Life Is Worth Living, Inc

PERSONHOOD:Sexual and Asexual Origins of Human Life

2008-07-23T13:06:00.001-05:00

Source: Pro-Life Today / 22 July 2008 (American Life League)

THANK YOU COLORADO RIGHT TO LIFE
By Judie Brown

It is not often that I can begin a week with a celebratory blog, but that is precisely what I am about to do. It is all thanks to the recent statement issued by Colorado Right to Life. In a public statement acknowledging the need to correct the Colorado personhood amendment's language, CRTL states the following:

Dr. Dianne N. Irving, a bioethicist and professor at Georgetown University, has criticized the personhood amendment, which we support, which appears on Colorado's November 2008 ballot. Dr. Irving's moral and scientific arguments are not only valid, they are foundational to the long-term success of the personhood movement. Colorado RTL will join Dr. Irving in educating pro-lifers, the public and politicians about the sexual and asexual origins of human life that must be recognized in law for it to protect all persons. Dr. Irving's criticism illustrates Solomon's words, "Faithful are the wounds of a friend" (Proverbs 27:6).
Dr. Irving rightly explains that defining human life as beginning at "the moment of fertilization" includes only those people who came into existence at the union of a sperm and oocyte (ovum). However, scientists and fertility clinicians bring many human beings into existence through asexual reproduction quite apart from the merging of a sperm and ovum. Scientists "split" the youngest embryonic children, breaking off cells, to cause twinning that brings a second child into existence, and fertility clinics will then destroy any unneeded embryos. Dr. Irving has cataloged many asexual methods of human reproduction including splitting embryos and cloning, methods which produce living human beings which the personhood movement must protect by love and by law.

Dr. Irving criticizes Colorado's Amendment 48 because it addresses sexual but not asexual reproduction. CRTL concurs and recommends that the personhood movement nationwide accept Dr. Irving's moral and scientific conclusions and adopt fully protective legal wording to the effect of: "defining 'person' as any human life from the moment of sexual or asexual reproduction, including from fertilization."

CRTL disagrees with Dr. Irving only in her characterization that our initiative wording provides an "exclusionary clause... denying human personhood to all categories of asexually reproduced human beings." Rather, Colorado's personhood Amendment 48 uses the word "include," that the term "person... shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization." This definition would not exclude cloned or in vitro twinned children. Other than this legal disagreement, CRTL thanks Dr. Irving for her courage and insight, and asks the personhood movement to adopt her biological, moral and legal argument.

Not only is this public statement a historic first in my years in the pro-life movement, but it is also among the most cogent and humble I have ever seen. It is so refreshing to realize that there are pro-life organizations that do want to get the message right, down to the last word! And, as Dr. Irving pointed out in her reply,

It would seem that CRTL is quite graciously agreeing with the scientific and moral points that I have provided, and changing the language of their "Personhood Amendment 48" to reflect both sexually and asexually reproduced human beings. It is quite refreshing to see such intellectual and moral honesty on these difficult issues. Millions of young innocent living human beings will thereby be saved from manipulation and destruction, including naturally occurring human identical twins reproduced asexually within the woman's body. Their only remaining disagreement, i.e., over my use of the term "exclusionary" when they refer to their term "including", is, I think, still debatable legal advice given to me is that it would be better and far safer legally to use the more inclusive phrase, "including but not limited to". Even better to use the far safer inclusive phrase, "whether sexually or asexually reproduced". If the scientific facts about human asexual reproduction are objectively true, which they are, then one does wonder why the strange reticence on the part of many to actually use those scientific terms per se within a law or regulation.

As you review what I am sharing with you and realize how wonderful it is that we are finally at a place in the pro-life movement at least in Colorado where egos and agendas have been replaced with a sincere search for truth and accuracy, pray that all organizations find the same peace in their hearts by seeking the full scientific truth and setting aside preconceived notions. What we just witnessed between Colorado Right to Life and Dr. Irving is monumental.

Please join me in praising God and thanking Him! Through this recent chain of events, we are moving ever closer to the real answer to ending the killing of preborn children in America.

Judie Brown is president of American Life League and a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Respond to Judie
http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog_response.php?id=2269

Expert on Forced Abortions in China Urges Boycott of Beijing Summer Olympics

2008-07-21T21:12:00.001-05:00

A leading expert on the brutal campaign of forced abortions and sterilizations that accompany China's one-child family planning policy is urging a boycott of the Summer Olympics. Steven Mosher, of the Population Research Institute, says the games will legitimize China's abhorrent human rights records. To read the full story at Life News.com, click here

http://www.lifenews.com/int827.html.

DO NOT RESUSCITATE ORDER (DNR) TOO BROAD

2008-07-17T10:56:00.001-05:00

Elderly, disabled and seriously ill patients or their proxies (relatives or health care agents) are often asked if they wish to have their doctor put a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate Order) on their medical chart. Here is information YOU NEED in order to make an informed decision -- an excerpt from the book Life, Life Support, and Death: Principles, Guidelines, Policies and Procedures for Making Decisions to Protect and Preserve Life (second revised edition) by Paul A. Byrne, M.D., and nine other physicians as well as Rev. George M. Rinkowski and attorney Mary H. Sadick. It is published by American Life League and is available by calling them at 540-659-4171.

In the Sacred Heart,

Julie Grimstad, Director

Life is Worth Living, Inc.

715=342-4249

RESUSCITATION--LIFE SUPPORT

When it is directed by a patient or the patient's proxy that a medical treatment will not be administered, a specific order for that specific non-treatment must be written. Written orders must be as precise and clear as possible.

