Tracking the FDA’s Approval of Plan B: 10 Years of Endangering Women’s Health

mailee2009-2.jpgThis year marks the tenth “anniversary” of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of the “emergency contraceptive,” Plan B.  A decade later, Plan B is not only just as unsafe, but now the drug manufacturer is targeting our children.

The FDA first caved to abortion advocates’ demands in 1999 when it approved the prescription status of Plan B.  While touted as a drug to prevent pregnancy, the drug manufacturer does not hide the fact that it will prevent the implantation of an embryo. Read




Dear Friends,

I was one of 36 thousand pro-lifers last evening who tuned into a live webcast sponsored by a dozen or so pro-life organizations highlighting a MAJOR flaw in the Obama-backed Health Care bill racing through Congress.  In light of what I learned, I want to summarize for you a few urgent points.  I will do it as concisely as possible.

1.    Abortion is presently not mentioned in the bill.

2.    The bill does not specify what will and will not be covered.

3.    The bill mandates that a Health Care Advisory Committee has the authority to define the “essential benefits of coverage” (i.e., what will and will not be covered)

4.    The Health Advisory Committee will be a team of unelected bureaucrats appointed by the Obama Administration, most likely by Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

5.    President Obama during his campaign stated clearly and forcefully that he believed “reproductive care” is a form of “essential” and “basic” health care and assured that it would be included in his health care plan.

6.    As Governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius vetoed every piece of pro-life legislation that crossed her desk.  She is an uncompromising defender of abortion rights.

7.    Obama and Sebelius will be CERTAIN to appoint an advisory committee that supports abortion coverage in universal health care.  Therefore,


9.    Every tax payer will be forced to fund abortions.

10.    Presently enacted restrictions on abortion at the State level will be overridden.

11.    Hospitals and providers will be coerced into cooperating with abortions.

12.    FOCA won’t need to be passed because its cornerstones will be included in our nationalized health care.




Protecting Healthcare Freedom of Conscience: A National Tradition

aul_logo.jpg Most Americans know that this year marks the 36th anniversary of Roe v Wade, the controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.  However, 2009 is also the 36th anniversary of important federal protections for healthcare providers:  the Church Amendments.  For more than three decades, these Amendments have provided a much-needed foundation for protecting the moral and ethical freedoms of healthcare providers.

Today, these protections are increasingly important as abortion proponents seek to weaken and, ultimately, remove common-sense abortion laws such as informed consent and parental involvement, as well as federal and state laws and regulations protecting healthcare providers who do not wish to participate in abortions or other conflict-ridden procedures.  Moreover, these protections are also implicated as Congress and the Administration debate a government take-over of America’s healthcare industry.



The 40th Anniversary of NARAL: Is Life in America Better Today Because of Reproductive “Choice”?

sage.jpgThis year marks the 40th anniversary of the founding of the National Abortion Rights and Reproductive Rights Action League (“NARAL”) and its headlining of a reproductive “right” to “choice.”  Since its inception, the efforts of recently-recast NARAL Pro-Choice America have resulted in more than 46 million legal abortions in the United States—a number that should shock the public, but is all too often drowned out by NARAL’s noisy rhetoric of reproductive “choice.”  For Americans that value and seek to protect human life, the question is:  Is life in America better today as a result of NARAL? Read


Extending the President’s Influence: The Importance of Federal Judicial Nominations

aul_logo.jpgThe President of the United States is in a unique position to profoundly influence the nation’s debates over key social and political issues for decades after he leaves office.  He can do this because he maintains the authority to appoint judges to the nation’s federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Although these nominees – including those for federal district courts and for highly-influential federal circuit courts — must be approved by the Senate, the President bears the responsibility to nominate men and women he believes are qualified for these important positions. More often than not, he also seeks to nominate individuals that share his political and social views as well as his judicial philosophy. Read


Summary and Reflections on DIGNITAS PERSONAE

william_e_may.jpgSeptember 8, 2008 is the official date of a new doctrinal document prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and approved by Pope Benedict XVI on bioethical issues.  It is a sequel to the CDF’s February 1987 doctrinal Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origins and on the Dignity of Procreation (Latin title Donum vitae). Dignitas Personae (henceforth DP), formally released for publication on December 12, 2008, is of a doctrinal nature and falls within the category of documents that "participate in the ordinary Magisterium of the successor of Peter" (see Instruction Donum veritatis, no.18), and is to be received by Catholics "with the religious assent of their spirit" (DP, no. 37).



The Catholic Church, Pro-Abortion Politicians and the Problem of Scandal

christian_new.jpgWhoever shall scandalize (cause to sin) one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
(Matthew 18:6)

Several weeks ago I wrote a piece arguing that it’s time to reopen the question of whether obdurately pro-abortion Catholic politicians should be permitted to continue freely to receive Holy Communion.  I argued that a chief consideration in the question regards the issue of scandal.  I’d like to pursue this further. Read