March for Life in Photos - 2011 Estimated 300,000 In Attendance

Here are the girls from my room, from left to right Sasha, Carrie, Becky, and Sarah.

Beautiful and creative sign one of the young men in our group penned.

The last line on this sign says "Yet we kill unborn children?"

"Hey, Obama! Your mama chose life!" We had this chant going for a section of the march, at least a hundred of us nearby were shouting it. President Obama has one of the worst records in defending human life of any president since Roe v. Wade. He was the only senator who did not sign on to the bill to end the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion. He stands by decisions of doctors to allow babies to go without medical care if they are born as a result of a failed abortion. And on Saturday, as hudnreds of thousands were traveling to Washington D.C. he was talking to a group of pro-abortion women promising to allow abortion to continue under his watch.

Ironically, Obama fits the stereotype of a person in danger of abortion, had he been conceived after Roe v. Wade had made abortion legal. His mother was in college and unmarried when she became pregnant with him - pregnant by an african during a time of extreme racial tensions. Yes, his mama chose life, so who knows if a future president or Nobel Peace Prize winner is being aborted.

The House has introduced the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," given the numerical designation H.R. 3. Please contact your legislators - both in the House and Senate - to tell them you support this act! Not only will it creater stricter laws about taxpayer monies going to pay for abortions, such as was debated in the recent Health Care legislation, it will defund Planned Parenthood, which receiveds over $300 million in Federal Funding a year. The current monies are supposed to go towards non-abortion services that Planned Parenthood provides, but everyone knows they just get pooled. Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America, and any extra funds they get just help them to continue to provide more and more abortions.

What a beautiful sign! What joy these five women feel - four who feel the peace of having made the right decision for the care of their child, and one who now has four children who may never have been able to have any.

New Germany - the unborn are second-class citizens being methodically slaughtered in the womb. In addition, those who stand up for them are being silenced, such as the silence of news organizations who turn their heads to our march.

What a beautiful way to say she regrets her abortion! I am so glad this woman chose to heal, and that she now is trying to prevent women from making the same mistake!

The March for Life 2011

Every year around January 22, tens and hundreds of thousands take to the streets of Washington D.C. to protest the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. The rally / protest, known as March for Life is largely ignored by the media - both traditional outlets and more conservative outlets. In fact, if you didn't go yourself or know to Google it, you just might never know it happened.

I know that on Monday, January 24th 2011 there were no less then 27,000 people on the Washington Mall. I know that because before the March, they packed into two stadiums that hold that many people for a youth rally. I also know that the 27,000 is a minimum because I didn't go to the youth rallies at all. But I went to the March. And so did as many as 300,000 other people.

When did we start ignoring 300,000 of anything? There are 30,000 people protesting in Egypt, and it makes the news in America. This was ten times that (albeit a peaceful protest).

After the march I was invigorated to give more attention to my pro-life blog, and to helping the fight for life in any way I can. But today I write to show that the March took place. That it happened. And that there are hundreds of thousands of people who believe in this so much that they make a quick trip in the dead of winter not to sight-see but to pray and march and use our freedom of speech and assembly to protest a decision that they believe to be wrong.

Although the only historical site I saw on my trip was Ford's Theater, I felt awed to be in the nation's capital. I was in the heart of Democracy. America, in my humble opinion, still remains the freest country in the world, and Washington D.C., with all its flaws and corruptions, still remains the heart of the country.

But as I walked to the Supreme Court, I realized there were flaws. I don't think the country needs any kind of revamping - because I think any form of government is going to have flaws, and lots of them. But there I realized that the nine justices on the Supreme Court have a concentration of power that can be almost dictatorial. Roe v. Wade is not the only case that has shown the power of the Supreme Court, but it shows it very well.

The only way for the people, the supposed rulers in our democratic republic, to change Roe v. Wade is to either collect together a supermajority of votes to change the constitution, or to find a way to perfectly time the appointment of pro-life judges to the Supreme Court with a case of import that may cause the court to change course. Both are unlikely. As to the first option, it seems a little odd that nine justices, many who no longer serve, were able to rule over millions and millions of Americans - over half by most estimates - who believe abortion to not only be morally wrong, but to be murder.

As I approached the Supreme Court, I saw all the guards standing outside like statues, dressed in black uniforms. I applaud the guards - they are doing their job, and making sure a fight does not break out, either because of our rally or because of the counter-protestors on the Supreme Court steps. I am sure as they stood there, they had to think about their position in this battle of hearts and minds - I hope that our side put on an honorable showing. I think that both sides did, and although I find the pro-choice argument sickening, I appreciate that we were able to engage in healthy debate.