"Do Not Resuscitate" (DNR) or "No Code" are examples of imprecise and ambiguous orders widely--and wrongly--accepted by physicians and courts. Do these orders mean no maintenance of an airway, or no ventilation, or no cardiac resuscitation, as well as no new or additional treatment? Furthermore, in light of the weakness of human nature, once the course has been plotted by a DNR or "No Code" order, there is a tendency to preclude, eliminate or reduce ordinary treatments, such as visits by physicians and care given by nurses and others. Therefore, broad orders of "Do Not Resuscitate," "No Code," and similar orders must be avoided. At no other time in medicine are treatment orders that are so broad and non-specific considered to be within the standard of care.

When it is anticipated that a patient could sustain a complication that would be immediately life threatening and not allow time for reflection and decisions, specific orders to direct the Code Blue team response regarding use or non-use of a specific treatment can be written by the primary physician, provided they are also consistent with the life principles and policies discussed herein. For example:

1. In the event of cardiac arrest, use or do not use external cardiac massage, defibrillation, etc.

2. In the event of hypotension, use or do not use Dopamine, Levophed, volume expanders, etc.

3. In the event of respiratory arrest, use or do not use bag and mask ventilation, endotracheal intubation, ventilator, etc.

A companion entry must be made in the medical record, including the diagnosis, prognosis, patient's wishes, recommendaitons of the treatment team or consultants with documentation of their names and the date. When the patient is unable to communicate for himself/herself, attempts must be made to obtain informed consent from a proxy.

___

Irena Sendler: Saver of Children

2008-07-16T14:51:00.002-05:00

Member Margie in Washington sent this youtube video that gave her goosebumps. It had the same effect on me. -- Julie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVw1PANUcdg

Medical Card: Life Support Directions

2008-07-07T23:15:00.004-05:00

Dr. Paul Byrne has prepared four versions of a medical card -- one for Catholics, one for non-Catholics, one for Jews and one for Agnostics. They can be printed on business cards, signed and witnessed, then laminated for durability.

For Roman Catholics:

Life Support Directions. Carry this card with you at all times.

At admission to hospital contact a Roman Catholic priest (see reverse side). I wish to live the life span given to me by God. I direct my treatments and care, including nutrition and hydration, however administered, be given to protect and preserve my life. Do not hasten my death. Do not do an apnea test. Do not take any vital organ for transplantation or any other purpose.

_______________________________________________________________

Signature and Date

_____________________________ _________________________________

Witness and Date Witness and Date

(Reverse Side)

Please contact a Roman Catholic priest if I am unconscious, seriously ill, injured, or unable to communicate. Preferred contact:

My pastor:_________________________

Phone:_________________________

or a Catholic Priest from the local parish.

My signature:_______________________

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For Protestants:

Life Support Directions. Carry this card with you at all times.

At admission to hospital contact a minister (see reverse side). I wish to live the life span given to me by God. I direct my treatments and care, including nutrition and hydration, however administered, be given to protect and preserve my life. Do not hasten my death. Do not do an apnea test. Do not take any vital organ for transplantation or any other purpose.

______________________________________________________________

Signature and Date

____________________________ __________________________________

Witness and Date Witness and Date

(Reverse Side)

Please contact a minister if I am unconscious, seriously ill, injured, or unable to communicate. Preferred contact:

My minister: ____________________

Phone: _____________________

or a local minister.

My signature:_______________________

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For Jews:

Life Support Directions. Carry this card with you at all times.

At admission to hospital contact a Rabbi (see reverse side). I wish to live the life span given to me by God. I direct my treatments and care, including nutrition and hydration, however administered, be given to protect and preserve my life. Do not hasten my death. Do not do an apnea test. Do not take any vital organ for transplantation or any other purpose.

_______________________________________________________________

Signature and Date

_____________________________ _________________________________

Witness and Date Witness and Date

(Reverse Side)

Please contact a Rabbi if I am unconscious, seriously ill, injured, or unable to communicate. Preferred contact:

My Rabbi:_________________________

Phone:_________________________

or a Rabbi from the local Synagogue.

My signature:_______________________

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For Agnostics:

Life Support Directions. Carry this card with you at all times.

At admission to hospital, contact ________________________. I wish to live the life span given to me. I direct my treatments and care, including nutrition and hydration, however administered, be given to protect and preserve my life. Do not hasten my death. Do not take any vital organ for transplantation or any other purpose.

_______________________________________________________________

Signature and Date

_____________________________ _________________________________

Witness and Date Witness and Date

(Reverse Side)

Please contact ____________________ if I am unconscious, seriously ill, injured, or unable to communicate. Preferred contact:

my _______, _____________________

Phone:_________________________

or my _______ , _____________________.

My signature:_______________________

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Docs push for cash rewards for organ donation

2008-06-26T16:07:00.001-05:00

This is a disturbing article

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25356966/)

about physicians wanting to try paying people to donate either their own organs or those of their "brain dead" loved ones. The article also contains some information about the actual percentage of organs suitable for transplant that are now being harvested. Consider this statement: "'If you've only got 20 percent more you get organs from, is it 20 percent who could be swayed?' [Dr.] Hippen said." If they are already getting up to 80% of all transplantable organs, why are organ procurers always crying about not enough organ donors? Some of us can't be cajoled, coerced or bought!!! See article at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25356966/

E-Letter #105, June 23, 2008

2008-06-23T14:58:00.000-05:00

Dear Members and Friends,

I hope that none of you have been adversely affected by the floods, tornadoes and other inclement weather much of the United States has been experiencing. One lesson we can learn from losses and suffering is that nothing is sure in this life except that everything which happens to us is the Providence of God. From Father Peyton's Rosary Prayer Book, here is a little meditation on The Nativity which sheds light on the meaning of Providence: "The courtyard was prosperously overcrowded, with room for more; but no room for Mary. The best that Joseph could do for her was a dark, damp, ill-smelling cave. Drama there was none; they were just cold and tired, and at peace. And in this 'God-forsaken place,' God was born. Some people call pleasant things 'providential.' Mary and Joseph thought everything was. Nothing is 'God-forsaken'; everything God-foreseen. A truth for me to live by!"

