Two courageous women, two evil court rulings

Long ago, I warned that Christians' misguided compassion would come back to bite them in the rear, and since that day, things have gotten so much worse. We Christians apparently still wish to be loved by the popular culture, and we don't seem to realize that the more we appease the beast, the more vicious the beast becomes.

Here is the latest, out of the very left-wing, very secular Washington State:

By a unanimous, 9-0 decision, the Washington Supreme Court...

... ruled that this 72-year-old grandmother [Barronelle Stutzman] who had employed gay workers and served gay customers for years, was required by law to participate in a gay wedding, even though this constituted a direct violation of her religious beliefs — beliefs which have been consistent and almost universally held among Christians for the last 2,000 years. 

Not only so, but the court upheld the attack on her personal assets as well — her house, her savings, her retirement funds — by requiring her “to pay the attorneys’ fees that the ACLU racked up in suing her,” fees which could reach as high as one million dollars.  [emphasis mine]

This kind and decent florist stated the following to the state's attorney general, regarding her motives and beliefs, and her refusal to accept an offer of "settlement":

You don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important. Washington’s constitution guarantees us “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.” I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do. 

I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob [the 'gay' plaintiff] for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so. I truly want the best for my friend. I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case. You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating, and having a home. If you are serious about clarifying the law, then I urge you to drop your claims against my home, business, and other assets and pursue the legal claims through the appeal process.

I pray that the Supreme Court will eventually hear her case and undo the evil judgment that has been rendered against her.

I'll tell you what: I would not want to be one of those nine Washington judges when the ultimate Judgment is meted out by the Just Judge at the Day of Reckoning. Shudder. Pray for them; they need it.

Please read the short piece, here, and consider sharing on your social media. It will not go well with us if we continue to remain silent:

Shame on the Silent Christian Leaders 

Who Refuse to Stand Against Government Tyranny

Barronelle Stutzman (Alliance Defending Freedom)

We welcome any liberals of good will who will stand with us on this important issue of freedom of conscience, even if they disagree with us on gay "marriage". They will surely face a particular ridicule, venom, and attack if they speak against the liberal orthodoxy, but I beg liberals of good will to do what is right.

And if you want to understand how we got here, I implore you, watch Princeton's Professor Robert P. George explain. Take the time. It's so worth it. I was in the audience the night he gave the following talk, sitting next to our amazing Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, who nodded his head throughout. Some of our bishops truly understand, and we, as the laity, also have an obligation to SPEAK.

Stop being afraid, my friends! Cultivate the virtue of courage. It gets easier as you practice courage, I promise! God will give you the grace you need. Do you trust Him enough to take care of you, just as florist Barronelle Stutzman trusts?

+++++++

And now to another strong and courageous woman, an unlikely pro-life hero who stood up against the powers-that-be. 

Yesterday, we lost this wonderful lady, Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, the plaintiff in the tragic Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling. After years of being used and abused by the pro-"choice" side -- she never did have an abortion, and her little girl was placed for adoption, by the way -- she was won by love (wrote a book by that name), became a Christian, and joined the pro-life movement. 

Norma ultimately became a devout Catholic, fighting for the remainder of her days and with all her heart and soul against the evil Supreme Court decision that bears her name. May God welcome His good and faithful servant, His beloved daughter, to her heavenly reward. She had a hard life; may she have eternal rest. 

 Requiescat in pace

All you need to know about abortion

That's really all you need to know.

Because you already know this:

We don't target and kill innocent human beings.
We don't use violence to solve our problems.
We don't pit mothers against their own children in a death match.

Roe v. Wade is a dark and evil mark on our nation, and it must not stand.

Pray, march, speak, and work to end abortion.

Lord, have mercy.

Abortion: How to bypass the conscience

On January 22, we marked the bloodiest anniversary in our nation's history: 42 years since the legalization of abortion. Over 55 million irreplaceable, unrepeatable human beings directly killed. But how? How did we get here? How is it even possible?

Back in June 2011, I wrote about a phenomenal book called What We Can't Not Know, by Professor J. Budziszewski, former atheist. The book is a primer on Natural Law, and it covers a lot about the human conscience, including how we can circumvent it, ignore it, dull it, lull it, or trick it, but how we ultimately cannot escape it.

In a section called "Denial", Budziszewski hits specifically on the topic of abortion:

We can't not know that it is wrong deliberately to take innocent human life; parsing the rule, we find only six possibilities of rationalization.

