Through The Looking Glass

The Catholic World Report Blog published an interview with the National Director of 40 Days for Life Mr. David Bereit concerning allegations that the group was filming women entering and leaving a British abortion clinic in London.

Mr. Bereit stated that an independent filmmaker was doing the filming in question for a documentary. An independent film maker who is not associated with the 40 Days for Life organization. Mr. Bereit also stated that he was never interviewed by any reporter, nor was the London 40 Days for Life organization contacted by any reporter to either confirm or deny the story.

I decided to to do my own research on the story and try to find the original story concerning the allegations of filming of patients entering and leaving the clinic. I found the Guardian story and the globalpost.com story.

According to Mr. Bereit the story was picked up by the Associated Press. The AP link in the globalpost.com story leads to the Washington Post. The story cannot be found on either the AP website or the Washington Post website. This is one reason why I do not trust the mainstream media. The media ran a story based upon information provided by the abortion clinic, and never bothered to do an in depth investigation of the clinics complaint about the filming of patients. Perhaps the disappearance of the AP story is a new form of apology to 40 Days for Life.

If any reader of my article can find the story on the AP, or Washington Post website send me the link in a comment. I will be more than happy to print an apology, I will also leave the apology in my blog archive, until then I'll leave you with two photographs from another organization that were masters of hiding the true story.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/united-kingdom/120314/anti-abortion-protesters-film-women-they-leave-abortion-clinic

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/13/40-days-for-life-anti-abortionists

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/1237/40_days_for_life_defends_its_methods_against_slurs.aspx

New York Times Goes Green Uses Methane To Fuel Stories

Reporters prepare to compost their stories

Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times was on the receiving end of the word "bull****" from Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Sunday March 25th. This is a word that I have used many times myself when reading the New York Times, in fact I am surprised the Times has not copyrighted the word and placed it on their masthead.

I hope Mr. Zeleny is recovering from the shock of his encounter with Mr. Santorum.

 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/santorum-defiant-after-lashing-out-at-reporter/

"Hell is full of good wishes and desires." - St. Bernard of Clairvaux

"Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’(killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."

 

The statement at the beginning of this article is an abstract from an article that was published online in the The Journal of Medical Ethics on February 23rd 2012 written by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are medical ethicists. Their "ethical" defense of the killing of newborns even though the newborn does not have any medical problem is the logical progression of abortion on demand, whether or not abortion supporters are willing to admit this publicly.

 

The Groningen Protocol

 

In September 2004 Eduard Verhagen, an attorney and the Medical Director of the Department of Pediatrics at the University Medical Center Groningen in Groningen, Netherlands wrote a directive containing the criteria in which doctors may perform the active ending of life on infants without legal prosecution. The protocol, as written by Eduard Verhagen, was agreed upon by the Prosecutors Office in Groningen, and in July 2005 declared mandatory by the Dutch Society for Pediatrics.

Before prosecutors approved the protocol voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands was legal for children as young as 12 years old, now involuntary euthanasia is legal from the moment of birth. Supporters of the Netherlands practice of voluntary euthanasia will point out that in the case of newborns the parents must request euthanasia based upon medical criteria, and children between the ages of 12 and 16 must have parental permission before they are euthanized. Those are the written guidelines but how euthanasia is actually practiced no matter how old a patient is may be an entirely different matter.

"In January 1997-June 2004, 22 cases of deliberate termination of life in newborns were reported. All cases concerned newborns with spina bifida and hydrocephalus. Deliberate termination of life was acceptable to the physicians because of the presence of hopeless suffering, with no means of alleviating the suffering. In all cases, at least 2 doctors were consulted outside the medical team. In 17 of 22 cases, a multidisciplinary spina bifida team was consulted. All parents consented to the termination of life; in 4 cases they explicitly requested it."  - from the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health

Note the time span concerning the 22 cases of the "deliberate termination of life in newborns" that were reported. The Groningen Protocol had not been written until September 2004. Doctors were euthanizing infants when it was not legal to do so in the Netherlands. Prosecutors were not interested in prosecuting these cases because doctors met the "medical criteria" written in a protocol that prosecutors agreed to after at least 22 infants had already been euthanized. How very fortunate for the doctors, probably not so fortunate for the citizens of the Netherlands.
 

Some Dutch citizens now carry what I call "Please do not kill me" cards for good reason. In the case of an accident or serious illness your first visit to the hospital could be your last visit. The lack of interest by prosecutors concerning the illegal euthanizing of newborns does not bode well for any patient no matter their age. Also of interest is that in the 22 cases only 4 parents explicitly requested euthanasia. What about the other 18 cases? Were parents encouraged or pressured to accept euthanasia?       