Providence has placed us, not in Bethlehem in the Year of Our Lord's Birth, but in the United States of America in the 21st century. Yet, as Mary and Joseph were, we are called to bring Jesus and His pro-life message into a dismal anti-life social climate. How? Through our prayers, our words and our actions. That is, in essence, the mission of Life is Worth Living, Inc.

In 2008, the Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) battle is fierce. This is one of the most crucial moral issues of our time.

In the U.S., PAS is legal only in Oregon. In the last 20 years, opposition coalitions have defeated numerous efforts to legalize it in other states. Nevertheless, PAS promoters are optimistically determined to win this year. See item #1 (the lone item this month) for more on PAS and what you can do to help defeat Initiative 1000 and educate the public.

Now, on to another topic. Darcy Bunn, a founding member of Life is Worth Living, sent an e-mail in April which brought an important life issue to our attention. She wrote: "I just finished a George Weigel book, Faith, Reason and the War Against Jihadism. Have you read it? What struck me about it, at least in regard to the mission of Life is Worth Living, is how much the jihad mentality is that of 'death.' Death to the infidel, even if that means death to self in the process. Weigel makes it clear that he believes this is a war of ideas. Not only do we need to reach hearts in the Islam faith, but people of the US need to understand why we deserve to win this war, what our country stands for that we meant it when we declared the right to life. Life is Worth Living is in the business of praying, but also about educating people about life. Right? Especially in regards to the website revamp, could we have some material surrounding this issue?"

If any of you would like to contribute your thoughts or suggest other sources of information to educate ourselves and others, please send them to me by replying to this e-mail.

Also, please check out our new website at www.lifeisworthliving.com. Darcy and Jason Bunn have given us a wonderful gift by setting up and maintaining our website. Now, we need to use it and tell others about it.

Have a beautiful summer!

In the Sacred Heart,

Julie Grimstad

Executive Director

Item 1. "OREGON PLUS ONE"

Compassion & Choices (formerly the Hemlock Society), the U.S. organization leading efforts to legalize Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS), has adopted the slogan "Oregon Plus One." PAS promoters are determined to legalize assisted suicide (which they call "aid-in-dying") in at least one more state in 2008. They are targeting Washington State in particular, hoping to place their "Death With Dignity Act," Initiative 1000, on November's ballot. The initiative would allow doctors to prescribe lethal drugs fpr patients who are predicted to have six months or less to live.

Initiative supporters have until July 4 to turn in 225,000 valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot. Initiative 1000's campaign manager is confident that they will achieve that goal.

GET INVOLVED! Everyone who opposes PAS is vitally important in this battle. We can help defeat Initiative 1000. If we do nothing, we are part of the problem,

Pray, speak out against assisted suicide and give your financial support to fighting PAS. To find out what YOU CAN DO, visit the Washington Coalition Against Assisted Suicide website: http://www.noassistedsuicide.com/.

Tax deductible donations which will be used to educate people about Euthanasia and PAS may be sent to the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, PO Box 760, Steubenville, OH 43952. For more information, visit the ITF website at http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/.

THE END

Do Your Organs Belong to the Government?

2008-06-18T19:20:00.002-05:00

DO YOUR ORGANS BELONG TO THE GOVERNMENT?

By Paul A. Byrne, M.D.

June, 2008

Recent news reports of responses in persons declared "brain dead" should have alerted everyone that "brain death" is not true death. These observed responses prevented organ transplantation plans from going forward. Zack Dunlap later reported that he heard discussions of his death, but could not respond. Val Thomas had flat brain waves for 17 hours before her response was observed. Such cases ought to be of grave concern to every citizen of the United States of America, and to the rest of the world.

We are continually bombarded with ads to be an organ donor. We are told that we are giving the "gift of life" in organ donation. We are led to believe that organs are taken for transplantation only after true death. We are seldom, if ever, made aware that after true death the heart, liver, and other vital organs are not suitable for transplantation.

True death is when the soul separates from the body. When the person is living, the soul certainly has not separated from the body. The heart, liver and other vital organs are suitable for transplantation only when there is circulation and respiration, albeit supported by a ventilator. After true death the ventilator cannot support circulation and respiration. Vital organs from a corpse are useless for transplantation.

The Federal Government is much involved with obtaining organs for transplantation. During the Clinton Presidency, the Secretary of Health and Human Services issued an edict that when death is imminent all medical records must be sent to the Organ Procurement Organization (OPO) to determine suitability of the person's organs for transplantation. This edict has been updated and placed into law within the HIPAA Regulations (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996). While many believe HIPAA protects personal privacy, there is a list of 14 reasons why the Federal Government can obtain and use your medical information without your permission. Organ donation is one of them.

If the OPO determines that your organs are suitable, a "designated requestor" is sent to the hospital to seek permission from relatives, close friends or a government official. This is done under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) that was passed in all 50 States in 1968. In 2006, the UAGA was revised. The Revised UAGA has already been placed into statute in 30 states and has been introduced in 10 more states just this year. This Revised Act makes everyone a "prospective donor;" meaning it is presumed that you intend to be an organ donor unless you have signed a refusal.

Whenever attempts are made to add or delete words from an existing statute, someone has a reason for doing so. Previously the UAGA required you to be "of sound mind" to be an organ donor. That requirement has been removed. A person who gives any sort of medical or legal consent ought to be "of sound mind" in order for the consent to be valid. So, why drop "sound mind" from the existing Act? Could the drafters of the Revised UAGA be concerned that a person under the influence of sedatives or with a brain injury might not be considered "of sound mind," yet they still want to be able to get his/her signature or verbal consent to organ donation?