To follow, I condense and paraphrase the six possibilities he lays out, beginning with what we all know through the light of human reason alone (i.e., the Natural Law):

"It is wrong deliberately to take innocent human life." 

So, in order to give ourselves permission to take innocent human life deliberately, we play with the rule.

1)  It is wrong deliberately to take innocent human life.

"I didn't want to get pregnant/didn't want my girlfriend to get pregnant, I didn't ask for this baby, so I'm not responsible for the abortion. The circumstance forced me to abortion. The circumstances are responsible."


2)  It is wrong deliberately to take innocent human life.

"I'm not taking this life, the doctors are doing it. I'm not really involved in this act, it's on the abortionist."


3)  It is wrong deliberately to take innocent human life.

"The fetus is not innocent. It is an aggressor, an intruder, an uninvited parasite, practically a rapist."


4)  It is wrong deliberately to take innocent human life.

"The embryo or fetus is a thing, not a human person with human rights. It's too small, it's not sentient. It has the potential to become a human."


5)  It is wrong deliberately to take innocent human life.

"It's not really alive. It's just a blood clot or a blob of tissue."

(This one is harder to slip by the conscience in the age of ultrasounds.)


6)  It is wrong deliberately to take innocent human life.

"But sometimes we have to do what is wrong."

Budziszewski's take on #6 (emphasis mine):

This is the most disturbing rationalization of all, because it embraces the wrong with eyes wide open. The temptation is ancient: "Let us do evil that good may result." .... [I]n the present state of the revolution that began with sex we go on past abortion and explore other kinds of killing, like infanticide and the slaying of the weak, the old, and the sick. You cannot justify one evil yet expect the others to keep their place. The cloth of the moral law is too tightly sewn for that; it is made of a single strand. Pluck loose one stitch, and the rest unravels too.... If we have already reached killing, what comes next?

I would argue that what comes next, specifically within the human psyche, is not a pretty place to be:

Laughing at Dead Babies and the Avenging Conscience

Please read it. It's so important. And it all makes sense, doesn't it?

It's often only after we fall into that dark and terrible place that we are moved to turn around again and face the light. Thank heavens for the workings of the conscience (however terrible), the truth of what we can't not know, and the severe mercies of God.

It is wrong deliberately to take innocent human life.

Quick Takes: Wrapping up the (abortion) week

I might as well just start calling this Late Takes!

It's been a hopeful week for pro-lifers, even as we commemorate the horrific and illegitimate man-made law that has costs 55 million American children their very lives.

1)  Wow. Just wow. The March for Life this year in Washington, D.C., marking the 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, was a blow-out success. Approximately 650,000 marchers braved the freezing cold and snow on Friday, most of them young, all of them full of love and joy and determined to end the violence of abortion in our land. There would have been more attendees, but the bad weather kept many folks from traveling.

My nephew was there (as well as several friends of mine, including bloggers!), and he was simply blown away and completely energized. Wouldn't you have been? Check it out:

This went on for hours, as far as the eye could see.

Now, the thing that makes me laugh and laugh and laugh (because it really is ridiculous) is that today the major news outlets (CBS, NBC, ABC), as well as Google and Yahoo News, all carried front page banner stories of a D.C. march, with titles screaming out that "thousands" turned out. But dontcha know, it was not the March for Life! No, this front page story was about a very small march for gun control. One of those major news outlets estimated that there were about 1,000 people in attendence. Another story described the procession as stretching for… two blocks. But this little gathering was deemed major national news, and the March for Life coverage, where it existed, was buried. I had to go searching for it. Even my readers on the left can admit to the blatant media bias here, right?

Oh, and there was another "little" march that happened today and that clearly could not compete with the tiny band of gun control demonstrators. It was the West Coast Walk for Life in San Francisco, where over 50,000 marchers braved a hostile city to honor and remember so many little lives lost to abortion.

I am so proud of my dear friend Karen Williams, who once again stood with several of her sisters who've lived through the nightmare of abortion, and who are Silent No More.


2) I am sure that San Francisco boasts many cars sporting the ubiquitous "Coexist" bumper sticker (you know the one), but I like this version a lot better:

3) I have always contended that pro-abortion feminists must disdain their female bodies, and this brilliant quote speaks to that:

Many feminists insist that abortion is necessary for women to participate freely and equally in society. Anyone who disagrees, they argue, has merely adopted patriarchal standards and accepted women’s ‘place’ in society. Yet this demonstrates how deeply the roots of sexism run in our culture. Its premise is a sexist one - that women are inferior to men and in order to be equal, we have to change our biology to become like men - wombless and unpregnant at will. What other oppressed group in history has had to undergo surgery in order to be equal?   -- Marilyn Dickstien Kopp

4) Another brilliant quote came this week from one of my youngest readers, 17-year-old Chris, who is a religious seeker, not a Catholic or even a Christian:

There are two sides to the pro choice movement. The first side is convinced that fetuses aren't really humans/people. The second side is convinced that it's OK to kill humans/people. The former side is factually incorrect, and the latter side is morally incorrect.

