So is it any small wonder that with a dour economy and just a tiny bit of sunlight from organizations such as Societas and the Reform CCHD Now Coalition, that the entire rotten edifice is falling down?

I continue to write about this for one reason alone: Catholicism shouldn’t be wedded to political ideology — ever.  Yet time and time again, we see members embedded in the Catholic social justice movement pulling the wool over the eyes of faithful Catholics, priests, and bishops… and sometimes, cranking out one or two members who arguably do more damage to the standing of the Catholic Church in America than any other modern politician.

Case in point?  Barack Obama.

In the 1980’s, Barack Obama entered the world of community organizing through the CCHD-sponsored Gamaliel Foundation. From 1985 to 1988, Obama worked for the Developing Communities Project, which is an affiliate of Gamaliel.

So, it’s only natural that when Obama ran for Senate and subsequently for president of the United States, the Gamaliel Foundation was his biggest cheerleader.

…and after all, why not?

They trained him.

They built him up.

It only makes sense that they would do their best to send him to the most powerful seat in the world.

Strange as it may have been, I suppose we shouldn’t even be all that surprised that Gamaliel organizers even “prayed” to Obama to create universal health care with the response “Hear Our Cry, Obama!”

Now if you skipped over this, click on the YouTube video and let it run in the background.

“Deliver us, Obama!”

If you’re Catholic… you hear something oddly liturgical about that?

It’s called the General Intercessions or Prayers of the Faithful.  An intention is mentioned after the homily (sermon) such as “for the an end to abortion” and the response is “Deliver us, O Lord...”

…or deliver us, Obama.

No, I don’t think they’re talking about pizzas here.

So what’s the big deal about Gamaliel’s Obama-worship?

As a long-time grant recipient of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, the Gamaliel Foundation received reimbursements specifically for Obama’s training at Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation.  

In short, unbeknownst to the Catholic faithful, this radical arm of the Catholic Church actually paid for Obama’s training.

Given the fact that Barack Obama is well known for his sidestepping of the truth, such as:

…when he said that Obamacare would not cover abortions (it does),
…that the HHS mandate would not force religious institutions to disobey their consciences (they do),
…or how the White House has flat out lied about the terrorist attacks in Libya (it was),
…one has to wonder if lying was a part of the training he received while working for Gamaliel.

After all, Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – which would have been required reading for a young Barack Obama — states emphatically that “(e)thical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times.”

Sound Catholic to you?  Probably not…

And so it seems that ethical standards are indeed elastic with the Gamaliel Foundation when it comes to addressing concerns about its relationship with an organization committed to destroying the basic building block of society — a family.

According to a recent statement by the Reform CCHD Now coalition (RCN), a collection of concerned Catholic organizations investigating the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), the Gamaliel Foundation provided a falsified letter to the National CCHD office in Washington, D.C.  

Turns out that Gamaliel didn’t want the CCHD to know about its relationship with the Fair Immigration Reform Movement.

Why?

Because as a CCHD recipient, Gamaliel is forbidden from being a member of a coalition that has taken organizational positions in opposition to the Catholic Church.

Oops.

Reform CCHD Now indicates that in addition to being a founding member of FIRM, the Gamaliel Foundation is a long-term member of FIRM’s organizing committee.

As FIRM indicated on the “Who We Are” page of its website, “The organizing committee is the governing body of FIRM.”  This means that Gamaliel would have had a hand in FIRM’s decision to publicly support the Uniting American Families Act, which is a back-door way of recognizing same-sex marriage.

When RCN presented this information to the CCHD, the response was that Gamaliel provided the CCHD with a copy of a letter it allegedly sent to FIRM in May of 2010, severing all ties.

Here’s where those elastic ethics come in, because RCN took a deeper look at Gamaliel’s website and found a file folder marked “FIRM Strategy Session.” In that folder were four files dated “2011”; files that indicate that Gamaliel was a member of FIRM in 2011, on its executive committee in 2011, and that Gamaliel’s president is a contact.

Even more interestingly, RCN discovered meeting minutes for a FIRM conference call which took place on December 9, 2011.  The minutes not only list Ana Garcia-Ashley (Gamaliel’s president) as a participant on the call, but indicate that Gamaliel was nominated again for membership on FIRM’s executive committee for 2012.

Oops x2.

This is not a matter of confusion, folks.  Gamaliel delivered a letter to the CCHD dated May 2010, claiming to sever ties with FIRM, but all indicators are that this relationship has not ended.

On top of that, both Gamaliel and FIRM attempted to strip their websites of the evidence RCN found, proving this ongoing relationship.

In short, Gamaliel attempted to hide the evidence in order to preserve the siphoning of funds from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.

***

The interesting twist to the story is that after RNC presented this information to the CCHD, Ralph McCloud, the executive director for the CCHD cancelled a scheduled meeting with the Reform CCHD Now Coalition, claiming that “we see no reason to meet at this time.”

