold aloft your pro-life feminist signs, and stand shoulder to shoulder with sisters (and brothers) from around the country!

In addition, one of our members, Laura Ciampa (who is also a writer and one of the editors for The American Feminist), is working on a documentary on pro-life feminism and FFL for her master's thesis project, and would appreciate your assistance. She would like to interview as many FFL members and supporters as possible about being a pro-life feminist and what that means. She will have a camera set up at the March and all are welcome.

2002-12-12T18:26:00.000-05:00

Special Kudos to Victor Lams

Here's one of Victor's posters for the Planned Parenthood contest that I didn't post yesterday, because I thought people might not "get it." Today I decided to post it with an explanation. Victor's best poster, in my opinion, is based on surrealist Rene Magritte's painting "This Is Not a Pipe." Here is the original painting:

And here is Victor's brilliant adaptation for Planned Parenthood's poster contest, "This Is Not a Baby":

Sheer genius.

BTW, faithful readers, please check out the new links in the "Pro-Life & Feminist" section to the left: the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty and the Seamless Garment Network.

2002-12-11T17:20:00.000-05:00

Planned Parenthood Posters You'll Never See

In honor the poster contest, the "deranged genius" Victor Lams is producing his own posters for Planned Parenthood "celebrating 30 years of choice." Here are a few of his offerings:

2002-12-06T18:54:00.000-05:00

Followup to "The True Face of 'Choice'"

I don't think my own commentary is necessary for this.

"I Don't Have a Choice"
A story in the New York Times abandons a woman's right to choose in favor of being pro-abortion.
by Lee Bockhorn
LAST SUNDAY, the New York Times Magazine published a remarkably chilling essay entitled "Family Planning." Penned by an anonymous father--let's call him Mr. X--it described his family's efforts to convince his pregnant 15-year-old daughter, against her own better instincts, to have an abortion.
Doubtless, the Times published it as a shining example of how families should persuade pregnant teens that abortion is preferable to bringing an "unwanted" child into the world. But in many respects, the essay actually serves as a damning rebuttal of arguments commonly made by true believers in abortion-on-demand.
According to Mr. X, his younger daughter has been a challenge for many years. Unlike his well-behaved eldest daughter, the young one "smokes cigarettes and marijuana and doesn't care who knows," among other things. Mr. X hypothesizes that this behavior is a response to some sort of identity crisis--in contrast to the goody-two-shoes older daughter, the 15-year-old "feels she has to carve out her own identity by doing what she pleases."
After learning she was pregnant, the girl said she wanted to keep the child, and promised she would be a good mother. In response to this, Mr. X and his wife "freaked, and not just because of our dashed aspirations for this girl. We were too old to want to raise another baby--and we felt sure the raising would fall to us."
The belligerent selfishness of this statement is nothing less than breathtaking. Upon hearing that their daughter, faced with the difficult circumstance of a teenage pregnancy, nevertheless courageously desired to raise her child, Mr. and Mrs. X couldn't bear to think about how to help her cope with the inevitable challenges ahead. Instead, they worried about what a royal pain in the ass the child would be for them. As Mr. X whines later in the essay, "We felt we had been sentenced to 18 years of hard labor."
Faced with this, then, as Mr. X goes on to describe, the family staged an "intervention," inviting 15 female relatives and friends to the house to exhort the girl to have an abortion. Having still failed to change her mind, Mr. and Mrs. X then took her to a counseling session at Planned Parenthood. When they returned home, the parents asked the daughter what she was going to do. "I don't have a choice," she replied. She went on to have the abortion.
With those five simple words, "I don't have a choice," "Family Planning" effectively exposes the sham of "women's autonomy" as an argument for unfettered abortion on demand. Mr. X sniffs at the parental consent laws of his "Bible-belt state," presumably because they infringe upon such autonomy--the ability of any woman, even a minor, to make her own decision about bringing a child into the world. But in fact, his real concern is not to protect such autonomy; otherwise, why expend so much effort convincing the girl that keeping the baby will place such an undue burden on all those around her? When the woman's autonomous choice proves inconvenient for others, suddenly their reservations demand recognition. Earlier, Mr. X stated with resignation that he no longer grounded his daughter to stop her pot-smoking, because she had realized that "there was no way we could forcibly make her do anything she didn't want to do." But this doubt about his parental ability (and obligation) to alter his daughter's bad choices flew out the window when it became necessary to force her to abandon her silly desire to have her baby.
After the abortion, Mr. X tells us, "I realized later that I would have more to worry about if she had easily and immediately decided on an abortion. Ultimately, she did, but she struggled with her decision, and I hope she made the right one."
It's difficult to know where to begin parsing these two sentences. First, they merely regurgitate the argument feminist author Naomi Wolf made some years ago: namely, that abortion is acceptable, provided that women who have abortions experience some vaguely defined type of contrition, regret, remorse, what have you--in other words, that they at least acknowledge they are taking a life.
But what's more astonishing is the father's statement, regarding his daughter's "decision," that he "hope[s] she made the right one" (if something resulting from such familial browbeating can truly be called a "decision"). Whence came such sudden moral uncertainty, Mr. X? By all the criteria he has presented in the article, of course she made the right decision. After all, she's not sentencing her poor parents to "18 years of hard labor."
The father concludes by telling us that he still has hope for this daughter; that one day, the good little girl he once knew, who as a 4-year-old held her best friend's hand until the very end as she died of cancer, will one day return. "I know that person is in there, and someday, when the fever [of adolescence] breaks, I pray that I'll see her again." If he wasn't so morally blind, Mr. X would have realized that he had already seen her again. The girl who wanted to raise her baby and promised to be a good mother was a person who-- apparently for the first time in many years--had recognized that some things are more important than just living for the sake of one's own pleasure or convenience; that sometimes our duties to others transcend the need to "carve out an identity" by "doing what one pleases." Too bad, both for her and the child she will now never know, that her parents haven't yet learned that lesson themselves. Lee Bockhorn is associate editor at The Weekly Standard.

2002-11-26T22:52:00.000-05:00

The Truly Twisted World of Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood's "Teenwire" sex-site for kids is sponsoring a poster contest for young folks to "celebrate" 30 years since Roe v. Wade. Here's their introduction to the contest:

It was 30 years ago, on January 22, 1973, that the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Roe v. Wade decision, guaranteed a woman's right to choose abortion.... In honor of the Roe anniversary, Planned Parenthood is sponsoring a contest: to celebrate 230 [sic] years of choice in an original piece of artwork or a poster. We hope you'll join our efforts to keep abortion legal and to celebrate the stories of women who have benefited from the Supreme Court decision.

Entrants are instructed to:

Submit an original piece of artwork or poster that celebrates 30 years of choice and illustrates the concept that "Behind Every Choice is a Story."

If you haven't yet read my post called The True Face of "Choice" (and/or the other posts named therein), read it now and ask yourself exactly what Planned Parenthood thinks kids are supposed to be "celebrating." Should kids "celebrate" the fact that women's jobs and schools refuse to cooperate with the needs of pregnant women and mothers? Should kids "celebrate" the fact that many women do not know anyone who will share or give them practical resources, like food, housing, medical and legal services, clothing, baby supplies, etc.? Or should kids "celebrate" that many women's parents, husbands, boyfriends, and/or friends do not provide them any emotional or material support, and in many cases actually ask or expect them to abort? Would Planned Parenthood ever honestly tell the stories of such "choices"? (Would they ever honestly tell the stories of women who have died or suffered serious injuries while procuring legal abortions?) Or perhaps Planned Parenthood is, in the words of my friend Suzanne, coaxing kids to "celebrate" the fact that millions of their classmates, friends, and siblings have been killed by none other than the contest organizer?

But what Suzanne and I find truly ironic are the "terms and conditions" of the contest, which require:

Children under age 18 must have a parent or legal guardian's permission to submit their designs and for us to publish it along with their name.

A parental consent form is actually provided. Hello?! Planned Parenthood has been fighting tooth and nail against parental consent laws for years! You have to have mom or dad's permission to submit a poster design to PPFA if you're under 18; but if you kiddies want to undergo an invasive surgical procedure to kill your own children without mentioning it to the padres, no problem?! It's a sick, twisted world, my friends.

Feminists for Life: Changing the Abortion Discussion

Letters to the editor of the University of California at San Diego's Guardian, following Feminists for Life's President Serrin Foster's speech "The Feminist Case Against Abortion", show that the speech is fueling an ever more fruitful discussion of the abortion & pregnancy resources issue:

Editor: I was one of the few men in attendance at a self-proclaimed pro-life feminist presentation Wednesday night, one of even fewer who was without the company of a female. I listened as a well-spoken woman proposed numerous, substantive ideas that would make life better for women, especially those who are pregnant. She explained in great detail how the practice of abortion was abominable to early feminists such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The entire presentation was trying to point out that there are many reasons not to have abortions. Not once was criminalizing abortion mentioned either in her speech or in the literature provided. This points to the single biggest misconception of the pro-life movement and the most glaring inconsistency of the feminist movement (which apparently is now inextricably linked to the pro-choice/pro-life debate) as it is manifested today. Not all people who are anti-abortion want abortion criminalized; the reduction in the occurrence of abortions is the goal, or rather it should be. This woman spent an hour detailing programs that would give women more choices than abortion and try to stop the occurrence of abortion by attacking its roots. As soon as the floor opened up for questions, she was lambasted by a campus feminist group for trying to "take away a woman's right to choose." News flash: The only thing not mentioned in her entire presentation was taking away a woman's right to choose. The speaker was criticized for "demonizing the National Organization for Women." Yes, N.O.W. has done a lot for the women's movement, but not every feminist supports all of their litigation-inspiring positions. I would urge any feminist to look into the Independent Women's Forum and see that you don't have to support N.O.W. to be a feminist, and you don't have to have a vagina to be a feminist either -- something I am sure would come as a shock to many so-called open-minded individuals. Why can't the new feminist movement approach this issue without hiding behind fear tactics talking about threatening women's rights? Why not embrace this speaker for trying to promote programs that give women a variety of alternatives to abortion, without infringing on her right to have one? Why can't a movement that preaches against discrimination stop alienating males from an issue that is 50 percent related to them? This approach to abortion of the unified pro-choice/feminist movement alienates many who are supportive of the true feminist ideology: that a woman should have every right that a man has. Has no one stopped to consider that a woman's right to choose to have an abortion is not in danger? It is a constitutional right, meaning no legislation can be passed that infringes on that right. If it were to happen it would be overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional under precedent. What about if President George W. Bush "stacks" the Supreme Court with "conservative" justices, you ask? Would that be anything like the "liberal" court that made the Roe v. Wade decision? Mark my words, the only way abortion becomes illegal is if a constitutional amendment is passed. Can you imagine three-quarters of the states passing that? It's about time people woke up to the reality that the right to choose is not going away, and that people who say it is are simply trying to glean votes from the women's voter bloc. How about pro-choicers and pro-lifers try to stop the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies, thereby keeping as many women as possible from having to make the agonizing decision of whether to exercise their constitutional right to have an abortion? I wonder if abortion were perfectly legal and accessible yet never occurred, whether either side would then be happy. Unfortunately, I doubt it.
-- Evan Rowley
Earl Warren College junior
Editor: Last Wednesday I discovered something remarkable: UCSD students are not as apathetic as they seem. I spent last Wednesday night with a group of students who were deeply passionate about their beliefs and willing to fight for them. The remarkable event I attended was a presentation by Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life. I found Foster's speech to be interesting. However, even more exciting was the fiery question-and-answer session that followed. Let me assure you that everyone in that room was deeply engaged in the dialogue, which ranged in emotion from supportive to enraged. Although the abortion issue deeply and irreparably divided the audience, everyone seemed to agree on one thing: Many of the circumstances that cause women to seek abortions are injustices. Although some women may choose abortion freely, many do not. Some are pressured by a mate or difficult financial circumstances. Others lack the support from their workplace or educational institution that would make going through with the pregnancy a viable option. The lack of autonomy and freedom that such coercion reflects is unfortunate. Many who would disagree with my stance on abortion would agree with me on this: It is simply wrong if women are forced by circumstances to end their pregnancies because their peers did not make help and support available to them. At the end of her speech, Foster proposed that UCSD students bring administrators and community resources together to help such women in a Pregnancy Resource Forum. The forum would organize on-campus resources for women who wish to go through with their pregnancies and also educate them about off-campus resources. No UCSD student should be unjustly forced to choose between having a child and finishing college. We as a community must make more options available to pregnant students and students with children. I hope that for once, members of the anti-abortion and abortion-rights communities can put their differences aside, not because those differences are unimportant, but because together real change on this campus could be enacted. A Pregnancy Resource Forum would not be about abortion-rights or anti-abortion politics; it would be about doing what we could to help those women who want to go through with their pregnancies but cannot without our help and support.
-- Emily Min
UCSD student

Etc.

Catholics and other people of goodwill should also check out Mike Epstein's great quotes from Archbishop Chaput.

