According to Fox News: “White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod suggested Sunday that President Obama will intervene to make sure a controversial amendment restricting federal funding for abortion coverage is stripped from final health care reform legislation…’The president has said repeatedly, and he said in his speech to Congress, that he doesn't believe that this bill should change the status quo as it relates to the issue of abortion,’ Axelrod said.”

But it is okay to change the status quo regarding everything else about healthcare?

Except in defense of a life, no one should be allowed to take a life. Healthcare should not include allowing anyone to electively take a life through abortion.

If the facts as presented are shown to be correct, then the fascists have really taken over the country. According to the New York Post:

A Brooklyn nurse claims she was forced to choose between her religious convictions and her job when Mount Sinai Hospital ordered her to assist in a late-term abortion against her will…

The hospital even exaggerated the patient's condition and claimed the woman could die if the nurse, a devout Catholic, did not follow orders, the nurse alleges in a lawsuit…

The married mother of a year-old baby was 30 minutes into her early-morning shift when she realized she had been assigned to an abortion. She begged her supervisor to find a replacement nurse for the procedure. The hospital had a six-hour window to find a fill-in, the suit says…

Her pleas were rejected, and instead she was threatened with career-ending charges of insubordination and patient abandonment, according to the lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Brooklyn federal court.

Exodus 20:13 -- You shall not murder.

No one who stands pro-life should accept the idea of killing.  The murder of Dr. George Tiller, one of the few doctors in the USA who performed late term abortions, is not only inexcusable, it is to be condemned.

I know the argument: Would you murder Hitler if you knew it would save all those lives? But, the argument is a straw man, put up to be knocked down. I did not know Dr. Tiller. I absolutely disagreed with his performing abortions. This does not give me, or anyone else the right to murder him.

However, those who are pro-abortion do not have an understanding of our anti-abortion stance.

According to The (liberal) New York Times: “Mr. Obama issued a statement after Dr. Tiller’s killing, saying, ‘However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.’”

Abortions are heinous acts of violence.

Dr. Tiller should not have been murdered. Nor should the hundreds of thousands of unborn innocent children.

Stop all heinous acts of violence.

President Obama at Notre Dame:

We must decide how to save God's creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it…

But, there is no need to save the thousands of unborn children who are killed by abortion each year in the United States.

Again Mr. Obama:

Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion...

What if President Lincoln said: Let's honor the conscience of those who agree with slavery...

 And further:

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together...It is, of course, the golden rule — the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated.

Would everyone who wishes his or her mother aborted her or him please stand up.

To quote another great American, Benjamin Franklin: Words may show a man's wit, but actions his meaning.

At its 2004 general meeting, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops approved a statement that said, “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

According to the South Bend Tribune, Dr. Richard Yanikoski, president of the Association of Catholic Colleges & Universities said: "It is clear to me that there is a degree of ambiguity in the bishops' guidelines issued in 2004,"

This seems very clear to me.  Catholic educational institutions, like most educational institutions, tend to be on the liberal side of most issues.  If Dr. Richard Yanikoski thinks honoring someone who is pro-abortion is appropriate, he should not be president of the ACCU, and any member institutions who agree with his stance should drop the concept of being Catholic from all public statements and publications.

Okay, so no litmus test for Supreme Court nominees, just a few simple questions:

1. Do you believe life begins at conception?
2. If no – if not a human life, what is created?
3. If yes – how can you justify taking a defenseless, innocent human life?

Let us take a look at one aspect of the philosophical position of those who support the so-called” “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA).

Underpinning all pro-abortion arguments is that a pregnant woman should be free to choose to have an abortion (or not, one presumes).

But, FOCA would take away the freedom of choice for health care providers (doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc.). It would force them to perform abortions, even if they morally opposed to this taking of a life.

What happened to freedom of choice?

Those “pro-choice” folks obviously are not pro-choice for all, just pro-choice for those who they believe will choose as they want.

We provide exemptions for those who do not want to kill as part of the military: A conscientious objector is one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles.

Like most Americans, I hope and pray that the new President and his administration will help create a society of peace and justice.

In a republican democracy there is no greater individual right than the right to vote. In a free and fair election, We the People elected Barack Obama.

