LifeSiteNews.com - Thursday November 6, 2008
* Comments on November 6 News
* Obama Solidifies Pro-Abortion Agenda with "Attack Dog" Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff
* Payback Time: What Planned Parenthood Expects from Barack Obama
* Archbishop Chaput Calls upon Obama Catholic Kmiec to Lobby against Abortion
* First Trial against an US Surgeon for Killing a Patient to Harvest Organs Begins
* Same-Sex "Marriage" Supporters Furious at California Loss: Lawsuits Filed Challenging Proposition 8
* B.C. Group Calls for Legalization of Assisted Suicide Following Washington Vote
* Non-Terminal People Increasingly Seeking Assisted Suicide in Switzerland
* Study Finds Catholic Colleges Have Little Positive Impact on Faith, Values
* Spanish Parliament Urged not to Loosen Abortion Law
* New Brunswick to Appeal Ruling Favorable to Morgentaler
* Irish Cardinal Warns against Homosexual "Marriage"
* Sweden Considers "Gender Neutral Marriage" Law
* 40 Days for Life Leader: Pro-Lifers Must Look Beyond Elections and Focus on Making a Local Impact
* Letters From Readers
DONATE to LifeSiteNews.com http://www.lifesite.net/contribute/lifesite/
NEWS TIPS to lsn@lifesitenews.com or call 1-888-678-6008 Press 1
Change email address - http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/subscribe/update/
Comments on November 6 News
Obama not a healer, trust Stephen Mosher, why Catholics voted for Obama, the real haters, what can be done?
Dear Readers,
See the additional emails from readers that have come in since last night. If you are new to LifeSiteNews some of these should help you to better understand the value of this international daily news service (it is not a newsletter) to so many of our readers.
As for today's news, it is mostly another day of difficult realities that we must become informed about and face. Much of what you read here you will not see in the mainstream media or reported as honestly as we do.
The quick appointment of Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is a strong confirmation that Obama will not be a healer bringing the nation together - as many have been led to believe.
We wish very much that we could be positive, welcoming and trusting about the new administration, as many are, but quite frankly it is more likely that weakness or naivety will be rewarded with ruthlessness in the years ahead. All the evidence seen to date tells us that. Barack has made his real intentions very clear to those willing to do a little reading and research beyond the mainstream media.
Stephen Mosher of the Population Research Institute tells us in his article today what we should expect on abortion from an Obama administration. Mosher has been very effective in exposing the extreme abortion agenda of Communist China and getting the US to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in aid from China because of this. We should trust his judgement.
A majority of Catholics voted for Barack Obama despite the overwhelming evidence of his extreme position against fundamental Catholic/Christian moral and life principles. It is not too difficult to determine why this happened.
The report today on the negative spiritual and moral environment in most US Catholic colleges is one of many other examples of the huge abandonment of first duties by most of the nation's Catholic leaders for the past 40 years. Hence, we get a majority of Catholics voting for culture of death politicians and falling prey to media manipulation and seductively created image.
The homosexual activist reaction to the voter approval of Proposition 8 is instructive. These folks have absolutely no respect for democracy, freedom of expression or freedom of religion. They very frequently accuse those who disagree with them of "hate" but today's report gives plenty of evidence of who the real haters are. Pro-family people do not hate and must never hate homosexual inclined persons. The hate charge is only a tactic and a very effective but totally dishonest one.
What can be done about all this? Well, a lot actually. You see, the big problem is that good people have not done what they should have, especially since the 1960s. All kinds of destructive trends have grown because of very weak opposition and the abandonment of traditional religious belief and practice. So, the solution is an awakening of the good - and most people are indeed good. Once this really begins to happen, through a renewal of religious faith, nothing can stop a renewal of a culture of life.
Steve Jalsevac
LifeSiteNews.com
Obama Solidifies Pro-Abortion Agenda with "Attack Dog" Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff
Pro-Life Movement faces another 100% pro-abortion leader
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., November 6, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Social conservatives expecting centrist policies in the Obama administration after repeated promises of "reaching across the aisle" may be taken aback now that President-Elect Obama has chosen Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., as his future Chief of Staff. Emanuel, a former Clinton advisor famous for his tenacious and sometimes rabid demeanor, sports an overwhelmingly liberal and 100% pro-abortion voting record.
According to an AP report, House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio called Emanuel "an ironic choice for a president-elect who has promised to change Washington, make politics more civil, and govern from the center."
Like President-Elect Obama, Emanuel has earned a 100% pro-abortion rating from NARAL - an early indication that Obama plans to stock his administration with figures as hostile to pro-life efforts as himself. Emanuel, a formidable man known for his almost coercive tactics as a fundraiser and whom the LA Times called a "political assassin," will present Obama's opposition with a force to be reckoned with.
As an Illinois Congressman, Emanuel has voted against abortion restrictions with the same gusto as Obama, including a vote to strike down the 2003 federal partial-birth abortion ban. That year, he also voted against prohibiting U.S. tax dollars from subsidizing abortions. In 2004, he voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which nonetheless passed.
Another similarity between Obama and Emanuel lies in their support for homosexuality: in both 2004 and 2006 Emanuel voted against the Marriage Protection Amendment. Obama also refused to protect true marriage in his years as a legislator.
In 2005, Emanuel voted against parental notification and consent laws regarding abortions for minors. He then voted to protect federal funding of Planned Parenthood in 2007.
Throughout his congressional career, Emanuel consistently supported embryonic stem cell research and human cloning.
Emanuel first made waves as a Clinton campaign fundraiser, from where he eventually ascended to Director of Finance in the Clinton White House.
