Our Lady of Soccorso



 
Body part peddlers complain that prolifers make them “look bad”

End-Of-Life Decisions and Facts


Click to explore.
 
Landmark Cases explores the human stories and constitutional dramas behind some of the most significant and frequently cited decisions in the Supreme Court's history


Click to listen to interview.
 
TS Radio interview
about Palliative Care
and the Legislative Process


Click to view video.
 
Meeting the needs of Patients - Post
Roe v. Wade



Click to view video.
 
CA Senate Health Committee SB 24 hearing on April 3, 2019.


Click to view full-size.
 
The Star of Bethlehem shines brightly on the newborn child, Jesus.


Click to view full-size.
 
This child doesn’t need Government mandated Pre-K schooling. Young John is the grandchild of a very fine Pro Life Family.


Click to view full-size.
 
Four month and six month old human fetal skeletons, displayed At the Federal Civil War Medical and Military history Museum, in Silver Spring, MD. Display can be found in new more current segment of the museum’s historical displays.


Click to view full-size.
 
Mary Catherine was an abandoned new-born, found in Antioch and buried by Ca. Right to Life and Birthright of concord, at Queen of Heaven Cemetery in Lafayette, Ca. along with 24 other pre-born babies.


Click to view full-size.
 
Come Holy Spirit, enlighten the minds and hearts of your people!
July 4th, 2018






Legislative

Reports

StateFederal
“Prevention First”: Dumb Plan or Dumbest Plan?
May 16th 2006 @ 8:46 pm

Hoping to undo the perception that the Democratic Party stands for unlimited abortion, Party leadership is promoting a “Prevention First” bill as a “pro-life” blueprint to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions. The bill’s solution: Easier access to prescription contraceptives, including so-called “emergency contraception.”

(Ed. note) In some California school Districts there apparently exists a high school seminar on, amongst other things, where to go to get the “morning After Pill.”

The strategy has intuitive appeal. If sexually active women use contraception, their risk of unintended pregnancy will be reduced, but definitely not eliminated.

(Ed. note:  This is a bill in Congress, supported by Planned Parenthood and co-sponsored by HIllary Clinton - In the House the bill is: HR 1709 by Louise Slaughter, (D-NY). In the Senate it is US20 by Nevada Sen. Harry Reid. 

 What’s wrong with this strategy? Setting aside for a moment the moral issues of sex outside marriage and contraceptive use, Prevention First presents two problems: 1) it has already been tried and failed; and 2) it results in significantly higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases

(STDs).

(Ed. Note:  In California there are some 140 school-site clinics esp. around Southern California, and a number of health vans situated at grade and middle schools.  The number of STDs is rising.  There is a state bill AB 2560 by LA Assemblyman Mark Ridley-Thomas entitled the Health Care Centers Act of 2006 that will create a state level program to establish school based clinics throughout the state.  He also has a bill, AB 2470 establishing a Health Care Master Plan for L.A. County endorsed by the Latina Health Care Coalition) 

 Seriously, does anyone really think there’s a need for more contraception out there? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), contraceptive use is “virtually universal among women of reproductive age.” A recent Guttmacher Institute study, “Abortion in Women’s Lives,” reports that 89% of “at risk women” (sexually active women of reproductive age “at risk” of becoming pregnant) use contraception, and 98% have used it in their lifetime 

If, as claimed, contraception were so “easy to use and effective” in reducing unintended pregnancies and abortions, could somebody please explain why 48% of women with unintended pregnancies and 54% of women seeking abortions were using contraception the month they became pregnant? Oral contraceptives require “perfect use” to be “highly effective.” Condoms must be used correctly and consistently, and they still break! Condoms carry a 15% risk of pregnancy with typical use over 12 months, compared to oral contraceptives, which have a 9% risk with typical use over 12 months. 

Even Guttmacher’s recent “Contraception Counts” report, cited by Prevention Firsters, shows no correlation between better access to contraception and lower abortion rates. California and New York rank among the top 5 states for contraceptive access, and among the top five in having the highest abortion rates. States ranked among the five “worst” for contraceptive access – Kansas, Utah, and North and South Dakota – have the four lowest abortion rates in the country. States in between are all over the board. 

Professor David Paton of Nottingham University has conducted four major studies since 2002 on this issue. He consistently found that increased availability of contraception, including emergency contraception, cannot be shown to reduce pregnancy and abortion rates. Although easier access may reduce the risk of pregnancy among some teens who are already sexually active, easier access encourages other teens to become sexually active, or become more so and with multiple partners. Between 1999 and 2001, with improved access to family planning clinics in the United Kingdom, teen visits rose over 23% — and the number of sexually active teens rose almost 20%, while STD rates rose 15.8%. 