2002-11-24T16:39:00.000-05:00

The True Face of "Choice"

Many of you will remember my posts called "Abortion: Liberation or Capitulation?", "Have an Abortion or Give Up Your Job!", and "Another Woman Pressured Into Abortion". A friend of mine recently emailed me an anonymous article from the 7 July 2002 issue of the New York Times about parents who exerted terrible pressure on their 15 year old daughter to procure an abortion. I have provided excerpts here:

Family Planning
The New York Times July 7, 2002
I learned that my daughter was pregnant. She was 15.... According to the laws of my Bible-belt state, a minor needs her parents' permission to have an abortion, but her parents can't tell her not to have a baby. She thought she wanted to keep it and swore she'd be a good mother. My wife and I --and my oldest daughter-- freaked, and not just because of our dashed aspirations for this girl. We were too old to want to raise another baby -- and we felt sure the raising would fall to us. Of course there was a boy involved, and he hadn't fled. He lives with his grandparents, and they asked us all to come talk. The grandfather lectured the young couple on responsibility. The boy admitted he wasn't ready to be a father. The only person in the room who wanted the baby was my daughter, but in the face of family advice, she decided she couldn't go through with the pregnancy. My wife scheduled her for an abortion.... [During a meeting with a truancy officer] when she [my wife] mentioned the abortion, my daughter started crying.... [After visiting a crisis pregnancy counseler] My daughter was right back on the teenage-mommy track. While the counselor went home thinking she had saved a life, we [my wife and I] felt we had been sentenced to 18 years of hard labor.... As word spread about the pregnancy, other women called offering to tell about their own abortions. My daughter's friends, her sister, her sister's friends all counseled against having the baby, but she wouldn't listen. We decided to stage an intervention. When my daughter came into the living room, there were 15 women waiting for her, including four mothers. They asked me to leave; I listened from the kitchen, and though I couldn't hear anything other than sobs and laughter, I could feel the gravity. But when it was over, she still hadn't decided.... The next week, I took her to a counseling appointment at Planned Parenthood. As I sat in the waiting room, I thought about my own sister, who had a botched abortion before it was legal. She got kicked out of college for nearly bleeding to death in a dorm room. That night when we got home and my wife asked our daughter what she was going to do, she blurted out, ''I don't have a choice.'' ....Ultimately, she [my daughter] did [have the abortion], but she struggled with her decision, and I hope she made the right one.... The author's name has been withheld.

As I've said before, women are not having abortions because they think it will be a fun, fulfilling, or emotionally satisfying experience. Women are having abortions because their jobs and schools refuse to cooperate with the needs of pregnant women and mothers. As you see above, a few threaten to oust pregnant women. Many pregnant women are made to feel quite unwelcome even without the overt threat. Women are having abortions because they do not know anyone who will share or give them practical resources, like food, housing, medical and legal services, clothing, baby supplies, etc. Women are having abortions because their parents, husbands, boyfriends, and/or friends do not provide them any emotional or material support, and in many cases actually ask or expect them to abort. Frederica Mathewes-Green listened to women who had procured abortions to find out their reasons for making that choice. Her conclusion? "No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg."

This is why Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life, says "It is time for us to systematically eliminate the coercive factors that drive women to abortion --primarily the lack of practical resources and emotional support. We invite all organizations -- including women's organizations that differ with us on abortion -- to join us. Every woman deserves better. We don't have to settle for less." Since its founding, Feminists for Life of America has been working to do just that: to eliminate the coercive factors which lead pregnant women to believe they have no choice but to abort. Other terrific organizations have compatible goals, like the Nurturing Network, an "extensive employment, medical, educational, counseling and residential network [of volunteers] which enables a mother to continue the life of her unborn child without sacrificing her own hopes and dreams."

As I've said before, if you have not read Frederica Mathewes-Green's Real Choices, you really must if you want to understand why real women have abortions. Then PLEASE start supporting Feminists for Life and the Nurturing Network!

2002-10-19T18:40:00.000-04:00

Slacker Punk

I know I've been really slack. I promise you something good soon, when exams are over.

In the meantime, let me express my opinion that the new mysteries of the rosary are the greatest thing since sliced bread and that all the carping reactionaries who don't appreciate this gift should go soak their heads.

2002-10-10T18:04:00.000-04:00

Pope John Paul II: Il Papa Feminista, Pro-Life Feminist

...we are witnessing true human tragedies. Often the woman is the victim of male selfishness, in the sense that the man, who has contributed to the conception of the new life, does not want to be burdened with it and leaves the responsibility to the woman, as if it were "her fault" alone. So, precisely when the woman most needs the man's support, he proves to be a cynical egotist, capable of exploiting her affection or weakness, yet stubbornly resistant to any sense of responsibility for his own action...
...[In] firmly rejecting "pro-choice" it is necessary to become courageously "pro-woman," promoting a choice that is truly in favor of women. It is precisely the woman, in fact, who pays the highest price, not only for her motherhood, but even more for its destruction, for the suppression of the life of the child who has been conceived. The only honest stance, in these cases, is that of radical solidarity with the woman. It is not right to leave her alone. The experiences of many counseling centers show that the woman does not want to suppress the life of the child she carries within her. If she is supported in this attitude, and if at the same time she is freed from the intimidation of those around her, then she is even capable of heroism.
--Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope

2002-10-09T22:23:00.000-04:00

More Great Catholic Sex!

Dig it! The Love & Responsibility Foundation has produced a 32-page summary of Karol Wojtyla's fantastically awesome book Love & Responsibility. The summary is aptly named "John Paul II on Love & Responsibility." Refuse to use persons as objects!

2002-10-08T20:10:00.000-04:00

Planned Parenthood: "Solving" the Problem of Poverty by Killing the Poor

According to a recent Associated Press article, "[between 1994 & 2000] the abortion rate rose 25 percent for women below the poverty line and 23 percent for women making less than twice the poverty level." Planned Parenthood isn't just exploiting women, they're exploiting poor women in particular.

2002-10-07T23:49:00.000-04:00

Now If We Could Just Talk Some Sense Into Patricia Ireland...

Supermodel Kathy Ireland was rambunctiously pro-life on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes September 30. Check out the partial transcript here:

FOX HANNITY & COLMES (21:48) September 30, 2002 Monday Transcript # 093005cb.253 SECTION: News; Domestic HEADLINE: Interview With Kathy Ireland GUESTS: Kathy Ireland BYLINE: Sean Hannity; Alan Colmes [Excerpts] COLMES: Welcome back to HANNITY & COLMES. I'm Alan Colmes. And most of you know Kathy Ireland as a supermodel. And now she's modeling something else, a spiritual and philanthropic way of life. She's the CEO of the company, Kathy Ireland Worldwide. And she's here to talk about the importance of giving back. She talks about this in her recent book "Powerful Inspirations: Eight Lessons That Will Change Your Life." Joining us from Los Angeles, Kathy Ireland. Hi, Kathy, welcome back. KATHY IRELAND, "POWERFUL INSPIRATIONS": Hi. Thank you. Thanks for having me. COLMES: We played a little clip from last time you were on the show. And I asked you if you had a liberal position. And for those who didn't see it earlier, you said yes, I'm liberal about the rights of the unborn child. Now I think I'm conservative on abortion because I think the government should not be involved. And that this is not a governmental issue. It's a personal issue. So wouldn't I then have the conservative position here? IRELAND: Is it all right for the government to allow the murder of an innocent human being? The evidence I see tells me the unborn is a human being. From the moment of conception, a new life comes into being with a complete genetic blueprint. The sex is determined. The blood type is determined. COLMES: Right now do you... IRELAND: What kind of life is it? COLMES: Let me ask you... IRELAND: We have to know what kind of life it is... COLMES: I understand. IRELAND: ...before we can determine if it's all right to kill it. COLMES: Do you... IRELAND: According to the law of biogenesis... COLMES: Kathy... IRELAND: ...all life comes from pre-existing life. Each species reproduces after itself. COLMES: Do you believe... IRELAND: Therefore, human beings can only reproduce other human beings. HANNITY: You go, Kathy. COLMES: Kathy, we only have a moment left. Now do you believe in the criminal justice system? Do you believe in the court system in this country? Do you believe in the system of justice in America? IRELAND: There are parts of it that I agree with. There are parts that I disagree with. COLMES: Well, we have a system of laws and a Supreme Court decision that does not define life the way you do. So legally, that's not how it would be defined. If you want to define it that way for your personal -- that's how you want to do it, that's fine, but that's not the standing law of this country. IRELAND: If you can, Alan, if you can show me evidence that the unborn is not a human being, I will gladly join the pro-choice side. If you can show me any evidence. It's very clear and simple. Last time I was on, you said we're not going to resolve this right now but it's very simple. The bottom line is this. If the unborn is not a human being, have as many abortions as you want, whenever you want. It doesn't matter. No justification is necessary. If, on the other hand, the unborn is a human being, no justification is adequate unless another human life, that being the mother, is in danger. HANNITY: Kathy, welcome back. Sean Hannity here. You know, since the last time you were on, we had an enormous amount of e-mail from people that were frankly shocked that somebody as famous, well known as yourself, take such a strong pro-life position. Are there more of these famous people that are just not willing to state these things publicly? IRELAND: I know it's not a popular issue. And I was always pro- choice. I'm a person who always has and always will fight for the rights of women. And even though I became a Christian at age 18, I remained pro- choice because I believed it was a woman's choice. But the moment that I learned that the unborn was a human being, not part of the woman's body.. HANNITY: Yes. IRELAND: ...but its own individual human being, I have no choice but to defend the most vulnerable among us. HANNITY: Well, it's admirable, because I agree with you on the position. And especially with what modern technology now offers in terms of our ability to see inside a woman's womb. IRELAND: Absolutely. HANNITY: And the heart beating and the fingers and the toes. IRELAND: You really can't argue with it. Technology has come a long way since Roe vs. Wade. HANNITY: I can't. IRELAND: And Alan, I welcome you to please refute my claim. HANNITY: There's no hope. IRELAND: Not to dismiss it, but refute it. HANNITY: No hope for him, Kathy. IRELAND: I welcome it, or if any of your viewers can. [break] COLMES: ...you invited me in the last segment, and time was really short, to refute your views, when life begins. HANNITY: Will you leave Kathy alone? You're always taking her on when she comes on. Leave her alone. COLMES: The sympathy -- she's going for the sympathy vote. Can you believe that? Look, the idea is that you have a particular view, which I respect. That's your point of view. You come from a religious point of view. Other people have different religious points of view. Or sometimes... IRELAND: This doesn't come from my faith, though. You can be an atheist... COLMES: I understand. IRELAND: ...and you can realize that it's wrong to take the life of an innocent human being. COLMES: But give me an opportunity. You asked me to refute it. Most scientists do not agree with the precept that life begins at conception. That may be your view. That is not what most scientists say. That's not what the law says. You're free to have that view, but you want the government to determine that that is the view. And that... IRELAND: The scientific evidence I see tells me that from the moment of conception, a new life comes into being. COLMES: Most scientists don't agree with that. IRELAND: What kind of life is it? COLMES: Most scientists don't believe... IRELAND: Well, show me scientific proof. COLMES: ...the moment of conception as the beginning of life. IRELAND: I would like to see some proof that the unborn is not a human being. As Sean mentioned earlier, with the technology that we have today with the ultrasound, that's a human being in there. It doesn't start out as one species and suddenly become a human being. According to the law of biogenesis, all life comes from pre-existing life. All each species reproduces after its own kind. Human beings can only give birth to other human beings. COLMES: Should then, women who have abortions be arrested for committing murder? IRELAND: I believe it's murder. COLMES: Should women then be facing murder charges if they have an abortion? And should doctors who perform abortions be up on murder charges? IRELAND: I don't believe... HANNITY: I can't... IRELAND: I don't believe this procedure should be legal, if it's taking the life of an innocent human being. If abortion does not take the life of an innocent human being, have as many as you want, wherever you want it. It doesn't matter. HANNITY: Hey, Kathy, there's a beating heart. IRELAND: But I haven't seen proof. And we give in this country, we give human beings the benefit of the doubt. If we're going to demolish a building, and if somebody suspects there might be a human being in there, we're going to make sure... COLMES: Yes. IRELAND: ...that that building is cleared out before we take the demolition balls to it. COLMES: Do you want to run for office, Kathy? HANNITY: I'd vote for you. IRELAND: No. HANNITY: I'd vote for you, Kathy. IRELAND: Thank you. HANNITY: Hey, you know, there's a beating heart in 18 days. I mean, and you can see it on the screen if you just look. And if you open -- I think the left is left is very callous and hard hearted on the issue. Kathy, I admire you for speaking out about... IRELAND: I think there's a lot of issues. There's a lot of side issues that must be addressed. HANNITY: Yes. IRELAND: We need to support these women... HANNITY: I got to run. IRELAND: ...who are in crisis pregnancy situations. HANNITY: That's right. There's a lot of good things. Well, we're bring you back again, next time you're in New York. We'll let you and Alan go round three. Good to see you, Kathy. Thanks for being with us. IRELAND: Good to see you, too. Thank you. HANNITY: And that is all the time we do have left this evening.

Go Kathy!

2002-10-04T18:23:00.000-04:00

Pro-Life Feminist Patricia Heaton Interviewed on The O'Reilly Factor

Patricia Heaton, Emmy award-winning actress on the show Everybody Loves Raymond and Honorary Chair of Feminists for Life, was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor on October 1, 2002. If you missed it, you can check out the transcript here! Heaton believes that “women who experience an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy.”