As a lover of clarity, that just really grabbed me. And where does that leave Chris, who used to think that abortion should be allowed? He's weighed the evidence and concludes:

Might does not make right; the strong should not kill the weak; no human being should have a "boss" who decides whether they live or die. 

I can't stand abortion anymore. 

Welcome to the growing and ever-more-youthful club, Chris! I'm so grateful to have a sharp mind like yours on the side of life.


5) Two articles you cannot miss.

The first is from Jen Fulwiler, and it's one of the best articles on abortion I've ever read. I am not alone in that sentiment, if postings and comments on facebook mean anything. It's long, but it's worthy of your time:

Why My Support for Abortion Was Based on Love… and Lies

Jen begins:

When I was younger, I was always particularly shocked when I heard about societies where it was common to abandon or kill unwanted newborns. In college I once read a particularly graphic description of a family in ancient Greece "discarding" a newborn baby girl. I was shocked to the point of breathlessness. I was also horribly confused: How could normal people be okay with this, let alone participate in it? Nobody I knew would do that! Were people that different back then?! 

Because of my deep distress at hearing of things like this, I found it really irritating when pro-lifers would refer to abortion as "killing babies." Obviously, none of us pro-choice folks were in favor of killing babies; to imply otherwise, in my mind, was an insult to the babies throughout history who actually were killed by their insane societies. We weren't in favor of killing anyone. We simply felt like women had the right to stop the growth process of a fetus if she faced an unwanted pregnancy. Sure, it was unfortunate since fetuses had potential to be babies one day, and we recognized that there was something special about that. But, alas, that was a sacrifice that had to be made in the name of not making women slaves to their bodies.

Read the rest, here.


The second article that compelled me this week was from wonderful Kat (The Crescat). I warn you, it is brutal to read. It is not for everyone. If you read it, you will never, ever forget it. But Kat lived it, and I so admire her courage for putting it out there for all to see.

How the Nine Days of Prayer Comforted Me While I Fought Demons

6) Which leads me again to "the sculpture". Oh, the sculpture!

This is the love and comfort that I see Kat's child sending to her… and the love of all the children that my friends have lost through abortion.

May God bless, heal, and redeem every wounded and aching soul that has been left empty by abortion. There is help and hope for everyone, and so many people ready to assist you. Please, never despair. God's love and mercy is so much greater than sin and death.


7) From mothers without children to children without mothers… please meet Tatiana:

Click my photo for more info and another picture!

As I wrote in a recent Orphan Report post, a family had hoped to adopt her, but when they arrived in her country and met her, Tatiana's needs were far greater than what they had expected. Reluctantly, they had to let her go (and they did go on to adopt another orphan more suited to the level of care they could give). 

So, Tatiana is sill available, and waiting for that very special family that can take on a child with FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) and possibly other conditions or behavioral issues that have been exacerbated by life in an institution. She is just six years old, and I pray that by her seventh birthday, she will have a family committed to bringing her home.

Have a restful Sunday, and thanks to Jen for hosting!

Over 50 million "choices"?

Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973: The birth of "choice"

Doesn't "choice" sound so appealing, so pleasant, so desirable? I think so. Personally, I love to choose. After all, I chose where I went to college, I chose my spouse, my wardrobe, the names for our children, and even the drapes in my home (well, with Danya's help!). Choice is super-cool! Good golly, who doesn't love choice? Heck, everyone loves choice!

Well, except the "choice" to shred little babies in their mothers' wombs. In that case, we all understand that "choice" is merely a euphemism, no?

Here's the definition of euphemism, from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

The substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant. 

See, they substitute "choice" (agreeable, inoffensive) for "willful, direct killing of unborn human children" (offensive, unpleasant).

Get how that works? Isn't that something?

Jill Stanek has encouraged pro-life bloggers to call out abortion advocates on their pretty little euphemism of "choice".

So I turn to pro-"choicers" who have embraced the soothing euphemism: What do you mean by "choice"? You demand a "woman's right to choose", but why don't you finish the sentence? A woman's right to choose… what?

What do you mean by "choice"?