The Revised UAGA permits 15 ½ year old persons (in some states, 14 year old persons) to sign to be organ donors when they apply for a learner's permit to drive. This is a time when a teenager might be easily influenced, even intimidated. Parents can override a minor child's consent or refusal to be a donor prior to age 18. What is the purpose of permitting a child to sign or refuse to give an anatomical gift if it can be overridden? What does it mean "if a parent is reasonably available?" Will the search for a parent of a child who has consented to be a donor be as diligent as the search for a parent of a child who has refused?

The Revised UAGA's Section 8 takes advantage of the fact that previous decisions of a person (who is currently unable to communicate) are open to interpretation. The Act ensures that questions about a person's intentions are decided in favor of donation. For example, a donor's revocation of a gift of a body part is not to be construed as a refusal for others to make gifts of the donor's other body parts. Likewise, a donor's gift of one part is not to be construed as a refusal that would bar others from making gifts of other parts, absent the donor's express contrary intent. Section 8 firmly states that a donor's decision to make an anatomical gift is to be honored and is not subject to change by others. Thus Section 8 takes away from families the right or authority to consent to, amend or revoke anatomical donations made by donors during their lifetimes, even though alert relatives might make different decisions based on current circumstances and complete information.

The Revised UAGA expands the prioritized list of "classes of persons" who can make an anatomical gift of the body or body parts of a so-called "decedent" if the decedent had neither consented nor refused to be a donor. The list now includes the decedent's health care agent, adult grandchildren and close friends. It descends from the highest class of persons to the next and so forth when a search is done for someone on the list who is "reasonably available." The Act states, "Reasonably available means able to be contacted by a procurement organization without undue effort." Undue effort is not defined. Could it mean that not getting a response to a telephone call is sufficient to go to the next class of persons?

The Revised Act states that a revocation of an anatomical gift "does not equal a refusal." So, if you change your mind, you not only have to revoke your prior anatomical gift, but also issue a formal refusal. Isn't this close to an opt-out or presumed consent system? Such a system presumes fulfillment of all legal requirements for consent to take organs unless a person has opted out by a formal witnessed document of refusal. Eight European countries have a presumed consent system. Such a bill has been introduced in Delaware, but has not been acted upon yet.

The Revised Act has language that does not protect the rights of prospective donors. In trying so hard to facilitate obtaining suitable organs for transplantation, the Act's drafters have overridden the donor's right to fully and explicitly informed consent.

The Revised Act does not protect the lives of prospective donors. It does not list or define "measures necessary to ensure the suitability of an organ for transplantation or therapy." This is of concern because the Act states that "unless the donor's declaration (living will) expressly provides for the contrary, the proposed law "prohibits" these measures from being withheld or withdrawn from a prospective donor. A "prospective donor" may be someone who is "near death" and yet the organ procurement medical team can initiate measures that may actually do harm to the still living prospective donorsuch as increasing fluids to a head-injured patient, administering Heparin and Regitine, etc., in order to "ensure the medical suitability of an organ." It is absolutely appalling to think that, once a person is identified as a potential donor, organs for transplant become more important than the person to whom they belong!

Organs for transplantation are primarily obtained from those declared "brain dead." This is labeled Donation by Brain Death (DBD). These are patients who have disease or injury to their brain manifested by altered brain functioning. Typically, a patient who has been declared "brain dead" has a beating heart, normal blood pressure and respiration supported by a ventilator. When cut into, he/she moves, squirms and grimaces if a paralyzing drug or anesthetic is not administered first. These are all signs of life.

The Harvard Criteria (on brain death) was published in 1968. Thirty more different sets of criteria were published by 1978. Since then, many more have been published. There is no general agreement as to which set of criteria should be used to declare a person "brain dead." Consequently, a person could be declared dead by one set, but still living by other sets! Every set of criteria includes an Apnea Test. ("Apnea" means the absence of breathing.) This test is done by taking away the life-supporting ventilator for up to 10 minutes. This is medical suffocation. The patient can only get worse with this test. This test is commonly done without requesting permission.

If all this isn't enough to draw attention, when a patient does not fulfill any of the differing sets of criteria for determining "brain death," but the desire is to get his/her organs, a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) order is obtained and the ventilator is removed. When the patient is without a pulse (but not without a heart beat) for 2-5 minutes, this becomes the signal to take the organs. This is labeled Donation by Cardiac Death (DCD).

Yes, much is being done to get your organs. For an organ to be suitable for transplantation, it must be healthy and it must come from a living person. Please wake up! Organ excision does not benefit the person from whom the organs are taken. IT CAUSES HIS OR HER DEATH!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Dr. Paul A. Byrne, a Neonatologist, is Director of Neonatology and Director of Pediatrics at St. Charles Mercy Hospital in Oregon, Ohio; Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, University of Toledo College of Medicine; Board Certified in Pediatrics and Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine; Member of Fellowship of Catholic Scholars; past-President of the Catholic Medical Association (USA); and author of numerous articles on "brain death" and organ transplantation in medical and law journals and lay press.

WANT TO LEARN MORE? Articles by Dr. Byrne and his colleagues are available online at:

The Life Guardian Foundation: www.thelifeguardian.org

The International Foundation for Genetic Research: www.michaelfund.org

Give Dad the Gift of Life this Father's Day

2008-06-11T16:58:00.002-05:00

Dear Members and Friends,

FYI -- Here is a note from Human Life Alliance. I help put this publication together as chief editor and contributing writer.

Have a wonderful Father's Day, all you dads.

In the Sacred Heart,

Julie

----- Excerpt from HLI Weekly Wire Email Publication -----

From: Human Life Alliance

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:41 AM

Subject: Give Dad the Gift of Life this Father's Day

Give Dad the Gift of Life this Father's Day

Finding the right gift for Dad can be a difficult task. As we get older, our fathers age as well. One of the most important things that you can do this Father's Day is to brush up on your knowledge of end of life issues.

