March Newsgram, Part 2, 1997

Monthly Issues

It is obvious that pro-lifers can't be such a threat as a Planned Parenthood worker is in casual conversation, in the midst of people praying.

If you have a favorite selection from Scripture, send it along for our next Newsgram

If you care to reprint or use references from this issue, the following credits and information must be attached: Children of the Rosary Publication, March Newsgram, Part 2, 1997.

Questions and Answers

People who believe they are upstanding pro-lifers reach a murky area when fetal tissue reseach is discussed. Compassionate people are being swayed by human interest stories in the news every day.

A young adult, blind from birth, has an opportunity to gain his vision by undergoing an operation. That operation would require the use of fetal tissue. If the child is already aborted, is it really wrong to have the operation?

We hear these situations continually. An excellent book which can be used as a reference is Catholic Replies. We are presenting a few of the questions and answers for your information.

Question:. I am a Catholic and a Ph. D. candidate in the program in Neuroscience at Harvard University. A few months ago, I found out that the lab I am in occasionally uses brain tissue from aborted fetuses, mostly to verify in human tissue what has been discovered in animals. I would like your advice on whether I must leave this lab. The head of the lab has agreed to exclude me from participating in such research. Such research forms only a small proportion of the lab's work. I have three questions: (l) What do you think of research on aborted fetuses? (2) Can I as a Christian stay in such a lab as long as I don't participate in fetal research? (3) What should my attitude be towards a fellow Christian who involves himself in such research? Also, do you think that automatic excommunication would apply to those who knowingly perform this type of research? A.L.R. Massachusetts

Answer: Since this is such an important issue, we again consulted the Pope John Center for the Study of Ethics in Health Care. This Center was founded more than 20 years ago to provide scholarly, timely, and reliable information from the Catholic moral tradition on questions involving medical ethics.

With a professional staff and consultants who are specialists in such fields as philosophy, law, medicine, theology, and the natural and social sciences, the Center sponsors regional workshops and seminars throughout the country, publishes a monthly newsletter (Ethics & Medics), and produces books and pamphlets on a variety of issues, including the family, sexuality, abortion, Humanae Vitae, prolonging life, genetic counseling, and in vitro fertilization.

The answers to A.L.R.'s questions were provided mostly by Dr. Peter J. Cataldo, the Center's Director of Research, in consultation with Father Russell E. Smith, the president of the Center. We are grateful to both of them for their assistance.

What do you think of research on aborted fetuses?

There are both ethical and medical problems with research on aborted fetuses for the purpose of tissue transplantation. There has been a virtual silence about the medical disadvantages with aborted tissue in the press and in recent professional literature. For example, it is estimated that 75 percent of aborted tissue, especially fetal liver, is unusable for transplantation due to contamination from the abortion procedure and maceration. The remaining 25 percent will inevitably have some problems from genetic mutation and from drugs used in the abortion. Some of the potentially treatable diseases require tissue in the second trimester, which accounts for only 10 percent of abortions and usually has medical problems associated with it.

Ethically, the use of aborted tissue amounts to a complicity in the evil of abortions, past, present, and future. Use of the results of an abortion cannot be separated from the past evil means by which those results were obtained. There is a complicity in present and future abortions insofar as the use and success of fetal transplantation influence either the decision to abort or the abortion procedure itself. The evil of abortion is thus also perpetuated by the use of aborted tissue. Moreover, there is no sense in which the mother is qualified to give consent to the use of tissue from her aborted child. There is also every reason to believe that a commercialization of pregnancies for the purpose of using aborted tissue could develop.

Can I as a Christian stay in such lab as long as I don't participate in fetal research?

Under the described conditions there would be no cooperation with the evil of abortion-neither material nor formal-on the part of the researcher. If the work of the researcher does not involve aborted fetal tissue, then it would be permissible to remain at the laboratory.

What should my attitude be toward a fellow Christian who involves himself in such research?

Even though there are conditions under which it would be morally permissible to work at the lab, there is still a possibility of causing scandal. Scandal is an example which, by its nature, leads another person to sin. The researcher would have an obligation to make his or her disapproval of the use of aborted tissue known to those whom the researcher believes might be led to sin by his continued work at the lab. Scandal is possible with both Christian and non-Christian colleagues.

Do you think automatic excommunication would apply to those who knowingly perform this type of research?