But seeing all those guards brought to mine other, less free, countries, where armed guards walk the street day in and day out. And I realized that, great as our country is, there is a kind of sick imbalance of power which allows the Supreme Court, symbolized by these guards, to authorize the killing of millions of unborn babies a year. But we were doing it differently - we were there to bring about change peacefully.

The temperature was in the twenties. It was cold. I hope that people who saw us or knew of us took that into consideration. I hope that they understand that this topic means so much to us, that we are willing to give up two precious vacation days, hundreds of dollars, and a lot of luxuries to go on the march. To try to get the attention of the country. And in doing so, we are not "out to get women" or trying to be oppressive "anti-choice" people. We are crying out for justice for the unborn children in America, and asking for recognition of the pain that abortion has caused millions of women and men as well.

Ultimately that is why we were there - to change hearts and minds. The hearts and minds of legislators, the court, Americans, and women in crisis situations. And if even one heart was changed, then I will be happy with what we did.

On Reading Decision Points - Embryonic Adoption

One of the first things President Bush did, much like one of the first things President Obama did, was to tackle the question of federally funding embryonic stem cell research. His book outlines his thought process and all the input he tried to receive along the way. In the end, his decision was to award grants to scientists researching embryonic stem cell lines that were already in place but to use the rest of the grants on non-embryonic stem cell research - research which paid off with better and more ethical results than embryonic stem cell research.

I disagree with his final decision, although I appreciate that he tried to create a decision that would be bipartisan but respect his morals - including the sacredness of human life. I have two problems:
1. I don't think that it is the government's job to fund ANY kind of stem cell research or other scientific project. I think that the funding of science should be private, especially as scientific breakthroughs tend to have just as much potential return as any other investment.
2. One danger of researching new cures using embryonic stem cells is the potential for success. I am surprised that, at least in his book, the president did not seek input on what would happen if a scientific breakthrough was made using embryonic stem cells. It is so much easier to accept disease when there is no cure, but what about when the cure is unethical? Why bother researching using embryonic stem cells if, using the president's morality as well as my own, once a breakthrough is reached, no more embryos are allowed to be killed in order to advance the cure? It really seems both illogical and unethical to research along lines that may not yield results. Under this line of reasoning alone, I would create an all-out ban on embryonic stem cell research, federally funded or not.

But what stuck out in the President's autobiography about his stem cell research was his discovery of an agency that placed embryos left over after In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) procedures with a new family. These embryos would otherwise be frozen forever or used for stem cell research. Children adopted such are called "snowflakes." Although I applaud these efforts ethically, I find myself confused at these proceedings.

First of all, we must understand that IVF is not considered a life-affirming method of becoming pregnant. However, for some the draw to have what they want, when they want it, becomes too much. There is a biological desire in us all to see our genes passed on, and when we find we cannot do it naturally, we seek alternative methods. Another reason for wanting IVF I will discuss later.

However, IVF is an expensive and dangerous process - dangerous for the babies. Let's say a doctor fertilizes 12 embryos. He may then implant six in a woman's uterus, leaving six left over to be frozen, adopted, or used in scientific research. (Left-over embryos may be kept if the parents want a second or third child). The chances of these embryos growing into fetuses and completing a healthy pregnancy are low. Many women experience pregnancies outside of IVF in which an egg is fertilized but does not implant. These short-lived pregnancies are fairly common and may be as high as 50%. It stands to reason that IVF pregnancies may suffer a similar rate of failure to implant.

Let's say that three embryos implant. Many times, these three embryos grow into healthy babies - and that is one reason for the sudden upswing in multiple births I have noticed recently. However, if too many implant - perhaps all six - a doctor may recommend terminating a few of the babies. The recommendation is made both for the health of the mother, the safety of the other babies, and the sanity of the parents who may be facing raising six children.

This is why IVF is such a controversial procedure. It attacks natural life at every turn. If you believe, as I do, that life begins at conception, then you can see how betwen 50% and 75% of the embryos conceived are discarded at the parent's whim.

Ethically, I don't know the response for adopting someone else's embryos. I believe that, expensive as each procedure is, if one or two embryos were implanted in the adoptive mother, this would not create the need for abortion, nor would endanger the embryos. Therefore, I can see it being ethical. On the other hand, one could say that saving the frozen embryos until science may be able to birth them without further endangering their health (more than a natural pregnancy would) may be the most ethical decision. Given a choice between destruction for scientific research and loving adoption, the second choice is glaringly more ethical.