Do you know the difference between a Living Will and a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care (DPAHC)?

Have you obtained a Protective Medical Decisions Document (PMDD) specific to your state?

Are you sure Dad would never want to be "hooked up to a machine?"

Have you discussed end of life issues with your parents yet?

Now is a good time to sort through these decisions. Read Imposed Death online and print a copy for your Dad. It may not be the traditional tie or box of cashews, but your Dad will love that you are concerned about protecting his life.

Request copies through HLA's online request form.

Consider giving a donation to HLA in honor/memory of your Father as a way of showing him that you care. If you wish, HLA will send a card to let your loved one/loved one's family know about your gift in their honor.

HLA can also take your request via email or phone. Our office hours are 9-5 M-F (Central). Call us at 651-484-1040.

ALL Report: Protest the Pill Day '08

2008-06-03T09:09:00.000-05:00

The latest ALL Report is up and running. Check it out and pass it along!

http://blip.tv/file/956836/

Michael Hichborn
Director of Media Relations
American Life League
1179 Courthouse Road
Stafford, Virginia 22554
540.659.4171 (w)
540.226.9178 (c)
mhichborn@all.org
http://www.all.org/

ALL Report: Protest the Pill Day '08

2008-06-03T08:25:00.000-05:00

The latest ALL Report is up and running. Check it out and pass it along!

http://blip.tv/file/956836/

Michael Hichborn
Director of Media Relations
American Life League
1179 Courthouse Road
Stafford, Virginia 22554
540.659.4171 (w)
540.226.9178 (c)
mhichborn@all.org
http://www.all.org/

2008-05-28T12:30:00.000-05:00

June 7: Telling the truth about contraception

Source: Pro-Life Wisconsin Monday Update, May 27 2008

June 7 marks the 43rd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut. This was the first of many decisions that led to the culture of death we live in today.

When the Supreme Court ruled on the Griswold v. Connecticut case, it set a legal precedent for claiming the Constitution grants women the right to privacy in matters of sexual practice. This meant Connecticut and the rest of the United States could not stop a married woman from obtaining birth control pills. The ruling paved the way for abortion in demand in the U.S.

Prayer services marking Griswold v. Connecticut will be held:

- Pro-Life Wisconsin Dane County will observe June 7 with Mass at Holy Redeemer Catholic Church at 8 a.m., followed by a holy hour. From 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. there will be a prayer vigil at Planned Parenthood on Orin Rd. in Madison.

- Pro-Life Wisconsin Eau Claire will gather for prayer service at Planned Parenthood, 1231 Menomonee St. in Eau Claire, June 7 at 11 a.m., followed by a picnic at nearby Carson Park.

- Pro-Life Wisconsin Jefferson County will gather at the Planned Parenthood in Johnson Creek on June 7 from 7 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. An ice cream social will be held after.

- Pro-Life Wisconsin Juneau County will gather at Family Planning Health Services, 234-A W. State St. in Mauston, on June 10 from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.

- Pro-Life Wisconsin Milwaukee County will gather at Planned Parenthood on Hwy. 100 and Lincoln Ave in West Allis, on June 7 from 11:45 a.m. to 1 p.m. An ice cream social will be held after.

- Pro-Life Wisconsin Outagamie County will gather at Planned Parenthood in Appleton, 508 W Wisconsin Ave, on June 7 at 2 p.m.

- Pro-Life Wisconsin Walworth County will hold a prayer vigil on June 7, from 12 p.m. to 1:00, at the Planned Parenthood in Delavan.

2008-05-27T21:37:00.000-05:00

JUNE 7TH PRO-LIFE MEMORIAL PRAYER VIGILS IN CENTRAL WISCONSIN ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF GRISWOLD v CONNECTICUT

Stevens Point:

June 7th Pro-Life Memorial Prayer Vigil.

You are invited to join a nationwide witness for life on Saturday, June 7th--the anniversary of the tragic Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court ruling decriminalizing contraception and abortifacients in the US. We will gather at 3pm on the public sidewalk outside of the "Family Planning Heath Center" on the corner of Sixth St. and Division (near "Family Video"). We will pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet and the Holy Rosary for respect for innocent human life and God's plan for marriage and family life. Join in solidarity with numerous organizations throughout the country (e.g., American Life League), the state of Wisconsin (viz., Pro-Life Wisconsin), as well as our own Bishop Listecki who will be leading a similar prayer vigil in La Crosse on this same day. Be a witness for Life and true Love! This prayer vigil is sponsored by the Servants of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

For more information please contact Will Goodman 715.341.4034 / 608.698.7443.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wisconsin Rapids:

June 7th Pro-Life Memorial Prayer Vigil.

You are invited to join a nationwide witness for life on Saturday, June 7th--the anniversary of the tragic Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court ruling decriminalizing contraception and abortifacients in the USA. We will gather at 3pm on the public sidewalk outside of the Shopko Mall at 8th St. & the Riverview Expressway where "Planned Parenthood" is located. We will pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet and the Holy Rosary for respect for innocent human life and God's plan for marriage and family life. Join in solidarity with numerous organizations throughout the country (e.g., American Life League), the state of Wisconsin (viz., Pro-Life Wisconsin), as well as our own Bishop Listecki who will be leading a similar prayer vigil in La Crosse on this day. Be a witness for Life and true Love! This prayer vigil is sponsored by the Servants of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

For more information please contact Will Goodman 715.341.4034 / 608.698.7443.

----------------------------------

The Servants of Our Lady of Guadalupe is an apostolate located in the Diocese of La Crosse, WI, dedicated to promoting a culture of life through prayer, the study of Catholic Church teaching, and missionary action.