Emanuel's fiery temper and drive to succeed have become almost legendary. As reported by the Telegraph, Emanuel's associates recall that, as a Clinton advisor, Emanuel once grew so enraged during a discussion of the president's political opponents that he grabbed a steak knife, stood up and began reciting a list of the opponents' names, shouting "Dead! Dead! Dead!" after each, accompanied by a thrust of the knife into the table.
In 2005, Emanuel became the "golden boy" of the Democratic Party when as Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee he helped launch the Democratic Party into a majority in the House in 2006.
Having accepted a position of power in the U.S. government frequently equal to or greater than that of the vice presidency, few doubt that Emanuel will make his presence known.
"Congressional Republicans respect what he has been able to do," John Feehery, a former employee for several congressmen including House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, told the L.A. Times. "They think he's a formidable opponent. ... They won't particularly love him, but if he's smart, they will respect him."
Back to Top | Print this Story | Email to a Friend | View Story on LifeSiteNews.comPayback Time: What Planned Parenthood Expects from Barack Obama
Commentary by Steven W. Mosher and Colin Mason
November 6, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The decades-long love affair between Barack Obama and Planned Parenthood has reached its political fruition. Obama will soon be ensconced in the Oval Office, with all the people who helped put him there lined up outside for goodies. At the head of the line will be Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. What will they ask for?
The three things that they want from a President Obama are more money for their contraception and sterilization programs, an end to any and all restrictions on abortions, and taxpayer funding, including funding for abortion itself.
Judging by what Obama has said over the course of the campaign, he will be happy to grant their wishes.
First of all, Barack Obama has pledged to pay for abortions with our tax dollars. According to his own web site, he is an original co-sponsor of the "Prevention First Act," which will "increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims."
What this reasonable-sounding languages disguises, of course, is the ugly reality that the Prevention First Act would actually force insurance companies to fund, doctors to prescribe, and pharmacies to dispense, abortifacient contraceptives. "Providing compassionate assistance to rape victims," when translated into plain English, means forcing you and I to pay for morning after pills and abortions.
Second, Obama has also promised - in the strongest possible terms - to sign the radical Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would prohibit the states from "interference with a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability or ... after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman." It would also prohibit so-called "discrimination ... in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information." If passed, the Freedom of Choic Act would nullify any and all restrictions on abortion, from parental consent laws, to waiting periods, to informed consent provisions, and the like. All of the hard work of pro-lifers over the past three decades would be swept away.
Third, and potentially most damaging in the long run, Obama has pledged to appoint Supreme Court justices based on their friendliness to his agenda, and not their qualifications as impartial arbiters of the law. In Obama's own words, he will surely appoint people of like mind, assuring us that he wants to put "people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling for what ordinary people are going through." So much for the Constitution.
As it stands now, the Supreme Court is effectively deadlocked on the Life issues, with Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas as reliable pro-life votes, and Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens and Souter equally reliably pro-abortion. With at least two justices getting on in years and another reportedly expressing interest in retiring, the next president may have ample opportunity to appoint more than one judge to the land's highest court.
In the face of Obama's expected onslaught against Life what can we do?
Those with pro-life convictions must continue to act on those convictions. We must continue to be a presence outside of abortion centers in order to let women know that there is a "choice" beyond abortion. We must continue to help women who come to our crises pregnancy centers with counseling and baby cribs. We must let our remaining friends in the House and Senate know that we expect them, although outnumbered, to stand and fight for Life. Unless the Party of Abortion can muster 60 votes in the Senate, the Freedom of Choice Act will be a dead letter.
Finally, we must redouble our efforts to expose the abortion movement for what it is: An anti-child, anti-woman movement that has cost America 50 million lives and counting.
(Note: This article first appeared in the Population Research Institute's newsletter - http://www.pop.org)
Back to Top | Print this Story | Email to a Friend | View Story on LifeSiteNews.comArchbishop Chaput Calls upon Obama Catholic Kmiec to Lobby against Abortion
By Kathleen Gilbert
DENVER, Colorado, November 6, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Following Obama's election Archbishop Chaput of Denver has continued a somewhat heated exchange with Doug Kmiec, the Catholic law professor criticized for actively supporting the pro-abortion president-elect. The archbishop has now challenged Kmiec to press Obama to abandon his extremist agenda against human life.
In a statement appearing on The Witherspoon Institute's web site, Public Discourse, Kmeic had expressed to Archbishop Chaput his frustration at the hail of criticism he had received from the archbishop and other Catholics for supporting Obama.
"I understand his discomfort with the tone of this election," replied Archbishop Chaput. "Nonetheless, good manners do not trump facts."
"I'm disappointed that in the course of his advocacy, the professor has apparently never faced up to the facts of Sen. Obama's longstanding and extensive efforts to deprive an entire class of human beings--unborn children--of basic legal protections against homicide," the archbishop continued. "Nor does Prof. Kmiec acknowledge that the foundational principle of the entire social Gospel is the right of every member of the human family to protection against unjust violent attack."
Archbishop Chaput has made headlines in the past election season as perhaps the most outspoken U.S. bishop on the Catholic obligation to vote pro-life.
Having been such a strong supporter of Obama, said Archbishop Chaput, "Prof. Kmiec has a unique opportunity to press a newly elected President Obama to reconsider his most extreme positions, such as his support for partial-birth abortion ... and his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act."
Kmiec and the archbishop first locked horns when Chaput strongly criticized Kmeic's idea that Catholic social doctrine could be supported by the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history. "To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year's 'real' prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse," said the archbishop at an October 17 ENDOW dinner address.