But ethics aside, I find the very idea of adopting someone's embryos...odd. First of all, if a parent is looking into adoption, why not adopt one of the millions of born babies or fetuses around the world? By this I mean a child that is either in more immediate danger of abortion or who is living in abject poverty.

Of course I already know some objections. Adoption is a long, expensive, and potentially painful process (if birth parents choose their mind). While IVF is also expensive, it may be considered by couples to be a "more sure" thing. Further, if they are pro-life and believe life begins at conception, then the value of a child will not be based on how far he or she is along in fetal development. (By the way, one of the miracles of life is that a baby's gender, along with all his genetic coding, is determined on the day of conception - knowing that our unborn babies have genders, even if we cannot determine them yet, should be just one more reason to support the belief that life begins at conception).

But another reason I find this odd is that couples who participate in IVF are the exact opposite of your typical adopting mother. Most mothers who place their child with adoptive parents are unwed, young, or financially incapable of raising a child. Parents who participate in IVF are generally married (or couples, in the case of homosexuals) and have the financial means to raise a child, as evidenced at the very least by their ability to pay for the procedure.

Many pregnant women shun the idea of placing their child for adoption because of the lack of control. They don't put it that way, but it comes down to that. Parents have a natural love for their children, and it is hard to give one away, even if you know it is best for the child. However, giving away an embryo created during IVF is completely opposite this philosophy. It represents having the means and ability to care for a child, but not the desire. It is almost a, "Whatever," attitude towards the adoptive parents, "Sure, you can have my child. I'm not going to use it."

I did think of one major reason why a genetic parent might choose to place his or her embryo for adoption. When a homosexual couple or couple who cannot conceive because of a problem with one person's gamete, the embryo created uses a sperm or egg donor and only the original sperm or egg from one parent. As such, all embryos created are only "half" the couple's. It seems easier to give away a child created by this method if only one parent was actually involved in the creation of him or her.

Don't get me wrong, I don't fault the adoptive parents for their route here, but it seems a little sick of the genetic parents. And I think the genetic parents were very good to make the choice to adopt - rather than try to justify the killing of the embryo "in the name of science." It is a better choice to save the child's life.

Of course, down the road, if the parents want another child, will they have to engaged in a new round of IVF, having given away their remaining embryos?

I think this is a practice that is just interesting to think about - it calls to mind so many questions, some of which I have not written out. IVF in general can verge on the creepy, with the large potential for destruction of life and the "test tube baby" feel. Adding the additional prospect of adopting an embryo makes the process even more interesting to the amateur bioethicist.

Follow Up to Affirmative Action Post

Yesterday I posted about President George W. Bush's search to find a Supreme Court Justice. As I thought more on the process, I thought about the odd situation that presidents are put in when it comes to selecting justices - essentially there is one thing everybody wants to know about the potential new justice - pro life or pro choice?

This is given the euphamism in the press of "litmus test." While the phrase could refer to any belief, the most incindiary topic of this century, when it comes to Supreme Court justices, has been abortion and Roe v. Wade.

If ever there were a case of media bias, you would be able to note it in the way that the press ask presidential candidates their philosophy on supreme court justices. A pro-life presidential candidate may be forced to say he will not use a litmus test, while we all know that he can still end up with a pro-life choice (on purpose)! Essentially he sidesteps the question because he know he will be villified if he answers honestly.

On the other hand, a pro-choice presidential candidate has only to say, "We have a precedent in this country in the case of Roe v. Wade, and I expect any justice I nominate will respect that precedent." You see, by using big words like "precendent" and "respect" he essentially answers, "Yes, I do have a pro-choice litmust test," without saying so outright. And his answer is brilliant.

In the mean time, the pro-life president searches for supreme court candidates, secretly throwing out pro-choice applicants. In fact, he may throw a few pro-choice candidates onto his list of "potentials" in order to appease the pro-choice media, knowing full well he intends to discard them.

Given this climate, and my thoughts on George Bush's search for a female supreme court justice, I thought how I might address the "litmus test" question while still being true to myself.

"Miss Presidential Candidate - if I may - if elected, do you plan to use a litmus test when selecting Supreme Court justices in order to load the court with pro-life judges who will attempt to reverse the legal precedent of Roe v. Wade?"