One should remember that the Groningen Protocol was designed to protect doctors from prosecution for ending the life of infants, it was not written to protect the life of the patient.
  

"Criteria are amongst others "unbearable suffering" and "expected quality of life". Only the parents can start the procedure. The procedure is reported to be working well.
For the Dutch public prosecutor, the termination of a child's life (under age 12) is acceptable if 4 requirements were properly fulfilled;"

1. The presence of hopeless and unbearable suffering
2. The consent of the parents to termination of life
3. Medical consultation having taken place
4. Careful execution of the termination

The criteria are subjective. Although the protocol states that the parents are the ones that must start the procedure doctors are looked to as authority figures by their patients, or in the case of a child, their parents. Another issue that can arise is that the doctor may or may not choose to report a death as euthanasia to the authorities.

The sad irony is that the Dutch refused to cooperate with the Nazi Aktion T4 program that required the reporting and euthanizing of the disabled during the occupation of Holland in World War II.

The following quote is from a sermon delivered by Bishop Clemens on August 3rd, 1941. This sermon was delivered in Nazi Germany and it enraged the Nazi government. Several priests were executed by the Gestapo for distributing written copies of this sermon.

"No, these are not the reasons why these unfortunate patients are to be put to death. It is simply because that according to some doctor, or because of the decision of some committee, they have no longer a right to live because they are ‘unproductive citizens’. The opinion is that since they can no longer make money, they are obsolete machines, comparable with some old cow that can no longer give milk or some horse that has gone lame. What is the lot of unproductive machines and cattle? They are destroyed. I have no intention of stretching this comparison further. The case here is not one of machines or cattle which exist to serve men and furnish them with plenty. They may be legitimately done away with when they can no longer fulfil their function. Here we are dealing with human beings, with our neighbours, brothers and sisters, the poor and invalids . . . unproductive—perhaps! But have they, therefore, lost the right to live? Have you or I the right to exist only because we are ‘productive’? If the principle is established that unproductive human beings may be killed, then God help all those invalids who, in order to produce wealth, have given their all and sacrificed their strength of body. If all unproductive people may thus be violently eliminated, then woe betide our brave soldiers who return home, wounded, maimed or sick."

        

The Conscience that Leads To Nowhere

Senator Lisa Murkowski

Poor little Catholic Lisa Murkowski. She has learned the hard way that there is a price to pay for having a conscience. In an interview with Julia O' Malley of the Anchorage Daily News Senator Murkowski stated that she regretted her vote for the Blunt Amendment. The Blunt Amendment was designed to reinstate conscience protections in health care that existed before President Obama decided that conscience was an impediment in pleasing his voting base.

The good Senator should understand that this is not an attempt to deny women contraception. Birth control pills are relatively inexpensive, and  women can choose to work for someone that provides contraception in their health care plans. You may have the right to seek employment, but you do not have the right to force an employer to hire you. The Senator should try to bridge the gap concerning the real issue of the violation of conscience in the Obama health care mandate. The irony is that Senator Murkowski has built a bridge before, a bridge like her conscience that leads to nowhere.

"It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."

Marines in Afghanistan

The title for this article comes from General Douglas MacArthur. Starting in 1941 the United States fought on two fronts during World War II. Two fronts that covered two oceans, on opposite sides of the world. Four years later the Germans and Japanese surrendered. We have been in Afghanistan since October 2001, so for 11 years U.S. forces have been in combat in a country the size of Texas.

Enough is enough it is time to get out of Afghanistan. Soldiers and Marines in some cases are on their fourth deployments.


"Afghan officials said the soldier left a NATO base in Kandahar late Saturday (March 10th, 2012) and walked more than a mile to the village of Balandi. They said he burst into three homes, shooting as he went.
According to villagers, the man then gathered up some of the bodies and set fire to them. Then he walked another mile to the village of Alkozai, killing four more Afghans, before returning to the base, where he surrendered and remains in custody.
He was identified as a 38-year-old staff sergeant from Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington State who had served three tours in Iraq. His name was withheld until charges are filed.
Meanwhile, U.S. officials condemned the attack. At the U.N. today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the shootings inexplicable." - from PBS

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's comment calling the shootings "inexplicable" is a poor choice of words. She should have said the shootings were a crime and there was no justification for the shootings. The shootings are explainable.