2002-10-02T01:14:00.000-04:00

A Woman's Place
One Catholic's Perspective on Women in Family & Society, Past, Present, & Future
by Cat Clark

Two things prompted the writing of this article. Last year, when I attended Serrin Foster's speech "The Feminist Case Against Abortion" at a Catholic university, a young man told Foster, afterwards, that he did not support FFL because he believed a woman's "place" is at home and not active in the public life of society, business, politics, etc. He thought that this objection was based on Catholic teaching. Foster, with a smile, allowed me to field that objection. More recently, another Catholic man emailed me to tell me he wanted to link to one of my articles, but then decided against it because my links promoted feminist concerns. "You can't be serious!" he objected. "Do you really promote that stuff?" Yes, I replied, just like Pope John Paul II, who calls himself "Il Papa Feminista" (the feminist pope). In response to these objections I offer my thoughts on women in family & society, past, present, and future. [This is a long article, so I encourage you to print it for more reflective reading.]

In the Past

People my age, raised in the 70s & 80s after the advent of "second wave" feminism, have generally been taught (implicitly and explicitly) that until Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique all married women were housewives, who polished floors and baked cookies, and all married men were "breadwinners," who worked outside the home as doctors, mechanics, etc. We watched the "Leave It to Beaver" reruns on afternoon TV and we saw the struggle of women in the workplace in movies like "9 to 5." We understood the humorous "reversal" of "Mr. Mom." And we lived on "both sides" because some of us had "stay-at-home moms" and some of us had "working moms." And so we developed this idea that June Cleaver was every woman of the past and now things, for better or worse (usually both), were changing.

But we were very, very mistaken, because our Ozzie & Harriet understanding of women (and men) in history was ridiculously shortsighted.

Journey with me way back in the day, before the Industrial Revolution, in your imagination. There's pretty much always been some kind of sexual division of labor in most societies (a division different from society to society), but it looked nothing like the recent past. Why? Because almost everyone, men and women, did most of their work at or very close to home. Consider the following list of pre-industrial jobs:

Agrarians/Farmers - raising animals for milk, meat, wool, leather, etc.; growing various plants like grains, vegetables, fruits, herbs, textile crops, etc.; doing numerous farm-related jobs like making & repairing tools, making & repairing clothes, etc.
Craftsmen & Artisans - including smiths, coopers, cobblers, candlers, carpenters, weavers, etc.
Other Small Tradesmen - including grocers, clarks, bankers, millers, bakers, butchers, printers (later), import/exporters, etc.

In most cases, the "business" was operated from or very close to the family home (e.g. a shop with an apartment above or behind), and the wife and children were just as active in the business as the husband. In the not-so-distant past, "business" was always considered a part of the "private" sector because it was a personal and/or familial interest. Only matters of civic culture, like government and public works (e.g. public libraries), were considered the "public" sector.

So it's true that "in the past women almost always worked at home in the 'private' sector," but the same was true of the overwhelming majority of men, because their business was at home with their families in the "private" sector. Both sexes were actively engaged, pretty much simultaneously, in both family & business.

Allow me a brief indulgence here-- I think that it is somewhat ironic that all the Catholic June-Cleaver-types at my former school always failed to note that their heroine, "the Proverbs 31 woman," was very active in business as well as household tasks (e.g. buying fields, making garments to sell in the marketplace). Indeed, one wonders if "the Proverbs 31 woman" ever gets a chance even to sleep.

Pope John Paul II, meditating on the Holy Family, gives us a glimpse of what families have lost when he says: "Mary worked at Joseph's side in a personal, feminine manner, which the Gospel accounts allow us to glimpse. Doubtless their harmony was greatly fostered by the husband's trade: Joseph could work close to his family and introduce the young Jesus to his skilled labor as a carpenter" (Angelus Reflection "The Feminine Presence in the Family," 19 March 1995).

In the 19th century, as the Industrial Revolution was profoundly changing family and society in both Europe and America, "upwardly mobile [English] merchants and entrepreneurs aped aristocratic ways; their wives no longer managed dairies or worked with their husbands behind counters but sought to transform themselves into ladies, creatures of fashion," (Christopher Lasch, Women and the Common Life). In the minds of the middle class of that day, the less serious and hardworking a woman was, and the more frivolous and silly she appeared, the more "successful" the man and his family would appear. Such women were actively encouraged to be elegant, idle, and unproductive.

Other women reacted strongly against this "ornamental" idea of woman, disgusted with the "frigid sarcasm," "habitual levity," "indolent selfishness," and "extravagance of expression" that characterized pseudo-aristocratic ladies. They reacted in quite different ways. Some "antifeminists," like Hannah More, thought women should make themselves more "useful" by intellectual exertion, the cultivation of virtue, and willingness to work diligently in home and family management. Other "feminist" women, like Mary Wollstonecraft, pressed a case for women's equality in education and in friendship, love, and marriage. They too wanted women to become more virtuous and productive members of society. Though these women often thought themselves opposed to each other, they actually shared quite a bit of common ground, so that the "antifeminist" cult of domesticity promoted by women like More actually led many women into the "feminist" convictions of women like Wollstonecraft.

And so we must never be fooled into thinking that the 19th century "cult of domesticity," which glorified active motherhood and diligent domesticity, meant that 19th and early 20th century women worked only in the home. Far from it.

Housework and child care by no means exhausted women's energies. On the contrary, both housewives and single women threw themselves into a variety of activities that took them out of the home. They organized benevolent societies, female reform societies, and foreign missions. They put together a vast network of temperance societies. They took up charities and philanthropies of all kinds. Many of them enlisted in the antislavery crusade, the peace movement, prison reform, and of course the movement for women's rights.... Their work as volunteers sustained a vast array of public services --libraries, hospitals, nursery schools, social settlements, parks, playgrounds, concert halls, museums. (Christopher Lasch, Women and the Common Life)

Between 1890 and 1920, it was women who did much of the work in the "public" sector, according to the traditional understanding of the terms "public" and "private." The chief reason that our contemporaries do not acknowledge these women's work outside the home is that their labor was unpaid.

[NB: There's always been plenty of hard labor done by women that went unacknowledged for one reason or another. Recall the words of former slave Sojourner Truth, as recounted by Frances Gage: "Dat man over dar say dat woman needs to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place eberywhar. Nobody eber helps me into carriages, or ober mud-puddles, or gives me any best place --and arn't I a woman? Look at me. Look at my arm. I have plowed and planted and gathered into barns, and no man could head me --and arn't I a woman? I have borne thirteen chillen, and seen 'em mos' all sold off into slavery, and when I cried with a mother's grief, none but Jesus heard --and arn't I a woman?"]

At the same time, the Industrial Revolution was creating an increasing separation between home and business. It is from this recent fact of life that we came to consider the marketplace and business something of the "public" sector and to reduce the "private" sector to the home.

Now you're probably asking when Ward & June Cleaver became the "norm," since it was obviously much later than you were once led to believe? And the answer is: in the middle of the 20th century, with the rise of the suburbs. In the words of Christopher Lasch: "In reality, full-time motherhood --the rejection of which touched off the latest [2nd] wave of feminist agitation in the sixties-- was something new and historically unprecedented.... The modern home, which presupposes a radical separation of domestic life from the world of work, was an invention of the 19th century." [But, as we have seen when considering women's earlier activities in civic culture, it was not yet in the 19th century what it became in the 20th. Also, NB: the "full-time motherhood" of which Lasch speaks was often a luxury of the upper and upper-middle classes, which is why I wrote "norm" in quotation marks.]

So to summarize: Until very recently the majority of men and women were simultaneously active in both family and business, which were both considered "private" interests. And even as business was increasingly divorced from the home, women were very active in the "public" sector, especially in massive volunteer associations and unpaid civic projects. While we have gained many benefits from the Industrial Revolution, we also lost much of the positive influence of women's presence in business and civic culture and much of the positive influence of men's presence in the family....

[For further reading about this history I particularly recommend two articles from Christopher Lasch's collection Women and the Common Life: "The Sexual Division of Labor, the Decline of Civic Culture, and the Rise of the Suburbs" (which includes a magnificent comparison of Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique with Paul Goodman's Growing Up Absurd), and "Bourgeois Domesticity, the Revolt Against Patriarchy, and the Attack on Fashion" (a comparison of 19th century "feminists" and "antifeminists"). For an excellent history of Western philosophical thought about women, I heartily recommend Sr. Prudence Allen's The Concept of Woman.]

In the Present and Future

Now that I've clarified the history of women (and men) in family and society a bit, I'm going to turn to the writings of Pope John Paul II to give an indication where the Catholic Church stands on these issues now and what the Pope thinks we should work to accomplish for the future.

Pope John Paul II actively encourages the increasing entrance of women into all areas of life, including work in labor and the economy, politics, ecclesial life, the arts, the sciences, etc. Women's very real rights and responsibilities within the family provide no excuse to those who would exclude women.

I cannot fail to express my admiration for those women of good will who have devoted their lives to defending the dignity of womanhood by fighting for their basic social, economic, and political rights, demonstrating courageous initiative at a time when this was considered extremely inappropriate, the sign of a lack of femininity, a manifestation of exhibitionism, and even a sin!
....This journey [of "women's liberation"] must go on! But I am convinced that the secret of making speedy progress in achieving full respect for women and their identity involves more than simply the condemnation of discrimination and injustices, necessary though this may be. Such respect must first and foremost be won through an effective and intelligent campaign for the promotion of women, concentrating on all areas of women's life and beginning with a universal recognition of the dignity of women. (Letter to Women, no. 6)
As far as personal rights are concerned, there is an urgent need to achieve real equality in every area: equal pay for equal work, protection for working mothers, fairness in career advances, equality of spouses with regard to family rights, and the recognition of everything that is part of the rights and duties of citizens in a democratic state.
This is a matter of justice but also of necessity. Women will increasingly play a part in the solution of the serious problems of the future.... (Letter to Women, no. 4)
It is a "sign of the times" that woman's role is increasingly recognized, not only in the family circle, but also in the wider context of all social activities. Without the contribution of women, society is less alive, culture impoverished, and peace less stable. Situations where women are prevented from developing their full potential and from offering the wealth of their gifts should therefore be considered profoundly unjust, not only to women themselves but to society as a whole.
....it is necessary to strive convincingly to ensure that the widest possible space is open to women in all areas of culture, economics, politics, and eccesial life itself, so that human society is increasingly enriched by the gifts proper to masculinity and femininity. (Angelus Reflection 23 July 1995, "The Feminine Genius")
It is time, therefore, to close the gap between the cultural opportunities for men and women.... This will benefit not only women but culture itself, since the vast and variegated world of thought and art has a greater need of their "genius" than ever. Let this not seem a gratuitous assertion!
....Women's increasingly qualified entrance, not only as beneficiaries but also as protagonists, into the world of culture in all its branches --from philosophy to theology, from the social to the natural sciences, from the figurative arts to music-- is a very hopeful sign for humanity. (Angelus Reflection 6 August 1995, "Closing the Gap Between Cultural Opportunites for Men and Women")
Doubtless one of the great social changes of our time is the increasing role played by women, also in an executive capacity, in labor and the economy. This process is gradually changing the face of society, and it is legitimate to hope that it will gradually succeed in changing that of the economy itself, giving it a new human inspiration and removing from it the recurring temptation of dull efficiency marked only by the laws of profit. How can we fail to see that, in order to deal satisfactorily with the many problems emerging today, special recourse to the feminine genius is essential?
....it is necessary to respect the right and duty of woman as mother to carry out her specific tasks in the family, without being forced by necessity to take on an additional job.... The safeguarding of this basic good, however, cannot be an alibi with regard to the principle of equal opportunity for men and women also in work outside the family. Flexible and balanced solutions should be found which harmonize the different needs. (Angelus Reflection 20 August 1995, "Equal Opportunity in the World of Work," emphasis added)
A long tradition has seen mostly men involved in politics. Today more and more women are asserting themselves even at the highest levels of representation, national and international.
This process should be encouraged. Politics, in fact, geared as it is to promoting the common good, can only benefit from the complementary gifts of men and women. (Angelus Reflection 27 August 1995, "Women in Political Life")
The 1987 Synod on the Laity ...asked that "without discrimination women should be participants in the life of the Church, and also in consultation and the process of coming to decisions" (Propositio 47; c.f. Christifideles Laici, no. 51).
This is the way to be courageously taken. To a large extent, it is a question of making full use of the ample room for a lay and feminine presence recognized by the Church's law. I am thinking, for example, of theological teaching, the forms of liturgical ministry permitted, including service at the altar, pastoral and administrative councils, Diocesan Synods and Particular Councils, various ecclesial institutions, curias, and eccelsiastical tribunals, many pastoral activities, including the new forms of participation in the care of parishes when there is a shortage of clergy, except for those tasks that belong properly to the priest. Who can imagine the great advantages to pastoral care and the new beauty that the Church's face will assume, when the feminine genius is fully involved in the various areas of her life? (Angelus Reflection 3 September 1995, "Woman's Role in the Church")

Pope John Paul II thanks women for being women, for contributing to society as women, and apologizes for anything members of the Church may have done to hinder women. Since most Catholics already appreciate the work and service of women within the family and in consecrated life (if you don't, you must now read all the Pope's writings), I focus here on women who work outside the home.

