Doctor Surrenders License after Abortion Death

From Cape Cod Today:

Five months after 22-year-old Laura Hope Smith died on his operating table during an abortion, Rapin Osathanondh, a Hyannis gynecologist , has relinquished his medical license in the wake of a criminal investigation and disciplinary action by the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine.

Woman's mother kept the heat on newspaper and DA's office

Smith was reportedly 13 weeks pregnant when she underwent the abortion Sept. 13 last year at the Women Health Center office of Dr. Rapin Osathanondh.

Mother was sought out and interviewed by a Cape Cod Times reporter two days after her daughter’s death, but the article never ran.“I don’t want Laura’s death swept under the rug,” her mother said. Eileen and Tom Smith adopted their Honduran-born daughter at age 5. “If Laura had died falling off a bike or in a car accident, it would have been in the paper the next day. This is a political hot potato,” Laura's mother said.

The Board had moved to suspend Osathanondh's license pending further investigation, declaring him to be a "risk to public safety." In a surprise move yesterday, Osathanondh instead permanently surrendered his license, and will not practice medicine again anywhere.

“If Laura had died falling off a bike or in a car accident, it would have been in the paper the next day" the mother

On Monday, the Boston Medical Examiner's office declared that the cause of Smith's death was "cardiac pulmonary arrest during anesthesia during a voluntary termination of pregnancy."

Left Boston Hospital under a cloud
Threatened nurses, complaint ignored


As we reported last October, Dr. Osathanondh left Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston in 2001 following complaints that during a staff meeting he threatened to “execute” five nurses. He was not prosecuted for the alleged threats, according to Boston Herald reports. Mrs. Smith said her daughter apparently died on the abortion table. Firefighters found her non-responsive when they answered the emergency call, according to the report she read.

Smith was brought by ambulance to Cape Cod Hospital. Pending the autopsy, the cause of her death is still not officially listed. Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O’Keefe said his office “reviews all deaths of this nature.” However, he’ll have to first receive the state medical examiner’s autopsy report, which may be released by late October.

Calls to Osathanondh's clinic revealed that it is not accepting patients, but is referring women to other clinics.

Laura Smith had sought an abortion from Osathanondh on September 13, 2007, at his office, Women's Health Center, in the Cape Cod town of Hyannis. Smith was placed under full anesthesia when only Osathanondh and a non-medical receptionist were present. When Smith suddenly stopped breathing, the receptionist phoned 911 but gave very little information to the dispatcher. Smith died later that day.

Met with mother, immediately "smelled a rat"

Ten days after Smith's death, Osathanondh met with Smith's mother, Eileen, and showed her medical records that caused her to believe that his negligence was responsible for Laura's death.

"While nothing can bring back Laura and her baby, we take great comfort in knowing that Osathanondh will never again hurt another woman or kill another innocent child"Operation Rescue, a "Pro Life" organization, first broke the news of Laura's death, then worked with Eileen to apply public pressure to authorities so that Laura's death was not covered up. Cape Cod TODAY ran a story on these facts on October 17, 2007 after the local daily newspaper had failed to respond to the mother's requests for news of her daughter's death. "I feel like this was a group effort and you were part of it!" Eileen Smith told Operation Rescue after receiving news of Osathanondh's license surrender.

"While nothing can bring back Laura and her baby, we take great comfort in knowing that Osathanondh will never again hurt another woman or kill another innocent child," said Operation Rescue spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger. "We commend Eileen Smith on her tireless dedication to seeking justice for Laura, in spite of the personal grief and huge obstacles that she had to overcome."

"Most of the time authorities just want to sweep abortion complications and deaths under the rug, slap the abortionist on the wrist, and send him on his merry way. That certainly would have happened in this case if not for Eileen's determination and for groups like ours that kept Laura's death on the front burner."

and from the Cape Cod Times:

A gynecologist who came under scrutiny after a patient died following an abortion in his Hyannis clinic resigned his medical license yesterday.

As a result of his resignation, Dr. Rapin Osathanondh, whose primary practice was in Brookline, can no longer practice medicine in Massachusetts, nor can he reapply for the license at a later date.

Dr. Rapin Osathanondh
Medical school: Mahidol University, Siriraj Hospital, Thailand, graduated 1967

Post-graduate training:

Siriraj Hospital, Thailand, general surgery, 1967-1968



UMass Memorial Medical Center, intern, 1968-1969


Caritas St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, resident, general surgery, 1969-1970Brigham & Women's Hospital, resident, obstetrics and gynecology, 1970-1973 Brigham & Women's, Harvard Medical School, fellow, 1973-1975Ford Foundation, fellow, 1975-1977


Board certification: American Board of Medical Specialties, obstetrics and gynecology

Source: Massachusett Board of Registration in Medicine
The reasons why the former Harvard fellow resigned his medical license are not public, according to a Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine spokesman. However, medical board spokesman Russell Aims described the action as "disciplinary," adding that because the doctor chose to resign, members of the board are constrained from discussing the case or the underlying cause of the resignation.