"[Kmiec's] activism for Senator Obama ... have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress prolifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn," the archbishop had continued.
Kmeic responded to the speech earlier this week, saying that while the archbishop is a "well spoken defender of the faith," he disagrees "on the intent of Cardinal Ratzinger's instruction of 'proportionate reasons' and ... I am fearful that your interpretation will lead many in parishes around the country to neglect what they can do to build up the culture of life through the promotion of the social gospel in its fullest sense.
"I hope you and I might collaborate to enliven in our parishes across the country ... a template for protecting 'Life to the Full,'" said Kmiec.
In his latest response, Archbishop Chaput encouraged Kmiec to put his pro-life beliefs into action by striking at the deepest root of injustice against life - the evil of abortion.
"Along with many, many other Catholics and prolife citizens, I look forward eagerly to Prof. Kmiec's vocal advocacy against these profoundly unjust policies," he said.
To see Archbishop Chaput's full statement:
http://thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.11.05_Chaput_Charles%20J._A%20Letter%20to%20the%20Editor%20from%20Charles%20J.%20Chaput_.xml
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Denver Archbishop Chaput: Obama Supporting Pro-life Catholics "Absurd"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102005.html
First Trial against an US Surgeon for Killing a Patient to Harvest Organs Begins
By Jonquil Frankham
CALIFORNIA, November 6, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A San Francisco surgeon is undergoing trial for allegedly hastening the death of a terminally ill patient to harvest his vital organs.
The case against Hootan Roozrokh is believed to be the first of its kind brought against an American transplant surgeon.
Rosa Navarro, the patient's mother, successfully filed suit against the hospital where the patient died and received $250,000 in compensation. Now the District Attorney's office is pressing charges against the 34-year-old surgeon for "dependent adult abuse, administering a harmful substance and prescribing controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose."
Roozrokh is also being charged with giving the 25-year old Ruben Navarro an antiseptic called Betadine, normally administered to an organ donor after death, via feeding tube to the stomach. Some commentators suggest the antiseptic was ultimately responsible for the patient's death.
Roozrokh attempted to induce what is known as "cardiac death," a new criteria for determining "death," by delivering abnormally high doses of painkillers in order to retrieve vital organs from Ruben Navarro. "Cardiac death" is distinct from "brain death," an older criterion for determining death that requires a cessation of all brain function prior to harvesting vital organs.
Toronto physician and LifeSiteNews medical adviser Dr. John Shea, MD, FRCP (C), says that in order to determine if a patient meets the "cardiac death" criteria the patient's respirator is removed while the heart is still beating.
"If the heart stopped beating within an hour, the surgeon waited two to five minutes before taking out the organs. If the heart had not stopped beating within an hour, the patient would be returned to a hospital bed to die without any further treatment," writes Dr. Shea.
On January 29, 2006, Ruben Navarro stopped breathing on his own, and was put on a respirator. On February 3 he still had not recovered consciousness, though his mother claimed she saw "signs of recovery."
Medical staff then removed Navarro to the operating room and withdrew his respirator, claiming that hospital policy required them to "pull the plug" after five days on life support without patient recovery. Navarro continued to live, however, and Dr. Roozrokh, is reported to have then told nurses, "Let's just give him some more candy." The patient was given high doses of morphine and Ativan to hasten death.
Navarro's heart continued to beat, and after one hour his organs were no longer considered useable. He was removed from the operating room and died several hours later.
Besides the ambiguity surrounding the actual moment of death, Dr. Shea writes that harvesting organs at either the point of brain death or cardiac death creates a conflict of interest on the part of the attending physician and fosters a "utilitarian" approach to life and death.
According to California state law, in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest, transplant surgeons cannot direct the care of potential donors while the patient is still in treatment. In this case, however, sources have reported to police that, contrary to that requirement, Dr. Roozrokh was directing the administration of drugs to Mr. Navarro while in the operating room.
Writing about the "utilitarian rationale" behind the invention of the "brain death" criterion, Shea says that "it was no longer the interest of the dying to avoid being declared 'dead' prematurely, but the community's interest in declaring a dying person dead as soon as possible." Shea's criticisms would also apply to the "cardiac death" criterion.
The utilitarian approach to life and death that is increasingly pervading the organ donation industry is obvious from an article published this October by two Oxford scholars, which suggests that, rather than ensuring that brain death and cardiac death are indeed true death, "we could abandon the dead donor rule," as LifeSiteNews reported.
"We could for example, allow organs to be taken from people who are not brain dead, but who have suffered such severe injury that they would be permanently unconscious, like Terry Schiavo, who would be allowed to die anyway by removal of their medical treatment," wrote Julian Savulescu, the Uehiro Chair of Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, and neonatologist and Oxford graduate student Dominic Wilkinson
Bioethics International writes that the Roozrokh case "is likely to raise uneasiness among potential organ donors and could prompt doctors to shy away from a somewhat controversial practice of retrieving organs before a patient is brain dead."
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Shock: Oxford Neonatologist Says Time Has Come to Consider "Mandatory Organ Donation"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102413.html
Organ Transplant Doctor Investigated in Non-Heart Beating Donation Case
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/mar/07030903.html
Mother Alleges Doctor Murdered Her Handicapped Son to Harvest His Organs
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jul/07070603.html
Charges Brought against Transplant Doctor Accused of "Hastening" Patient's Death
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07080103.html
Same-Sex "Marriage" Supporters Furious at California Loss: Lawsuits Filed Challenging Proposition 8
By Kathleen Gilbert
SACRAMENTO, California, November 6, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Hours after Californians won the battle to protect the true definition of marriage through Proposition 8, numerous lawsuits have been filed in California courts by frustrated homosexualist activists bent on overruling the voter-approved amendment.