Sending Marines and Soldiers to "nation build" for 11 years is a misuse of American lives. For 11 years we have fought Afghans who wear no uniforms, and our Afghan "allies" that are in uniform are also killing Americans. American forces are living in miserable conditions and sent out on the same roads day after day making it easier for the enemy to use roadside bombs to kill and maim them. The feeling of isolation American forces have must have received a real morale boost when President Obama apologized for the Quran burning at an American base, Qurans that had been desecrated by Afghans by writing coded messages in them.

I do not condone the murder of the Afghan civilians on Saturday March 10th, but I can understand how it happened. When you see American citizens as servants of the state and not as individuals that have their own hopes and dreams, that do not include four or more tours in combat then our government has a problem.

Our Marines and Soldiers have served with courage and honor it is time they came home. It is time to let the Afghans do what they do best, what they have done for centuries, and that is to kill each other.

When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff - Cicero

Updated on March 7th 2012

The House Democrats are trying to save President Obama's campaign for a second term, and minimize the damage to their own campaigns over the forced "contraceptive" mandate for religious institutions.

The following article from Yahoo and ABC News is at best a typical example of sloppy journalism, or at worst it is a deliberate attempt to misinform the reader, provide cover for President Obama, and advance the agenda of organizations that are in league with the state to force the Catholic Church to pay for contraception, sterilization, and abortion all of which violate deeply held beliefs of the Church. I will appraise both the article and Ms. Fluke's "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" moment. My commentary is written in bold italics. I have provided links to my article at the bottom of the page.

Contraception Controversy Continues: Meet Witness Sandra Fluke
By Alexa Keyes | ABC OTUS News – 19 hrs ago

Unlike the journalists at ABC I'll provide you some background on Sandra Fluke and the organization that has published commentary pieces she has written.

This is a biography of  Sandra Fluke published by RH Reality Check.

"Organization / Company: Georgetown University Law Students for Reproductive Justice

Sandra Fluke’s professional background in domestic violence and human trafficking began with Sanctuary for Families in New York City. There, she launched the agency’s pilot Program Evaluation Initiative. While at Sanctuary, she co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which after a twenty-year stalemate, successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. Sandra was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President’s Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions that successfully advocated for policy improvements impacting victims of domestic violence."

Rh Reality Check in their own words; "Our Vision"

"RH Reality Check is an online community and publication serving individuals and organizations committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights.

RH Reality Check is guided by the issues and recommendations identified in the Program of Action agreed on at the International Conference on Population and Development at Cairo in 1994. Protection is our watchword—we are contributing to the global effort to empower people with the information, services and leadership they need to safeguard their sexual and reproductive health and rights and to guard against false attacks and misinformation.

RH Reality Check exists as a resource for evidence-based information, provocative commentary, and interactive dialogue. We enjoyed the support of the UN Foundation and the editorial independence entrusted to us for six years, from 2006-2012. In January 2012 we branched off officially as our own independent 501 c3 (non-profit) organization, and that's what we are today.

RH Reality Check provides a forum for ideas and opinions. The opinions expressed on the site are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of RH Reality Check or its funding organizations or persons."

Rh Reality Check in their own words; Our Partners: Past & Present
*In alphabetical order.*

Advocates for Youth, SIECUS, Isis, Inc.

Alternet, Daily Kos and Firedoglake

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Americans for UNFPA

Catholics for Choice

Choice USA

Caucus for Evidence-Based Prevention leading up to the Int’l AIDS Conference

Gender Across Borders (GAB) –

Joint Action Committee For Political Affairs (JAC)

Kansas NOW

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH)

On The Issues Magazine

Oneworld.net

Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (PRCH) and the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP) –

Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAct)

Scarleteen

Women Deliver Conference 

Youtube 

"House Democrats convened an unofficial hearing today to hear the testimony of Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student who'd been barred by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House committee on Oversight and Government Reform, from testifying at a hearing about contraception, health insurance and freedom of religion on Capitol Hill last week." - from ABC News 

The ABC reporter uses the word "contraception" but fails to report that the preventative services mandate also includes sterilization and abortion inducing medication. The writer gives the impression that the mandate is only about birth control pills. Perhaps this reporter has not done her research on the mandate and is not aware of what services the mandate requires of employer health plans, or this reporter is a supporter of the mandate and has no desire to inform the reader of the true scope of the mandate.