Aims said Osathanondh's name and a notice about his resignation will be sent to national data banks that track doctors' licenses.

Messages left at Osathanondh's offices in Brookline and Hyannis yesterday were not returned.

Laura Smith of Sandwich, 22, died Sept. 13 after going to Osathanondh's Hyannis office for an abortion. Smith's mother, Eileen filed a complaint against Osathanondh with the medical board late last year.

Laura Smith was pronounced dead at Cape Cod Hospital after being taken there by ambulance. Her mother said she was 13 weeks pregnant when she sought an abortion.

In her medical board complaint, Smith questioned what kind of drugs, including anesthesia, Osathanondh used on her daughter and whether there was anyone with medical training to assist Osathanondh during the abortion procedure.

Some of those questions remain unanswered because Smith has not been allowed complete access to her daughter's medical records, and the results of the autopsy performed in September are still pending as the state Medical Examiner's office awaits toxicology tests.

Smith has filed a claim in Barnstable Superior Court to obtain the medical records and autopsy results. Smith's Boston-based attorney, David Angueria, said he plans to press the court harder for the release of the medical records now that Osathanondh has resigned.

"I cannot say exactly what led the board to take the action it did (to accept the resignation), but something the doctor did obviously led them to take that action," Angueria said.

"For the time being, we are acting under certain constraints because we don't have all the information we're seeking."

Angueria said once he has a complete autopsy report in hand, he will consult with experts before taking further legal steps.

In a telephone interview from her New Jersey home yesterday, Eileen Smith said she was "overjoyed" with the medical board's decision to accept Osathanondh's resignation.

"I am thrilled beyond belief. I feel like Laura finally got justice. ... I'm grateful to the medical board," she said.

The state medical examiner has determined Laura Smith's cause of death as "cardiac pulmonary arrest during anesthesia for voluntary termination" of a pregnancy, her mother said.

The manner of death is still pending, Smith said.

Manner of death — the way in which the cause of death came about — is a key factor in whether Osathanondh could face a criminal charge.

Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O'Keefe said his office is treating the case as an unattended death, a term that is applied to cases the state medical examiner investigates under state law. He spoke with the state medical examiner a few days ago and some blood tests are pending, he said.

O'Keefe said he will consult with an anesthesiologist about the results of the toxicology reports.

Eileen Smith said she is satisfied with O'Keefe's handling of the case.

"He's been very sensitive and it has been reassuring to know the DA's office is following this," Smith said.

"My hope is the district attorney will prosecute. There are certain things that (Osathanondh) should have done that he didn't do. He must be held accountable."

Ten days after her daughter's death, in an effort to understand what had happened, Smith met with Osathanondh in the lobby of the Boston Harbor Hotel.

Osathanondh said her daughter had a suction-type abortion and she was anesthetized during the procedure, according to Smith. She saw a waiver her daughter signed, the permissions she gave and the list of drugs she was given, Smith said.

"After what had happened, I expected to meet a monster. Instead, I met this tall, thin, soft-spoken Asian man, who if I had not known what he'd done, might be someone I'd invite to dinner," Smith said. "But I do know what he did and I am relieved that he will no longer practice medicine. Laura's death will not be in vain if it saves the lives of other young women."

Portuguese Medical Association Supports Life

Sometimes things happen which make me proud of my heritage. This is one of them.

From LifeSiteNews.com

The Portuguese Medical Association, defying threats by the socialist government's health minister to begin criminal proceedings against it, has re-elected its president, Pedro Nunes, who has defied the government's order to change the Association's ethical code to allow abortion.

In his victory speech, Nunes promised to maintain the independence of the Medical Association from the government, signaling his resolve to preserve the association's ethical code.

The Association does not "have to do the work of the government nor the work of the opposition," said Nunes, and added that his organization should not fear to criticize what it believes to be worthy of criticism. "Doctors are on the side of the Portuguese," he said.

The Portuguese code of ethics states that "doctors must maintain respect for human life from its beginning", and "the practice of abortion or euthanasia constitutes a grave ethical failure".

Following the government's decision to decriminalize all first-trimester abortions in 2007, socialist health minister Antonio Correia de Campos ordered the Medical Association to eliminate the prohibition against abortion from its ethical code in October. He was supported by the Portuguese Attorney General, who had issued a legal opinion condemning the passages.

However, Nunes refused, insisting that it was an internal matter, and that the government had no authority to intervene in the affairs of the Association. Although Correia claimed he was filing a criminal complaint in November, no action has yet been taken against the group.

The group's presidential election was seen as a referendum on the abortion issue, because Nunes was the only candidate who promised from the beginning to maintain the ethical code. His main rival, Miguel Leão, wanted to change to code to comply with the government's demands.

The issue of the ethical code made the recent elections the most intense and bitter in memory. Although Nunes' pro-abortion rival garnered the most votes in the first round, the January 17th runoff between Leão and Nunes resulted in Leão's resounding defeat, 56 to 44 percent.