Three lawyers filed separate lawsuits on Wednesday claiming that Proposition 8 was an illegal constitutional revision, rather than an amendment. Proposition 8 adds to the state constitution the sentence: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
"If they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it," Frank Schubert, co-chairman of the Proposition 8 campaign, told the LA Times, in response to the flurry of lawsuits. "But they don't. They go behind the people's back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society."
In all three states in the US where same-sex "marriage" is or has been legal, it was imposed by a court decision and not by the legislature or the citizens.
Having won one of the most hard-fought battles in the 2008 election, Proposition 8 overturned the May ruling of four activist judges who declared same-sex "marriage" legal in California. This ruling was handed down despite the strong majority of Californians who had voted to include the true definition of marriage in the state's Family Code in 2000.
The victory of Proposition 8, and that of similar legislation in Florida and Arizona, was met with jubilation from pro-family advocates Wednesday as a strong sign of hope for true marriage protection across the country.
But homosexual couples and lobbyists nationwide are seeing red now that same-sex "marriage" has suffered a massive blow.
The first lawsuit against Proposition 8 came from the ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal. Santa Clara County and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles brought a second case against the new legislation to court. The third came from Los Angeles lawyer Gloria Allred on behalf of a "married" lesbian couple. Homosexual rights groups are arguing that the constitution's "core commitment to equality for everyone" has been violated by the true marriage amendment.
Besides the lawsuits, reports of threats aimed at Christian and other religious groups have been pouring in since it became clear that Proposition 8 would pass.
In a blog entry titled "You'll Want to Punch them" on Queerty.com, poster "BillyBob Thornton" wrote, "I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our Equal Rights, But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one." "Stenar" asked, "Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT."
"Jonathan" warned, "I'm going to give them something to be f – ing scared of. … I'm a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they've done."
Meanwhile, at JoeMyGod.blogspot.com, "World O Jeff," said, "Burn their f–ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers." While, "Tread," wrote, "I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives." "Joe," stated, "I swear, I'd murder people with my bare hands this morning."
And on the Americablog.com Web site, "scottinsf" posted, "Trust me. I've got a big list of names of mormons and catholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. … As far as mormons and catholics … I warn them to watch their backs."
Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Alliance Action and Liberty Counsel, said, "This is not just a matter of some people blowing off steam because they're not happy with a political outcome.
"This is criminal activity. The homosexual lobby is always calling for 'tolerance' and 'diversity' and playing the role of victim. They claim to deplore violence and 'hate.'"
But now that the homosexual lobby is on the defensive, says Barber, they pull out all the stops in expressing their violent hate for religious believers and supporters of true marriage.
"Imagine if Christian Web sites were advocating such violence against homosexuals," he emphasizes. "There'd be outrage, and rightfully so. It'd be national front-page news."
Back to Top | Print this Story | Email to a Friend | View Story on LifeSiteNews.comB.C. Group Calls for Legalization of Assisted Suicide Following Washington Vote
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
VANCOUVER, November 6, 2008 (LifeSIteNews.com) - In the aftermath of the passing of Washington State's assisted-suicide initiative in Tuesday's election, a B.C. group is calling for similar legislation in Canada.
The Washington "Death with Dignity Act," which allows physicians to prescribe a fatal dose of medication to patients whom a doctor feels is likely to die within six months, is modeled on Oregon's assisted suicide law.
Dr. Brian Finnemore, of the Right to Die Society of Canada, said he would support a similar bill in Canada and hoped to see debate on the issue resume on this side of the border.
"The polls show the majority of citizens want to have a choice about how they die," he said in a Vancouver Province report.
Palliative care physician and UBC instructor Dr. Margaret Cottle, of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of Canada, told the CBC, "The debate here never really goes away." She added, "There is not a shred of [scientific] evidence that anybody is better off dead. Palliative care does bring relief to the vast majority of people."
Dr. Robert C. Pankratz of Canadian Physicians for Life said in a statement on the need to improve end-of-life care in Canada that the "answer to the current push for death on demand is the hospice movement and the understanding and availability of excellent palliative care."
He emphasized that "the general population seems woefully under-informed about the ability of modern medicine to alleviate symptoms in the last days of life."
Though the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against assisted suicide in the 1994 case of Sue Rodriguez of Victoria, several attempts have been made in recent years to reintroduce legislation to legalize assisted suicide.
In 2005 Bloc Québécois MP Francine Lalonde introduced a private members bill (C-407) to legalize assisted suicide in Canada.
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) Executive Director Alex Schadenberg condemned the measure saying, "This bill is so wide open it provides no effective restrictions whatsoever and if passed it will be assisted suicide on demand."
The bill died on the table when an election was called in December of that year, but Lalonde vowed to resurrect the measure "sooner than later."
Had Lalonde's bill C-407 passed, the law in Canada would have allowed any individual to "assist" someone to commit suicide with or without a doctor present.
At the time, Dr. Joseph Ayoub, an oncologist and professor of medical ethics at the University of Montreal said, "Assisted suicide does not honour human dignity – especially now in the modern era of medicine, when there are ways to heal patients physically and psychologically," and described opening the door to legalized assisted suicide as the "slippery slope" that would lead to widespread acceptance of assisted suicide and eventually euthanasia.