I have a plan that will reduce unintended pregnancy, abortion and new STD rates to zero: abstinence before marriage, fidelity within marriage, and respect for the gift of your fertility. Oh, wait. The Catholic Church already thought of that plan. Try it anyway. It works every time. 

Susan Wills is associate director for education, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Secretariat for Pro-Life ActivitiesUSCCB Pro-Life Secretariat

(paragraphs in black were originally sent out by American Life League)
________________________

Doctors and Nurses from Across California OPPOSE Assisted Suicide AB 651

Individual Healthcare Professionals AND their professional organizations are actively fighting against this proposed legislation 

 Sacramento – In an already deeply controversial political year, opposition continues to grow against California legislation AB 651 (Berg/Levine) and Assisted Suicide. 

In addition to opposition from the American Medical Association and the California Medical Association, individual doctors and nurses are lining up to lend their voices against doctor assisted suicide. 

These individuals represent the growing coalition against Assisted Suicide. Additionally, more than two dozen California and national disability rights organizations have taken official stands against assisted suicide. 

(Partial List)

Jennie McCullough Stiles RN            Edward J. Santoro MD 
Timothy Tice MD                        Henry C. Walther MD
Rosalind Garcia RN                     Philip Calanchini MD
Karen Lethbridge-Cadinha RN            Jessica Khouri MD
Mary Hentges RN                        Cynthia D. Boynton RN
Herman Gray MD                         Ofelia Datuin RN
Paul Macdonald MD                      H. Rex Greene MD
Jefferson Harman MD                    Mary Galten RN
John Gisla MD                          Anita Landry RN
Anne Kinderman MD                      Ronald E. Foltz MD
Darilyn Falck MD                       Anne Marie McBride RN 

 Californians Against Assisted Suicide is a coalition of health care, disability rights, and grassroots advocacy organizations united under the strong opposition to the legalization of assisted suicide.

 Californians Against Assisted Suicide was established to defeat legislation that would legalize assisted suicide in California.

(Ed. Note:  While the pro life community welcomes the help of these above indicated people and groups because we couldn’t defeat this alone, many of these same groups lobby for universal health care and abortion. The California Catholic Conference also supports universal health care. The CCC seems to understand that the passage of universal health care could be the door that opens to euthanasia, but they have claimed that they will worry about that when and if it comes.

_________________________

From the Spirit and Life report of Human Life International comes this commentary on Cardinal Martini’s espousal of condoms. Click on the internet address to read the entire report - www.hli.org - vol. 1,#14 Friday, May 5,2006

The Condom Anti-Pope

The 79-year old liberal Jesuit Italian Cardinal Carlo Martini, former Archbishop of Milan, last week in an interview with L’Espresso magazine pronounced his infallible statement on condom use for married couples: “Certainly the use of prophylactics can, in some situations, constitute a lesser evil. There is the particular situation of spouses, one of whom is affected by AIDS. It is the obligation of this spouse to protect the other partner and they must be able to protect themselves.” Some have called this type of logic the ravings of an anti-pope who is a darling of the liberal media and who epitomizes all the forces of destruction from within the church hierarchy that have been seething under the surface for the whole papacy of John Paul II. The anti-pope has spoken, but will the Catholic Church capitulate to his doctrine?

In the face of a media blitz supporting Martini’s “lesser evil” casuistry and favorable remarks from certain Vatican officials, let me offer a historical perspective. There was a total Christian consensus against the use of all birth control up until 1930 when the Anglican Church, in its August 1930 Lambeth Conference, unilaterally decided that married couples could use birth control for reasons of the “lesser evil.” The argument, using modern language, went something like this: childbearing is burdensome and kids are expensive; married couples get too stressed out if they have too many kids; this stress puts undue pressure on marriages which causes couples to divorce; divorce is an injustice to the kids that they have; therefore birth control for married couples is the “lesser evil” and even constitutes a responsible, moral act. Change the words a bit to add the modern scourge of AIDS to the formula and Cardinal Martini’s position on so-called condom protection in marriage is indistinguishable from the first breakers of the teaching of Christ on birth control.

The condom savior is a false messiah. We have to “face facts fearlessly,” as our founder Fr. Paul Marx used to say, and ask the hard questions that the condom-promoting abortion industry is unwilling to address.

Catechism—the lesser evil in this case is still condemned by our Church.

—the lesser evil in this case is still condemned by our Church.__________________________

How come Planned Parenthood doesn’t get it? You can’t have Mother’s Day without … babies!

