![[home]](/prolife/images/usccb_logo.gif){kind=logo}
Vol. 12, No. 1 January 2001
In This Issue...
- National Prayer Vigil for Life - Homily by Cardinal William H. Keeler
- Hopeful Signs from the Bush Administration
- ¡ Viva Mexico Vity!
- The Outlook on Federal Pro-Life Initiatives
Dear Reader:
Last year I had the privilege of bringing to you the very personal greetings and pledge of prayers of Cardinal John O'Connor, whose powerful and courageous witness for the cause of life continues to inspire us today. Since then, the Lord has called him home. Missing from our number this evening as well is Bishop James McHugh of Rockville Centre, whose total and insightful dedication to the gospel of life served the Church here and wherever in the world there was need of a clear, competent and consistent voice for those who have no voice. Will you join with me in thanking God for the grace of their example and in praying that they enjoy to the full the Lord's gift of the fullness of life in eternity.
For the first time in eight very long years, the President of the United States sent a message of gratitude and encouragement to the 100,000-plus people gathered for the March for Life. Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) read George W. Bush's message.
On the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President George W. Bush took a significant first step in support of life by restoring the Mexico City Policy. This U.S. policy, in effect from 1984 until President Clinton rescinded it on January 22, 1993, was designed to stop nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) receiving U.S. funds from circumventing Congress's intent under the 1973 Helms Amendment.
Abortion lobbyists and the small coteries of lawyers whose mission seems to involve removing every vestige of religious belief and practice from public life, most notably the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way, are mustering forces and requisitioning cash contributions to defend the abortion industry and a purely secular outlook.
*The materials contained within are intended for use by the Catholic dioceses and organizations, and permission is not required for reproduction or use by them. All other uses must be authorized. For reprints, questions, or comments contact Susan E. Wills, at the above address.
The mood in our nation's capital this January 22nd was a marked change from recent years. Gritty determination has yielded to cautious exuberance.
The pro-life movement looks younger and more energetic every year. Among the crowds attending the National Vigil Mass for Life and the March for Life there was renewed optimism and hope for America's future. The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception was packed with pilgrims whose enthusiastic applause punctuated a stirring homily by Cardinal William H. Keeler, Chairman of the Bishops' Pro-Life Committee. For those who missed EWTN's broadcast, excerpts from his homily follow.
National Prayer Vigil for Life – Homily
by Cardinal William H. Keeler
. . .
Each one of us present here this evening has an indispensable role in building a culture of life. God has called and chosen us to be part of this noble cause. Together we have many strengths. The pro-life movement is composed of millions of people with widely diverse gifts and abilities. Some of us are spiritual leaders. Some excel in counseling or writing or public speaking. Others have a special gift for prayer, or skills for administration or teaching. Not all work mighty deeds, but all together contribute to the broadest—and, please God, one day—most successful grassroots movement in our nation's history.
. . . .
How far our culture in the United States has moved from a sensitivity to life as a gift from above, as the privileged right of which the Declaration of Independence spoke, was brought home last summer by the decision of the Supreme Court on partial-birth abortion. The decision flies in the face of logic, even of political logic. We have come to a very sad day when five people can write words that constitute a death sentence for children being born. What medical experts have called "bad medicine" is, sadly, now the law of our land.
The abortion license established by Roe v. Wade is an evil in its own right; it is also corrupting various other aspects of our public life. In the Carhart decision, the Supreme Court simply nullified a 99 to 1 (99 to 1!) vote by the Nebraska state legislature banning partial-birth abortion; how can we say that "we the people" are governing ourselves when the federal judiciary continues to deny us the right to do precisely that in this grave matter? The Supreme Court's decision in the matter of peaceful protest and counseling at abortion clinics is also deeply disturbing. Are we now to conclude that the abortion license is the right-that-trumps-all-other-rights, including the right of free speech, in the United States?
There is something strikingly lethal about the abortion license; like a virus of special virulence, it poisons healthy tissues far beyond its original point of insertion into the body politic. At the moment, it seems to be poisoning the political process here in Washington, as nominees who hold a conscientious pro-life position are being subjected to media assault and partisan attack for their moral convictions. This is profoundly undemocratic.
