Nine-Day Prayer Vigil and Demonstration Outside the Vatican Embassy from Friday May 14 until Saturday May 22
Catholics gather to pray that the Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Bertoni will stop the scandal of US bishops giving Communion to Catholics politicians who promote child-killing.
Contact: Catherine Veritas, 904-687-9804; www.humbleplea.com
WASHINGTON, May 12 /Christian Newswire/ -- The following is submitted by Randall Terry:
What: 9-Day Prayer Vigil outside Vatican Embassy
When: Friday May 14 through Saturday May 22, daily from 12-1 pm
Where: Apostolic Nunciature, 3339 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington DC
Who: Randall Terry, Missy Smith (founder of Wakeup) and local and out-of-state Insurrecta Nex Team Members and other pro-life advocates
Background:
Canon Law 915 explicitly states that those persisting in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.
Pope Benedict, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote a document titled "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion." In that document he clearly stated that politicians who promote child-killing by abortion "must" be "denied" Holy Communion. Only a few bishops have followed his direction.
The worst scandal in America is in our nation's Capitol, where prominent child-killers such as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden receive Holy Communion, while they promote child-killing. This happens under the watch of D.C. Archbishop Wuerl, who is in open defiance of the instruction given by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict.
Statement of Randall Terry and Missy Smith:
We ask Cardinal Bertone:
"Who has taught the Truth? Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, and the bishops who follow his instruction, or Archbishop Wuerl, and the bishops who follow his example and words? Who is correct? Cardinal Ratzinger or Archbishop Wuerl? Their contradictory positions cannot both be correct.
"How long will this schism and scandal be allowed to continue?
"Should our bishops give the body and blood of Christ to Catholics w hose hands are covered with the blood of babies?
"If our bishops will not deny Holy Communion to Catholics for the crime and public scandal of the murder of babies, for what would they deny it?
"The passage of the health care bill was the most horrific treachery against life since Roe versus Wade. DC Archbishop Wuerl - more than any prelate in America - is responsible for this calamity by his silence. Has he even once publicly rebuked Pelosi's agenda?
"When will the Holy See end this scandal?"
See more at www.humbleplea.com. Click Sanguis Innocens.
Issuers of press releases and not Earned Media™ are solely responsible for the accuracy of the content.
Click here for terms and conditions, including restrictions on redistribution.
Copyright © 2010 Earned Media™. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
National Right to Life Comments on the Nomination of Elena Kagan to U.S. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, May 10 /Christian Newswire/ -- The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in all 50 states, issued the following statement regarding President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to fill the seat on the U.S. Supreme Court that is being vacated by Justice John Paul Stevens. This statement may be attributed to NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.
On April 21, 2010, President Obama used thinly veiled code language to communicate his clear intent to choose a nominee who would be hostile to legislative attempts to protect unborn humans. The President stated that he wanted someone "who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account . . . women's rights," and that this was going to be "very important" to him as he viewed our "core Constitution" as protecting the "bodily integrity" of women.
In light of the President's stated intent, senators have an obligation to probe whether Elena Kagan will tolerate limits on abortion, enacted through normal democratic channels, or will seek to impose extreme pro-abortion views by judicial decree. Ms. Kagan herself argued forcefully in 1995, in a lengthy book review published in the University of Chicago Law Review, that such inquiries by senators are a legitimate and necessary part of the confirmation process.
In the most recent Supreme Court ruling dealing with abortion and the rights of unborn children, Gonzales v. Carhart, on April 18, 2007, a five-justice majority upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Yet on that occasion, four justices in dissent -- including Justice Stevens -- argued for a constitutional doctrine that would have invalidated the ban on partial-birth abortions and also, by implication, condemned virtually any other law or government policy intended to discourage abortion. If the dissenters' position became the position of the majority of the Supreme Court, various types of laws that have been deemed permissible under Roe v. Wade could be invalidated by judicial decree, perhaps including the Hyde Amendment (restricting government funding of abortion) and parental notification laws. It is appropriate and necessary for senators to inquire into whether Ms. Kagan would embrace the extreme, results-oriented doctrines enunciated by the dissenting justices in that case.
(Since the Gonzales case was decided, dissenting Justice David Souter has been replaced by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Most analysts believe that Sotomayor would be very likely to join the pro-abortion bloc when such issues are revisited in the future.)