Washington, D.C. – “How is it possible for Planned Parenthood, operator of the nation’s largest chain of abortion clinics, to conduct a fundraising campaign with a Mother’s Day theme?” asked American Life League president Judie Brown. “It’s simply horrifying to think that anyone involved in abortion – even Planned Parenthood – could have the audacity to claim any association at all with a day designed to salute a mother’s selfless love for her children.”

Over the years, Planned Parenthood has committed more than three million abortions. “That’s three million instances in which mothers permitted their children to be killed at this organization’s hands,” said Mrs. Brown. “For many of these women, Mother’s Day is an annual reminder of the unspeakable evil they permitted to be perpetrated on their own flesh and blood.”

A recent e-mail communication from Jatrice Martel Gaiter, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, D.C., urged supporters to “honor your mother in a very special way” with a financial contribution to Planned Parenthood. Gaiter said that at Planned Parenthood’s Washington affiliate, “Mother’s Day also reminds us of our mission – to ensure that every child is wanted, nurtured, and enormously loved.”

       _______________________________________________

Pro-Life Wisconsin

The following article was part of PLW’s Monday Update on May 1. Please take a moment to read the article and pass along the information – especially to any professional photographers you may know!

Grieving parents capture most of their child’s life with photography program

Abortion advocates are fond of bringing up extreme cases to argue the necessity of abortion. One of their favorite scenarios to highlight is the tragic case where a child will be born with a life threatening condition. They argue that it is better to allow a woman to have an abortion than for her to have to see her child, bond with her child only to have the baby die a short time later.

A new photography program, called Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep, illustrates that even a few hours with a dying child are a precious re-affirmation of life. The program that started less than a year ago in Denver connects professional photographers who volunteer their time and talent with families who have infants with terminal illnesses. The service provides professional quality photos of the child that a family will treasure for years to come.

Abortion is never the right choice, even in times of horrible tragedy. Having a few short hours to celebrate a life, and capture the all-too short moments of life on film helps families to grieve, to heal and to remember.

Read more about this amazing program at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060419/wl_nm/life_babies_dc

______________________________

 The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services on Monday voted 3-1 to approve a plan by Assembly member Wilma Chan (D-Oakland) to expand children’s health insurance coverage, the Sacramento Bee reports. The plan would add $50 million for children’s health insurance to the fiscal year 2006-2007 state budget.

Chan’s proposal is modeled after legislation (AB 772) she supported last year, which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) vetoed (Benson, Sacramento Bee, 5/9). The bill would have raised income eligibility for state health insurance programs to allow more children to enroll. The legislation would have allowed the use of a single form to determine eligibility for subsidized school lunches and state health insurance programs and made state health coverage available to undocumented immigrant children (California Healthline, 10/11/2005).

Chan’s revised proposal over three years would expand health insurance coverage for children.

According to the Bee, the subcommittee’s approval of the measure will push legislators and Schwarzenegger “to accept or reject the proposal as they debate spending” for FY 2006-2007 (Sacramento Bee, 5/9).

(Ed. note:  The Catholic Voice, newspaper for the Catholic Diocese of Oakland, Ca,. carried an interview with a case manager for East Bay Catholic Charities - Emancipated foster youth are at great risk” - She was complaining that they didn’t have enough money to “cover” foster children age 18 and over who must leave the foster care system and start on their own.  This is a sort of bridge program which while appearing to be helping youth is actually a means of maintaining young adults on the government dole until they can get on their own welfare or Healthy Families program.  In other words - womb to tomb - government control)

_________________________

UPDATE ON US SENATE BILL BY MIKE ENZI
Senate To Debate Association Health Plan Bill
May 9, 2006

Debate in the Senate is set to begin Tuesday on the association health plan bill (S 1955) being proposed by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), the AP/Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports (Freking, AP/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/9).

The bill would allow small businesses and trade associations to form association health plans across state lines. Under the bill, insurers would be permitted to sell plans to businesses and individuals that do not meet current state benefits requirements. However, they then also would have to offer a plan with benefits provided under a state employees’ plan in one of the five most heavily populated states — California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas.

In addition, the bill would preempt state laws that limit how much insurers can vary premiums from one small business to another (California Healthline, 5/3). According to the AP/Journal-Constitution, the vote is expected to be close and fall primarily along party lines, with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed.

Democrats are expected to offer a competing bill Tuesday that would also allow small businesses to join together to purchase health insurance. Sponsored by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), the program would be set up like the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (AP/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/9).

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said she is crafting a possible amendment to small business health care legislation that would require insurers to provide coverage for medical treatments mandated by two-thirds of states.

In addition, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she would offer an amendment to the Enzi bill that would require health plans not to discriminate against a provider on the basis of license or certification. She said the Enzi bill’s current form could restrict patients’ access to qualified professionals who are licensed or certified by state law, such as nurse practitioners or physician assistants (Carey, CQ HealthBeat, 5/8).