E-Letter # 104, May 23, 2008

2008-05-27T11:43:00.003-05:00

Dear Members and Friends,

Exciting news! Jason and Darcy Bunn have been working to redesign and improve our website at http://lifeisworthliving.com/. Have a look for yourself. If you have any suggestions, please send them to me. THANK YOU, Webmasters Jason and Darcy!

Last Friday found me in the state of Virginia. I had the privilege of spending the day with students at a Catholic high school. See the report in Item #1. In the evening, I addressed "Moral Medical Decision Making" in a talk for adults at Our Lady of Hope Catholic Church in Sterling. Meeting many wonderful people and having the opportunity to share our Catholic pro-life perspective on matters of life and death made for a thoroughly enjoyable, but exhausting day.

Item #2 is an extremely important response to an article that appeared in the November-December 2007 issue of Health Progress, the Catholic Health Association's official publication. The misinterpretation of the Church's teaching on Nutrition and Hydration as articulated by John J. Hardt, PhD and Father Kevin D. O'Rourke, OP, JCD, STM, authors of that article, is soundly corrected by Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Lori. Enjoy!

Have a relaxing and prayerful Memorial Day weekend, as we remember all those who have gone before us, especially those who have died to protect and promote liberty both here and abroad.

In the Sacred Heart,
Julie Grimstad
Executive Director

Item 1. American Life League Sponsored Student Seminar a Success in Fredericksburg, VA
American Life League sponsored an all-day seminar, May 16th, taught by Julie Grimstad, Executive Director of Life is Worth Living, Inc., at St. Michael the Archangel High School in Fredericksburg, Virginia. 20 students and several adults attended. Entitled "WHO LIVES? WHO DIES? WHO DECIDES?" the seminar covered the History of the "Right to Die" Movement, Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide, Disability Rights, Advance Medical Directives, Nutrition and Hydration, Organ Donation, and more. The students' evaluation forms indicated that the vast majority thought the seminar overall was excellent, the topic was very important to them personally, and the degree of difficulty was just right. They particularly liked the seminar's Power Point format and the DVDs Turning the Tide: Dignity, Compassion and Euthanasia* and Euthanasia: False Light.**

For information about sponsoring this seminar at a school near you, contact Life is Worth Living.

_____
*Turning the Tide DVD available from Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of Canada, http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/, 1-877-439-3348.
**Euthanasia: False Light DVD available from International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/. 1-800-958-5678.
_____________
Item 2.
Health Progress
May-June 2008Volume 89, Number 3

On Basic Care For Patients In The 'Vegetative' State
A Response to Dr. Hardt and Fr. O'Rourke

BY CARDINAL JUSTIN F. RIGALI, JCD, & BISHOP WILLIAM E. LORI, STD
Cardinal Rigali is archbishop of Philadelphia and chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB); and Bishop Lori is bishop of Bridgeport , Conn. , and chairman of the Committee on Doctrine, USCCB.

In a 2004 address on care for patients diagnosed as being in a "vegetative state," Pope John Paul II affirmed the human dignity of these patients and the obligation to provide them with ordinary care, including food and water, even with artificial assistance. On Sept. 14, 2007, through its "Responses to Certain Questions of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Concerning Artificial Nutrition and Hydration," the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI, reaffirmed and further explained this papal teaching. (The CDF's "Responses" was accompanied by a "Commentary," which offered further explanation.) The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has welcomed this important clarification of Catholic Church teaching and has provided its own set of questions and answers to promote a better understanding of it in the United States. (1)

Unfortunately, confusion about this teaching and opposition to some aspects of it persist in some quarters. For example, a recent Health Progress article by John J. Hardt, Ph.D. and Fr. Kevin D. O'Rourke, OP, JCD, STM, titled, "Nutrition and Hydration: The CDF Response, In Perspective," misinterprets the Holy See's documents in important respects, and even makes the charge that the CDF interprets euthanasia in a way that is "at odds with the traditional teaching of moral theology." (2)

As chairmen of the U.S. Bishops' Committees on Doctrine and on Pro-Life Activities, we offer the following points to prevent misunderstanding and to help those involved in Catholic health care ministry more fully understand the church's teaching.

First, contrary to the "Rules for Interpretation" referred to by Hardt and Fr. O'Rourke, (3) the CDF document was not issued in the form of a canonical decree. Nor is it merely a public policy statement motivated by the threat of legalized euthanasia in certain countries in Europe. It is an authoritative statement of moral truth, reaffirming a teaching by the Catholic Church's ordinary magisterium regarding how we are to exercise our freedom responsibly as children of God.

Second, not everything in the CDF's "Responses" applies solely to patients in a "vegetative state." For example, the CDF's first response states that "the administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life." Certainly this basic principle applies when patients have chronic but stable debilitating conditions that are less extreme than the "vegetative state." As the CDF "Commentary" notes, helpless patients with conditions such as quadriplegia, mental illness or Alzheimer's disease also must not be deprived of basic care and "abandoned to die" because their long-term care may burden others. The phrase "in principle" (which in this context means "as a general rule") is also important, because providing assisted food and fluids may cease to be obligatory in particular circumstances. The U.S. bishops asked whether such circumstances occur only when food and fluids "cannot be assimilated by the patient's body or cannot be administered to the patient without causing significant physical discomfort," and the CDF answered in the affirmative. The CDF "Commentary" notes that such circumstances will be "rare" and "exceptional" for a patient in a "vegetative state"; they may occur far more frequently for patients with progressively deteriorating or terminal conditions.

Also, the CDF "Commentary" notes the obligation to provide assisted feeding may not apply "in very remote places or in situations of extreme poverty" because we are not held to do something that is impossible in practical terms. But the CDF's statement about the general or presumptive obligation to provide food and fluids as a form of ordinary care clearly has broad application.