*Heartbreaking testimony about "choice", here, from my friend Karen Williams.

In memory of the 50 million

50 million babies aborted in America since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion on this date in 1973.

In Blessed Mother Teresa's words:

What is taking place in America is a war against the child. And if we accept that the mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?

Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants. 

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.

Suffering follow-up: Jesus' "affliction" on the Cross. Plus a site and a book you don't want to miss...

A while back, I wrote a two-part post on the secular vs. Catholic meaning of suffering, posted here and here. That's the background for today's post, so read it if you haven't already, and come right back! We'll wait!

Back already? Okay then, on we go....

Recently, Kristy commented on the suffering posts with a question:

OK, I've been pondering this post. It is a very clear explanation for me. I asked some other friends about it (all Protestant), and one replied with the explanation that the word "afflictions" is never used of the suffering of Jesus on the cross. Do you know if this is true? His point was that the "affliction" was describing what Jesus endured in ministry. These afflictions are not yet complete and in this sense Jesus still suffers as He ministers through His people. 

I am soooooo curious what you would have to say about that one. I know what my gut tells me, but I always have a hard time putting it into words. 

Well, to get the best answer to a Bible question, there was no question about what to do next! I asked Gayle Somers!

COR ARDENS CATHOLIC SCRIPTURE STUDIES

Here's what Gayle said:

It's curious (and, to my mind, somewhat arbitrary) to assume that because the word "afflicted" isn't used of Jesus in the Gospels about His suffering on the Cross, it would only refer to what He experienced in His ministry before the Cross.  One of the most powerful OT passages about Jesus, the Suffering Servant, says this:

"He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.  Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows, yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.  But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities." (Isa. 53:3-5).

Surely this is a prophecy of Christ's redemptive work on the Cross, and it uses the word "afflicted."

There is another Pauline verse that speaks about the dying of Christ (which He did only on the Cross) being in our bodies as well:

"But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us.  We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair, persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies" (2 Cor. 4:7-10).

It seems clear from these verses that St. Paul was associating the afflictions in his body with the suffering of Christ on the Cross.  Of course, Jesus gave a direct invitation to ALL of us to join Him on the Cross--"If any man would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me" (Mt. 16:24).  There would be no point in Jesus making reference to a cross if He only meant self-denial in a kind of spiritual way.  He meant for us to deny ourselves AND to join Him in His suffering on a cross.

One other point:  I read through the blog and some of the posts, and I don't think I saw it mentioned that when Jesus freely accepted His suffering and death on the Cross, He was acknowledging that these were the just punishments of God on man's sin.  Man's sin is that serious.  So, when we ourselves enter into some kind of suffering, I think it's helpful to have a brief moment when we acknowledge that, too.  The great gift comes, as you so wonderfully made clear, when we realize that our suffering can be joined to the Lord's to accomplish the very reason He was willing to suffer on the Cross.  So beautiful!

Thank you, Gayle! And, I hope this answers your question, Kristy!

+++++++

Okay, since we are talking Scripture, I thought I would tell you about a very cool new site. 

A regular Bubble reader, Lori, tried to find a clickable "read-the-Bible-in-a-year" plan for Catholics. She could only find Protestant versions online (which do not include the Deuterocanonical books), so she decided to make a Catholic site herself! The result is Reading the Catholic Bible in a Year, which I will be using myself since it's convenient and uncomplicated! Enjoy!

+++++++

And finally, I hope you have already ordered your copy of Unplanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader's Eye-Opening Journey across the Life Line, by Abby Johnson. It's being released today, and it's currently #13 the Amazon Top 100, praise God!

You may know the story, but if not, here's a quick overview:

In October 2009, after eight years with Planned Parenthood, clinic director Abby Johnson quit. She had been asked to assist in the ultrasound-guided abortion of a 13-week-old baby, and what she witnessed was enough to make her walk headlong into the pro-life movement. In fact, she joined the very group which counseled outside her clinic. Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood took her to court after that, in an attempt to keep her silent. The judge listened to PP and promptly dismissed the case.


Abby joins the ranks of many other courageous converts to the pro-life cause, including Norma McCorvey ("Roe" of Roe v. Wade) and Dr. Bernard Nathanson (co-founder of NARAL).


I've already ordered my book, and I hope you will, too.

+++++++

One last thing: 

Those of you who are new to the Bubble, and those of you old-timers who are just lazy (you know who you are) -- I want your faith story. If you are Catholic, write about your spiritual journey, post it on your blog (and let me know when it's been posted), and I will link your story to the "Bloggers' Faith Stories" at the top of the page. 