The House has passed legislation that is similar to Enzi’s bill (Olson, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 5/9).

Comments

Enzi estimates that about one million currently uninsured workers would obtain coverage through the measure. Business groups, such as the National Federation of Independent Businesses, support the legislation, while groups such as AARP and the American Cancer Society oppose it (AP/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/9).

NFIB argues that the bill would give small businesses the same buying power as big corporations and unions. However, opponents say the measure would override state laws and remove consumer protections for people buying insurance individually or through their employers (Isaac, Orlando Sentinel, 5/8).

Leaders of AARP and ACS said the measure might expand coverage but it would give people diluted benefits (St. Paul Pioneer Press, 5/9). (Yes, it could cut out abortion and contraceptive coverage)

Ron Pollack, Families USA director, said the bill is “one of the most harmful anti-consumer health bills in recent memory” because “it leaves millions of people at the mercy of health insurance companies by eliminating a range of state laws that protect the consumer and regulate insurance company behavior.”

Families USA released a report Monday stating that more than 85 million U.S. residents would lose consumer protections as a result of the legislation (CQ HealthBeat, 5/8).

Editorials, Opinion Piece

Two editorials and an opinion piece were published Tuesday addressing the Enzi bill. Summaries appear below.

    * Wall Street Journal: “When Ron Pollack of Families USA starts screaming, Republicans must be doing something right about health care. And so they finally are,” a Journal editorial states. It adds that the measure “would increase the number of people who have” health insurance, “and that’s exactly what such government-run health care advocates as Mr. Pollack … don’t like.” The editorial says the “claims that the Enzi bill would allow for worthless policies and fly-by-night insurers are unfounded.” It says, “Let’s hope Republicans recognize the stakes in today’s vote. They badly need something to show voters this fall, … and making health care more affordable will resonate with Americans everywhere.” The editorial adds, “[W]e hope [the White House is] as prepared to twist arms for this reform as it was a few years back for the Medicare prescription drug entitlement.” It concludes, “A vibrant national health insurance market would be partial absolution for that expensive new burden on taxpayers” (Wall Street Journal, 5/9).

    * Washington Post: “[T]he proposed bill is risky,” and its “preemption of state authority might stifle creative experiments in health policy that could help solve the long-term crisis of health costs,” a Post editorial states. It says, “The backers of the Senate bill … ought to concede that viable purchasing pools can already be created within large and medium-size states; the need to recruit people from other states is powerful only in states with small populations.” The editorial continues, “They should also concede that, with health policy at the federal level paralyzed, the most promising experiments in containing costs and expanding coverage are taking place at the state level; there’s a risk in narrowing states’ room to maneuver.” The Post concludes, “If the bill’s backers concede these two points, their legislation should not pass” (Washington Post, 5/9).

    * Tom Daschle, The Hill: “Small businesses need help to afford health insurance. But [Enzi’s bill] goes in the wrong direction,” former Senate Majority Leader Daschle (D-S.D.) writes in a Hill opinion piece. He says, “It would raise premiums for those who most rely on the health care system today and make coverage more affordable only for those who need it least.” Daschle adds, “It would take away important benefits people depend on today and leave them uninsured for basic care.” He concludes, “And, it would prevent states like Massachusetts from making progress on what should be a national priority: providing affordable health coverage for all” (Daschle, The Hill, 5/9).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Candidates Endorse Single-Payer Health System
April 28, 2006
All six candidates for the Democratic nomination for the 6th District Assembly seat support a single-payer health care system, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat reports. The 6th District represents Marin and southern Sonoma counties.

Marin County Supervisor Cynthia Murray said a single-payer system is her main goal. 

Marin County Democratic Chair John Alden said his platform, which features universal health care, would “utterly transform” the Democratic party.

Petaluma Council member Pamela Torliatt said she supports a bill (SB 840) by Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Los Angeles) that would establish a single-payer health system that would save an estimated $44 billion.

Other candidates said they support a universal health care system but named other issues as their main focus.

The 6th District seat currently is held by Assembly member Joe Nation (D-San Rafael), who has served three two-year terms (Benefield, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 4/27)..

________________________________
Please check out our new web site for continuing up to the minute coverage of legislation.
www.callifeadvocates.org/blog 

-Camille
comment on this article

Notice: All comments are moderated. Your comment will appear once approved.

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-Spam Image

 
 
Take away God, all respect for civil laws, all regard for even the most necessary institutions disappears; justice is scouted; the very liberty that belongs to the law of nature is trodden underfoot; and men go so far as to destroy the very structure of the family, which is the first and firmest foundation of the social structure.
- St. Pius X, Jucunda Sane, March 12, 1904