Nunes' current term will last until 2010.

A Mother, A Father, and an Unborn Baby

As I am sure you all know, today is the 35th anniversary of the tragedy called Roe vs. Wade. I will commemorate the anniversary here by telling my story.

4 years ago, on January 13th I got wonderful news. After many years of infertility, my husband and I were going to have a baby. Our joy was indescribable, but like the road to conception, the path of this pregnancy would take us through trials I never imagined.

My first ultrasound was scheduled for February 3rd. I had no idea what to expect, but I didn't think I would see much on the little screen. I was wrong! Only 4 week and 4 days after conception, the ultrasound tech pointed out all the parts of this tiny human, arms, legs, face, heart. I watched arms and legs move and saw a tiny heart beating and pumping blood though this beautiful human being. My husband and I were in awe and when we got into the car he began to cry. I asked him why and his response was, "It's a baby. How can anyone have an abortion and kill a little baby like that". We sat in the car together and wept for all the children like the one growing within me that the world has lost. It didn't take much to see that it was a baby.

A little over two weeks later, at 7 weeks after conception I had another ultrasound. This machine wasn't as good as the other machine, so the images weren't as clear, but it was still clear to my husband and I. This was a human! Still, I had no idea the twists and turns which were in store for me.

I refused most of the prenatal tests which I was pressured to allow because I didn't want to be placed in a position where I was tempted to make a decision that I didn't want to make. That may sound dumb, but I knew that if there was something wrong, I would be pressured by family, friends and society in general to abort. To me not having to make the decision meant I couldn't make the wrong choice. Despite my best efforts, God had other plans.

17 weeks after conception, I had another ultrasound. This time there was no doubt. I watched him smile, purse his lips, and even scratch his head. This was when I discovered that this beautiful child was a boy. We named him immediately. A few days later we got devastating news: I needed to get a special ultrasound because there was a kidney deformity. I scheduled an appointment with the perinatologist and had another ultrasound. Once again I saw JP's beautiful features on the screen. Then we met with the doctor. He explained what was wrong and that it could correct itself or could be surgically repaired after birth, or even in utero if necessary. Then she began to tell us that this was a marker for Down Syndrome. She presented all sorts of statistics, then handed my pamphlets on abortion. "I'm going to step out while you decide what you want to do", she said. My husband and I just looked at each other, we both knew this baby was going to be born.

When the doctor returned we told her that we were not aborting. She said, "We can do it right now. You don't even have to come back. Let me explain to procedure to you and I'll give you a few more minutes." I said, "No, I am not getting an abortion". Then she said, Well, take the papers home, look them over, and call me back. Take your time, you don't have to decide today". My husband stood up, threw the pamphlets on the desk and said, "What part of this don't you get? No abortion! We already told you no. Don't ask us again. We aren't killing our baby!"

The doctor didn't get it because she repeated, "I understand that is how you feel now, but you can always change your mind." He said, "Don't worry we won't and we won't be back" and we stormed out of the office. The doctor and the staff seemed puzzled. I wondered how many people they had pressured into abortions they didn't want to have.

The craziest part of the story is that there was only a 5% chance of Down Syndrome. 5% chance! That means there was a 95% chance of everything being just fine.

JP was born 18 weeks later, and he was very sick. However, it didn't have anything to do with either Down Syndrome or his kidneys. It turned out that he had neither problem. JP was very sick because an overdose of Pitocin which was given to speed labor. JP was born without a heartbeat. The doctors worked frantically to resuscitate him. Ironic that they used the word resuscitation because that implies admission that he had been alive prior to birth. There was no ontological change which occurred during the birth process except the change from alive to dead and alive again. It was a traumatic week as I watched this little boy suffer attached to machines which kept him alive, countless tests, and simply being separated from him.

He survived everything without any damage. He is a beautiful, perfect, intelligent three year old who is sitting next to me right now trying to add to this post. I could have missed out on playing with trucks, sloppy kisses, tight hugs, and muddy shoes if I had listened to that doctor who was completely wrong both morally and medically.

Importance of Natural Moral Law

This morning the Pope received members of the International Theological Commission, who have just completed their annual plenary meeting, held in the Vatican from October 1 to 5 under the presidency of Cardinal William Joseph Levada.

In his remarks to them, the Holy Father recalled the recent publication of a commission document on the subject of "the hope of salvation for children who die without receiving Baptism," and expressed the wish that it may "continue to be a useful point of reference for pastors of the Church and for theologians," as well as providing "assistance and consolation for the faithful who have suffered the sudden death of a child before receiving" the Sacrament.

Turning to focus on "natural moral law," a question being examined by the commission, Benedict XVI indicated that the doctrine on natural law "achieves two essential aims: on the one hand, it makes it clear that the ethical content of Christian faith is not an imposition dictated from outside man's conscience, but a norm that has its basis in human nature itself; and on the other hand, by starting from the basis of natural law - which of itself is accessible to all rational creatures - it lays the foundations for dialogue with all men and women of good will, and with civil society more generally."