Thank you, women who work! You are present and active in every area of life --social, economic, cultural, artistic, and political. In this way you make an indispensable contribution to the growth of a culture which unites reason and feeling, to a model of life ever open to the sense of "mystery," to the establishment of economic and political structures ever more worthy of humanity.
...Thank you, every woman, for the simple fact of being a woman! Through the insight which is so much a part of your womanhood you enrich the world's understanding and help to make human relations more honest and authentic.
I know of course that simply saying thank you is not enough. Unfortunately, we are heirs to a history which has conditioned us to a remarkable extent. In every time and place, this conditioning has been an obstacle to the progress of women. Women's dignity has often been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented; they have often been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude. This has prevented women from truly being themselves and it has resulted in a spiritual impoverishment of humanity. Certainly it is no easy task to assign the blame for this, considering the many kinds of cultural conditioning which down the centuries have shaped ways of thinking and acting. And if objective blame, especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly sorry. May this regret be transformed, on the part of the whole Church, into a renewed commitment of fidelity to the Gospel vision. When it comes to setting women free from every kind of exploitation and domination, the Gospel contains an ever relevant message which goes back to the attitude of Jesus Christ himself. Transcending the established norms of his own culture, Jesus treated women with openness, respect, acceptance, and tenderness. In this way he honored the dignity which women have always possessed according to God's plan and in his love. As we look to Christ at the end of this Second Millennium, it is natural to ask ourselves: how much of his message has been heard and acted upon? (Letter to Women, nos. 2&3)

Pope John Paul II encourges men who are husbands and fathers to be more active in the lives of their families. Although he has spoken and written more specifically about women than men, the Pope has given us some choice tidbits to add to the mix for further meditation and development.

A mother's presence in the family, so critical to the stability and growth of that basic unit of society, should ...be recognized, applauded, and supported in every possible way. By the same token society needs to call husbands and fathers to their family responsibilities, and ought to strive for a situation in which they will not be forced by economic circumstances to move away from the home in search of work.
Moreover, in today's world, when so many children are facing crises that threaten not only their long-term development, but also their very life, it is imperative that the security afforded by responsible parents --mother and father-- within the context of the family be reestablished and reaffirmed. (Welcome to Gertrude Mongella, Secretary General of the 4th World Conference on Women, nos. 3&4)
Mary worked at Joseph's side in a personal, feminine manner, which the Gospel accounts allow us to glimpse. Doubtless their harmony was greatly fostered by the husband's trade: Joseph could work close to his family and introduce the young Jesus to his skilled labor as a carpenter. (Angelus Reflection 19 March 1995, "The Feminine Presence in the Family," emphasis added)
Love for his wife as the mother of their children and love for the children themselves are for the man the natural way of understanding and fulfilling his own fatherhood. Above all where social and cultural conditions so easily encourage a father to be less concerned with his family or at any rate less involved in the work of education, efforts must be made to restore socially the conviction that the place and task of the father in and for the family is of unique and irreplaceable importance. As experience teaches, the absence of a father causes psychological and moral imbalance and notable difficulties in family relationships, as does, in contrary circumstances, the oppressive presence of a father, especially where there still prevails the phenomenon of "machismo," or a wrong superiority of male prerogatives which humiliates women and inhibits the development of healthy family relationships.
In revealing and in relivng on earth the very fatherhood of God, a man is called upon to ensure the harmonious and united development of all the members of the family: he will perform this task by exercising more generous responsibility for the life conceived under the heart of the mother, by a more solicitous commitment to education, a task he shares with his wife, by work which is never a cause of division in the family but promotes its unity and stability, and by means of the witness he gives of an adult Christian life which effectively introduces the children to the living experience of Christ and the Church. (Familiaris Consortio, no. 25)

Pope John Paul II believes that society itself must be reorganized to accomplish these goals (women's increased contribution to society and culture, men's increased participation in family life, etc.).

When women are able fully to share their gifts with the whole community, the very way in which society understands and organizes itself is improved and comes to reflect in a better way the substantial unity of the human family. (World Day of Peace Message 1 January 1995, no. 9)
The challenge facing most societies is that of upholding, indeed strengthening, woman's role in the family while at the same time making it possible for her to use all her talents and exercise all her rights in building up society. However, women's greater presence in the work force, in public life, and generally in the decision making processes guiding society, on an equal basis with men, will continue to be problematic as long as the costs continue to burden the private sector. In this area the state has a duty of subsidiarity, to be exercised through suitable legislative and social security initiatives. In the perspective of uncontrolled free-market policies there is little hope that women will be able to overcome the obstacles on their path. (Welcome to Gertrude Mongella, Secretary General of the 4th World Conference on Women, no. 8)
There should be no doubt that on the basis of their equal dignity with men "women have a full right to become actively involved in all areas of public life, and this right must be affirmed and guaranteed, also, where necessary, through appropriate legislation" (World Day of Peace Message 1 January 1995, no. 9) ....Profound changes are needed in the attitudes and organization of society in order to facilitate the participation of women in public life, while at the same time providing for the special obligations of women and of men with regard to their families. In some cases changes also have to be made to render it possible for women to have access to property and to the management of their assets. Nor should the special difficulties and problems faced by single women living alone or those who head families be neglected. (Welcome to Gertrude Mongella, Secretary General of the 4th World Conference on Women, no. 5, emphasis added)

Now, if you've read this whole article carefully, you will probably notice a kind of intriguing pattern. When summarizing the lives of women and men in family and society in the pre-industrial era, I said that until very recently the majority of men and women were simultaneously active in both family and business, which was not really separate from home life. And I argued that while we have gained many benefits from the Industrial Revolution, we also lost much of the positive influence of women's presence in business and civic culture and much of the positive influence of men's presence in the family. Looking to the papal teachings above, we note that Pope John Paul II calls both for women's increased participation in cultural and social life (in business, politics, ecclesial life, the arts, the sciences, etc.) and for men's increased participation in family life. When the Pope calls for these changes, which will require a radical reorganization of society as we now know it, I believe that he is saying that we must figure out a way to recover those good things we lost in the Industrial Revolution. This is a message neither entirely novel (because women used to be more active in business and civic culture than they have been in the recent past) nor entirely traditionalist (he's not saying to abandon all modern technology, and he maintains women's rights in some areas not previously acknowledged). It is a message thoroughly Catholic.

[For further reading on Pope John Paul II's "new feminism," I recommend the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops' compilation Pope John Paul II on the Genius of Women, which includes 1995's World Day of Peace Message, the 1995 Angelus Reflections on women, Letter to Women, and other great relevant documents. Call 800-235-8722 and order publication no. 5-113. Most of these are also available free on the web. You should also acquire a copy of Mulieris Dignitatem, Pope John Paul II's 1988 apostolic exhortation on the dignity and vocation of women. It is available free on the Vatican website or in paperback editions from Pauline Books & Media or the USCCB Publishing.]

Can Catholics Be Feminists?

Is it possible to be both an orthodox Catholic and a "feminist"? Not only is it possible to be both an orthodox Catholic and a feminist, Pope John Paul II, who calls himself "Il Papa Feminista" (the feminist pope), has explicitly called women to "promote a 'new feminism'... in order to acknowledge and affirm the true genius of women in every aspect of the life of society, and overcome all discrimination, violence and exploitation," (Evangelium Vitae, no. 99).

Historically, feminism has two essential and universal impulses:

the express desire of women to participate in all areas of social, political, economic, and cultural life, not restricted to the so-called "private realm."
a growing recognition and condemnation of discrimination, segregation, double standards, domination, and violence against women and their personal dignity.

The Catholic Church, under the guidance of Pope John Paul II, is truly feminist because it (1) encourages the participation of women in all areas of public and private life and (2) opposes all forms of injustice against women (see numerous quotes above).

Although the essential impulses of feminism are good in themselves, it must be acknowledged that feminists have made their share of mistakes in the difficult and complicated process of "women's liberation." Some manifestations and expressions of feminism have been unsound and even harmful (e.g. NOW's counterproductive commitment to abortion advocacy). Even so, Pope John Paul II actively encourages Catholic feminists to correct the mistakes of the past and keep moving forward. "This journey must go on!" (Letter to Women, no. 6). Inspired by these words, Catholic feminists are endeavoring to promote the dignity and genius of women "through an effective and intelligent campaign," (Letter to Women, no. 6). I am one of them.

If you have any thoughts or comments to share about this article, or if you would like to ask any questions, please email John Augustine.

2002-09-26T17:39:00.000-04:00

A Few Answers for an Abortion Advocate

Dawn Olsen wrote on her blog:
"People ask me why I am Pro-Choice ....For every abortion, as sad and unfortunate as they are, that is one less child who may be abused, it is one less child who will be unwanted and used as a punching bag by a parent who doesn’t value the inherent worth of themselves or their own flesh and blood."

I was once a regular at a diner where I made friends with most of the employees and other regulars. During the last presidential election, one of my friends there told me she was voting for Gore only because he is "pro-choice" and she was convinced that legal abortion would decrease the numbers of abused children. So I gave her this article from The American Feminist by Karen Gordon, which explains that since the legalization of abortion, child abuse has quadrupled. There is a disturbing correlation between the dramatic rise in child abuse and almost three decades of eliminating the unwanted children by abortion.

What was my friend's response to the article, you may ask? Because it did not jibe with her prior belief that legal abortion should decrease child abuse, she refused to accept the Bureau of the Census and Department of Health and Human Services' figures. (And people claim pro-lifers are unreasonable???!)

Dawn Olsen also saked:
"Explain to me NOT USING religious rhetoric as to why a non-involved party should have anything to say about my or anyone's decision to have an abortion? I want to know. I really do."

I assume that no matter what argument I give, no matter how religion-free, it will not be accepted on the grounds that I am a religious person. For that reason, I recommend the following non-religious pro-life websites:

Atheist & Agnostic Pro-Life League ("godlessprolifers.org" says it all)
Libertarians for Life (the founder is an atheist & all arguments are scrupulously non-religious)

In addition to those, I would include these groups, which also avoid religious arguments:

Democrats for Life
Leftout: A Haven for Progressive Pro-Lifers
Feminists for Life of America (of which yours truly is an active member)

I think you would be intrigued to find, Dawn, that many pro-lifers argue against positions you've taken on your blogsite (e.g. "Life in my mind begins when a child is viable and can live outside the womb, no longer dependent on its host, the mother") precisely because they are based on an entirely unsupported, fideistic "belief." They would label your beliefs, by which you allow for abortion, irrational and based only on faith.

Dawn also wrote:
"Pro-life people are far more concerned with the unborn than with the children who are already here and in need of attention."

I think that if you investigate further, you will find that this is definitely not the case. Feminists for Life, for example, works on lots of different pro-life issues, including child abuse & infanticide, domestic violence, rape, equality in the workplace, euthanasia & assisted suicide, fathers' responsibilities & rights, war, etc. etc. FFL is a "consistent life ethic" organization which promotes activism in all these areas. The Fall 2001 issue of their American Feminist magazine was about how to raise kids inexpensively, while an early 2002 issue was about human rights violations against women around the world.

If your focus is "what are they doing for children?" consider all the topics addressed in the pregnancy resources forums that FFL sponsors at colleges and universities around the country: on-campus child care, financial and medical assistance, student health insurance that covers pregnant and mothering students, housing for pregnant and mothering students on or near campus, etc. All of these things benefit children (not merely in the womb, but after birth) as well as mothers.

We pro-lifers are doing all these things and more. But it's very difficult to get the message out when in the news media:

abortion-rights advocates are quoted more frequently and characterized more favorably than are abortion opponents
events and issues favorable to abortion opponents are ignored or given minimal attention by the media
columns of commentary favoring abortion rights outnumber those opposing abortion by a margin of more than 2 to 1 on the op-ed pages of most of the nation's major daily newspapers

etc. It's true. (Read the entire text of David Shaw's four-part Los Angeles Times study of major newspaper, television and newsmagazine coverage over 18 months, including more than 100 interviews with journalists and with activists on both sides of the abortion debate, confirming that there is substantial media bias against pro-lifers.) Why is it so much harder for me to get a letter to the editor published when it offers feminist reasons for being pro-life than when it offers other reasons? Some people don't want you to know that there are pro-life feminists. Likewise, it suits some people's preferences better if you don't know too much about the many humanitarian works of pro-lifers....

I hope that helps, or at least gives you some food for thought.

2002-09-24T18:29:00.000-04:00

Another Woman Pressured Into Abortion

The song remains the same, my friends. You will, of course, remember my post called "Abortion: Liberation or Capitulation?" and my more recent offering called "Have an Abortion or Give Up Your Job!". Now there's a new article explaining that "Nicole Appleton has revealed how she was forced to abort a baby fathered by Robbie Williams." Appleton's record label just wasn't cool with that, so give your child up or get out.