Back to Top | Print this Story | Email to a Friend | View Story on LifeSiteNews.comNon-Terminal People Increasingly Seeking Assisted Suicide in Switzerland
By Tim Waggoner
ZURICH, November 6, 2008 (LifeSIteNews.com) – A recent study has revealed that a large number of non-terminally ill men and women are seeking assisted suicide in Switzerland, which has some of the most liberal laws in the world governing the controversial practice. Conservative bioethicists have responded saying they not surprised by the findings, claiming that the roots established by the euthanasia movement have created a slippery slope that will ultimately lead to a universal human "right to die."
Researchers from the University of Zurich and the Zurich University of Applied Sciences examined the cases of 421 people who obtained assisted suicides in Switzerland between 2001 and 2004. The study focused on the two assisted-suicide groups, Dignitas and Exit, who helped 274 and 147 people, respectively, commit suicide.
They found that 79 percent of the 274 people with Dignitas and 67 percent of the 147 with Exit were terminally ill; the remaining individuals were not terminally ill when they committed suicide. The study also found that 91 percent of those who died with Dignitas were foreigners, compared to the three percent of foreigners choosing Exit.
Susan Fischer, who co-authored the review on assisted suicides in Zurich said, "Being tired of life and in very poor health are becoming more frequent reasons to seek help to commit suicide than in the past."
Other experts go one step further, saying that reasons such as suffering or being tired of life are accidentals to the main campaign by the assisted suicide/euthanasia movement, which is focused on establishing a universal human "right to die."
"This is not new, because the right to die movement for a long time had been promoting the concept of euthanasia for those people who are tired of living," said Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, in a LifeSiteNews.com interview. "All it means is that the people at the Dignitas and Exit clinics have fulfilled these ideals by offering death on demand. They have gone where other places are planning to go."
Schadenberg related how he witnessed a Dutch speaker at a 2006 right to die conference promoting a universal human right to die. "The Swiss, in their clinics, are fulfilling what the other groups are fighting to achieve. This is not about terminal illness, or suffering. It's about their final goal which is the universal human right to die."
Exit officially rejected the study in a statement. But in an interview with Reuters, Bernhard Sutter of Exit's board admitted that about one third of the people committing suicide with Exit are people not suffering from a fatal disease, but are in a "bad state."
"We help only people with fatal diseases or who are very seriously ill. For the last 12 years, the number suffering from fatal diseases has always been the same, between 65 and 75 percent. The rest, maybe a third or less, are very ill," said Sutter.
Prominent bioethicist Wesley Smith also addressed the growing assisted suicide trend, alluding to the fact that the umbrella of circumstances in which assisted suicide or euthanasia are permitted will only be broadened as the practice becomes more socially accepted.
Anyone pondering the issue rationally, he said, "would realize that once assisted suicide/euthanasia consciousness becomes widely accepted, the categories of the terminated expand. And now, waddya know, a study of assisted suicide in Switzerland shows that an increasing number of the cases have been of people who are not terminally ill."
"Expect that trend to continue as the idea that ending life is an acceptable answer to human suffering digs deeper into the world's moral bedrock," finished Smith.
In related news, the November fourth vote saw Washington become the second US state allowing legal assisted suicide. Initiative 1000, the Washington "Death with Dignity Act," which allows physicians to prescribe a fatal dose of medication to patients whom a doctor feels is likely to die within six months, passed in the state 59% to 41%.
For related coverage see:
Washington Becomes 2nd US State with Legal Assisted Suicide
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110503.html
Study Finds Catholic Colleges Have Little Positive Impact on Faith, Values
MANASSAS, VA, November 6, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A groundbreaking survey of Catholic college students published by The Cardinal Newman Society's (CNS) Center for the Study of Catholic Higher Education finds that most students on Catholic campuses reject key Catholic moral values and tenets of the faith, and significant numbers engage in pre-marital sexuality activity and the viewing of pornography.
The study was released in the wake of Tuesday's presidential election, just as many commentators are looking for reasons why the Catholic vote broke the way it did in such large numbers for a pro-abortion candidate.
It is the only known nationally representative survey of students at Catholic colleges and universities. CNS released a report five years ago, drawing on data from 38 Catholic colleges collected by UCLA's Higher Education Research Institute. That study found that students' support for Catholic teaching on abortion, gay marriage and other issues declined over four years at a Catholic institution.
For the current study, CNS commissioned QEV Analytics, which conducted an analysis of the Catholic vote for Crisis magazine prior to the 2000 presidential election, to conduct the random survey of current and recent students at U.S. Catholic colleges and universities, all between the ages of 18 and 29. QEV President Steven Wagner, a former researcher for the U.S. Information Agency, has conducted studies for several federal agencies and the National Center on Additional and Substance Abuse (CASA).
"Most respondents say that the experience of attending a Catholic institution made no difference in their support for the Catholic Church or its teaching or their participation in Catholic Sacraments," Wagner writes in his report.
Key findings demonstrate that large numbers of students at Catholic colleges and universities are in clear conflict with the Catholic Church:
- Nearly 1 in 5 knew another student who had or paid for an abortion.
- 46% of current and recent students—and 50% of females—said they engaged in sex outside of marriage.
- 84% said they had friends who engaged in premarital sex.
- 60% agreed strongly or somewhat that abortion should be legal.
- 60% agreed strongly or somewhat that premarital sex is not a sin.
- 78% disagreed strongly or somewhat that using a condom to prevent pregnancy was a serious sin.
- 57% agreed strongly or somewhat that same-sex "marriage" should be legal.
- 57% said the experience of attending a Catholic college or university had no effect on their participation in Mass and the sacrament of reconciliation.
- 54% of respondents said that their experience of attending a Catholic college or university had no effect on their support for the teachings of the Catholic Church.
- 56% said their experience had no effect on their respect for the Pope and bishops.