The Pope then highlighted the fact that nowadays "the original evidence for the foundations of human beings and of their ethical behavior has been lost, and the doctrine of natural moral law clashes with other concepts which run directly contrary to it. All this has enormous consequences on civil and social order."

What dominates today, he continued, "is a positivist conception of law" according to which "humanity, or society, or in effect the majority of citizens, become the ultimate source for civil legislation. The problem that arises is not, then, the search for good but the search for power, or rather the balance of power. At the root of this tendency is ethical relativism, in which some people even see one of the principal conditions for democracy because, they feel, relativism guarantees tolerance and mutual respect. ... But if this were true, the majority at any given moment would become the ultimate source for law, and history shows with great clarity that majorities can make mistakes."

"When," the Holy Father proceeded, "the fundamental essentials are at stake: human dignity, human life, the institution of the family and the equity of the social order (in other words the fundamental rights of man), no law made by men and women can subvert the norm written by the Creator in man's heart without society itself being dramatically struck ... at its very core. Thus natural law is a true guarantee for everyone to live freely and with respect for their dignity, protected from all ideological manipulation and from all arbitrary abuses of the powerful. No one can disregard this appeal.

"If," he added, "by reason of a tragic clouding of the collective conscience, skepticism and ethical relativism managed to annul the fundamental principles of natural moral law, the very democratic order itself would be profoundly undermined at its foundations. Against such clouding - which is a crisis for human, even more than for Christian, civilization - the consciences of all men and women of good will must be mobilized, both lay people and followers of religions other than Christianity, so that together they may make an effective commitment to creating ... the conditions necessary for a full awareness of the inalienable value of natural moral law."

Benedict XVI concluded by stressing that "the advance of individuals and of society along the path of true progress" depends upon respect for natural moral law, "in conformity with right reason, which is participation in the eternal Reason of God."
VIS

Living in The Culture of Death

On Wednesday my professor presented an interesting class activity. We were to break into groups and discuss several issues regarding medical ethics. We never made it past the first question.

Question 1) You and your spouse are expecting a child. A genetic test after the first trimester detects problems in the growth of the fetus. The results suggest that the child will most likely develop cystic fibrosis, a painful incurable condition, which usually results in death by the time a child is in her early teens. Do you terminate the pregnancy? Why or why not?

There were five students in my group. Two women and three men. We were a diverse group made up of people from different races and backrounds. I was the oldest in the group, by at least eight years.

The responses of my classmates shocked me. I imagined there would be differing viewpoints, but I didn't expect to be the only person on the side of life. When we were debating the first question, one 18 year old girl's comment particularly shocked me when she said that it was ok for the mother to abort the fetus "because the kid is going to die anyway". I responded by saying that "we are all going to die. Does that make our lives less valuable." Then I thought I had the clincher. "If you were pregnant and you knew your child was going to be hit by a car and die at 5 years old what would you do?" The resonse, "I would get an abortion". Everyone in my group agreed with her.

I wanted to cry right then and there. This is the future of the world and they cannot see the value of life. Some of them even said they would prefer to be aborted rather than die young. My son is almost three years old and if something horrible were to happen to him, I would never regret the past three years. NEVER!

So, how long does a person have to live for their life to be "worth it". 20 years, 40 years, 70 years and when is a person's life no longer worth it. Although these kids don't see it yet, life is ALWAYS worth it. To paraphrase Archbishop Sheen, There is no human life which isn't worth living. He knew it then, and some of us now it now, but will anyone know it in the future.

After our group debates we opened it up to the entire class. On the pro-life side there were me, another woman about my age, and two students from the Rabbinical college. It's a class of 25 students (mostly freshmen) at a Catholic college. I pray the good Dominicans will be able to get through to these kids.

Couple Receives over $21 Million Dollars for "Wrongful Birth" of Handicapped Son

TAMPA, Florida, July 24, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A judge has awarded over $21 million dollars to a couple for the "wrongful birth" of their second handicapped son. The couple would have aborted the child if they had known about his disability, the Tampa Bay Tribune reports.

Daniel and Amara Estrada have two sons who are both physically handicapped with the same genetic disorder, Smith-Lemli-Opitz, which does not allow them to properly synthesize cholesterol. The children have difficulty walking and must be fed through a feeding tube. They also have smaller heads and other physical abnormalities.

After the first son was born, the couple's doctor, Boris Kousseff, from the University of South Florida (USF), told them that they would be able to have other normal children and did not diagnose the problem as hereditary. Consequently, when their second son Caleb was born with the same disorder, the couple sued the doctor and the USF.

"He says you have the same chance of anyone else in society of having a normal child. He doesn't tell the truth," said the family's attorney Christian Searcy, Tampa Bay My Fox reports. The judge ruled that the couple will receive over $21 million dollars in recompense for the negligence of the doctor.