"Litmus test seems like an oversimplification of the problem of finding a judge to sit on the highest court in the country. So many factors go into determining whether a candidate is capable for the position, and if he or she is the best choice. Certainly I would want the person best qualified for the job.

However, that said, I also have certain beliefs that I cannot deny or pretend are unimportant, including the value of human life. If elected President, I would swear to protect the lives of all Americans, to my ability, including the unborn.

One of the advantages of being President is access to an almost unlimited number of qualified candidates for any position, and the responsibility of the President is to choose just one. I believe it is possible to find highly qualified candidates for the position of Supreme Court justice that are also defenders of life. I believe that choosing to make this an important qualification in no way jeopardizes my ability to choose an exceptional justice.

As such, I would be dishonest to my beliefs if I said that I am not going to consider it an important criteria in looking for a justice, but do not be afraid - I will still select Supreme Court justices that are every bit up to the standards of the current court, and whose intelligence and demeanor will make their cases for them, when the time comes."

I suppose that one might say it is more important to get elected than to get into a controversy. It is more important to skirt the issue and give the standard question, so that you may have the chance to be elected and make the final decision. But on the other hand, isn't it also important to rally the base? Isn't it important to tell the people that you stand for something, and that something is life itself? Isn't it important to let the pro-life voters know you will not let them down, and at the same time warn the pro-choice voters not to expect you to rally to their cause?

It doesn't really matter, as in the end we will elect whom we will elect. But it seems to me there should be a way to win either way.

On Reading Decision Points - Affirmative Action

I am going to summarize a story that George W. Bush told in his autobiography, "Decision Points." When Sandra Day O'Connor decided to retire from the Supreme Court, the president asked for a list of potential replacements from all types of backgrounds. He narrowed this list down to five - of which one was a woman. From there he narrowed the list to three - and the woman did not make the top three. He finally picked a judge, John Roberts, but was forced to use this pick to replace Chief Justice Rehquist who had died suddenly.

For some reason - perhaps because he was a Republican and knew he would be under more scrutiny, perhaps because it was what he truly believed - he felt that he should replace O'Connor with a female so that the court would not be completely male. Instead of turning to the woman who had made the top five list, he continued searching for another woman to fill the spot. The choice he made was completely villified. The poor woman had to withdraw her nomination because of unjustified bad press.

In the end, the president picked the second choice on his original list of three - a man.

This story, in my opinion, is a wonderful example of the dangers of allowing affirmative action to crowd out rational judgment in our lives. Imagine that the president was just simply any old employer and review his steps.

1. He had an opening. He asked his staff to pull up strong resumes from people of various backgrounds - including differing races, genders, job histories, religions, and so on. Using criteria he had set up in place for the job, they narrowed the list.

2. They narrowed and narrowed. There were probably many women on the original list, but with each narrowing some dropped off (as did some men). By the time the final five were cut down to three, two, or one (depending on how you look at it), there was just one woman to cut. There were four men to cut. How's that for fairness for you? Still, the point is that the president performed his due diligence and came up with two candidates that stood out - both men.

3. When the president chose to have a woman for his second justice, he once again began the search. This made no sense to me - he had a ranking of candidates from his previous search, why not just pick the second on the list? Or why not pick the woman who had made the top five? The answer to the second question is easy - because she was not the best choice. As it stood, the best choice was a man. The president went in search of another candidate who could be both a best choice and a woman. The problem was, he had already pulled the most qualified candidates in the country in his original search. Was it possible he had missed someone?

4. He thought so, but the rest of the country did not. In narrowing his search to women, he also allowed himself to look narrowly AT women. Based on his version of events, it seemed he was so desperate to find a qualified woman, that he threw caution to the wind in his choice.

Now, I am not saying that there are no qualified women out there to sit on the Supreme Court. It may very well be the case that there are qualified women who did not share in the president's philosophical outlook (I can name two because they both became justices during his successor's presidency). Perhaps we can criticize that both the president's and his advisors' circles did not include enough females to produce as candidates. The reasons can never be known - and I do NOT think that the top three choices were men because of some sort of bias.

In fact, my point is that bias in the other direction, looking specifically for a woman, ended up hurting the president. And, had his choice been confirmed, she may have hurt the Supreme Court - if the criticism of her was fair.

I'd like to point out this little story as a lesson against the use of affirmative action in any respects - because if it can backfire against the most powerful man at the world, someone who has access to a pool of the best and brightest candidates, it can backfire any and everywhere else.