Third, in applying the church's longstanding moral tradition against euthanasia to the present question, the CDF is in full accord with that tradition. In 1980, the CDF (with the approval of Pope John Paul II) issued a "Declaration on Euthanasia" defining "euthanasia" as "an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated." (4) In its more recent "Responses" and accompanying "Commentary," the CDF is stating that this issue is of particular concern regarding medically assisted food and fluids. Food and water are basic necessities of life, without which anyone (sick or healthy) would soon die. When they are withdrawn from a seriously disabled patient who needs help from others to obtain such basic carewithdrawn not because the means themselves are useless or excessively burdensome, but because someone has judged that patient's continued life to be useless or burdensomethe patient's death is the first result, and any other intended goals would seem to be met only through this death. The argument that in such cases the cause of death is merely the underlying condition (the inability to eat and swallow for oneself) is not valid, and is explicitly rejected by the CDF:

Patients in a "vegetative state" breathe spontaneously, digest food naturally, carry on other metabolic functions, and are in a stable situation. But they are not able to feed themselves. If they are not provided artificially with food and liquids, they will die, and the cause of their death will be neither an illness nor the "vegetative state" itself, but solely starvation and dehydration.(5)

Fourth, this brings us to the argument by Hardt and Fr. O'Rourke that the "significant financial hardships" of providing assisted food and fluids to patients in the "vegetative state" in the U.S. may justify withdrawing such care and letting the patient die. (6) In reality, providing the complete range of long-term care for these helpless patients may indeed become very costly, and families should not be abandoned to carry these burdens alone. But providing food and fluids generally accounts for a very small fraction of this cost. If food and fluids are targeted for removal because this will lead to the patient's early death, thus saving the significant costs of other care, then it seems clear that the patient's death is being intended precisely as a means to saving these other costs. In other words, this would be a decision to practice euthanasia by omission.

Fifth, nothing in the CDF's "Responses" or in Pope John Paul II's address of 2004 provides a basis for withdrawing food and fluids based on a far broader category of "psychic burden." Hardt and Fr. O'Rourke say that some may "feel" the continued life of a patient in a "vegetative state" is a burden to others, or is not a benefit. This may be true, but such feelings do not justify euthanasia by omission or the deliberate withdrawal of basic care owed to patients because of their human dignity.

Sixth, regarding advance directives such as the "living will," Hardt and Fr. O'Rourke claim that under the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs) people may continue to make advance decisions regarding their care (Directives 25 and 28). (7) This is true as far as it goes. However, Directive 28 provides that "the free and informed health care decision of the person or the person's surrogate is to be followed so long as it does not contradict Catholic principles " (emphasis added). Moreover, Directive 24, not cited by Hardt and Fr. O'Rourke, also speaks of generally respecting patients' and surrogates' decisions, but adds:

The institution, however, will not honor an advance directive that is contrary to Catholic teaching. If the advance directive conflicts with Catholic teaching, an explanation should be provided as to why the directive cannot be honored.

The CDF's "Responses" provide clarifications as to what Catholic moral principles require of us on the provision of food and fluids, out of respect for the perduring human dignity of even the most severely cognitively disabled of our brothers and sisters.

On the relationship between the ERDs and the CDF's "Responses," the USCCB had this to say in its Q&A document:

Directive 58 already speaks of "a presumption in favor of providing nutrition and hydration to all patients, including patients who require medically assisted nutrition and hydration." The Address and the Responses clarify how this presumption applies to the patient in a "vegetative state" as to other patients, and provide further guidance as to how the Directives should be interpreted and implemented. (8)

We fully intend that the next edition of the ERDs will be amended to reflect this doctrinal clarification.

While we disagree with other claims by Hardt and Fr. O'Rourke, we believe these are the most important points in need of clarification. Certainly, when they say it is "questionable" whether the Catholic community will rise to the challenge of caring for the basic needs of patients in the "vegetative state," we hope their pessimism is unwarranted. It is precisely in caring for the poorest and most helpless of patients, those whose value and dignity are dismissed by others, that Catholic health care most clearly lives up to its mission and demonstrates the need for specifically Catholic health care providers in our secularized society. It is in meeting the moral challenge of caring for the most helpless that we will live up to our own God-given dignity.

NOTES

1. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops news release of Sep. 14, 2007, on this development, with links to the CDF's "Responses" and "Commentary," and the USCCB's related Q&A, can be found at www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2007/07-143.shtml. Pope John Paul II's March 20, 2004, address can be found on the Vatican's website.
2. John Hardt and Kevin O'Rourke, "Nutrition and Hydration: The CDF Response, In Perspective," Health Progress , November-December 2007.
3. Hardt and O'Rourke, 45.
4. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Declaration on Euthanasia," (May 5, 1980)
5. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Commentary." See note one above for link information.
6. Hardt and O'Rourke, 46.
7. U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services , (Washington, D.C.) Fourth Edition, 2001, www.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml.
8. See note one above.

THE END

Fr. Tom Euteneuer: The "Last Lion" of Abortion

2008-05-25T11:23:00.001-05:00

Source: SPIRIT & LIFE (Human Life International Newsletter), May 23, 2008

Sen. John McCain responded to the news of Sen. Edward Kennedy's brain tumor saying that Ted Kennedy was the "last lion of the Senate." Nice words, but hollow. Clearly Kennedy has been a forty-year force to reckon with in the US Senate, but lionizing him for his headstrong political partisanship over four decades is a little like saying that sticking around for a long time and being opinionated qualifies as a "legacy." That very record of anti-life advocacy is the measure by which his soul will be judged.