Canon 1398 of the Code of Canon Law says that "a person who procures a completed abortion incurs an automatic (latae senteniae) excommunication." According to John Cardinal O'Connor's 1990 statement entitled Abortion: Questions and Answers, this canon is normally interpreted to include the adult woman who knowingly has the abortion and anyone who assists willingly and directly in procuring the abortion, such as the doctor, the nurse, the abortion counselor, and family or friends who pressured the woman into having the abortion and perhaps even paid for it. In these cases, the excommunication occurs automatically and immediately after the knowing and willing act of the individual. No action is necessary by the bishop.

Apart from automatic excommunication, said Cardinal O'Connor, individual bishops might impose penalties "on those who support abortion in a general way," or on those who engage in "impermissible forms of cooperation, inconsistent with being a practicing Catholic, which give active scandal within the Church and within society. "It does not seem that automatic excommunication would apply to those who perform research on aborted babies, but such complicity in the evil of abortion is certainly gravely immoral and might provide sufficient ground for some

bishops to excommunicate individuals engaged in this kind of research.

Question: Will you explain what extraordinary means are acceptable to maintain life?-C.R., Illinois

Answer: It is difficult to enumerate extraordinary means of prolonging life because advances in medicine have changed the definition of what are ordinary and extraordinary means. Surgical procedures once considered extraordinary are now fairly routine. In its 1980 Declaration on Euthanasia, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that the best way to make a correct judgment in these matters is "by studying the type of treatment to be used, its degree of complexity or risk, its cost and the possibilities of using it, and comparing these elements with the result that can be expected, taking into account the state of the sick person and his or her physical and moral resources."

The Congregation went on to offer several clarifications of the general principles:
* A patient may choose the latest medical techniques, even if they are risky and still in the experimental stage.
* The patient may halt the use of these advanced techniques if they are not achieving the desired results or if they are imposing on the patient "strain or suffering out of proportion with the benefits which he or she may gain from such techniques."
* One can refuse advanced medical treatment and make do with normal means as an "acceptance of the human condition," to avoid medical procedures disproportionate to the results that can be expected, or to spare the family or the community excessive expenses.
* When death is imminent, the patient can refuse forms of treatment "that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted."

Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate, says the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n.2278), since this only constitutes the refusal of "overzealous" treatment. The person does not will to cause death in this situation, the Catechism says, explaining that one's inability to impede death is merely accepted. But it also says that the decision should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

*********************************************
Our deepest appreciation goes to Catholic Answers. We encourage you to purchase this book. Catholic Answers, by James J. Drummey, with a forward by Charles E. Rice, covers over 800 questions on a variety of topics. The book, ISBN 0-9649087, is available through the religious stores listed in our sponsor pages or write to: CR Publications, 345 Prospect Street, Norwood MA 02062.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

I wanted to share with you how I made the change from pro-choice to pro-life and what might be another angle for you to approach people in your crusade.

I had always been pro-choice because I believed if we let the government start telling us what we could and couldn't do to our bodies, then they would have their foot in the door and could tell us what we could or couldn't do with ourselves in other aspects. I haven't ever thought abortion was right. However, with how the government is, I didn't want them to tell me what I could and couldn't do.

Then I started reading a lot of literature on the United Nations (UN) and some of their "projects" and some books by very reputable Christian authors who back up their information from secular sources. They say that the UN is using China as a "test case" for the world. Apparently there are those at the UN who have calculated how many people the planet can sustain with a high standard of living. And apparently we are about 3.2 billion over the magic number. And to keep procreation down China has been set up as a test case for population control. The people of China as you know are only allowed to have one child. Because the culture reveres boy children over girls they perform all kinds of abortions or put them up for adoption. If people in China decide to have more than one child they lose all their government perks (e.g., paid college education for their child, housing, jobs sometimes). Just recently they passed a law in China that should you have a genetic disease that could be passed on to your children, you cannot obtain a marriage license without first being sterilized. Women in China have X-rays every three months to make sure that their mandatory IUDs have not fallen or been illegally removed.

When I realized that the UN and subsequently our government were using abortion as a method of population control I was outraged.