This is not a rare story. This is the story of the overwhelming majority of women who get abortions: the majority of women who get abortions admit that they capitulated to pressure from others and believed that abortion was their only choice. Recall the statistics from the Alan Guttmacher Institute:

3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities
2/3 say they cannot afford a child
1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner

Women are not having abortions because they think it will be a fun, fulfilling, or emotionally satisfying experience. Women are having abortions because their jobs and schools refuse to cooperate with the needs of pregnant women and mothers. As you see above, a few threaten to oust pregnant women. Many pregnant women are made to feel quite unwelcome even without the overt threat. Women are having abortions because they do not know anyone who will share or give them practical resources, like food, housing, medical and legal services, clothing, baby supplies, etc. Women are having abortions because their parents, husbands, boyfriends, and/or friends do not provide them any emotional or material support, and in many cases actually ask or expect them to abort. Frederica Mathewes-Green listened to women who had procured abortions to find out their reasons for making that choice. Her conclusion? "No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg."

This is why Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life, says "It is time for us to systematically eliminate the coercive factors that drive women to abortion --primarily the lack of practical resources and emotional support. We invite all organizations -- including women's organizations that differ with us on abortion -- to join us. Every woman deserves better. We don't have to settle for less." Since its founding, Feminists for Life of America has been working to do just that: to eliminate the coercive factors which lead pregnant women to believe they have no choice but to abort. Other terrific organizations have compatible goals, like the Nurturing Network, an "extensive employment, medical, educational, counseling and residential network [of volunteers] which enables a mother to continue the life of her unborn child without sacrificing her own hopes and dreams."

2002-09-21T22:45:00.000-04:00

Robert Sungenis Off the Deep End!
Boycott Catholic Apologetics International!

Until now, I have refrained from commenting about Robert Sungenis' increasing weirdness and offensiveness. Mark Shea, Bill Cork, John Betts, and others have been doing an excellent job documenting Sungenis' bizarre turn into geocentrism and nauseating apparent descent into anti-Semitism. Even now, I write only to ask you to read their blogs (both current & archived) regarding the Robert Sungenis/Catholic Apologetics International problem.

John Betts recommends that all Catholics boycott Robert Sungenis' books and his organization, Catholic Apologetics International. Catholic apologist Mark Shea has endorsed this boycott.

Bill Cork has been trying to figure out what, apart from mental illness, could turn a good Catholic apologist so bad in his post called "The Root of the Problem". I think this is an excellent attempt to answer that question, and I provide the following links to those of you who want to read the relevant Church documents:

All of these documents are avilable in handy, inexpensive paperbacks from the Daughters of St. Paul's Pauline Books & Media stores.

Like Bill Cork, I am a convert to Catholicism from Protestantism, and I will never cease to be profoundly grateful to my Catholic Scripture prof who made our class read these Church documents over and over and over again. If you want to read Scripture like a Catholic, you have to understand the mind of the Church, and these documents are a crucial step towards that understanding. Another crucial part of my own formation, which I highly recommend to all Catholics and Protestants, was Louis Bouyer's The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism [Scepter Publishers].

By the way, here's a terrific article regarding the Catholic Church's official position on evolution.

2002-09-21T22:01:00.000-04:00

Have an Abortion or Give Up Your Job!

Many of you will remember my earlier blog called "Abortion: Liberation or Capitulation?". The abortion advocates have been telling us that the "pro-choice" position is "liberating" to women. In reality, however, most women experience abortion as a capitulation to outside pressures rather than a personal liberation. In the previous blog, you learned that three female EMTs procured abortions because they were told that pregnancy may result in job termination. Now there's a brand new article: same story with different characters.

Here are excerpts from the Washington Post article as it ran in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Choice Between Child, Paycheck
Lawsuit claims coach told assistant to have abortion or give up her new job.
by Jessica Hopp and Greg Sandoval - Washington Post
Wednesday, September 18, 2002
Washington -- While head coach at the University of California, Marianne Stanley, now coach of the WNBA Washington Mystics, gave an assistant coach a choice between having an abortion or quitting, then left the pregnant woman at a hotel during a Midwest recruiting trip. The assistant, Sharrona Alexander, was paid $115,000 two years ago by the university to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit after she refused to have the abortion.
During sworn testimony for the suit, Stanley said she told Alexander that "if you are going to continue with this pregnancy, you're not going to be able to fulfill the job duties; therefore, I am then going to have to hire another coach."
In an interview last week and in her deposition, Stanley denied attempting to force Alexander to have an abortion. She said she did not fire Alexander but "asked her for her resignation."
Federal and California state laws, in most cases, forbid employers from firing, refusing employment or denying a promotion to workers based on pregnancy. Stanley said in the deposition and in the interview that she does not believe a pregnant woman can withstand the physical demands of being an assistant coach....
Dr. Sherrie McElvy, a fetal medicine specialist at the University of California-Davis, says she advises pregnant women to continue the physical activities they were doing before their pregnancy right up until giving birth --- as long as it doesn't involve using their abdominal muscles or there is a high risk of suffering trauma.
"For the most part, there would be nothing about coaching that would exclude her from continuing," McElvy said.
Stanley testified: "To protect the program I had decided that I had to tell her -- that it's her choice.... That's a personal decision between her and her God and her conscience, and I respected that, whatever she decided. But... if she was going to continue with the pregnancy, that I was going to have to find someone else who was going to be able to do the job."
Alexander told Stanley later that she had called a clinic in Atlanta and scheduled an abortion. Alexander signed a contract on June 25, 1998.
Alexander testified Stanley paid for her to fly to Atlanta and offered to pay for the abortion. Stanley denies arranging the trip and said she doesn't know who did. She denied offering to pay for the abortion but said she offered Alexander a loan.
Both women said in their depositions that when Alexander met Stanley in Indiana on July 7, 1998, to begin a recruiting trip, Alexander told Stanley she had decided to keep her baby. Alexander said Stanley told her she "needed time to think about" what to do.
A day later, the Berkeley coaching staff flew to Chicago. Alexander testified a clerk told her Stanley wished to see her in the hotel's restaurant. When Alexander arrived, she noticed a list in front of Stanley that included all the items Berkeley had supplied Alexander: a cellphone, laptop computer, credit card and clothes. In addition, Alexander testified, was a note that said: "letter of resignation."
"My heart just sank," Alexander testified.
Stanley asked Alexander to return the items and write a letter of resignation. Alexander testified that when she refused to resign, Stanley fired her. Stanley has denied firing Alexander, but both agreed Alexander was ordered to return her supplies.
The conversation ended with Stanley driving away. Alexander testified she was left with 90 cents and a rental car. "My whole life is, basically, at this point, gone," Alexander testified....
Carnes said that on July 10, 1998, Stanley drove to her home to apologize. Alexander and Stanley were unable to resolve their differences, however. Alexander filed her suit seven months later, accusing Stanley of forcing her to decide "between her child and a paycheck."
Alexander, now 30, said she since has applied for public assistance. She now works at a clothing store. Alexander has applied for assistant coaching jobs at four schools. None has hired her....
"This has ruined my life," Alexander testified. "I went from thinking I am going to take care of my son and be able to provide for myself, and to be on food stamps and on welfare and be degraded.... You can't imagine how this has changed my life. My reputation... how hard I had worked to get to that point was just thrown down the drain because I couldn't -- I couldn't just go to a clinic to abort my son."

Here is a woman, Sharrona Alexander, who refused to capitulate to the pressure to abort, but she has suffered the consequences. Why would any woman ever pressure another to abort?! In the words of pro-life feminist Paulette Joyner, "What kind of 'sisterhood' have we wreaked upon ourselves?" No one can EVER tell me that abortion "liberates" women. Bullshit! This is CRAZY.

Some Relevant Pro-Life Feminist Quotes

"Tunnel-visioned pro-abortion feminists cannot see to help [us] develop real alternatives to abortion, programs of support for women with hardship pregnancies, a change in society's attitude toward pregnant women so that young women won't automatically think that, once pregnant, they can never attend college, never pursue a career, not go on living. Pro-abortion feminists are part of the problem --they contribute to a 'pregnancy as disease', 'fetus as cancer' attitude that turns a normal, natural function of a woman's body into something to be attacked with a curette and vacuum. Is this creative thinking? Is this women supporting women? What kind of 'sisterhood' have we wreaked upon ourselves?" --Paulette Joyer

"As a pregnancy counselor, I had not dealt with a single woman who thought about aborting her baby because she thought it was best. No, it was her parents who thought it was a good idea, or a boyfriend, or a husband, or a boss, or a frowning, judgmental society which was too much for her to withstand." --Judie Gillespie

"Because abortion undeniably involves a degree of physical and emotional pain, the abortion decision cannot be viewed apart from the factors that motivate it. Those factors --personal problems, social pressure, lack of support from family, society, or friends-- suggest that the choice is never a truly voluntary one. It is more likely in fact that women submit to abortions, not so much because they have a choice, but because they feel that in their own circumstances, they have no choice at all.... Abortion does nothing whatever to promote social and economic justice, nor does it compensate for the lack of it." --Elizabeth Moore Sobo

If you haven't read it yet, please read Frederica Mathewes-Green's fantastic book Real Choices.

And please, start supporting Feminists for Life now!

Are Feminists for Life Speakers Visiting a College or University Near You?

"The Feminist Case AGAINST Abortion"
by Serrin M. Foster, President of Feminists for Life

Fall 2002 Speaking Schedule

September 23, 2002. Senate Briefing with Jennifer O'Neill - Washington, DC
October 23, 2002. Johns Hopkins University - Baltimore, Maryland
November 4, 2002. University of California - Lost Angeles, California
November 6, 2002. University of California - San Diego, California
November 7, 2002. University of San Diego - Pregnancy Resources Forum
November 16, 2002. Georgetown University - Washington, DC

"Refuse to Choose: Reclaiming Feminism"
by Sally A. Winn, Vice President of Feminists for Life

Fall 2002 Speaking Schedule

September 07, 2002. Arizona Right to Life Annual Conference - Phoenix, AZ.
September 09, 2002. American University - Washington, DC. (closed audience)
September 25, 2002. University of Michigan - Ann Arbor, MI.
September 26, 2002. Michigan State University - East Lansing, MI.
September 28, 2002. Right to Life of Michigan Annual Conference - Kalamazoo, MI.
October 01, 2002. Oberlin College - Oberlin, OH.
October 02, 2002. Kent State University - Kent, OH.
October 03, 2002. Ohio State University- Columbus, OH.
October 05, 2002. Ohio Right to Life Annual Conference - Columbus, OH.
October 08, 2002. Oregon State University - Corvallis, OR.
November 02, 2002. St. John's University - Jamaica, NY.
December 04, 2002. University of Illinois - Urbana/Champaign, Illinois.

All dates are tentative and subject to change, so check www.feministsforlife.org/cop/schedule.htm as the date nears. For more information about how you can support courageous pro-life students in your area or to bring FFL's College Outreach Program to another campus, please contact FFL at 202-737-3352 or check out FFL's website at www.feministsforlife.org.

2002-09-19T17:32:00.000-04:00

Intriguing Vandalism

A couple of weeks ago, a bumper sticker which said "REAL feminists don't kill babies" was stolen from my car (presumably by someone who thinks that real feminists should kill babies). Stealing bumper stickers. That's a new one on me. When I told Sally Winn, VP of Feminists for Life, she said I should be glad I didn't have my car keyed. That has happened to her.

Unfortunately for the vandal, the bumper sticker theft has convinced me to replace the old sticker with several new ones, including "Peace in the womb! Abortion is violent!" (Victory Won), "Abortion: The foundation upon which to build a violent society" (Victory Won), and "Question abortion" (Feminists for Life). I like to combine my pro-life bumper stickers with others I consider compatible: "No one is free when others are oppressed," "If you want peace, work for justice," "Children are people too," "Execution is NOT the solution," and "'It has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity.' --Albert Einstein."

Drop Your Ace!

You know who I'm talking about, Michael Jameson!

2002-09-18T16:16:00.000-04:00

Feminists for Life to Reach 4 Million Students at Highest Risk of Abortion
17 September 2002 Press Release

Feminists for Life of America launched a nationwide ad campaign to reach women at highest risk of abortion, announced FFL President Serrin Foster. "By the end of this year, four million students at top campuses across the country will hear our pro-woman message: Refuse to Choose.^SM Women Deserve Better.^SM"

"One out of five women who has an abortion is a college student -- and the abortion industry knows it. They target vulnerable women who have been abandoned by those they count on the most," said Foster. "We are here to tell them that they are not alone, and there are perfect strangers who will help them and provide unconditional love and support."

Foster is inviting pregnancy care centers across the country to take their Health Clinic Kits directly to the campus clinic. "We know abortion clinic staff markets directly to the clinic on campus. They need to know that nonprofit pregnancy care centers can give women the rest of the choices."

Not only has FFL focused on those at highest risk, but much of the campaign will strategically target students in states with the highest rates of abortion --California, Texas, New York, Florida and Rhode Island.

The Feminist Majority has targeted Feminists for Life with their "Know the opposition" collegiate campaign. "I hope they do just that. Lots of young women who have never known a day without legalized abortion reconsider it once they see our website or attend a lecture," said Foster.

Planned Parenthood of America's Insider newsletter predicted that FFL's College Outreach Program "could have a profound impact" on college campuses "as well as Planned Parenthood's public education and advocacy efforts."