The people of the United States emphatically do not support an unrestricted right of abortion-on-demand at any stage of a pregnancy. Poll after poll indicates that the majority of the American people reject the resort to abortion in the majority of cases in which abortions are performed. In these circumstances, is it not arrogant and unacceptable for some to claim that only those who share their radical pro-choice convictions can be trusted with the enforcement of our laws? Is it not arrogant and unacceptable to suggest, as has been subtly suggested in recent weeks, that the abortion debate is over? It is arrogant and unacceptable to make unswerving allegiance to Roe v. Wade a litmus test for high public office in the United States.
So let us, by all means, examine the credentials of those nominated to high office. But let us also make it known that we the people will not accept the notion that acquiescence to Roe v. Wade is the price to be demanded from all who would pass the scrutiny of the United States Senate.
. . .
I invite those who believe with me that our moral compass in America needs refreshing to join me in fasting on Fridays, not eating between meals, eating less as a sign of our solidarity with Jesus who chose to die on a Friday. May the Lord listen to our pleas, take heed of the fast, and grant conversion of heart to us as individuals and to our nation.
And so we pray together now, and we march together tomorrow, to reflect our sense of the call and the anointing of God's Holy Spirit in a cause so fundamental to our American ways, to speak out for the most vulnerable among us. May God bless these our efforts, and may God bless each and every one of you.
Hopeful Signs from the Bush Administration
Fittingly, President Bush also commemorated the day by reinstating the pro-life Mexico City Policy (details below) which his predecessor had rescinded eight years ago to the day.
During his first two weeks in office, the President gave many indications that he will defend unborn life to the extent possible politically, and he will work with the pro-life community to build a culture which respects all human life, from conception to natural death.
The President's message to the March follows:
Good afternoon, friends and fellow citizens. Two days ago, Americans gathered on the Washington Mall to celebrate our Nation's ideals. Today, you are gathered to remind our country that one of those ideals is the infinite value of every life.
I deeply appreciate your message and your work. You see the weak and defenseless, and you try to help them. You see the hardship of many young mothers and their unborn children, and you care for them both. In so many ways, you make our society more compassionate and welcoming.
We share a great goal: to work toward a day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. We know this will not come easily, or all at once. But the goal leads us onward: to build a culture of life, affirming that every person, at every stage and season of life, is created equal in God's image.
The promises of our Declaration of Independence are not just for the strong, the independent or the healthy. They are for everyone–including unborn children. We are a society with enough compassion and wealth and love to care for both mothers and their children, to seek the promise and potential in every human life.
I believe that we are making progress toward that goal. I trust in the good hearts of Americans. I trust in the unfolding promise of our country–an expanding circle of inclusion and protection. And I trust in the civility and good sense of our citizens–a willingness to engage our differences in a spirit of tolerance and good will.
All of you marching today have never tired in a good cause. Thank you for your conviction, your idealism, and your courage.
May God bless you all.
GEORGE W. BUSH
¡Viva Mexico City!
Under the Helms Amendment, NGOs active in "family planning" could not use U.S. funds to perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning overseas. Some NGOs eviscerated the law through simple bookkeeping entries. For example, if the U.S. gives the hypothetical FamPlan, Inc. $5 million, FamPlan might use that money in mass sterilization programs, and then divert $5 million acquired from other sources into promoting and performing abortions. And in fact, notwithstanding the Helms Amendment, between 1973 and 1984 the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) continued its barrage against other nation's laws protecting unborn children, and even distributed abortion equipment in some countries where abortion was illegal.
At the 1984 U.N. conference on population in Mexico City, the Reagan administration announced a corrective policy: as a condition of receiving U.S. funds, NGOs involved in family planning must agree not to perform abortions or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other countries.
A dangerous restriction? A monstrous imposition of right-wing ideology? You'd think so from the reaction of abortion lobbyists when President Bush restored the policy this year. "A malicious affront" to women, charged Janet Benshoof, president of the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy. Vicki Saporta, executive director of the National Abortion Federation fumed: "We know that worldwide almost 80,000 women die each year from illegal, unsafe abortion." Now President Bush has shown he's "willing to sacrifice women's health to score points with the religious right."