While I rejoice in that applied freedom, I am also very much aware that Mr. Obama is pro-abortion and has publicly stated regarding conception: “I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins.”  Further, there are indications that he may not allow health-care workers the right to refuse to conduct abortions if they are morally opposed.

Joseph Biden, Jr., while a Catholic and personally opposed to abortion, has taken the politically expedient stance that his personal view should not control his view of public policy.

We should strive to never take a life: not an unborn child’s life, not the life of a convicted murderer. We should strive to protect those who cannot protect themselves. And, we should strive for a society that does not approve killing.

The inauguration of a new president is always a time for hope and this president-elect has loudly sounded the trumpet for hope.  Let us all hope and pray for peace and justice, including a society that does not legally take a life.

Prohibition may provide the best, albeit imprecise, insight to the current state of the abortion debate in the United States.

The 18th Amendment to the U.S. Consitiution, which banned the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol for consumption, went into effect on January 16, 1920. Prohibition was repealed with ratification of the 21^st Amendment, on December 5, 1933.

The Prohibition movement had a long history in the United States, beginning in the colonies in the mid-1600s. By the beginning of the 20^th century the hostility toward the consumpution of alcohol had become widespread. Interrestingly, in the Presidential election of 1916 neither candidate made Prohibition an issue; echoing the recent Presidential election where silence was the rule on the Right-to-Life and Pro-Choice. The 1916 and 2008 elections were both thought to be close, and no canidate wanted to alienate voters by taking a stand on Probition or abortion.

After the 1916 election there was enough support for Prohibition that the 18^th Amendment was eventually enacted into law. Over 1,500 Federal agents were given the task of enforcing the law. Of course, the period of U.S. history from 1920 to 1933 has become notorious in our cultural mythology for speakeasies, Al Capone, the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, etc.

There was the support and political will to pass Prohibition, but the overwhelming majority of Americans still wanted to drink.

Let us be clear on three matters:

1. Life begins at conception.
2. Abortion is the taking of a life.
3. We expect government to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

A Gallup poll in May 2008 showed the following positions by Americans:

·         28% want abortions "legal under any circumstances"

·         17% want abortions illegal in all circumstances

·         54% want abortions legal in some circumstances and illegal in others (the poll did not clarify the circumstances)

Now, the majority does not always rule. The people would have never voted for civil rights, but the people’s elected representatives provided direction to the nation by their conservative understanding that the rights of the people had to be extended to all the people.

If there were the public support and political will to enact a 28^th Amendment making abortions illegal in all circumstances, my guess is that people would respond as they did during Prohibition when they wanted a drink, and the equivalent of speakeasies would arise. How many Federal agents would we need to enforce this law? 1,500? 3,000? 5,000?

Just because people do not obey the law and it would take resources to enforce the law does not mean we should not pass a law. Illegal drugs are a prime example of this. 

A CBS News poll in January 2007 showed that:

• 30% want to limit abortions to cases of rape, incest or life of the mother
• 12% want abortions allowed only in when the pregnancy threatens the mother's life

Given a choice between more or less government intervention in our lives, I would choose less. Normally, we would leave medical decisions to the patient and the doctor. The problem when it comes to abortion is there is a third life involved, that of the unborn child. And that is why government must intervene, to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The question is how should government intervene?

Perhaps the time has come for America to consider the following outline of a law regarding abortions:

1.       Abortion would be legal only when the pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother. The health of the mother is understood to mean physical, mental, and/or spiritual health.

2.       The determination to approve an abortion would be made by the unanimous consent to three people: the mother, the mother’s physician, and a healthcare professional appointed as an advocate for the unborn child. The physician and the advocate should encourage the mother to consult with and seek the approval of the father of the unborn child, and as may be appropriate others such as her parents, spiritual advisor, etc. In cases where immediate action is required to save the mother’s life, and obtaining the approval of the advocate is impractical, the physician shall make the determination according to accepted guidelines for emergency treatment.

3.       Any individual or institution which is philosophically opposed to abortion should not be forced to conduct abortions.

This approach would:

1. Restrict abortion, including doing away with abortion on demand.
2. Minimize government intervention in our private lives.
3. Provide some protection to the unborn child.

In America those who wish to advocate for no restrictions on abortion and those who want all abortions to be prohibited can continue to present their positions.

This is not an ideal solution. An ideal solution would be that an abortion would never take place. We should strive for the ideal, but realize the practical aspect of life.