Thanks!

Contraception leads to abortion. Come and see...

For most of my teen years, I openly opposed abortion. When I was occasionally asked if I opposed contraception, too, I always responded like this: "No, I don't have a problem with contraception, because contraception prevents abortions!" Everyone always agreed with my answer, because it was common sense: Widespread acceptance and use of contraception makes abortion rare.


Right?


Well... not exactly. 


In my mid-twenties, I was forced to reexamine my ideas on a whole range of life issues. By that point, I was all about conforming my mind and life to the truth, no matter where the truth led me, and no matter how uncomfortable.


What my studies on contraception bore out was indeed humbling, and I had to eat my words. The truth is the opposite of what I had spouted for years. The truth is that, at the macro-level, contraception leads to abortion. Where contraception is widely accepted, abortion follows. 


It makes sense if you think about it, because contraception is a contract that says: "We agree to have sex but we do not agree to have a baby." However, the contract (contraception) fails so often that a fail-proof back-up plan is needed, and that fail-proof back-up plan is abortion.*


Let's look at evidence of how this all plays out in real life....


On the secular front, Margaret Sanger spearheaded the contraception movement with her founding of Planned Parenthood, originally named the American Birth Control League. Sanger did not champion abortion, she championed contraception. As natural progression would have it, Planned Parenthood went from peddling contraception to peddling abortion; today it is the largest provider of abortions in our nation. The progression from contraception to abortion was natural and easy.


Within Christianity, the acceptance of contraception began with the Anglican Church in 1930. They cracked the door to allow contraception only for married folk, and only in serious situations. Within a few decades, however, contraception had become widely accepted by the Anglicans and most other Christian churches, many of which then slid into acceptance of abortion as well. The Episcopal Church (the American branch of the Anglican Church) now officially and proudly supports abortion rights, as do many other mainline Protestant denominations -- all of which traditionally condemned contraception. For much of Protestant Christianity, the progression from contraception to abortion has been natural (if not always easy). 


Now let's look at how abortion came to us legally. 


Roe v. Wade was the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide. A "right to privacy" legal argument was used as the basis for that tragic decision. However, most Americans are unaware that the "right to privacy" (words not found in the Constitution) did not originate with Roe v. Wade, but with Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965, and Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972. What were those cases? Griswold was the case that legalized the sale of contraception to married people, and Eisenstadt was the case that extended the same "right" to unmarried people. The "right to privacy" regarding contraception cleared the way for the "right to privacy" regarding abortion. The legal road from contraception to abortion was natural and easy. 


But contraception and abortion don't have to be connected, right?


Well... not exactly.


Even the liberals justices on the Supreme Court of the United States (Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 1992) understood clearly that acceptance of contraception requires abortion as a back-up. That Court ruling stated that Roe v. Wade could not be overturned because 

...for two decades of economic and social developments, [people] have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.     [emphasis mine]

Did you get that? We have organized our entire society around access to abortion, which is the fail-proof back-up for contraception!


The Casey ruling also states: "In some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception" [emphasis mine].  


So, the pro-abortion liberal Supreme Court justices have seen and understood the symbiotic relationship between contraception and abortion. 


Have you?


If not, would some studies convince you?


There have been several, but consider the most recent study out of Spain, published this month in the journal, Contraception. The researchers found that Spanish women's increase in contraceptive use coincides with a huge increase in the abortion rate. The authors of the study seem confused by the results, calling them "interesting and paradoxical" and suggesting "further investigation". 


There is no need for further investigation, really. The findings make sense. Contraception is a contract, the contract fails, and abortion is the back-up. Logical, natural. This always happens. Contraception leads to abortion. 


I appeal to my Christian brothers and sisters: Reconsider your support for contraception, and turn back to the wisdom of traditional Christian teaching. We've been taught that contraception will make abortion "rare" but that's a lie. Don't believe it any longer. Contraception and abortion are sisters in the Culture of Death, an unholy alliance. Reject both and choose life!


And to those pro-"choice" folks who sincerely believe that pushing contraception can be our "common ground" in working to make abortion rare, I hope you now see why that is impossible:


Because contraception leads to abortion.

+++++++

In this discussion of how contraception leads to abortion, I have not even touched upon the fact that in some cases (the Pill, IUDs), contraception is abortion. The abortifacient nature of hormonal contraception and IUDs is the subject of a future post, but the very fact of it further exposes the incestuous relationship between contraception and abortion. 

*Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. (Guttmacher)