In April 2008 Pope Benedict XVI, recognizing the reality on many Catholic campuses, told Catholic college presidents gathered at The Catholic University of America that the Catholic faith must permeate all aspects of Catholic campus life.
"Is the faith tangible in our universities and schools?" the Holy Father asked the college presidents. "Only in this way do we really bear witness to the meaning of who we are and what we uphold. From this perspective one can recognize that the contemporary 'crisis of truth' is rooted in a 'crisis of faith'."
The entire CNS study, "Behaviors and Beliefs of Current and Recent Students at U.S. Catholic Colleges," is available online at http://www.CatholicHigherEd.org.
CNS commissioned the study as part of its Love & Responsibility program to encourage Catholic values on life, love and marriage on Catholic campuses.
Spanish Parliament Urged not to Loosen Abortion Law
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
MADRID, November 5, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Representatives of various pro-life and pro-family organizations are urging Spanish lawmakers not to loosen Spain's already liberal abortion law.
Family Forum President Benigno Blanco is denouncing the socialists' plans to loosen restrictions on abortion in the country, stating that "it is an enormous injustice to abandon the child and the mother, and this is what the new free abortion law intends to do."
Blanco is urging the Spanish Parliament to implement a "plan for supporting pregnant women, in such a way that it isn't seen as an obligation to put forth abortion as the only solution to their problems."
Eduardo Hertfelder of the Family Policy Institute (IPF), is urging lawmakers to reform the law instead so that existing regulations will actually be enforced, rather than allowing women to freely claim they have a "psychological risk" in order to obtain an abortion. "Ninety-seven percent of women who obtain abortions use the excuse of psychological risk," he observes.
Esperanza Puente of the Mother's Network, says that "what we women want are alternatives, and to be helped to move forward. Both abortionists and those who defend the culture of life agree that no woman wants to abort when confronted with an unexpected pregnancy."
The groups have been scheduled to testify by before a congressional subcommittee in hearings on the issue, which are being held in the wake of gruesome discoveries of industrial sized food processors used to grind up the bodies of aborted babies, as well as illegal late-term abortions documented by undercover reporters.
However, despite the scandals that rocked Spain late last year, the ruling Spanish Socialist Worker's Party has blamed the situation on the few remaining restrictions on abortion in Spanish law, and has introduced a measure to liberalize the practice further.
Unlike most European countries, abortions beyond 22 weeks gestation can be performed easily in Spain with only a diagnosis of "psychological risk." Undercover reporters have documented systems of fraudulent diagnoses run by the clinics in conjunction with psychologists. One woman was arrested by Dutch authorities earlier this year for obtaining such an illegal abortion in Spain.
Previous LifeSiteNews coverage:
Pro-Abortion Socialists Win National Elections in Spain
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08031107.html
Dutch Government Prosecutes Woman for Murder Following Late-Term Abortion in Spain
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08020102.html
Spanish Abortion Rate Skyrockets to over 100,000 Annually
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/08010701.html
Spanish Socialist Ruling Party Seeks to Make Abortion Free
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021807.html
More Abortion Clinics are Closed by Spanish Government Authorities
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07121402.html
Full Abortions Shown On Spanish Television - First In History
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07121401.html
Seven More Doctors Arrested by Spanish Police for Illegal Abortions
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07121801.html
Late Term Abortionist Arrested by Spain's Police
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07112913.html
New Brunswick to Appeal Ruling Favorable to Morgentaler
FREDERICTON, NB, November 6, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Province of New Brunswick has decided to appeal a ruling granting Henry Morgentaler the status to pursue a lawsuit on the issue of tax-funded abortion, New Brunswick Right to Life has revealed.
On August 1 Madam Justice Paula Garnett granted Morgentaler "public-interest standing" to proceed in his lawsuit against the Province. "Standing" refers to the question of whether or not a plaintiff is sufficiently affected by a piece of legislation to justify his/her bringing forward a lawsuit against it.
In her ruling Judge Garnett said that Morgentaler in this instance "does not have legal capacity" since he is not a woman seeking an abortion. However, she said that since such women were unlikely to bring a legal action themselves, "Dr. Morgentaler is a suitable alternative to do so."
Morgentaler contends that the province's refusal to fund his private clinic in Fredericton is a violation of the Charter of Rights and the Canada Health Act. New Brunswick is the only province that has a private abortion facility that is not publicly funded.
Peter Ryan of New Brunswick Right to Life says he received a letter from Premier Shawn Graham stating that the Province is appealing the ruling.
"This is good news," says Ryan. "There is no reason not to appeal."
Ryan says the province's position in the dispute is consistent with federal law. "It is a myth to say there is any requirement to fund abortion on demand. That is elective surgery, which legally is a matter of discretionary funding."
He added, "On a humanitarian level, it is the height of insanity to force the public to pay for mothers to extinguish their child's life. An abortion clinic is more like a temple of sacrifice than a health care facility.
"I don't care how much of a celebrity Morgentaler is," Ryan said. "What he's into, in my view, is not medicine but something that has the earmarks of a religious cult. To fund that would be lunacy."
Back to Top | Print this Story | Email to a Friend | View Story on LifeSiteNews.comIrish Cardinal Warns against Homosexual "Marriage"
By Jonquil Frankham
CO. CLARE, Ireland, November 6, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Primate of Ireland Sean Cardinal Brady addressed the Ceifin Conference on November 4, warning against giving legal recognition to same-sex "marriages" as well as to co-habitating couples.
The Ceifin Conference is an annual discussion forum for the debate of social change issues. This year's topic was "Family Life Today – the Greatest Revolution?"