According to a 1997 Gallup Poll, when women enter college, almost half of them are pro-life. Yet by the time they graduate, nearly three-quarters of college women are pro-choice.

What changes their minds? Students report that by the time the women of this year's senior class graduate they have witnessed pregnant classmates forced to leave schools that do not provide housing for pregnant students, they have cried with their best friends after an abortion, and they have seen parenting students struggle to find childcare so they can attend classes. "We are here to change all that," says Foster.

Foster's lecture, the "Feminist Case Against Abortion" has been receiving rave reviews from students. At her last lecture at the University of San Diego, the front page story in the Vista quoted students who called FFL's message "amazing," "powerful" and "mind blowing." One student told the paper that she "came pro-choice and defensive" but left thinking she may be pro-life.

Foster's speech has also been recognized as one of the 22 "Great Speeches in History" on "Women's Rights." (Edited by Jennifer Hurley, it is one in a series published by Greenhaven Press.)

FFL's College Outreach Program has demonstrated its power to reach college women and men with a message of hope and empowerment and its capacity to be a catalyst for long-term changes on college campuses and beyond.

"Today's students are tomorrow's judges, columnists, reporters, legislators, parents, teachers, activists and voters," said Foster. "It is essential that we reach them now. Planned Parenthood knows it. The Feminist Majority knows it. The good thing is that we know it too, and are taking steps to challenge the status quo. We are taking our bodies back."

For more information on Feminists for Life's College Outreach Program, go to www.feministsforlife.org/cop or contact info@feministsforlife.org.

Why the Evangelization of Mexico Required a Miracle

Many books about the Guadalupe apparitions written by English-speaking Americans either imply or directly state that a miracle was required because the Native Meso-Americans were "just too stubborn" in their idolatry. (In reality, some aspects of their native religion had already prepared them to receive the Gospel. See "Pagan Christs" below.) But as I've been telling my friends for years, the real reason that the evangelization of Mexico required a miracle was because the conquest of "New Spain" was so cruelly devastating. Could you accept a "religion of love" from conquistadors who slaughtered, pillaged, raped, and enslaved you and your family? Who forbade you to speak your own language? The priests and missionaries worked hard to defend the Native Meso-Americans and to share the good news of Christ, but the "culture of death" being imposed by the colonialist conquistadors was overwhelming:

In 1529, one year and four months before the apparitions of Our Lady of Guadalupe to Juan Diego, Bishop Zumárraga wrote to the king to tell him that the situation was so bad that only a miracle of God could save the situation and the earth: "si Dios no provee con remedio de su mano está la tierra en punto de perderse totalmente." The missionaries prayed for a miracle.

This month the Houston Catholic Worker newspaper of Casa Juan Diego has published a spectacular article about St. Juan Diego and our Lady of Guadalupe: Why Saint Juan Diego, a Saint For Nobodies, Means so Much To Us. God did provide the miracle.

2002-09-12T18:08:00.000-04:00

Whaddaya Know? Muhammad's Satanic Verses

I love studying various religions, and this week I learned something new: Muhammad really did speak "Satanic Verses"! Honestly, I had no idea.

Yes, according to contemporary Muslim biographers (Muhammad's contemporaries, not ours), Muhammad once spoke the words of Satan as if they were a revelation from God, leading all the Muslims and pagans who were present to accept polytheism. A short explanation of the "Satanic Verses" is available here. More documentation is available here. Fascinating.

For My Brother

Here's a little tidbit I picked up for you at Latter-Day Lampoon:

I was also amused by the following anagrams for the name "President Brigham Young":

"Upon gathering my brides..."
Big underage nymph riots
Bride-mongering Utah spy
Urging bad pioneer myths

The site's often pretty sick, but I have to admit that I find it funny.

2002-09-10T18:02:00.000-04:00

Brilliant Book Available Online!

Fr. Ronald G. Roberson's The Eastern Christian Churches: A Brief Survey is now available online at the Catholic Near East site, as well as in print from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. This truly awesome reference book, published by the University Press of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, "provides a clear overview of four distinct and separate Eastern Christian communions: the Assyrian church of the East; the six Oriental Orthodox churches; the Orthodox church (including the Autocephalous and the Autonomous Churches); and the Catholic Eastern churches." If you are in any way interested in the Eastern Christian Churches, you must read this book! Click here to see a sample chapter on the Ruthenian Catholic Church, of which I may soon be a member. (Note: perhaps due to a defect in the code, the name "Mukachevo" looks like it contains a Chinese character.)

2002-09-04T12:45:00.000-04:00

Anglican Saints

For those of you who don't know, I work at an Episcopal seminary bookstore when I'm not at classes. I came to Catholicism from the Episcopal church, telling my parents that "the best way to stay Episcopalian these days is to become Catholic," so this isn't as weird as you may think.

So last week while I was shelving books, one of them was Saints of the Anglican Calendar by Kathleen Jones (Canterbury Press). The cover had the names of various saints printed all over it. Flipping it over to check which section I should shelve it in, I noticed that one of the names printed on the book was "John Henry Newman."

Now I fully expect the Anglican church to retain most, if not all, of the Catholic saints who lived prior the break between the two churches, so it doesn't surprise me at all to see folks like St. Augustine, St. Hildegard of Bingen, etc. But Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman? A man who left the Church of England to become one of the most famous Catholic apologists of all time? He is an Anglican saint? Yes, the book provides a day of commemoration for him (August 11) and has a little "hagiography" (fully acknowledging that he left the Church of England and why) and everything.

And the saddest thing is: Newman's not even a Catholic saint (in the canonized sense) yet!

The "Pagan Christs" of our "Good Dreams"

Recently there has been quite an uproar about the new Our Lady of the Angels cathedral. And not without good reason: it is a truly hideous building. There are also hard feelings among some people who feel that the Cathedral Chapel of Saint Viviana is being dissed.

But some of the hubub is about the pre-Christian imagery adorning the bottom of the inner doors. The official website describes it thus: "Beginning at the bottom of the inner doors, Graham has sculpted in relief a grapevine, symbolizing the Church. Folded in the grapevine are 40 ancient symbols that represent pre-Christian images from Europe, Asia, Africa and North America." Above these are several much larger images of Mary.

Reading Mark Shea's blog, I noticed that people are particularly peeved by an image of Quetzalcoatl, a god of the ancient Meso-American pantheon:

"You guys do realize, do you not, that among the pagan deities carved onto the door of the L.A. Cathedral is Quetzalcoatl, the bloodthirsty Aztec demon-god to whom tens of thousands of human beings were sacrificed, and whose worship Our Lady of Guadalupe came to crush." "[Quetzalcoatl] is not just a vaguely acceptable pagan god; for his sake, human beings had their hearts ripped out of their chests while still beating. I think this is as close to satanism as you can get without being the real thing."

I must take issue with comments like these.

First of all, the official description of the doors does not include the name "Quetzalcoatl." It says "Southwest Indian Flying Serpent." "Quetzalcoatl" does mean "feathered serpent," and he was frequently represented that way in ancient Meso-American glyphs and other art, but it seems that the Los Angeles sculptor Robert Graham intended the image to be understood more as "a mythical beast" than a particular pagan deity.

Secondly, the people complaining do not have any idea what they're talking about. Among the gods of the native Meso-American pantheons, Quetzalcoatl was --hands down-- the least problematic. He was their only god, to my knowledge, who actively opposed the cult of human sacrifice, calling instead for moral and disciplinary reform and promoting ascetic practices. Let me repeat that in the clearest language I can manage: if you know anything about Meso-American mythology, you know that Quetzalcoatl actively opposed human sacrifice.

Were humans ever sacrificed to Quetzalcoatl? Probably. In my religious and theological studies, I've definitely learned never to underestimate the ability of humans to "honor" their gods by doing things their gods told them never to do and not doing things their gods tell them to do. This happens in other religions just as it happens in ours.

And, as someone who has always loved the Quetzalcoatl myth, I must also add that his story is about the furthest paganism can possibly get from "satanism". In fact, I would say it's quite the opposite: Quetzalcoatl's the closest thing the Meso-Americans ever had to real prophecy!

If you're thinking, "huh?," don't worry, I'll explain.

Quetzalcoatl, according to the myths, was the god who, at the cost of some self-sacrifice, created the humans of this age. Not surprisingly, he was also a great patron to them, introducing them to many arts, crafts, and sciences for their benefit. So benevolent was this god that he became a man himself. (Note: the name "feathered serpent" is supposed to evoke the idea of a union between heaven and earth.) A young virgin found a feather that had descended from the heavens, and when she put it in her dress for safekeeping, she became pregnant. During his earthly life as a priest, Quetzalcoatl taught the people that sacrificing other humans had no spiritual benefit. Instead, they had to reform their own lives and learn to sacrifice themselves through ascetic practices. The other gods did not like this, so Tezcatlipoca disguised himself as an old man and tricked Quetzalcoatl into breaking his priestly vows and committing a sin. When Quetzalcoatl awoke from his stupor, he was overcome with sorrow, and sacrificed himself (to death) in order to atone for his sin and the sins of other humans. From death, he rose to new life in the heavens. (There are many variations to this story, both in nuances and in details. For more information, I recommend starting with Laurette Sejourne's Burning Water: Thought & Religion in Ancient Mexico.)

Any attentive Christian should be able to pick out the many similarities between the myth of Quetzalcoatl and the life of Jesus Christ, as well as note the substantial differences.

Now, have you ever read the writings of C.S. Lewis? (If not, why are you wasting another moment?) Among other brilliant things, he said, "[Before the coming of Jesus Christ, God] sent the human race what I call good dreams. I mean those queer stories scattered all through heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again, and by his death, has somehow given new life to men." When Lewis said this, he particularly had in mind Balder of Norse mythology and Osiris of Egyptian mythology, i.e. gods from the myths he knew. I would add Quetzalcoatl to this list. These "good dreams" of the pagans were the closest thing they had to prophecy, which was the particular privelege of God's chosen people, Israel. God did not leave pagans utterly helpless and hopeless, because he planned to eventually include them in his covenant and reconcile them with Israel.

Some Christians feel uncomfortable about the many pagan myths that are similar to the life of Jesus Christ. Lewis thought the opposite should be true: "We must not be nervous about 'parallels' and 'pagan christs': They ought to be there - it would be a stumbling block if they weren't. [i.e. if there weren't any 'pagan christs,' we would have to assume that God did nothing to prepare the pagans for Christ, though he did so much to prepare Israel.] We must not, in false spirituality, withhold our imaginative welcome."

Not only do I consider Quetzalcoatl a "pagan christ" foreshadowing the coming of the true Christ in history, the Quetzalcoatl myth was an essential element in my own conversion to Christianity as an adult!

Post-script After writing the above, I found that ZENIT had recently published the following:

John Paul II began his talk [in Mexico] highlighting the extraordinary values to be found in the pre-Columbian cultures. "A thousand years ago, in the year 999 of our calendar, the fury of those who adored a violent god and called themselves his representatives, made Quetzalcoatl, the king of prophets of the Toltecs, disappear, as he was opposed to the use of force in resolving human conflicts. As he was nearing death, he carried a cross in his hands, which for him and his disciples symbolized conscience searching for harmony in a sea of ideas. Quetzalcoatl had given his people sublime teachings: 'Good will always triumph over evil.' 'Man is at the center of creation.' 'Arms will never be the friends of the word; it is the latter which dispels the storm clouds so that we can be filled with divine clarity'. In these and other teachings of Quetzalcoatl we can perceive 'a preparation for the Gospel' (cf Lumen Gentium, 16), which many of your ancestors had the joy of receiving five hundred years later."

2002-08-29T18:30:00.000-04:00

Words to Remember

On the Day of Prayer in Assisi last January, Pope John Paul II said it "is essential... that religious people and communities should in the clearest and most radical way repudiate violence, all violence, starting with the violence that seeks to clothe itself in religion, appealing even to the most holy name of God in order to offend man. To offend against man is, most certainly, to offend against God. There is no religious goal that can possibly justify the use of violence by man against man."

Pope John Paul II said in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) that we live in a "culture of death." The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has said that in order to overthrow the culture of death, we must first confront our "culture of violence." What do they mean by that term?

Increasingly, our society looks to violent measures to deal with some of our most difficult social problems -- millions of abortions to address problem pregnancies, advocacy of euthanasia and assisted suicide to cope with the burdens of age and illness, and increased reliance on the death penalty to deal with crime. We are tragically turning to violence in the search for quick and easy answers to complex human problems. A society which destroys its children, abandons its old and relies on vengeance fails fundamental moral tests. Violence is not the solution; it is the most clear sign of our failures. We are losing our respect for human life. How do we teach the young to curb their violence when we embrace it as the solution to social problems?

See the whole USCCB document "Confronting a Culture of Violence" here.

2002-08-29T18:05:00.000-04:00

What's the World Coming To?

Michael Jameson's been blogging more than I have!

2002-08-28T14:19:00.000-04:00

Press Release from Feminists for Life

When was the last time you heard good coverage about anything pro-life in the mainstream media? Below is a transcription of the FOX News coverage of FFL President Serrin Foster's lecture at the University of San Diego last April. .....