The couple claimed that if they had had a proper diagnosis after the birth of their first child in 2002, they could have determined by a pregnancy test that the second son Caleb had the same disorder. According to the lawsuit, if the couple had known this, they would have aborted him, the Associated Press reports.

Commenting on the situation, president and spokesperson for Florida Right to Life Lynda Bell told LifeSiteNews.com, "How bizarre that in our nation, not only have we become a throw-away generation, including our babies that are not perfect, but that now we're holding doctors responsible to deliver a perfect baby. I think this is absurd, and I think this court is opening up a Pandora's box to all types of litigations that say, 'it's not just a matter of nature, now I can hold a doctor accountable for an imperfect child.'"

Bell stated, "Doctor's may feel that they have a responsibility to lead people to abortion just so there's not a lawsuit." She continued, "I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not the doctor was negligent without knowing all the facts of the case, but I think there's a very fine line between a negligent physician and having him being responsible for an unborn child, whether or not it is perfect." She also said that the doctor might have been sued legitimately for negligence, but not for "wrongful birth". "Doctors are not God," she said, "they're physicians."

This story is similar to the case of an Austrian doctor in 2006 who was threatened in court with paying lifetime support costs for a young girl who was born with Down's syndrome. The mother claimed that she would have aborted her daughter if she had known about the child's condition early enough (see http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06071402.html).

Similarly, in 2003 a British Columbia, Canada court ruled that Dr. Ken Kan of Richmond must pay $325,000 for "wrongful birth", after he failed to diagnose that a child had Down's syndrome. The mother claimed that their handicapped child's birth "totally disrupted our plans," and caused the couple's marriage to fall apart (see http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jan/03013005.html).

What They Are Really Good For

h/t to Zadok. This story is too good to pass by.

From the Telegraph.

India is struggling to prevent millions of condoms from being made into toys or sold as balloons.

The contraceptives were distributed free to control the country's population and restrict the Aids virus.

However, they are being used instead to strengthen roads, provide extra waterproofing for houses and to carry water.

Health activists said millions of condoms were melted down for their latex and made into toys. Others were dyed and sold as balloons.

In rural areas, villagers used them as water containers. India's soldiers covered their gun barrels with condoms as protection against dust.

Only a quarter of about 1.5 billion condoms made each year were "properly utilised", the activists said.

Health planners are trying to control India's population of more than 1.2 billion. In 2005 the HIV epidemic afflicted more than 5.7 million people. Of the 891 million condoms meant to be handed out free, most were used by road contractors, who mixed them with concrete and tar to create a smooth surface.

Soccer Star Supports Virginity

So Gisele thought she was making a great point... well, here is another opinion from a star who can make sense when he speaks.

From LifeSiteNews.com:

The Brazilian supermodel Gisele Bundchen is receiving widespread media coverage after an outburst in which she criticized the Catholic Church for its teachings on premarital sex, abortion and contraceptives.

Bundchen’s remarks follow closely on the heel’s of Pope Benedict’s visit to the Catholic country, during which visit he repeatedly restated the Church’s teachings on social issues, exhorting Brazilians to live up to the ideals that their faith professes.
Bundchen, however, called the Church’s teachings “ridiculous” in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper. At one point she made the unsubstantiated claim that in the modern world no one ever waits until marriage before having sex, even apparently calling into question the possibility that a man or woman can remain chaste until marriage.

"Today no one is a virgin when they get married ... show me someone who's a virgin!" she said. She went on, criticizing the Catholic Church’s moral teachings saying, "How is it possible to not want people to use condoms and also not have abortions? It's impossible, I'm sorry." However, in an interview with the Italian edition of “Vanity Fair” that appeared just after the supermodel made her remarks, the Brazilian soccer superstar known as Kaka has said that both he and his wife, Caroline, were virgins when they got married. Kaka, one of Brazil’s most successful soccer players, has long been known for both his outspoken Christian faith and his remarkable good looks.

“The Bible teaches that true love waits until marriage," Kaka told “Vanity Fair”, saying about his marriage, “If our life today is so beautiful, I think it is because we waited."

The time prior to his and his wife’s marriage, during which they conducted a chaste relationships, says Kaka "was important, as it tested our love." The soccer star admitted that it was not easy to stay a virgin until his wedding night, and that even still there are difficulties in living faithfully, saying that “there are always temptations,” but also says that the sacrifices that he and his wife made for each other have been more than worth it.

Gisele Bundchen, who is one of the most popular supermodels in the world, not only called into question the possibility of living chastely and defended the use of contraceptives and abortion, but in a bizarre twist actually indicated that the use of condoms should be “compulsory.”

"It's ridiculous to ban contraceptives,” she said. “You only have to think of the diseases that are transmitted without them. I think it should be compulsory to use a contraceptive."

See the Vanity Fair article (in Italian) at:http://www.style.it/cont/people-show/news/0706/0500/kaka-e-i...