The Primate's remarks brought down a shower of criticism from pro-homosexual legislators, and as the Catholic Culture database writes, "prompted Senator David Norris to suggest that Brady was 'arrogant, threatening, and legalistic.'" Senator Norris also said "the remarks further alienate young people from the church."
The MarriagEquality group of Ireland also criticized the Cardinal's comments; its co-coordinator, Moninne Griffith, said he was "out of touch with modern Ireland."
The Cardinal's speech centered on the idea that marriage is the most fundamental unit of society. "Marriage, the family and the general good of society are so interdependent that one cannot flourish without the other," he said.
Telling his audience that he was aware of the "considerable public debate" surrounding issues of marriage and family, he said, "When people become less concerned with what God has to say generally, or when the popularity of an idea replaces objective human values as the basis of morality, commitment to marriage as the basis of the family also diminishes."
The bishop suggested that the solution to an increasing disillusionment with family life in Ireland is "faith and prayer," and "making people more familiar with the Word of God, in an informed and formative way."
Cardinal Brady told his audience, "The family is … the natural community in which human social nature is experienced. It makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the good of society. The family unit is born from the stable and committed communion of persons which marriage provides.
"'Communion' has to do with the personal relationship between the 'I' and the 'thou'. 'Community' on the other hand transcends the 'I' and 'thou' and moves towards a 'society', a 'we'. The family, therefore, as a community of persons, is the first human 'society'. It is at the very heart of the common good."
The Primate cautioned his listeners against proposed legislation that would grant same-sex and co-habitating couples the same legal status as married heterosexual couples, in all but the name "marriage." He said that while it is important to legislate for the "protection for people in relationships of long term dependency," legislators must take care lest their "policy begins to undermine the family based on marriage as the fundamental unit of society and thereby undermine the common good."
"The intention is not to penalise those who have chosen or find themselves in different family forms or relationships," the Cardinal said. "It is rather to uphold the principle that the family based on marriage between a man and woman is so intimately connected to the good of society that it is deserving of special care and protection."
"The link between a public commitment to life-long marriage, and the stability of the family unit, as well as the distinct role of a mother and father in the generation and education of children, gives marriage a unique and qualitatively different relationship to society than any other form of relationship," Cardinal Brady told his audience, arguing that the issue of same-sex or co-habitating couples gaining marital legal status is not an issue of social "equality."
Towards the end of his speech he opined: "All the more remarkable then that Ireland looks set to repeat the mistakes of societies like Britain and the US by introducing legislation which will promote cohabitation, remove most incentives to marry and grant same-sex couples the same rights as marriage in all but adoption.
"This will effectively dissolve the special status of marriage between a man and woman enshrined in the Constitution. This would indeed be a revolution, perhaps the greatest revolution in the history of the Irish family – as the title of the Conference suggests! But will it be a revolution which promotes the common good of our society? Will it really help children and married couples or will it further erode marriage at a time when research and experience point to the value of marriage for children and society?"
Back to Top | Print this Story | Email to a Friend | View Story on LifeSiteNews.comSweden Considers "Gender Neutral Marriage" Law
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
STOCKHOLM, November 6, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Sweden's parliament is preparing to consider so-called "gender neutral marriage" legislation that would allow homosexuals to "marry" and give them all the same rights as natural marriage, including church weddings, adoption and assisted pregnancies.
Should Sweden pass the legislation it would be following close on the heels of its neighbor Norway. In June the Norwegian parliament gave final approval to a same-sex "marriage" law that allows homosexuals to "marry" and adopt children and permits lesbians to be artificially inseminated.
Civil unions granting homosexuals the same legal status as married couples have been allowed in Sweden since 1995, with the country's predominant Lutheran church offering "a religious blessing" on these civil unions; however, government registration and church blessing as a "marriage" was not permitted.
AFP reports, "If the new legislation is adopted, Sweden, already a pioneer in giving same-sex couples the right to adopt children, would become the first country in the world to allow gays to marry within a major church."
This law would make Sweden the eighth jurisdiction in the world to legalize same-sex "marriage," with the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, the state of Massachusetts, South Africa and Norway leading the way.
Opposition to the legislation is being voiced by the Christian Democrat party, while the other three members of Sweden's four-party coalition government, as well as the opposition Social Democrats, the country's biggest party, support the proposal.
"Pastors who do not want to perform a gay wedding ceremony may however have the right to refuse, something gay rights' activists have criticised," the AFP report states.
Back to Top | Print this Story | Email to a Friend | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com40 Days for Life Leader: Pro-Lifers Must Look Beyond Elections and Focus on Making a Local Impact
WASHINGTON, Nov. 5, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - "With the defeat of pro- life ballot initiatives in Colorado and South Dakota, the election of an ardent abortion advocate for president, and an increase in the number of abortion proponents in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, some pro-lifers may feel a sense of despair today," David Bereit, national campaign director of 40 Days for Life, said yesterday. "However," he continued, "we have every reason to be optimistic about the profound pro-life shift that is beginning to take place below the radar."
From September 24 through November 2, intensive 40 Days for Life campaigns were conducted in more than 175 communities in 47 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa and two Canadian provinces. For 40 days, people of faith and conscience prayed, fasted, held peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities, and conducted grassroots pro-life outreach. Tens of thousands of people participated in this history-making initiative.
"The facts speak for themselves," said Bereit. "More than 540 times during this fall's campaign, women who were arriving for abortions changed their minds and decided to keep their babies as a direct result of the 40 Days for Life volunteers praying outside the abortion center. We are also aware of a number of clinic employees who experienced a change of heart and quit the abortion business due to this effective pro-life outreach, and many abortion centers cut back hours or closed for entire days during 40 Days for Life."