With "Feminists for Life" in the pop-up window behind the anchorwoman, she says, "The 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is coming up. And there is a polarized debate over whether we should have legal abortions or make a change to make it illegal. FOX News reporter Pete Fuentes is live at the University of San Diego."
Reporter: "I thought all feminists were pro-choice which means they are for abortions. Now tonight I found something different. An organization called Feminists for Life hit campus with their take on pro-life."
(Film begins with beautiful images of a fetus developing in the womb -- thumb sucking, etc.) "A niche has emerged in the abortion issue. Feminists for Life is an organization that tries to solve the problems which drive women to abortions. (Cut to interview with FFL President Serrin Foster.)
Serrin: "Our part in the abortion debate is -- once someone is pregnant -- what can we do to make a difference for her."
(Cut to Serrin's lecture showing hundreds of students listening, and a baby in front of the camera.) Foster asks the audience, "How many of you are aware that the early American Feminists worked to outlaw abortion in this country?"
Serrin Foster is president of Feminists for Life. The national organization targets college students because the biggest segment of the population that have abortions are people like these. (Shows students in audience.)
Serrin: "One out of five women who have an abortion are college women. It is a direct reflection that we have failed women -- in particular on college campuses."
Reporter: "Foster offers something called pregnancy kits, or a list of resources of people to call for health and day care, or help in college studies, or a place to live." (Shows materials from the Women's Resource Committee in San Diego.)
NOW rep: "Feminism is the social and political equality of women and men."
Reporter: "Cindy Marzoff of the National Organization for Women says this message of feminist movement by its message is misleading." [sic]
NOW rep: "By opposing a woman's right to control her own body, that's not feminism because that is not really about equality. If women can't control their body she is not free and if she is not free she is not equal."
Reporter: "Meanwhile pro-lifers like Serrin Foster support all pregnancies even in cases of rape. (Video shows a happy woman looking at her newborn child.) Foster believes Americans should refuse to choose between women and children."
Foster: "I think we should concentrate on making abortion unthinkable because every woman deserves better than an abortion."
"Now Feminists for Life says telecommuting -- and of course computer and the Internet -- have made it easier for [pregnant] students to attend school."
(Fuentes holds up FFL brochures.) "Brochures like these spell out the options that students have to keep their baby. We are live at the University of San Diego. Fox 6 News."
Anchor: "People are going to want to know how to get those brochures." They discuss how to reach FFL.

.....

Feminists for Life is getting through the media filter, and changing hearts and minds of those at highest risk of abortion! Check out Feminists for Life's speaking engagement schedule here to find out when FFL will be visiting a campus near you!

Anti-Catholicism Often Facilitates Conversions to Catholicism

Strange as it may sound, the title statement is true. Mark Shea's blog recently explained one of the ways this was true for him. I had very similar experiences.

As I grew closer and closer to accepting Catholicism, I read more and more anti-Catholic literature: from Jack Chick's books, comic books, and tracts to Lorraine Boettner's Roman Catholicism and anything else I could get my hands on. I continued to read Calvinist theology books (I had been deep into Calvinism when I began to discover Catholicism was more biblical). I asked my Baptist theology professors to voice their most serious objections to Catholicism. And the more anti-Catholic literature I read, the more I thought, "If these are the best reasons to stay away, I'm definitely going to become Catholic." Even after I became Catholic I continued to read as much anti-Catholic literature as I could. It's kinda like Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian (one of my favorite books). For those with an ironic spirit, it makes for great devotional literature!

The Festivity Behind the Feast

If you didn't get this link from Mark Shea, here is the fantastic Josef Pieper-esque look at the fabulous film Babette's Feast. Print a copy, read it carefully, and make time for leisure.

Transliteration Pet Peeves

According to the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia, "Alleluia, not Hallelujah, is the traditional Christian and proper English form of transcription." I could not disagree more. The original Hebrew word is hllwyh [which is already a transliteration --blogspot doesn't do Hebrew], meaning "Praise [be to] YHWH." Note that the Hebrew word begins with the letter hay (H) and that the last two letters are yod & hay (YH), which signify the divine Name (YHWH). Alleluia is a Medieval Latin form. Note the total lack of H-sounding letters, and that the ending IA doesn't call to mind the divine Name at all. Why would anyone prefer a Latinized form of a Hebrew word? I sure don't.

2002-08-24T17:53:00.000-04:00

Prioritizing Promise Keepers

My brother called me last night and read this excerpt to me from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's article "Promise Keepers Score a Sellout at Savvis Center, Despite Decline in Popularity":

A Promise Keeper is encouraged to:
1. Honor Jesus Christ through worship, prayer and obedience to God's word.
2. Pursue vital relationships with a few other men, understanding that brothers help each other keep their promises.
3. Practice spiritual, moral, ethical and sexual purity.
4. Build strong marriages, families through love, protection and biblical values.
5. Support the mission of his church by honoring and praying for his pastor, and by giving his time and resources.
6. Reach beyond racial and denominational barriers for biblical unity.
7. Influence his world, love one's neighbor and spread the Gospel.

Now just to be sure the Post-Dispatch was conveying accurate information, I checked out the "Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper" on the official site. The Post-Dispatch list was legit. I just can't believe I'm reading this right.

"So what's the problem?" you may be asking. "Aren't those good goals?" Sure. My problem is the ordering of the list. Guess what, guys? Your marriages and families are a much higher priority than "vital relationships with a few other men." You have a real live covenant with your family that you don't share with your buddies, no matter what great stuff they're into.

Think I'm overreacting? I'm not. People do need to be told this. I went to a university where men and women formed little same-sex groups, like fraternities and sorrorities with less drinking and more prayer, and bound themselves up in pseudo-covenants and weekly "obligations" (e.g. 4 nights a week). My brother was in one of these groups when we were in school together, and I had to fight tooth-and-nail to spend time with him. Whenever he missed an "obligation" there was a massive guilt-trip fest. If a guy wanted to go on a date with a girl (potential for a real covenant) on Friday night instead of going to some group obligation to sing Kumbaya and get all weepy with his "brothers," there was a massive guilt-trip fest. It was insufferable.

So I say again to the Promise Keeper types: Your marriages and families are a much higher priority than "vital relationships with a few other men." Get it straight.

I'm not saying this to disrespect the legitimate brotherhood of Christians in Christ. We Christian men and women are members of the same Body, and in that sense we really are covenanted to each other. And we really do need each other (1Cor. 12:12-27). Just don't create artificial "obligations" that turn out to be counter-productive, "obligations" that keep you away from the relationships and responsibilities you already have.

Also, don't you think promise #6 is really a subset of #7? I think it's good to make #6 explicit, but #7 should come first.

PS: I felt very vindicated when my brother's dog tore up his pseudo-covenant.

A Parish Just for Me

Click here to see a photo of Sts. Augustine & John Catholic Church on Thomas Street in Dublin (Ireland). There's also a painting of Sts. Augustine & John together here. Can anyone explain to me why St. John tends to look like a girl in Western Catholic art?

2002-08-21T20:03:00.000-04:00

Abortion as Oppression

The following ran in the page 2 "Culture, etc." briefs of the Washington Times today:

"When she published 'The Female Eunuch' in 1972, Germaine Greer advocated a life based on sexual license as the path to personal fulfillment. Greer practiced what she preached in 1972. As a result, she could no longer have a child because her several abortions left her sterile and suffering from other gynecological health problems.
"Almost 30 years later at age 50, she wrote 'The Whole Woman.' While not completely changing her pro-choice stance, Greer argues that abortion is a sign, not of liberation, but of oppression. Anecdotal evidence and personal testimonies increasingly portray a situation that is anything but pro-woman. Despite the incidents of malpractice and abuse, the $90 billion abortion industry remains largely unregulated.
"Currently, veterinary clinics in the state of New York are required to follow more guidelines than abortion clinics. For instance, a woman who decides to have an abortion will be attended by a clinic worker who may not even satisfy the criteria necessary to handle her dog at an animal hospital."
--Pia de Solenni

It's good to hear that Germaine Greer is figuring out what Feminists for Life has known all along. "Forty-million abortions are a reflection that we have failed women -- and women have settled for less," said Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life of America. "It is time for us to systematically eliminate the coercive factors that drive women to abortion -- primarily the lack of practical resources and emotional support. We invite all organizations -- including women's organizations that differ with us on abortion -- to join us. Every woman deserves better. We don't have to settle for less."

Want to read more by and about FFLA President Serrin Foster? Check out these links:

Serrin Foster’s speech entitled "The Feminist Case Against Abortion" is included in Jennifer Hurley's Women's Rights anthology of the Great Speeches in History series.

Serrin Foster believes the college campus culture promotes abortion. "Pregnancy is not socially acceptable. That's why you don't see many visibly pregnant students on campuses," says Foster. "[Pregnant college students usually] don't have a place to live; [they] don't have day care; [they] don't have maternity coverage. The institutions force women to choose between sacrificing their education or career goals and their child. There's this really hostile thing about women having babies. Women who are visibly pregnant on college campuses are treated like exotic animals." You can change this. Please support Feminists for Life's College Outreach Program.

A March 7, 2001, Washington Times article about the success of Pregnancy Resource Forums at Georgetown University ("Georgetown Helps to Keep Pregnant Students in School") led to this super followup letter by Serrin Foster. Unfortunately, the Washington Times requires a fee if you want to read the original article in their archives.

New from Feminists for Life: Pro-Woman Answers to Pro-Choice Questions.

Building a Mystery

Remember when Sarah McLachlan refused to allow Feminists for Life space at the Lilith Fair music festival, despite Lilith Fair's lofty goal of wanting to "raise consciousness about issues that affect women's lives"? No? Check it out.

Find Your Vocation

This is hilarious! Find out what religious order you should belong to! I'm Order of St. John Bosco:

what's your order?

2002-08-21T03:26:00.000-04:00

More Reflections on Covenant & Mission

There's a press release at the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops site clarifying the nature & meaning of the Reflections on Covenant & Mission document. By all means, please read it, folks.

There's also an excellent, must-read commentary on the document on Mark Shea's blogspot by the ever-cool Mike Epstein. Not to be missed!

2002-08-19T18:59:00.000-04:00

Reflections on Covenant & Mission

Everywhere I look, some fellow Catholic or other is raising a huge angry hullaballoo about Reflections on Covenant & Mission by the National Council Of Synagogues and Delegates of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, which is why I'm providing a link to the actual document rather than someone else's personal commentary.

I don't think the document's half as bad as people are claiming. My biggest gripes are two:

Some passages of the document are extremely ambiguous. (E.g. what does it mean to say "Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God"?) These passages can be interpreted either in ways that seem orthodox (e.g. the Jews are covenanted with Jesus, who is God, and that may become explicit to them as the world is evangelized, etc.) or in ways that seem heterodox (e.g. there's one covenant without Jesus for Jews and another covenant with Jesus for goyim, etc.). For myself, I'm going to assume that nothing heterodox was intended and let the Vatican sort out whether there are any actual errors. But such ambiguity is a serious defect, and I would respectfully suggest that this document was not yet truly ready for publication.
Some sectors of the media are grossly misrepresenting this document (and, what's worse, many Catholics are taking their word for it). For example, the Boston Globe introduced the document with the headline "Catholics Reject Evangelization of Jews." The actual document says, "The Catholic Church must always evangelize and will always witness to its faith in the presence of God's kingdom in Jesus Christ to Jews and to all other people." Could two more contradictory statements be imagined? It just goes to show that if you plan to get involved in a discussion like this, you must read the document firsthand and seriously question other people's interpretations. (And that, as usual, you cannot trust the Boston Globe as far as you can throw it.)

In the document's favor, Catholics must consider it significant that the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations With the Jews is linked not with the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue but with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity: the Cardinal President of the PCPCU presides over this Commission; the Secretary of the PCPCU is similarly its Vice-President. (Here is one of the Commission's most significant documents: We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah by the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations With the Jews.) As we do with Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, and other Christians, we Catholics have been calling Jews our "brothers and sisters" in official Church documents ever since the publication of Nostra Aetate (and maybe even before that).

Some people have objected to the language of the "Reflections on Covenant & Mission" document where it says "[the Catholic] evangelizing task no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity and so end the distinctive witness of Jews to God in human history." But this sounds, to my ears, very orthodox --very much like the mission of the Association of Hebrew Catholics (does not yet have its own site). The AHC is a voluntary association of Catholics which aims at ending the alienation of Catholics of Jewish origin from their heritage as Israelites. Catholics of Jewish origin, the Association believes, should preserve their own Israelite identity and distinctives within the Church. In the words of AHC's founder, Fr. Elias Friedman, "[Catholics] should enable [Jews] to accept Christ and his Church without assimilation," i.e. without conforming to the Gentile community and losing their Israelite identity.

For reading, Catholics may want to check out Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Many Religions, One Covenant. I don't know if Spiritual Pilgrimage: Texts on Jews & Judaism by Pope John Paul II, 1979-1995 (Anti-Defamation League/USCCB) is still in print, but you might also check out other such publications from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Other ecclesiastical documents on Catholic-Jewish relations, from the Pontifical Commission and also various national Bishops' Conferences, are available at this Jewish-Christian relations site.