Refusing to answer any questions about Gamaliel’s misleading information to him, it seems that there are some — McCloud included? — who are hoping Gamaliel will all blow over, and that Gamaliel’s funding status won’t be affected.

Yet in 2008, McCloud participated in Gamaliel’s “Realizing the Promise” forum, which declared that “today, community organizing has arrived in Washington D.C.”

At the forum, McCloud said of “this day,” referring to Obama’s election to the presidency:

…as we proceed on this day, on this day, a good day, a great day, we draw upon that faith, knowing that because of our efforts, because of our shared mission, that soon, and very soon, we will see a new Jerusalem, and we will be able to see and witness justice rolling down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream, and the lion will lay down with the lamb.

Sounds fairly pot committed to this reader.

Given such a statement at this Gamaliel event, it would appear that the truth regarding this situation will not find an ally in McCloud or the Catholic Campaign which he leads.  Who then will weed out the institutional rot?

Catholics must take back their parishes from the politically charged -isms and the darker fifth columns embedded in our institutions.  The late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus was right: “Fidelity!  Fidelity!  Fidelity!” — and until we see greater fidelity within the Catholic Church here in the United States, how will Americans ever be able to participate in the New Evangelization we are called to participate in?

Obama, hear our cry?

Somehow, that just doesn’t quite seem to fit.

So what happened? Was the pledge of reform just smoke and mirrors? Good intentions that dissipated over time? Or perhaps it’s just that a few problematic documents have slipped through the cracks?

Overall, CRS’ programs seem to have a clear emphasis on abstinence and fidelity. But the organization undermines that strong message when they mention condoms as a viable option, talk about their benefits, or, God forbid, tell clients where to get them. Unfortunately, it appears that they have been doing that even after the 2008 scandal.

Not only is Catholic Relief Services having some issues in the “personnel is policy” department, but they are also struggling mightily with the truth.

Of course, USCCB-bureaucrats ride to the rescue.  Yet the central problem with this entire thing lies here, from the CNA article:

Hill said the 179-page document was written in 2009 by outside consultants for a Vietnam program that aimed to halt the spread of HIV among intravenous drug users.

“CRS staff prescribed revisions to the document that were not carried out by the external consultant in the final, posted document,” he said. This meant that five sentences in the document referred to condom use among couples where one person is HIV positive and the other is HIV negative.

Um… but according to the actual document itself, that’s not true.

Mysteriously the report was yanked from the Catholic Relief Services inventory on Issuu.com… but thankfully, Google Cache tends to archive such trivialities… 

In coordination with the CRS HIV and Health Program Manager, Kristin Weinhauer, the first draft of this manual was drafted by Michael Rosati, a CRS consultant. Michael has extensive international expertise in drug recovery work and has previously worked with CRS Vietnam in Lang Son City. From April 2009, Michael with the translation assistance of Tran Thi Linh Giang, the CRS HIV & Health Coordinator went to the Dong Tam Center in Lang Son for approximately a week to review the methods and tools used by the drug recovery center staff. Following this visit, Michael produced the first draft of this manual. Where appropriate, Michael also incorporated new ideas into the manual for the staff at the center to consider. At this time, the manual was handed off to the CRS Vietnam HIV and Health Program Manager who added information on the management of the Dong Tam Center and drafted this Foreword and Module 8 on post graduation support groups.

In spring 2009, the draft manual was reviewed by a CRS global technical review team coordinated through CRS headquarters (Program Quality Support Department). This review team came with expertise in clinical psychology, health care, HIV and drug prevention programming. It was handed back to CRS Vietnam for additional changes at this time. The final first draft of the manual was translated into Vietnamese by Mr. Bui Quoc Phong and was introduced to the staff of the Dong Tam Center as a resource manual. The CRS Vietnam HIV and Health Program Manager and Program Coordinator conducted three weeklong sessions, one per month with the Dong Tam Center staff to review and revise each section of the manual. This was done both to finalize the manual as well as to provide a forum for staff at the center to conduct a thorough review of their operations. In cases where actual practice at the center differed from international best practices, the discrepancy was discussed and resolved by either changing the operations of the center or adjusting the operating procedures in the manual. Changes were reviewed in the next week session with staff and additional changes implemented or changed within the manual. In this way, the completed manual supports the needs of the Dong Tam Center by describing its current operations and also providing a reference to strengthen the services it provides.

In short, this was NOT put together by outside consultants, it was written by Catholic Relief Services, coordinated by Catholic Relief Services, and reviewed by Catholic Relief Services.

Apparently, we now not only have a scandal redux on our hands — we also have a cover-up as well.

Of course, why are you reading this here on RedState?