Bereit said the life-saving impact of this effort cannot be attributed to any elected leader or law. "It was the result of people putting their faith into action right where they live," he said. "We have now heard from people all across North America that the conclusion of 40 Days for Life was not an end, but merely a new beginning for ongoing local pro-life efforts that will continue to save lives regardless of who holds elective office. We look forward with great anticipation to the next national 40 Days for Life campaign." That campaign is scheduled to begin February 25.
"This fall, a political battle was lost," concluded Bereit, "but hundreds of lives were won. I am convinced that those victories will have far greater impact."
Back to Top | Print this Story | Email to a Friend | View Story on LifeSiteNews.comThank you for your daily updates and latest news roundup on life issues. As the executive director of a pro-life ministry in Albuquerque, I depend on your news summary along with a couple of others to be informed about what's going on in the world and I pass key items on to our supporters here. We also get a few complaints from supporters about too much email. The majority appreciate our communications and what I would say to the few whose inboxes are cluttered - get rid of the junk mail and spam and useless information. NO pun intended - you don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Phil - Albuquerque, New Mexico
Your daily updates are most appreciated. Thank you so much for the work you do in keeping guys like me informed. I can't stand to watch the major media networks. I actually feel stupid just for turning on the television. In any case, a few months ago I instructed my bank to make a monthly payment to LifeSiteNews of $15.00. I could purchase several other "news" publications for $180 a year but only LifeSiteNews is worth that much - and more. Thank you and God bless you. Please keep the daily news updates coming.
Chris Cridge - Yardley, Pennsylvania
Thank you so much for the wonderful news coverage you have given over the years. I have learnt so much from your site. I read it every weekday
Brittany Bennett - British Columbia, Canada
Send us as many as you like. We love all the emails. They are so informative and helpful so useful to all in the pro life movement. We have had such good feedback from others!
Catherine Kennedy - Melbourne, Australia
I think you do a great service. A new site that speaks the truth. I am going to send you the money I spent when I cancelled my subscription to my local paper.
Anastacia - California
Keep you website going, please and continue the fight. People are starting to wake-up albeit slowly.
Karin - South Africa
I am a Catholic and am receiving your LifeSiteNews. But…I have to say that I do not believe you can or should tell us how to vote. I am anti-abortion, but to vote for a former military man – who would carry on the war in Iraq – and who also has a Vice-Presidential candidate who has absolutely no brains, made no sense to me to vote for the Republicans. Really, the George Bush administration (which includes McCain) has done more killings in Iraq (over 1,000,000 citizens) than most Americans even know about. Plus…think of all the other wars they have been in and killed people. So, what is the difference – except for the quality of the candidate. The best man won and it is a victory for all African Americans and for the whole world. Now maybe we can work on Obama to change his thinking about abortion. He is a good man otherwise.
Jane - British Columbia
I would like to compliment you on the very thorough and professional work in monitoring a number of news sources and extracting the most important life and family issues. The depth of your coverage and the scope of your efforts are truly remarkable.
I also e-mail articles to local radio show hosts in the hopes that they may cover the topic on their talk shows. And, it has actually happened quite a number of times that they indeed summarized a Lifesite story and invited people to call in with their comments. I encourage others to do the same in their local communities because this would allow family and life issues to get air-play so that people can be exposed to what is truly happening in society.
Roger Khouri - London, Ontario
Do not listen to those complaining about receiving your news too often. That is the world we live in…too much information and not enough time to digest it all. That is what the Internet is about. Those I don't want to read, I don't read. I enjoy the "Related LifeSiteNews.com coverage" feature and the "Previous Coverage" feature. It allows for deeper digging if you want to. You offer a buffet of good food. In most cases the articles are the right length…some are just a little too long but that is a small concern for an excellent publication. May God bless and enrich your endeavor.
Bill - North Carolina
LifeSiteNews keeps us so well informed and up to date with news and current affairs that matter and shape thinking - so instead of "every day", we say, "make it twice a day"
God bless the whole family of LifeSiteNews!
The team at Catholic Family Life Centre - Johannesburg, South Africa
Thank you so much again for all you guys are doing. NO PROBLEM at all with all the emails. It's all about pick and choosing and deleting when you're busy, reading when you have time! I would never know about these things were you not providing this alternative news source. So, thanks.
Kristi Lentz - Mount Vernon, Washington
I control my "delete" button. If I don't have time/inclination to read an email from you or someone else, I use it. When I have the time/inclination, I learn a lot by reading. I prefer it this way, thanks.
Theresa - Ontario, Canada
This American election was not about one issue politics. Just think of the widows and orphans being created in Iraq by George Bush's policies, which McCain would have continued. The Christian church in Iraq has been mostly destroyed. Bush's economic "run free" policies have created an economic crisis that the whole world feels. Some of us here do not like the militaristic and gun-loving culture. Obama may do something about that.
C. Adjemian - California
I cannot believe that readers would complain about frequency and number of stories. I find your site to be one of the most valuable out there. Please keep up the good work and just the way you have been doing it.
Ron and Dolores figuly - New Hampshire
Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to http://www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.
Comments, questions, or news tips: lsn@lifesitenews.com
Search LifeSite - http://www.lifesitenews.com/search/
Subscribe - http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/subscribe/
Unsubscribe - http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/unsubscribe/
Change subscription information - http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/subscribe/update/
Subscribe friends - http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/subscribe/gift/
Donate to LifeSiteNews.com at http://www.lifesitenews.com/donate/
0 ความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น