I guess what I'm trying to say is somehow with abortion the only message I ever seemed to get from the media or even your books, pamphlets, etc. that may have come my way was "it was morally wrong" and I believe that. However, I think that if people understood that not only is it morally wrong, but they are going to regulate our lives like China (and there are sources out there to back this up) and tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies.

I believe there are those out there like I used to be kind of "on the fence about abortion" but if pushed I would elect the government to stay out of what I can and can't do. And ironically the way everything is presented in the media they've manipulated these people over to their "side" so they can tell you what to do eventually. The exact opposite of what people like me really want.

It was just a thought for a new angle in your crusade. If I'm horribly uninformed and ya'll already know this and print and tell it to people, I apologize for being redundant.

Kimberly
Irving, Texas

Deacon Bob Myers leads a decade of the rosary for those in the abortion industry

GOP BUYS THE PRO-LIFE VOTE

Washington, D.C. - For pro-life voters who were puzzled about the support of the National Right to Life Committee (NRTL) for pro-abortion candidates like Bob Dole and Oregon’s Gordon Smith, the answer may lie in the voluminous records of the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).

The FEC records for the Republican National Committee (RNC), the main campaign-finance engine of the Republican Party, shows that the RNC gave NRTL $650,000 during the final days of electioneering for the November 1996 elections.

"Two-thirds of a million is not an insubstantial sum," said Paul deParrie of Life Advocate magazine. “Normally you see issue-oriented groups trying to influence a party by giving to them, but what was a party trying to gain by giving to an issue-oriented group.”

The itemized disbursement document listed a $500,000 October 18 donation followed by a $150,000 donation on October 31 to the nation’s largest pro-life organization.

Wanda Franz, president of National Right To Life, did not return Life Avocate calls.

The story first came to light when the United States Taxpayers Party (USTP) discovered the documentation. Matt Trewhilla, who is affiliated with the USTP and is director of Missionaries to the Pre-born (MTP) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, published the information in his MTP newsletter.

Wisconsin Right to Life's Barbara Lyons wrote Trewhella stating, "NRLC [sic] has been the recipient of these 'soft' funds for years" but denying that gifts were tied to endorsements.

Howard Phillips, candidate for president on the United States Taxpayers Party ticket and the only pro-life candidate from any registered party, said that the NRTL had “prostituted itself" by taking the money from a supporting-pro-abortion Bob Dole.

FEC records show that a similar contribution of $175,000 was made by the RNC to NRTL prior to the 1994 elections. The Democrat Party demanded that the FEC rule on the legality of the “soft money” contribution, but the FEC has yet to rule. So, in September of 1996, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee eventually filed suit to force the agency to rule. The second set of contributions followed the filing as the lawsuit and the FEC has still refused to rule.

Reprinted from Life Advocate Magazine, March 1997

---

COLOR OF RED DOWN THE DRAIN

A young woman was interviewed recently by Mike Barnicle, columnist for The Boston Globe. Her history of working in an abortuary weighed heavily on her. More so because she had worked at the same mill where John Salvi had shot and killed two employees. She knew the truth about abortion and had been denied in the press.

Now a wife and mother of three children, she is employed as a schol nurse. She began work at the abortuary as a secretary while she attended nursing school and, after gaining a degree, she went from handling a typewriter to handling actual human tissue.

Here is a portion of the interview she gave.

"I'm ashamed to tell anybody today what I did," she says now. "I worked in the autoclave room. That is where they sterilize the trays and the instruments after the procedure," she recalled the other day.

"When the doctors finished, they would bring in a small metal tray. There would be a plastic container as well as the instruments used to perform the abortion on the tray.

"The instruments are called dilators. They are long metal sticks that are wider toward the end. Obviously, they are used to dilate the women.

"My job was to sterilize the instruments. Then I would take the plastic container, which was filled with formaldehyde along with what they refer to as 'the product of conception,' and label it before sending it out to some lab.

"After each abortion, the doctor would bring the tray to me, wrapped in sterilization paper, to be washed and labeled. I would clean the trays and utensils for the next procedure.

"We were not supposed to perform abortions past 12 weeks. But it would -- and did -- happen that some women were aborted at 16 to 20 weeks.

"When that would happen, I would find that the tray contained blood, tissue and bone. That happened quite a lot and anyone who says it doesn't is lying.

"What would you do?" she was asked.

"With the tissue, bone and blood?" she wanted to know.

"Right," she was told.