Rudy! Listen up!

From LifeSite News:

In what is being perceived as an eerie instance of coincidence, a series of lightning hits caused audio disruption at the exact moments when pro-abortion presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani attempted to defend his support for abortion despite his supposed Roman Catholic faith. The lightning storm occured during a New Hampshire debate.

The first bolt hit just as the former New York mayor took the mic to answer a question about the sharp criticism his position on abortion garnered him from Rhode Island Catholic Bishop Thomas J. Tobin, who publicly condemned Giuliani for his abortion stance earlier this week.

Bishop Tobin compared Giuliani's refusal to oppose abortion to Pontius Pilate's role in the crucifixion of Christ.

"I can just hear Pilate saying, 'You know, I'm personally opposed to crucifixion but I don't want to impose my belief on others," Bishop Tobin wrote in a column for the Providence Catholic news.

As Giuliani began to brush aside Bishops Tobin's view, a crack of lightning caused the sound system to give out and cut off his mic. Wolf Blitzer of CNN, who was moderating the debate, pointed out the electronic disturbance was caused by lightning.

The audience burst into laughter, evidently recognizing the possible interpretations of such the eerie event.

Giuliani said, laughing, as his debate opponents backed away from him in jest, "For someone who went to parochial schools all his life, this is a very frightening thing." However, a second bolt crashed moments later, just as Giuliani opened his mouth to answer the question again, cutting him off as he attempted to say he "respected" the views of Catholic and religious leaders.

He finally completed his answer audibly, despite two more lightning strikes, reiterating his position that while he believes abortion to be wrong, he does not believe it should be illegal. Giuliani's insistence of remaining on the fence over the issue was condemned by Bishop Tobin as "preposterous", saying he had "defected from the Catholic faith" on the issue.

"Rudy's preposterous position is compounded by the fact that he professes to be a Catholic," Bishop Tobin wrote. "As Catholics, we are called, indeed required to be pro-life, to cherish and protect human life as a precious gift of God from the moment of conception until the time of natural death. As a leader, as a public official, Rudy Giuliani has a special obligation in that regard."

Read Bishop Tobin's Column here.

When Idiots Attack the Church

Gisele Bundchen is apparently calling for the extinction of the human race.

From Reuters:
The words in red are my commentary.

Supermodel Gisele Bundchen stepped into the debate over birth control and sexual behavior in Brazil on Tuesday, saying Church opposition to condom use was ridiculous and women should have the right to choose on abortion. Oh my, now she is a credible expert if I have ever seen one. Yep, let's all follow the woman who makes a living by looking pretty. @@

Gisele is idolized by many young women in Brazil, the world's largest Roman Catholic country, where debate over sexual issues has intensified around a visit by
Pope Benedict last month. Poor deluded young women.

The Pope stressed the Church's firm opposition to abortion and contraception and railed against sex outside of marriage. Hmmm...follow 2,000 years of Church teaching and the Pope who is the vicar of Christ and has spent the last 60 years studying theology and moral issues or follow the supermodel who has spent her life looking pretty. I can't decide.

The Brazilian beauty, one of the world's top models, told Folha de S.Paulo newspaper in an interview that when the Church made its laws centuries ago, women were expected to be virgins. Ummm, and they are still supposed to be virgins.

"Today no one is a virgin when they get married ... show me someone who's a virgin!" she said. Raises hand! I was a virgin and I know plenty of virgins.

Asked about abortion, she said a woman should have the right to choose what is best for her.

"If she thinks she doesn't have the money or the emotional condition to raise a child, why should she give birth?" Because we cannot kill people because of our own circumstances.

Gisele, who had just arrived from New York to take part in Rio de Janeiro's Fashion Week, also defended condom use.

"It's ridiculous to ban contraceptives -- you only have to think of the diseases that are transmitted without them. I think it should be compulsory to use a contraceptive." Wow, Compulsory! You are really showing your intellegence now. Stop talking and go back to looking pretty. Right now you are looking pretty stupid. If contraceptives were compulsory you wouldn't be alive. Not to mention that contraceptives prevent pregnancy, not disease...unless one considers pregnancy to be a disease. Ohhhh...I get it now.

The Brazilian government has clashed with the church over anti-
AIDS programs in which it distributes millions of free condoms and Health Minister Jose Temporao has called for a national referendum on abortion.

Other Brazilian celebrities have fallen foul of the Vatican over sex issues. Singer Daniela Mercury was banned from performing at a Vatican Christmas concert in 2005 because she took part in a campaign promoting condom use to prevent AIDS.

She denied rumors she was pregnant. How can she be pregnant? She believes contraceptives should be compulsory!

"Of course I want to have a family in the future. But not at this moment." That would require not using contraceptives and that would be illegal if they were compulsory. Please go back to looking pretty and keeping quiet because you aren't making sense. Oh and put some clothes on.