"Democrats and women's groups protested when Issa, saying the topic of the hearing was religious freedom, not access to birth control or women's rights, rejected Fluke as a witness because she was not a member of the clergy." - from ABC News

Ms. Fluke is a law student she does not employ anyone, she is not an employer that offers a health care plan to employees. She is not a member of the clergy. The hearing subject was freedom of religion and conscience concerning the Obama health care plan.   

"Instead, Issa convened an interfaith panel made up only of men. During the hearing past week, Fluke sat quietly behind the witness table, an obvious display of her refusal to be silenced. The all-male panel focused on the president's new mandate that employers with religious affiliations must offer health insurance plans that covered birth control. But the exclusion of the woman panelist sparked backlash from women's groups and jokes on late-night comedy shows." - from ABC News

The ABC News story does not tell the reader that there was testimony from two panels. The second panel included two women. Also included in the hearing under other documents was a video submitted by Ms. Fluke. As far has her "refusal to be silenced" Ms. Fluke provides evidence that dissident theologians of the Catholic Church and some third year law students share one thing in common and that is a deep seated fear that something they say or write will not be heard or published. 

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi kept the issue front and center Thursday by holding her own hearing with only one witness, Sandra Fluke.
Many women in this country are energized about this issue," Fluke told Pelosi's all Democratic Policy Committee. Republicans did not send any House members to today's hearing.
Fluke's prepared testimony included details of fellow female students at Georgetown University who'd been denied contraceptive coverage because of the university's Catholic affiliation. Fluke said that one of her friends experienced complications stemming from ovarian cysts that could have been treated with birth control pills, and doctors were forced to remove her ovary." - from ABC News

Ms. Fluke as a law student should understand that her testimony concerning her friend that had an ovary removed because the Georgetown University student health care plan did not cover birth control pills is hearsay. She does not name the student, nor her doctor, or proof that the doctor prescribed birth control pills to treat her ovarian cysts. Ms. Fluke is not a medical expert so she is not qualified to testify on medical issues. There is no way to know if this student really exists until Ms. Fluke names the student, and then the student names the doctor, and the doctor testifies that birth control pills were prescribed to treat her medical condition.

"Fluke, who is in her third year of law school, testified that Georgetown did not cover contraception on its health plan, which she said could cost as much as $3,000 during a student's law school career." - from ABC News

Ms.Fluke as an advocate for "reproductive justice" should be aware of the true costs of birth control pills and I would think that a good reporter would  do some fact checking before accepting any statement from someone who makes a monetary claim in any testimony.

"For patients not covered by health insurance, birth control pills typically cost $20 to $50 a month.  In most states, Wal-Mart, Target and Kroger pharmacies offer a limited selection of generic birth control pills for $9 per month." - from the costhelper website

So for three years of law school at $50 a month the cost would come to $1800, at $9 a month the cost would be $324 for birth control pills.

Ms. Fluke neglects to mention that students at Georgetown can opt out of the University health care plan. The ABC reporter could have done the same research I did and reported that if students can provide proof of their own health care insurance that meets Georgetown requirements they may opt out of the Georgetown health care plan.

"For all students, good health is essential to achieving educational goals. Because maintaining good health requires access to health care when you need it, Georgetown University requires the students described below to have health insurance."

• "Most students who are charged Georgetown University tuition and registered in resident thesis research or registered for nine or more credit hours in a GU degree program (eight or more credit hours if a law or graduate student) are eligible and required to enroll in the most comprehensive student injury and sickness plan offered through the University, unless their other insurance coverage meets specific University requirements." -  from the Georgetown Student Health Plan website.

If you are a Georgetown University student and you want contraception coverage then provide your own health care coverage. - my comment

 "I felt not insulted for myself but for the women I wanted to represent, women who were silenced," Fluke said.

The Obama administration's decision to require contraception coverage by health care plans offered by religious affiliated organizations has ignited an impassioned debate in Washington. Many Democrats believe the issue is about women's health, not religion, while many Republicans say the contraception policy violates religious freedom.

While Fluke told the committee today that "getting into Issa's head is somewhere I do not want to go," she affirmed that she had all the credentials needed to testify on the issue.

"I'm an American woman who uses contraception," she said. "That makes me qualified to talk to my representatives about health care needs."

"It's not about church and state," Fluke said at the end of today's hearing. "It's about women's health."

ABC News' John Parkinson contributed to this report.

No one is stopping Ms. Fluke or any other woman from obtaining contraception coverage. If you want contraceptive coverage that includes sterilization, and abortion inducing medication, then go to work, or attend a school that offers those services.