There are troubling indications that Ms. Kagan generally favors an activist, results-oriented approach to constitutional law. For example, in her 1995 law journal article, she wrote, "The bottom-line issue in the appointments process must concern the kinds of judicial decisions that will serve the country and, correlatively, the effect the nominee will have on the Court's decisions . . . If that is too results oriented . . . so be it. . ." She also wrote that "it should be no surprise by now that many of the votes a Supreme Court Justice casts have little to do with technical legal ability and much to do with conceptions of value."
Regarding Ms. Kagan's specific views on the Court's past abortion-related rulings, there is little on the public record. But Ms. Kagan may have betrayed a possible personal animus towards the pro-life movement in a 1980 essay lamenting Republican gains in the 1980 election, in which she referred disparagingly to "victories of these anonymous but Moral Majority-backed [candidates] . . . these avengers of 'innocent life' and the B-1 Bomber . . ." Was Ms. Kagan so dismissive of the belief that unborn children are members of the human family that she felt it necessary to put the term "innocent life" in quote marks, or does she have another explanation? Would she be able to set aside any animus she has towards those who fight to protect innocent human life, when reviewing laws duly enacted for that purpose?
The National Right to Life Committee is the nation's largest pro-life group with affiliates in all 50 states and over 3,000 local chapters nationwide. National Right to Life works through legislation and education to protect those threatened by abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Christian Newswire
On April 21, 2010, President Obama used thinly veiled code language to communicate his clear intent to choose a nominee who would be hostile to legislative attempts to protect unborn humans. The President stated that he wanted someone "who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account . . . women's rights," and that this was going to be "very important" to him as he viewed our "core Constitution" as protecting the "bodily integrity" of women.
In light of the President's stated intent, senators have an obligation to probe whether Elena Kagan will tolerate limits on abortion, enacted through normal democratic channels, or will seek to impose extreme pro-abortion views by judicial decree. Ms. Kagan herself argued forcefully in 1995, in a lengthy book review published in the University of Chicago Law Review, that such inquiries by senators are a legitimate and necessary part of the confirmation process.
In the most recent Supreme Court ruling dealing with abortion and the rights of unborn children, Gonzales v. Carhart, on April 18, 2007, a five-justice majority upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Yet on that occasion, four justices in dissent -- including Justice Stevens -- argued for a constitutional doctrine that would have invalidated the ban on partial-birth abortions and also, by implication, condemned virtually any other law or government policy intended to discourage abortion. If the dissenters' position became the position of the majority of the Supreme Court, various types of laws that have been deemed permissible under Roe v. Wade could be invalidated by judicial decree, perhaps including the Hyde Amendment (restricting government funding of abortion) and parental notification laws. It is appropriate and necessary for senators to inquire into whether Ms. Kagan would embrace the extreme, results-oriented doctrines enunciated by the dissenting justices in that case.
(Since the Gonzales case was decided, dissenting Justice David Souter has been replaced by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Most analysts believe that Sotomayor would be very likely to join the pro-abortion bloc when such issues are revisited in the future.)
There are troubling indications that Ms. Kagan generally favors an activist, results-oriented approach to constitutional law. For example, in her 1995 law journal article, she wrote, "The bottom-line issue in the appointments process must concern the kinds of judicial decisions that will serve the country and, correlatively, the effect the nominee will have on the Court's decisions . . . If that is too results oriented . . . so be it. . ." She also wrote that "it should be no surprise by now that many of the votes a Supreme Court Justice casts have little to do with technical legal ability and much to do with conceptions of value."
Regarding Ms. Kagan's specific views on the Court's past abortion-related rulings, there is little on the public record. But Ms. Kagan may have betrayed a possible personal animus towards the pro-life movement in a 1980 essay lamenting Republican gains in the 1980 election, in which she referred disparagingly to "victories of these anonymous but Moral Majority-backed [candidates] . . . these avengers of 'innocent life' and the B-1 Bomber . . ." Was Ms. Kagan so dismissive of the belief that unborn children are members of the human family that she felt it necessary to put the term "innocent life" in quote marks, or does she have another explanation? Would she be able to set aside any animus she has towards those who fight to protect innocent human life, when reviewing laws duly enacted for that purpose?