While I pray for Sen. Kennedy's recovery from a brain tumor, I pray more for his recovery from the cancerous metastasis of abortion ideology in his soul. Ironically, in the same years in which abortion has become less and less acceptable to the American public, it has become more and more of an obsession for Sen. Kennedy. Prior to Roe v. Wade, Sen. Kennedy had actually held a pro-life view of the sanctity of life. In a letter to a constituent he said,

"While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized - the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old." (See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=31615 )

However, post-Roe, Kennedy's record of recognizing the "value which our civilization places on life" has been, shall we say, less than stellar. In fact, he has a 0% record of voting in favor of life, and there is not one life-related issue in which his vote reflects a concern for the weakest members of our society, let alone the concern that his supposed Catholic faith places on them. Senator Kennedy

Is rated 100% by NARAL for his pro-choice voting record.
Voted NO on banning human cloning.
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions.
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
Voted NO on criminal penalties for harming an unborn child during the commission of another crime.
Voted NO on maintaining the ban on military base abortions.
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.
Voted YES on $100 million to "reduce teen pregnancy" by hedonistic sex education programs and contraceptives.
Is a sponsor of pending radical legislation in the Senate to promote special protections for homosexuals in the workplace.(See http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Ted_Kennedy_Abortion.htm)

In other words, Kennedy has spent the better part of his long political career promoting the forces that kill and maim and destroy all the things that we hold sacred. What a shocking example of public service for a man who purports to call himself Catholic.

A month to the day after illicitly receiving Communion at the Mass of the Vicar of Christ in our nation's capital, Sen. Kennedy seems to have been given a real wake up call. When all moral voices go unheeded, the prospect of death tends to focus the mind on the truth. Let us all pray for his conversion from a career of abortion advocacy, for his enlightenment and for a peaceful death, something denied to all aborted babies in this country.

Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer,
President, Human Life International

Organ Donation and Transplantation Q&A

2008-05-22T23:32:00.001-05:00

The impulse to give the “gift of life” by donating your organs is a noble one, but it is unwise to make this decision on impulse alone.

Informed consent is the ethical cornerstone of medical decision making. Without truthful and complete disclosure of information about a procedure, it is impossible to give informed consent. Here are answers to questions about the donation and transplantation of vital organs—questions you may not even know you should ask.[*]

The most important question: Are organ donors really dead before their vital organs are removed?

The simple answer is that donors of vital organs cannot be and are not dead. Before organ transplantation was possible, physicians cautiously determined death in order not to treat the living as dead. Today, both “brain death” and “cardiac death” are hastily declared, not for the patient’s welfare, but because removal of vital organs must be done before they begin to deteriorate due to loss of blood circulation. Vital organs are useless if physicians wait the time necessary to determine that a person is certainly dead.

If “brain death” is not death, what is it?

“Brain death” is a legal fiction. This fiction enables surgeons to remove living organs, without legal liability, from patients who are not dead yet, but will be after their organs are excised. Consider these facts:

A person can be pronounced “brain dead” while he or she has a beating heart, as well as normal pulse, blood pressure, color and temperature. All signs of life.
“Brain dead” patients’ wounds heal. “Brain dead” children grow. “Brain dead” pregnant women, kept alive for extended periods, gestate and deliver healthy babies and produce milk. All signs of life.
A “brain dead” donor is given a paralyzing drug to prevent squirming and grimacing when the incision is made to remove organs. Even paralyzed, his or her pulse races and blood pressure shoots up. Dead people don’t react to being cut.

Accounts of patients who have recovered after a firm diagnosis of “brain death” demonstrate that “brain dead” patients are not certainly dead. In some cases they are not even close to it. Take Zack Dunlap’s story. In November 2007, this 21-year-old Oklahoman flipped over on his 4-Wheeler and suffered catastrophic brain injuries. Thirty-six hours later, doctors at United Regional Healthcare System in Wichita Falls, Texas, declared him “brain dead.” Preparations to harvest his organs were underway when friends and relatives gathered to say their final goodbyes. His cousin, a nurse, wanting to make certain, scraped his pocket knife along the bottom of Zack’s foot. Zack jerked his foot away. Just months later, Zack is walking and talking. He recalls hearing the doctor say he was dead and being “mad inside” but unable to move. Now, he’s impatiently moving toward a full recovery.

Recoveries like Zack’s should at least make us wonder: How many potential organ donors are prematurely written off? This is not an unimportant question, particularly if the potential donor is you or your loved one.

Must a person be declared “brain dead” in order to be used as an organ donor?

No. Donor eligibility has been broadened to include another group of people who are not dead yet—patients on ventilators whom doctors label “hopeless” or “vegetative.” New rules were established to permit “donation by cardiac death” (DCD). DCD was proposed because more organs are wanted to satisfy the ever increasing demand and decisions to withdraw life support have become so easy and private.

What is “donation by cardiac death”?

A patient or family can agree to have the ventilator turned off and a “do not resuscitate” order written, then consent to organ donation. The patient is usually taken to an operating room where the ventilator is turned off. If or when the patient becomes pulseless, “cardiac death” is declared. In order to ensure healthy organs, speed is of the essence. The organ retrieval team waits only 2 to 5 minutes before beginning organ removal. The donor may be given an anesthetic just in case the team acts too quickly.

If you go without a pulse for two to five minutes in some hospitals, you’re a dead organ donor. In other places, at two minutes or five minutes or 30 minutes, they’re still trying to revive you. This means that patients in identical states are deemed dead if they are destined to be organ donors or alive when destined for resuscitation attempts.

Conclusion: The thrust of protocols that permit organ donation after “brain death” and “cardiac death” is simply this: “Let’s call them dead so we won’t be accused of murder when we stop their beating hearts and cut out their living organs.” For this reason, transplantation of vital organs taken from “dead” people can not be morally justified.

[*]The sole focus of this brochure is donation of vital organs (also called vascularized organs—organs that require continuous circulation of blood to remain useful for purposes of transplantation) after “brain death” or “cardiac death.” Other types of organ or tissue donation are beyond the scope of this brochure.