"I'd dump it in the sink," she responded with a sigh. "Just like it was a disposal."

"Tissue, bone and blood," the woman remembered. "The first time I saw it, I said, 'Oh my God!' And then I washed it away down the sink.

"I'm ashamed I actually did that. I still think about it today. It's why I quit.

"Tissue, bone and blood," she repeated. "That's not life?"

The unidentified woman explained that she came forth for the interview with Mike Barnicle because of the national debate on partial-birth abortion. The shocking stand of the pro-abortionists working against them. This woman stands for life now. K.S.

Planned Parenthood employees heckler the prayer warriors from their balcony. We just prayed all the harder for them.

Can You Hear the Baby's Screams?

By Katherine Sabelko

Everyone heard how Ron Fitzsimmon's conscience unexplainably bothered him when he told a lie about the number of and reasons for partial-birth abortions (PBA). The question still is on the table of why he doesn't have pangs of conscience about lying about the safety and necessity of killing living children. Adding to the mix of self-exploding confessions, the grizzly facts of murder show up on the front page of The New York Times, March 21.

In the attempt to defend the use of PBA, abortionists detailed their methods of killing the innocent babies. Only one doctor interviewed,. Richard Hausknecht, doesn't do late-term abortions anymore, though he did not state that he has quit doing all abortions.

The New York Times article, Doctors Say It's Just One Way, by Deborah Sontag quoted Hausknecht, "Any procedure at this stage is pretty gruesome. When I did second-trimester abortions, I did them late in the day, and when I'd get home, my wife would say, 'You did one today, didn't you?' It was all over my face."

The article continued, "Doctors like Philip Darney at San Francisco General Hospital, which performs about 500 second-trimester abortions a year, prefer a classic D&E. They dilate a woman's cervix, then scrape out the fetus with serrated forceps, dismembering and killing it in the process. Dr. Darney uses ultrasound to guide him in the process, which, at 20 weeks, can take 20 difficult minutes to perform."

Can you hear the baby screaming? It takes 20 minutes of torture and these medical professionals take large amounts of money to tear a child apart. No wonder many pro-lifers are angry that so much attention has been given to the PBA procedure, while these other heinous practices are accepted and ignored.

An important point to make with the discussion of PBA: all abortions are horrid and all abortions result in the killing of an innocent child.

The excuse given by the pro-abortion extremists was exposed as clearly fraudulent by the statement of Richard Hausknecht, "There are the women who have seriously abnormal pregnancies, and then the larger group, who are usually young or indigent. Among these women are teenagers who deny their pregnancies, drug users and women who are menopausal or irregular in their periods."

No one addressed the question that if the woman is in a life crisis situation, why would a breach partial-birth be safer than a cesarean-section. Answer - it isn't safer and a cesarean-section would guarantee the birth of a child. God's child. - K.S.

---

NEWSGRAM INFORMATION

If you are wondering how you can receive the monthly Newsgram, we will have to say you can't subscribe to it. The only way you can receive the Newsgram each month is with your donation to CoR.

You see, for each five dollars you donate to the cause to fight abortion, you will receive a Newsgram. So, if you send in twenty dollars for our totally voluntary, nonprofit group, you will receive a Newsgram for four months - one month for each five dollars you send.

It is rather difficult to borrow a copy of a Newsgram. Most people who receive it just don't want their only copy out of their hands. The best way to ensure you get the last-minute pro-life news, locally and nationally, is to give from your heart - to save another heart - the heart of a small baby who will be saved through the work of us all.

God bless all of you who donate - without your generosity, this publication could not be printed and distributed. If you would like to send us a donation, simply use the envelope included with this issue.

---

GENERAL INFORMATION

For last-minute news, updated daily, simply call us at 715-643-5046 and listen to the message. To disconnect the recorded message and leave your own message, simply press the pound (#) sign. The FAX number is 715-643-2133. Office hours are 9 a.m to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday.

CoR continually offers you many unique ways to help fight abortion. If you have received a complimentary copy of this issue, consider sharing it with your group, consider donating, consider calling us to offer your services. We need you!

---

End of Part 2 of the March Newsgram, 1997.

NewsGram, March, Part 1, 1997
Events
Newsletters and Newsgrams

E-Mail us at .

Copyright © 1997 Children of the Rosary

---