Forced Abortions

Asia News is reporting that 61 Chinese women were forced to abort their children. Some were even 9 months pregnant. This is absolutely disgusting and heartbreaking.

From Asia News:

The Chinese governments cruel abortion campaign continues: on April 17th last in the southern province of Guangxi, police forced 41 women to abort their children, dragging them into the local hospital to carry out the termination. The following day the same fate awaited a further 20 women.

China Aid Association (Caa), a United States based non governmental organisation which fights for religious freedom and human rights in China reported the cases.

Eyewitnesses reported to CAA that provincial police transported the women to Youjiang District People’s Hospital; they were injected forcefully with an abortive drug. The agents were led by Family Planning officials. In less than 24 hours 61 foetuses were dead.

At Bed number 37, He Caigan was 9 months pregnant. Officials injected her baby's head and after 20 minutes of pain and suffering, her baby stopped moving and died.

About 6am on April 18, Pastor James Liang's wife Wei Linrong gave birth to a boy, but he was dead because of the injection. She received three doses of injection-one is to induce the birth and the other two to kill the baby in the womb.

After China Aid reported the forced abortion, police were seen surrounding the section of the hospital where these abortions take place. In fact for some time now the Chinese population has been protesting against Beijing, which allows rich and famous couplet to ignore the family law on one child, which is instead applied with force on the less well off.

The politics of family planning, the bastion of the communist government, affects 90 million Chinese families. This provokes social problems such as the imbalance of sexes and the aging population.

Since 1978 only one child has been permitted to urban residents, two to rural couples. The average family has dropped from the 5.83 children per household of the 1970’s to 2.1 in the ‘90’s and the current 1.8. The government aims to contain the population within 1.37 billion by 2010. These policies have led to a massive campaign of forced abortions and infanticide of female babies, in order to have a male heir to maintain the family name.

US Supreme Court Supports Partial Birth Abortion Ban

From Lifesite News:

In a 5-4 majority decision penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the federal partial birth abortion ban which was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2003.

The law bans "partial-birth abortion," a legal term of art, defined in the law itself as any abortion in which the baby is delivered feet-first "past the [baby's] navel . . . outside the body of the mother," or "in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother," before being killed.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, who have previously voted on the court against the gruesome late-term abortion procedure, voted with the majority. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito who were appointed by President Bush also voted with the majority.

"This will be President Bush's pro-life legacy," said Jim Hughes, Vice President of the International Right to Life Committee. Hughes, also the President of Campaign Life Coalition Canada added: "Thank God for him because what he's doing there is going to affect us greatly here north of the 49th parallel."

Referring to Planned Parenthood and other abortion groups which argued against the ban, Justice Kennedy wrote that they "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases."

Kennedy maintained that the current ruling upheld the Roe v. Wade 1973 abortion decision. He said that since other abortion options are available, "it does not construct a substantial obstacle to the abortion right."

A short adjoining opinion written by Justice Thomas and joined by Justice Scalia, said "that the Court's abortion jurisprudence...has no basis in the Constitution." Of note, neither Justice Alito nor Chief Justice Roberts joined that opinion.

What's Wrong With IVF

Fr. Tad Pacholczyk is a priest from the Diocese of Fall River and the Director of the National Catholic Bioethics Center.

He writes an excellent column on pro-life related matters called "Making Sense Out of Bioethics" which appears in many diocesan newspapers. I suggest that it be read by everyone. If his articles do not appear in your diocesan newspaper, you can read them online.

Here is an article he wrote about IVF:

When I give talks about in vitro fertilization (IVF), I usually ask my audience the following question: "How many of you know a baby born by IVF, or know a couple who has tried to get pregnant this way?" Usually about half the hands in the room go up. Then I ask them to raise their hands if the couple was Catholic. Virtually all the same hands go up a second time. I have the sense that Catholics are making use of IVF at about the same rate as non-Catholics, and that most of them are only vaguely aware of the Church's position on making test tube babies.

When asked why IVF might be immoral, people will usually mention the extra embryos that are frozen or discarded. Such embryos are certainly a serious concern, but they are not the primary reason the Church insists the procedure is immoral. Even if IVF were done without making any extra embryos at all, this way of making babies would still be morally objectionable, because the procedure strikes at the very core and meaning of marital sexuality. It substitutes an act of laboratory manipulation for an act of bodily union between spouses. It turns procreation into production. IVF is really the flip-side of contraception: rather than trying to have sex without babies, we try to have babies without sex. Because many Americans have come to view sex largely in terms of recreation, ignoring its procreative orientation, they have lost touch with the grave violations that occur both in contraceptive sex and in making babies in test tubes.