On Reading Decision Points

I never really intended to write so many book reviews in this blog. But, reading is something I do - whether it's the news websites or books or my new Kindle(!), it's one of my favorite ways to ingest information (as opposed to the TV). And so, I find myself in the middle of at least three books that I feel a need to share thoughts on.

I have always respected George W. Bush, and have said so. One reason is that he went after two of my deepest fears as a child: Sadaam Hussein and Social Security. True, he was unsuccessful with the second item, but I know the circumstances were beyond his control - even the most powerful man in the world is not all-powerful.

Of course, Bush's outspokenness abou his faith has always impressed me. Before I speak of specific in his book, Decision Points, I would like to pull out an example. As a new Catholic, I was stunned to read some of the president's memoirs regarding pope John Paul II. For instance, although not a Catholic himself - nor bound by Catholic teachings - he asked the pope and the Catholic church in general to continue its strong leadership in lessons of morality for the United States and the world. Also, he said that at the funeral of the late pope, his wife told him, "Now is the time to pray for miracles."

I wrote in my own story of coming to the Catholic faith how the pope, and probably John Paul II played a role. I felt that the belief of the holiness of this man by people who were not even Catholic justified to some extent the Catholic beliefs about him. How could he be holy and also a liar? The president's memory of the burial impacted me because it helped to confirm what I already knew. As Christians we are all on the same side - most Christian denominations agree with Catholic Christians on teachings of morality, and we can see someone devoted to God and agree on that. Catholicism and fundamentalism are intertwined in close ways, and without knowing it, the former president helped point it out.

But to continue - after Bush won his second term, I tuned him out. This wasn't an insult on my part - it was actually a complement. I felt he could run the country, and I didn't need to worry about checking the daily news or talk radio to see what was going on. I knew about the protestors, and I wished he would have defended himself against some accusations. In his book, he explains he thought it was beneath him. But I also had fun watching his and Donald Rumsfield's press conferences, where they sidestepped trapping questions of the media like pros, Bush always with that little smile on his face.

(By the by, I have always seen something of Harrison Ford in George Bush - perhaps that laid back accent and half-smile. If there were ever going to be a big time movie made about him, I would love to have Ford play him. Unfortunately, their generations are backwards, which I suppose is acceptable, given that Hollywood would probably never honor the president with that type of attention).

Already just a few chapters in, I have noticed some topics the former president brings up that inspire me to write. So I will follow this post with a few more topical posts about his book.

(Oh, and as a general critique, the book is well-written in that it is clearly in his voice - his own words. What I find interesting is that the first few chapters mirror a biography I read of him soon after his election in 2000 - the data was the same, but it was interesting to hear what he pulled out and thought was important to share).

On Slavery

Slavery is an abomination. It is quite wrong that one person should buy another, and that such a purchase has the protection of the law. A person does not even possess his own life; so how can he possess another person's life? Yet this does not mean that slaves should be disobedient to their masters, nor that htey should try to escape their condition. To be a slave, to be in the legal possession of another human being, does not in any way impede spiritual salvation. On the contrary, by performing his duties with a humble spirit, a slave may advance the progress of his own soul. Even if the tasks he performs are useless in themselves, the attitude with which he undertakes those tasks is profoundly important. Similarly, masters need not necessarily feel compelled to release their slaves. In some cases, where the slave has sufficient wisdom and strength to make his way in the world, this may be right. But in other cases, where the slave would be plunged into poverty and destitution, it is better that the master keeps the slave and looks after him well.

-St. John Chrysostom

Love of Others

Nothing is more frigid than a Christian who is indifferent to the salvation of others. Indeed I wonder if such a person can be a true Christian. To become a disciple of Christ is to obey his law of love; and obedience ot the law brings joy beyond measure and description. Love means to want the best for others, sharing with them the joy of love. So the Christian feels compelled to speak to others about the law of love, and the joy of obeying this law. Of course, many people are shy about speaking to others; in their case actions motivated by love will be a most eloquent testimony. But those who are not shy will surely want to express their joy at every opportunity. There is no need to use fine words or elegant phrases; even the most uneducated people can convey joyful love by the spirit which accompanies their words. Even slaves have been known to convert their masters and mistresses by the sincerity of their speech.

-St. John Chrysostom

This quote reminds me of another quote by St. Francis of Assisi - "Preach the Gospel, and if necessary use words."

It also reminds me of the end of a book I read today. In it we are reminded that as Christians we are fighting a war. But our enemy is not our enemy at all - it is those whom we want to convert. And sometimes we may have to oppose their actions - for their own good - but at all times we are required to love them.