LSN Letter to Editor

I wrote the following letter to the editor to Lifesitenews.com. It was published on 25 March 2010.
---

Re: LifeSiteNews is Under Attack

Mr. Westen,

You said, "Some Church leaders have shown that they do not comprehend the great social and spiritual dangers of our times - the D&P and US CCHD scandals have demonstrated that more than a few within those organizations have no understanding of the Christian principles they supposedly strive to promote and would rather continue their 'inadvertent' funding of pro-abortion and otherwise anti-Christian groups than admit the truth."

I understand what you mean. I once gave a few printed articles that you had on Amnesty International (AI) to someone in my Church (Catholic) who financially contributed to AI. He said that he didn't believe the articles and that AI continues to do great humanitarian work.

Catholics, such as the Catholics at my Church or the Catholics at Zenit, just can't believe the truth about their social justice organizations in relation to abortion no matter what facts are presented to the contrary. Even when they entertain the possibility that their organization contributes to the killing of innocents in abortion, they downplay their significance.

I answered my fellow parishioner's conundrums in two ways. (1) Like the segregation issue (read David Duke), if some entity or person is for abortion, they should be automatically disqualified from anyone's money and/or vote. (2) It's a priority issue; I would venture to say that there are fewer people killed or imprisoned unjustly in one year around the world than there are killed in abortion in one year or even one day. Everyone in the world, especially Catholics, should fight as hard as they can against abortion: the most tragic civil rights violation of our day.

I pray that you keep up the Good Work that God has given you and your staff to do in telling the Truth no matter what the consequences.

Sincerely,
[gbm3]
Baltimore, MD, USA

Open Letter to US Senator Mikulski (D-MD)

Back in 2008, I visited US senior Senator Mikulski's office to present ideas about FOCA.

Below is a series of inquiries about a quote from Sen. Mikulski found here that was very peculiar.

"Now, abortion is never and never should be used as a tool for family planning." -Sen. Mikulski

First I wrote this via email:
---

Ms. [Medical Staffer],

I just read a speech given by Sen. Mikulski on the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (at http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=81192&keyword=abortion&phrase=&contain= ). She said, "Now, abortion is never and never should be used as a tool for family planning." Could you let me know what this really means in layman terms? According to the Senator, when should abortion be used if not for family planning? The vast majority (>>50%, not ready/cannot afford baby) of abortions are used for family planning. I am confused about the Senator's position. Please clarify.

Thank you,
[gbm3]
Baltimore, MD

---

I received this politically correct response via email.
---

Dear [gbm3]:

Thanks for getting in touch with me. It's nice to hear from you.

I appreciate knowing of your opposition to abortion. I have given the abortion issue very serious consideration. As someone who represents such a diverse constituency, I support respecting the individual conscience, so that each woman can decide for herself whether and when to have a child. That means that I also support the rights of medical students and doctors to choose whether to perform abortions.

I also support a ban on all post‑viability abortions except where necessary to save the woman's life or to protect her from a serious and debilitating threat to her physical health. I voted for a bipartisan bill which would have done just this, and I am disappointed that this alternative was not passed by the Senate. I am disappointed because this measure was built on common ground which reflected the views of the American people. [Is this FOCA???]

In my view, abortion should only be an option of last resort. We need to concentrate on the prevention of unintended pregnancies ‑‑ from support for abstinence programs for teenagers to support for family planning information and services.

Again, thanks for contacting me. Please let me know if I can be of help to you in the future.

Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator

Responding to your message
Tuesday, January 19, 2010 11:48 AM

---

I wrote this in reply to the office comment form:
---

(1) "Now, abortion is never and never should be used as a tool for family planning." ( http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=81192&keyword=abortion&phrase=&contain= )

(2) "As someone who represents such a diverse constituency, I support respecting the individual conscience, so that each woman can decide for herself whether and when to have a child."

Senator Mikulski,

I originally contacted you and your staff to clarify the first statement above that was voiced by you on the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (regarding what "a tool for family planning" meant).

As a reply, the second statement was sent by you and your staff.

I am now more confused than before my first inquiry. If abortion is never to be used for family planning, how can it be said that a woman can decide between bearing a child or terminating that child once s/he is conceived after fertilization? (A woman is pregnant if and only if she is bearing a child after fertilization.)

I know you are a champion against human trafficking, or the slave trade. Consider two statements that would not make sense on the 30th anniversary of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857):

"Now, working a slave is never and never should be used as a tool for farming or industry."; and

"As someone who represents such a diverse constituency, I support respecting the individual conscience, so that each plantation or industrial owner can decide for himself whether and when to own a slave."

I agree with your statement that "[ ] abortion is never and never should be used as a tool for family planning." Viability, skin color genetics, nor nationality of a preborn boy or girl should be criteria whether abortion is to be used.

I agree that "abortions [can be used] where necessary to save the woman's life or to protect her from a serious and debilitating threat to her physical health" as a compromise, but abortion, like human trafficking or slavery should be outlawed nationally (even in Southern States of the Union).

Instead of a compromise, consider changing your position on this most pressing issue of our time by legislatively limiting abortion only "where necessary to save the woman's life or to protect her from a serious and debilitating threat to her physical health", whether the preborn human is viable or not?


As a final note, please consider Francis Beckwith's pro-life position in Defending Life (p. 57):

1. The unborn [I prefer preborn] entity, from the moment of conception [or fertilization, depending on the conception definition], is a full-fledged member of the human community.

2. It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community.

3. Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.

4. Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong.

I encourage you and your staff to read Mr. Beckwith's book.

Sincerely,
[gbm3]
Baltimore, MD

---

I wonder if anyone will join me in writing Sen. Mikulski to try to outlaw abortion?