The National Right to Life Committee is the nation's largest pro-life group with affiliates in all 50 states and over 3,000 local chapters nationwide. National Right to Life works through legislation and education to protect those threatened by abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Christian Newswire
2009 Confirmation Hearing Shows Kagan a Pro-Abortion, Homosexual Activist
A.L.L. Wants Answers: Does The Constitution Apply to Some Human Beings or All Human Beings?
WASHINGTON, May 10 /Christian Newswire/ -- American Life League President Judie Brown issued the following statement on the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.
"On this Monday morning the 51 percent of Americans who self-identify as 'pro-life' are demanding answers to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's rabidly pro- abortion and anti-marriage record.
"Kagan's 2009 confirmation hearings reveal her deep adherence to stare decisis when it comes to 'a women's right to terminate her pregnancy,' yet Ms. Kagan has demonstrated her willingness to depart from established law in regards to homosexual issues.
"Kagan swore in the hearings to represent 'with vigor' interests of the United States 'even when they conflict with my own opinions,' yet in August 2009, the Department of Justice under Kagan's watch, filed a reply brief in a California case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act.
"Clearly, Kagan has demonstrated a record of interpreting the law in the light of homosexual, pro- abortion activism.
"What's at stake here is the core constitutional question that passionately divides the country - does our Constitution seek human rights for all human beings or merely some human beings? Kagan's answers to her 2009 confirmation hearings provide clear insight into her future judicial philosophy.
"Will President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Kagan be another example of his continued disregard for human rights in favor of advancing his favorite pet political agenda - abortion on demand courtesy of the American tax dollar?
"With the nomination of 50-year-old Kagan, will President Obama assure his long-lasting assault on the most fundamental human right of personhood?
"As President Obama races against the election clock, he has worked to undermine many of the American values and principles that make this nation the greatest on Earth.
"Despite his best efforts to assail human rights through nominations so blatantly anti-life, anti- marriage and anti-personhood - the voice of the American people - of the 51 percent of Americans who self-identify as "pro-life" will have the last say."
American Life League was cofounded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or press inquiries, please contact Katie Walker at 540.659.4942.
Christian Newswire
WASHINGTON, May 10 /Christian Newswire/ -- American Life League President Judie Brown issued the following statement on the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.
"On this Monday morning the 51 percent of Americans who self-identify as 'pro-life' are demanding answers to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's rabidly pro- abortion and anti-marriage record.
"Kagan's 2009 confirmation hearings reveal her deep adherence to stare decisis when it comes to 'a women's right to terminate her pregnancy,' yet Ms. Kagan has demonstrated her willingness to depart from established law in regards to homosexual issues.
"Kagan swore in the hearings to represent 'with vigor' interests of the United States 'even when they conflict with my own opinions,' yet in August 2009, the Department of Justice under Kagan's watch, filed a reply brief in a California case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act.
"Clearly, Kagan has demonstrated a record of interpreting the law in the light of homosexual, pro- abortion activism.
"What's at stake here is the core constitutional question that passionately divides the country - does our Constitution seek human rights for all human beings or merely some human beings? Kagan's answers to her 2009 confirmation hearings provide clear insight into her future judicial philosophy.
"Will President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Kagan be another example of his continued disregard for human rights in favor of advancing his favorite pet political agenda - abortion on demand courtesy of the American tax dollar?
"With the nomination of 50-year-old Kagan, will President Obama assure his long-lasting assault on the most fundamental human right of personhood?
"As President Obama races against the election clock, he has worked to undermine many of the American values and principles that make this nation the greatest on Earth.
"Despite his best efforts to assail human rights through nominations so blatantly anti-life, anti- marriage and anti-personhood - the voice of the American people - of the 51 percent of Americans who self-identify as "pro-life" will have the last say."
American Life League was cofounded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or press inquiries, please contact Katie Walker at 540.659.4942.
Christian Newswire
Pro-Life Group Demands Senate Uncover Elena Kagan's Views on Abortion
Dannenfelser: "When evidence of personal preference appears in any Supreme Court nominee's judgment, it should give all women pause."