2002-08-17T00:33:00.000-04:00

Pro-Life Feminist Gear

It's not easy to find pro-life feminist gear (clothes, bags, mugs, etc.), but here are some options:

Some guys feel weird sporting gear that says "feminist" on it (though they needn't). If that describes you, go to Pro-Life Feminist Store 2, which features a really cool "abolish abortion" design. Perfect for the March for Life!

2002-08-16T22:57:00.000-04:00

A Feminist Look at Abortion Statistics

I've just found Pro-Life Guy's blogspot through Mark Shea's, and I'm really glad I did. In one of his posts, Pro-Life Guy provided some statistics from the Alan Guttmacher Institute. I checked out AGI's stats website for myself, and pondered the following:

In 1997, 1.33 million abortions took place, down from an estimated 1.61 million in 1990. From 1973 through 1997, more than 35 million legal abortions occurred.
52% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 20%.
On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner. [Less than 1% of all abortions --13,000 of 1.33 million-- follow rape or incest, and the overwhelming majority are purely elective.]

I included the first of these points just to establish the number of abortions per year.

The second of these points is to illustrate to you just how crucial Feminists for Life's College Outreach Program is: about 1/3 of all U.S. abortions are performed on college-aged women (probably more, since "college-aged" usually includes 18-24 year-olds). If you are ever looking to donate to a charity that will reach those women most likely to have an abortion, please consider Feminists for Life and the Nurturing Network.

The third point illustrates something I blogged earlier: that most women who seek abortions are capitulating to outside pressures. If we really want to reduce the number of abortions (a goal most pro-choicers claim to share with pro-lifers), then we desperately need to provide these women practical alternatives and support. Supporting Feminists for Life and the Nurturing Network are two good ways to do this.

In fact, read this again:

On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

Now read what the PRO-LIFE FEMINISTS (I know, the term is redundant!) have been saying for YEARS:

"Abortion is the destruction of human life and energy that does nothing to eradicate the very real underlying problems of women. The pregnant welfare mother begs for decent housing, a decent job and child-care or respect for her child-nurturing work. Instead, she gets directions to the local abortion clinic and is told to take care of 'her problem.' How convenient. Much less time and trouble than teaching her about authentic reproductive freedom and reproductive responsibility. Much cheaper than attending to her real problems: her poverty, her lack of skills, her illiteracy, her loneliness, her bitterness about her entrapment, her self-contempt, her vulnerability. After the abortion these problems will all be there and another one added besides: her guilt." --Cecilia Voss Koch

"If women must submit to abortion to preserve their lifestyle or career, their economic social status, they are pandering to a system devised and run by men for male convenience.... Accepting short-term solutions like abortion only delays the implementation of real reforms like decent maternity and paternity leaves, job protection, high-quality child care, community responsibility for dependent people of all ages, and recognition of the economic contribution of child-minders." --Daphne de Jong

"No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg." --Frederica Mathewes-Green

"Abortion does not address the basic inequalities, such as poverty and unequal pay, that make a woman believe she cannot have a baby. It's a cheap fix that leaves the woman as poor and oppressed as she ever was, while politicians claim to have struck a blow for women's rights and the doctors go home $250 richer." --Jane Thomas Bailey

I cannot recommend enough that everyone read these great quotes from modern pro-life feminists and Real Choices!

For those of you who are interested, here are some AGI statistics regarding contraceptives & abortion:

58% of women having abortions in 1995 had used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.
11% of women having abortions have never used a method of birth control.
9 in 10 women at risk of unintended pregnancy are using a contraceptive method.

These are direct quotes. I am not responsible for the wording of these points.

Illiterate America

While I'm on the topic of statistics, I thought I'd include a stunning quote from Len Radoff's review of Morris Berman's The Twilight of American Culture:

"Berman relates that 60% of [American] adults have never read a book; only 6% read one book a year, even when the criteria for a book includes Harlequin romances and self-help manuals."

God help us! Make certain that your kids (a) know how to read and (b) see you reading for pleasure often. And make sure you don't give them any Philip Pullman books, while you're at it (see below if you missed the Pullman post).

2002-08-16T02:03:00.000-04:00

Appendices

For those of you who never read the whole of Lord of the Rings, you may be interested to learn that the Fellowship of the Ring departed Rivendell on December 25th, the Feast of the Nativity. What's more, the Ring is destroyed in the Cracks of Doom, and Barad-dûr is conquered, on March 25th. March 25th is the day that commemorates the Fall of Humanity, the Annunciation to Mary & the Incarnation, and the Crucifixion. Chew on that a while!

By the way, there's some really fun Tolkien merchandise at Tolkien Town. Feel free to get me a Long-Stemmed Ranger's Pipe or a poster of Legolas for Christmas.

Fruity Water?

Hey, Michael Jameson, maybe the dingo ate your baby!

Assumption

You may or may not have noticed that I didn't really post anything on August 15th, the Feast of the Dormition and Assumption of Mary, the Mother of God. That's because I was out celebrating. It was my anniversary, the first day of my 8th year as a Catholic. (Meaning I've been Catholic seven whole years.)

Confessionals With a View

I'm definitely with the guy who thinks this is "weird."

2002-08-15T00:44:00.000-04:00

Pro-Choice Violence

It's not been updated in a while, but Carolyn Gargaro's page is still relevant.

2002-08-14T22:16:00.000-04:00

Artemisia Gentileschi

Artemisia Gentileschi (1593-c.1652) was one of the greatest chiaroscuro artists of the Renaissance. Internationally famous in her own day, then obscure for centuries, Artemisia's art is making a comeback.

Artemisia suffered many hardships, both artistically and personally. A 17th century double-standard forbade her to work with nude male models. As a woman, she was forbidden full membership in the increasingly important art academies. Worse, in a male-dominated field, Artemisia was subjected to constant sexual harassment, intimidation, and slander. In such a social climate, her rape in 1612 was, unfortunately, almost inevitable.

But Artemisia would not be stifled by her limitations and suffering. She turned them into beautiful and powerful images of strong biblical and mythological heroines. Among them:

Judith Beheading Holofernes - a strong and determined Judith, not delicate, dainty, or timid
Jaël and Sisera - apologies for the small image
Susanna & the Elders - one of the few, if not the only version, that depicts the leering Elders threatening a genuinely disgusted Susanna
Esther Before Ahasuerus - dominating the scene in a faint!
Lucretia - in anxious deliberation, perhaps pondering the cruel irony that she "should" die for someone else's crime (difficult to see the knife)
Corsica & the Satyr - escaping her lustful captor by keen wit

I love her works. This is why I am thoroughly offended by the 1998 French Film "Artemisia", which reinterprets the rape of Artemisia Gentileschi by Agostino Tassi as a forbidden love affair between a curious virgin and a Renaissance playboy. It's absolutely disgusting.

Though I'm no great fan of Gloria Steinem, I support her opposition to the film and invite everyone to read this critique, which was prepared with the much-respected Gentileschi biographer, Mary Garrard.

Sexual Abuse Scandals

It is, of course, a deeply offensive horror when a person who has committed himself to serving Christ's Church takes advantage of those people he has promised to love and serve. There is no excuse for such betrayal, and whether the act is criminal or not, it is a sin. (God grant them the grace to truly repent and change!)

I speak as a person who has personally endured this betrayal of friendship, having been sexually molested by a priest I trusted. But I also speak as a faithful Catholic who refuses to leave Christ, and who refuses to leave Peter, because of Judas' actions. Now is the time for Christians to live anew the Gospel of Hope: to pray, to fast, to do works of mercy and truth for the benefit of all.

I do not resent the reporting of these offenses. I hope that it will help people to come to their senses, change their lives, and do what is right. (In many cases, it has done precisely that.) But I do resent the snide anti-Catholic tone adopted in some of the reports. Will the Planned Parenthood groups that agreed not to report the criminal sexual abuse of young girls to the police receive the same mocking resentment? I doubt it.

Saint Juan Diego

Casa Juan Diego has reprinted Dorothy Day's reflections on Juan Diego and our Lady of Guadalupe in The Houston Catholic Worker. It's a great read.

2002-08-13T21:13:00.000-04:00

Protestants Discover the Genius of Natural Family Planning

Well, the best kept Catholic secret is out, and none too soon. I'm speaking, of course, of Natural Family Planning (NFP), which has so many advantages over contraception that I'm totally baffled about why people would want to waste all their money on that contraceptive schmoog.

But the point is, if you haven't heard about Sam & Bethany Torode's Protestant campaign in favor of NFP over contraception, you must. Here's some links to get you started:

Make Love AND Babies (Torodes, Protestant)
Rethinking Contraception (Torodes, Protestant)
Interview with Sam & Bethany (Torodes, Protestant)
Another Interview with Sam & Bethany (Torodes, Protestant)
Info about the Torodes' book Open Embrace (Torodes, Protestant)
The Mystery of "Fair Love" (Crosby, Catholic)
the Couple to Couple League (NFP site)

I've read Open Embrace and would recommend it to all my friends, Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and others. Read it and recommend it to your friends. If nothing else, its basic introduction to Pope John Paul II's theology of the body would be enough to commend it.

Abortion: Liberation or Capitulation?

For years the abortion advocates have been telling us that the "pro-choice" position is "liberating" to women. In reality, however, most women experience abortion as a capitulation to outside pressures rather than a personal liberation. A recent article in the Washington Times illustrates this unfortunate truth. According to the article three female EMTs procured abortions because they were told that pregnancy may result in job termination. It's the story of Frederica Mathewes-Green's book Real Choices all over again. (If you've never read Real Choices, by all means acquire it immediately!) Alice Paul, author of the original Equal Rights Amendment, knew what she was talking about when she said "Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women"!

2002-08-13T18:52:00.000-04:00

Blessed Among Women!

Who, in the Bible, is "blessed among women"? Most Catholics could easily show you the passage in Luke's Gospel where Elizabeth calls Mary "blessed among women." It is, after all, a portion of one of the most popular Catholic prayers, the "Hail Mary."

But even before Mary's time, at least two biblical women were said to be "blessed among women." Jaël, who drove a tent peg through the head of Sisera (read Judges 4-5), and Judith, who decapitated Holofernes (read Judith). Read the following passages together, perhaps for the first time:

Judges 5:24-27
"[The prophet Deborah sang] 'Blessed among women be Jaël.... With her left hand she reached for the peg, with her right, for the workman's mallet. She hammered Sisera, crushed his head; she smashed, stove in his temple.... At her feet he sank down, fell, lay still; down at her feet he sank and fell; where he sank down, there he fell, slain.'"

Judith 13:14-19
"Judith urged them with a loud voice: 'Praise God, praise him! Praise God, who has not withdrawn his mercy from the house of Israel, but has shattered our enemies by my hand this very night.' Then she took the head out of the pouch, showed it to them, and said: 'Here is the head of Holofernes, general in charge of the Assyrian army, and here is the canopy under which he lay in his drunkenness. The Lord struck him down by the hand of a woman'.... Then Uzziah said to her: 'Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the creator of heaven and earth, who guided your blow at the head of the chief of our enemies. Your deed of hope will never be forgotten by those who tell of the might of God.'"

Luke 1:41-48
"When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.... Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.' And Mary said: 'My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior. For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.'"

Too few people, imo, comment on this interesting connection between Jaël, Judith, and Mary. For example, what might the stories of Jaël and Judith tell us about Mary? Both Jaël and Judith acted, by the power of YHWH their God, as saviors for Israel, destroyers of the enemy. I would argue that when Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, calls Mary "blessed among women," she is using terminology that compares Mary (in the minds of the biblically literate) to a warrior heroine. That's no frilly compliment! In this light, the strong language of Mary's Magnificat ("He has shown the might of his arm, dispersed the arrogant.... thrown down rulers from their thrones.... the rich he has sent away empty") make even more sense.

Marian Shrine Shot Glasses

Yes, there are such things. Shot glasses printed with images of marian shrines, like Lourdes, the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in D.C., Notre Dame de Paris, etc. And I collect them. So keep an eye out, and if you see any, please let me know. I'd love to have a Fatima one!

2002-08-12T16:19:00.000-04:00

Read The Feminist Case Against Abortion online!

Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life of America, has been presenting "The Feminist Case Against Abortion" on college campuses all over the country as part of FFLA's College Outreach Program. In Foster's words, "[the] College Outreach Program challenges students to question abortion and asks college and university administrators to provide resources for pregnant and parenting students." Many American college students, both pro-lifers and pro-choicers, have gotten together to host the Pregnancy Resources Forums that FFLA recommends to improve campus life.

Now you can read Serrin Foster's introductory address, The Feminist Case Against Abortion, online. This version was originally published in The Commonwealth.

2002-08-12T15:35:00.000-04:00

Philip Pullman's Anti-Christian Sermons

As Mark Shea put it, Christians are entirely too upset about Harry Potter and not concerned enough about Philip Pullman's atheist-moralistic schlock. To learn more about Pullman's books, check out Christian reviews of them here, here, and here. There's also a bit about Pullman here. For a non-Christian perspective, with quotes from Pullman, look here.

When I say "atheist-moralist schlock," I don't mean that the books aren't very imaginative and fun. In many ways, they are. But they're also horribly preachy, didactic, and moralistic in places. It's ironic that that's one of Pullman's own complaints about Lewis' Narnia books. If anything, Pullman's are far more preachy.