Clearly, the moral violations that occur in IVF do not reflect upon the child, who is innocent. It is not the baby's fault in any way. The child has no control over how he or she got here. Regardless of how a baby comes into the world, whether by IVF, whether by adultery, by pre-marital sex, or even by cloning, that baby is always a gift and a blessing. The problem with IVF is not with the child, but with a decision made by the parents concerning how to pursue the satisfaction of their own desire for a child. In other words, babies, even when very much desired, should not be brought into the world by making use of disordered means such as adultery, pre-marital sex, IVF, or cloning. They should be brought into the world only within that intimate love-giving moment of the marital embrace. Children are entitled to come into being as the fruit of a singular parental love that is uniquely manifested in the spousal moment of bodily surrender to each other. Through the incredibly rich language of the parents' bodies, through their body to body contact, the new body of their child is engendered. In their one-flesh union, they enflesh new life. That intimate bodily embrace is a sacred action that only spouses may share, and it represents the unique and privileged locus, by God's design, in which human love is translated into new life. IVF violates this design by replacing that love-giving act with an act of production, whereby we manufacture our own children in petri dishes and test tubes, as if they were products or objects to be manhandled at will. In this way, IVF incidentalizes and adulterates sex, reducing it to another arena for manipulation according to our own desires. When we take this immoral step, others quickly follow, including the freezing or even the discarding of our own children, as if they were a form of medical waste. By making test tube babies, we first violate the sacred human act by which we hand on life. It is then but a short step to go further and violate the very life itself that we produce in the laboratory.

Is it not reasonable and right to insist, as the Church does, that new human life should be the fruit of married love, carried out through bodily self-giving between spouses, this act which allows each partner to enrich the other with the total gift of himself or herself? The marital act embodies spousal love directly, exclusively and authentically. Can we say the same for IVF, where the woman upsets her delicate hormonal cycles and subjects herself to repetitive injections with powerful drugs to make her body produce unnaturally large numbers of eggs, and where the man may be expected to go into a back room with salacious magazines and videos to "provide a sample"? Can we really say that IVF embodies spousal love in an authentic and exclusive way when a lab technician ends up being the causal agent of the pregnancy, instead of the spouses themselves through a sacred act proper to their married love? By any stretch, can we honestly believe that IVF is faithful to God's design for marriage?

We sometimes tend to brush the ungainly and unsightly parts of the procedure under the rug and instead try to focus on the result, the baby, so as to mitigate the disturbing reality of what we are really engaging in. Some couples also may rest their approval for IVF on a perfunctory assumption, namely: "We have a right to a child when we get married, so any means, even IVF, should be okay." But the deeper truth is that we never have a right to a baby. A child is not our property or our possession. Rather, a child is a gift, one we hope God will send us, one we stand ready and eager to receive, but certainly not an entitlement or a right for us. When we marry, we properly have a right to those beautiful, life-giving acts we call marital acts, which open us up to the mysterious divine spark at the heart of human love. Those remarkable marital acts are the only human acts appropriately ordered to engendering the incredible gift of new human life.

The rest of his articles are available here.

Aborted Babies to be Used to Make Vaccines

H/T to Fr. Landry.

The FDA has invited the general public to voice their opinions regarding the use of aborted babies to make vaccines for Ebola, HIV, Influenza, and Avian Flu.

More information can be found here and here.

Please voice your opposition to this evil.

Write to the FDA before December 28 at:
Divisions of Docket Management, HFA-305
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane
Room 1061
Rockville MD 20845

Include Docket Number 2006D-0383 on your correspondence.

Building the Culture of Death

Governor Mitt Romney has caved into pressure and is dropping his fight to make Catholic and private hospitals exempt from the emergency contraception bill, in Massachusetts. I am very disappointed that he was unable to stand by his beliefs.
Planned Parenthood and others argue that the "morning after pill" doesn't result in an abortion. They claim that it only prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Hmmm, that is treading on a very fine line for me. When an egg if fertilized and fails to implant, it is called a "chemical pregnancy". Note the word pregnancy. If one believes that life begins at conception, then yes, it is an abortion pill. From the moment that the sperm and egg meet, a new human life is created. Life is not created at the moment of implantation. The morning after pill effectively kills this new life.
My other concern is that they say this pill may be taken up to 5 days after the sexual act is performed. Sperm can survive in the woman's reproductive system for up to 5 days, while the egg is only viable for 24-3 hours. Implantation takes place within 12-48 hours. What happens if the egg has already implanted? No one seems to want to talk about that. I hope to hear the answer soon. Also, what happens if the woman is already in the early stages of pregnancy, 2 weeks past conception, for example. I have many questions, but no one seems to want to give the answers.

Unbelievable

I read this on the Vatican Radio website. If I had read it anywhere else, I would have thought it was one of those internet hoaxes.
The thought of people placing the life of an animal above that of a unborn human is horrifying. Human life in ANY stage of development is precious and sacred.
"Meanwhile, the scientist who created Dolly the sheep, Ian Wilmut, argued that human embryonic stem cells should be used, in order to save animals from being used in tests. The Scottish newspaper Herald reported Sept. 8 that Wilmut argued that this research would be "more ethical." "
I don't know what to say other than that I pray he comes to his senses.