WASHINGTON, May 10 /Christian Newswire/ -- Today, in response to President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court, Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, offered the following statement:
"Elena Kagan has no judicial record from which to determine her position on Roe v. Wade, but she has publicly criticized the 1991 Supreme Court ruling to allow the Department of Health and Human Services to restrict funding from groups that performed or promoted abortion, and has also criticized crisis pregnancy centers. Additionally, President Obama has said he prefers a Supreme Court nominee who would take a special interest in 'women's rights'--a barely masked euphemism for abortion rights. Through the judicial confirmation process the American people must know where Elena Kagan stands on the abortion issue, and it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to find out.
"Ms. Kagan's publicly demonstrated prejudices do not lend themselves well to blind justice. Susan B. Anthony and her early feminist compatriots fought for a human rights standard sustained only through blind justice--and they knew that one group is never served by undermining the rights of another. Women will never be served by ignoring the rights of unborn children. When evidence of personal preference appears in any Supreme Court nominee's judgment, it should give all women pause."
Previously, Elena Kagan publicly criticized a 1991 Supreme Court ruling in Rust v. Sullivan that upheld the right of the Department of Health and Human Services that restricted Title X funding from groups that performed or promoted abortion. Additionally, she has expressed her belief that pregnancy centers should be barred from guiding teens in decisions about their pregnancy.
The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 280,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.
Christian Newswire
WASHINGTON, May 10 /Christian Newswire/ -- Today, in response to President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court, Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, offered the following statement:
"Elena Kagan has no judicial record from which to determine her position on Roe v. Wade, but she has publicly criticized the 1991 Supreme Court ruling to allow the Department of Health and Human Services to restrict funding from groups that performed or promoted abortion, and has also criticized crisis pregnancy centers. Additionally, President Obama has said he prefers a Supreme Court nominee who would take a special interest in 'women's rights'--a barely masked euphemism for abortion rights. Through the judicial confirmation process the American people must know where Elena Kagan stands on the abortion issue, and it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to find out.
"Ms. Kagan's publicly demonstrated prejudices do not lend themselves well to blind justice. Susan B. Anthony and her early feminist compatriots fought for a human rights standard sustained only through blind justice--and they knew that one group is never served by undermining the rights of another. Women will never be served by ignoring the rights of unborn children. When evidence of personal preference appears in any Supreme Court nominee's judgment, it should give all women pause."
Previously, Elena Kagan publicly criticized a 1991 Supreme Court ruling in Rust v. Sullivan that upheld the right of the Department of Health and Human Services that restricted Title X funding from groups that performed or promoted abortion. Additionally, she has expressed her belief that pregnancy centers should be barred from guiding teens in decisions about their pregnancy.
The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 280,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.
Christian Newswire
Fr. Pavone on Kagan Nomination
WASHINGTON, May 10 /Christian Newswire/ -- Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, issued the following statement in response to the President's anticipated announcement today of his choice for a Supreme Court nominee:
"Supreme Court Justices are not supposed to shape public policy, and their nomination and confirmation should be based on their qualifications, not their views on specific issues.
"But there are certain issues so central to the very nature and purpose of government that one's position on those issues is tantamount to a qualification for the job. The very purpose of government is the protection of human rights, starting with life. No court can legitimize an act of violence, such as abortion, or take away human rights. Anyone who fails to affirm that does not belong in any public office, much less the US Supreme Court."
Priests for Life has begun a Facebook page for people who hold the same view; see www.priestsforlife.org/facebook for details.
Priests for Life is the nation's largest Catholic pro-life organization dedicated to ending abortion and euthanasia. For more information, visit www.priestsforlife.org.
Christian Newswire
"Supreme Court Justices are not supposed to shape public policy, and their nomination and confirmation should be based on their qualifications, not their views on specific issues.
"But there are certain issues so central to the very nature and purpose of government that one's position on those issues is tantamount to a qualification for the job. The very purpose of government is the protection of human rights, starting with life. No court can legitimize an act of violence, such as abortion, or take away human rights. Anyone who fails to affirm that does not belong in any public office, much less the US Supreme Court."
Priests for Life has begun a Facebook page for people who hold the same view; see www.priestsforlife.org/facebook for details.
Priests for Life is the nation's largest Catholic pro-life organization dedicated to ending abortion and euthanasia. For more information, visit www.priestsforlife.org.
Christian Newswire
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)