The comment's unfairness is exceeded only by its illogic. If an NGO can't perform or promote abortions with U.S. money in any case--under the Helms Amendment--how could the Mexico City Policy have any effect on the alleged 80,000 deaths from illegal abortion? In fact, five years after the policy took effect, the New York Times (Feb. 27, 1989) reported that the "dramatic rise in unwanted births and unsafe abortions" predicted by opponents of the policy could not be documented.
Critics and credulous media friends of the abortion lobby prophesied darkly: "The abortion restrictions are likely to increase teen pregnancies in Europe and the spread of AIDS in Africa. The London-based [IPPF] said it may have to cancel some of its programs promoting safe sex and contraception, especially in Africa and Asia" (Williamson, Telegram & Gazette [Worcester, Mass.], Jan. 25, 2001).
The President's refusal to pay for foreign abortions responsible for more teen pregnancy? more AIDS? This is quite a stretch. Our culture admittedly does not want to hear about personal moral responsibility, but–and this is just a hunch–would not the sexual activities of the individuals involved (given a false security by Planned Parenthood's programs) be a likelier cause of teen pregnancy and AIDS?
IPPF's claims are not credible, but then its trustworthiness with taxpayer funds is equally dubious, as recent history suggests.
Thanks to the bold leadership of Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), President Clinton was forced to accept a modified Mexico City Policy last year in exchange for Congress's agreement to pay to the U.N. our disputed back dues. Some 448 population control groups certified to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) that they would abide by the Mexico City Policy. IPPF (which received $5 million), the World Health Organization (recipient of $2 million) and a few other NGOs refused to so certify. Congress allotted 4% of its total population assistance budget for these non-certifiers–all they had to abide by was the original Helms Amendment.
In March 2000, the General Accounting Office (GAO) notified USAID officials that the Office planned to audit IPPF's use of the $5 million grant. In late April 2000, the GAO telephoned IPPF to set the date for the audit visit, May 25-26, 2000. At that point IPPF happened to discover that its affiliates in India and Uganda had paid for abortions using the $700,000 IPPF had disbursed to them from U.S. funds. On May 12, IPPF transferred $700,000 from other accounts to replenish the USAID account. No sanctions, no penalties have been reported for this violation.
In defending IPPF's error and USAID's poor oversight, USAID acting administrator Richard Nygard betrayed his disagreement with U.S. policy. He bemoaned the "negative consequences of these restrictions," adding: "Numerous partner organizations have expressed their concerns with how this restriction affects their ability to provide comprehensive health services and to participate fully in the democratic processes in their own countries" (Archibald, "Fearing Audit, Group Repays $700,000 Used to Fund Abortions," The Washington Times, Oct. 5, 2000).
Ingar Brueggemann, director-general of IPPF, "called abortion a 'human right' that her group will not sign away" (Id.). She pointed the finger of blame at GAO auditors who "made us believe we were not in a position to sign the gag rule [against abortion advocacy] because of a human rights issue. ... Women should not be endangered purely by a birth. Safe, legal abortion is needed" (Id.)
Women's health and safety seems a secondary concern to many of these groups. Their foremost goal is to control population growth in developing nations. In the January 26 PRI Weekly Briefing, Steve Mosher, president of Population Research Institute, notes that "population growth rate reduction" is one of the four stated objectives of USAID. He provides details of an $80 million, five-year contract between USAID and one such "family planning" group, AVSC (formerly called the Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception). "In order to meet the United Nations medium population projection for the year 2000," the contract states, "service providers in developing countries will have to perform 150 million sterilizations, insert 310 million IUDs, implant 31 million sets of Norplant, give 663 million injections, distribute 8.8 billion cycles of oral contraceptives and 44 billion condoms" (USAID document CCP-3068-A-00-3017-00 AVSC; p. 19). Those goals aren't being set by families– they're being set by bureaucrats bent on population control.
So, while we welcome the reinstated Mexico City Policy as a positive first step, we look forward to the day when U.S. foreign assistance will go to those groups which provide education, nutrition and primary health care for the world's children and not to NGOs whose goal is to prevent them from ever being born.
The Outlook on Federal Pro-Life Initiatives
It is safe to assume that every pro-life, pro-faith initiative proposed by the new Administration will be met with strident calumny and a multi-million dollar ad campaign of distortion. The unrelenting attacks against Attorney General John Ashcroft have been called a foretaste of things to come. Woe unto any who may be nominated for Surgeon General, U.N. ambassador or to the Supreme Court if they are pro-life and practice their faith. A lifetime of personal and professional respect for the dignity of every person affords no immunity from accusations of racial bigotry and homophobia nor from "concerns" that their religious beliefs may cloud their judgment.
Cathy Cleaver, director of planning and information for the NCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, decried such tactics as "pro-abortion McCarthyism." In a recent column she describes the new litmus test--fidelity to Roe v. Wade-- that abortion supporters demand of public servants:
People promoted for public service are now mocked for their pro-life views, as if no thinking person could be pro-life. Those who pledge to defend Roe v. Wade are held up for praise, while those who defend the fundamental rights of all human beings equally, including unborn children, are regarded as, well, un-America ("Not Tent Big Enough for Pro-Lifers," Jan. 12, 2001).
Despite the strength of opposition groups and their supporters in the Senate, much can be achieved with pro-life leadership in the Executive branch.
Destructive Human Embryo Research. President Bush has said he opposes the Clinton Administration's guidelines for funding stem cell research that requires destroying living human embryos. He has asked Health & Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson to review the guidelines. We hope and expect that the guidelines will be reversed and that morally acceptable (and also far more promising) alternatives to embryo research and use of fetal tissue from abortion victims will be promoted instead.
RU-486. The Clinton Administration put RU-486 on a fast-track approval process. The absence of a willing manufacturer delayed final approval until September 2000. The Food and Drug Administration's final approval sets forth guidelines so lax that they are putting women's lives and health at risk. Both President Bush and Secretary Thompson have spoken of the need to review this situation. The flawed approval process, the inadequate guidelines, and the untrustworthy source of the drug (a Chinese plant with a long history of impurities and mislabeling) should result in tight restrictions on use, if not a reversal of approval.
Physician-Assisted Suicide. Both President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft have openly disagreed with Janet Reno's June 1998 legal opinion permitting Oregon physicians to use federally controlled drugs for assisted suicide. The Bush Administration is expected to reverse her ruling and restore the uniform enforcement of federal laws against the misuse of controlled substances. The House of Representatives has twice passed the Pain Relief Promotion Act (PRPA)which reverses the Reno ruling and also authorizes new programs for pain management and palliative care. PRPA never came up for a vote in the Senate. We hope that the Senate will take up the bill soon and expect that it will be signed into law by President Bush.
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. This legislation assures that all infants who are born alive (defined as "complete expulsion or extraction") are treated as persons for the purpose of federal law. It passed the House by an overwhelming margin. In October 2000,
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) asked for unanimous consent to proceed to the bill and pass it. One Democratic Senator objected, stating Members on his side wished to offer amendments. One can only hope that a filibuster-proof majority will emerge in the Senate to support this bill which attempts to draw the line between abortion and full, unquestionable infanticide. A National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (`NARAL) press release decried the bill for 'directly contradicting one of Roe's central tenets." Faulting the Act for reaffirming that infants born prematurely are human persons, NARAL claimed: "Roe v. Wade clearly states that women have the right to choose prior to fetal viability." In other words, the "right" to an abortion means the "right" to a dead child and no effort should be made to preserve the life of a child who survives an abortion.
Faith-Based Initiatives. In his second week in office, President Bush told religious leaders that using their groups to aid the disadvantaged may help "change the culture" in the U.S. and promote support for the pro-life position. "This issue [pro-life] requires a president and an administration leading our nation to understand the importance of life. This ... initiative really ties into a larger cultural issue that we're working on ... because when you're talking about welcoming people of faith to help people who are disadvantaged and unable to defend themselves, the logical step is also [to help] those babies."
is a publication of the NCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities
3211 Fourth Street, N.E.Washington, DC 20017-1194
Phone (202) 541-3070; Facsimile (202) 541-3054
Made possible through the generosity of
the Knights of Columbus