The simple fact is this sea of counter-Catholic bureaucrats — including those at Catholic Relief Services — that self-promoted itself during these last four decades is the problem.  Insular, protective, and at times insanely counter-Catholic, these bureaucrats assume the mantle and respectability of the Catholic Church and the network of hospitals and charities while refusing to shed their political religion… in short, rather than being faithful to the Magisterium, these unnamed and faceless bureaucrats perpetuate the very evils faithful Catholics in the pews expect them to resist.

…or so the story goes.

Yet instead of fidelity, we find a thread of lame excuses, twisted facts, and bizarre rationalizations.  To this day, Catholic Relief Services continues to defend its grants to pro-abortion organizations — among which are dues-paying membership in pro-abortion organizations and pro-abortion employees.

So far, CRS has been able to correct the record precisely one time.  Yet because CRS’s latest defenses are so terribly egregious, it is important that we address each case one by one.  For the ease of reading, I’ll post a few links here to the relevant information.  For visual proof of each, take a look at what has been written up over at Societas Restitutio.

Want to meet some of these nameless, faceless bureaucrats?  To start, meet Charisse Glassman… the punchline to “what has four wheels and loves to run down pro-lifers…”

#1:  Charisse Glassman

In its defense of employing Ms. Glassman, CRS said:

Charisse Glassman was an employee when she was involved in an incident in January 2011 that resulted in assault charges. She denied the charges and CRS gave her the presumption of innocence in accordance with standards of due process in this country. CRS sought legal counsel and actively inquired into this incident and other issues. She resigned in July of that year before going to trial.

The problem with Ms. Glassman’s employment at CRS really doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that CRS continued to employ her after Glassman intentionally ran down a group of pro-lifers at the March for Life.  The real issue at hand is that CRS employed an individual whose philosophy was so at odds with Catholic teaching that she actually used her vehicle to run over pro-life marchers.  The revelation of Ms. Glassman’s employment at CRS was one of several examples of employees who should never have been hired by CRS to begin with.

#2:  Dr. Sok Pun

Dr. Sok Pun is the second employee CRS defends, claiming:

Dr. Sok Pun, who works on health and HIV/AIDS issues in Cambodia, previously worked for CARE on projects that were entirely funded by USAID, which, at the time, operated under strict U.S. government guidelines that no money went to abortions or contraception. Dr. Pun’s work with CARE would meet the guidelines of Catholic Church teaching as, of course, does all his work for CRS.

CRS claims that while with CARE, Dr. Pun’s work “would meet the guidelines of Catholic Church teaching,” however upon closer inspection, it is clear that Dr. Pun had been involved with the promotion of condom use while working for CARE.  For instance, this 2006 conference report clearly shows that Dr. Pun promoted condom use.  Under the description for the session on “Sexual and Gender Minorities,” Dr Pun complained that even though “most recognized condom use as a means of preventing HIV/AIDS … actual condom use was inconsistent.”

A 2002 article on HIV in Cambodia quoted Dr. Pun as he promoted condom use:

Sok Pun, HIV/AIDS Programme Manager for CARE Cambodia, said the rising trend of no-condom use in affectionate relationships needs to be addressed, but acknowledged it was not easy.

“It is difficult to make interventions because we cannot just say ‘do not trust your partner’,” he said in an interview in the capital Phnom Penh.

But the doctor says that behavioural change is imperative if Cambodia hopes to win its battle against the disease from which 12,000 Cambodians have died as of 2001.

“HIV/AIDS is dynamic. Without effective interventions we will lag behind the epidemic. We have to move faster than the epidemic,” he said.

And it should not be forgotten that it is Dr. Pun who is on the steering committee of the viciously pro-abortion MEDiCAM for CRS.  But in addition to that, Dr. Pun is also currently on the steering committee for another organization that promotes condom use.

Dr. Sok Pun sits on the steering committee of HIV/AIDS Coordinating Committee (HACC) as a representative of Catholic Relief Services.  Page 18 of this 2011 annual report for HACC explains that it is introducing a new condom called “Love Condom,” and that it has distributed 120,000 condoms and “other promotional materials” primarily aimed at youth.

In summary, Dr. Sok Pun worked for CARE, and while he was there, complained that not enough young people were using condoms, and now that he is working for CRS, he is on the steering committee for an organization that is just as committed to the spread of abortion as Planned Parenthood, as well as on the steering committee of another organization that is actively distributing condoms.  CRS’ claim that Dr. Pun is not engaged in activities contrary to Catholic teaching and that he is bringing the Catholic position to these organizations committed to the Culture of Death is pure nonsense.

#3:  Dr. Amy Ellis

Regarding Dr. Amy Allis, CRS was quick to correct the record regarding her alleged participation in the 2011 Family Planning Conference.  While it is true that she did not attend that conference as a “participant or presenter,” she did play a roll.  Amy Ellis was one of the authors of a document titled, Understanding beliefs about birth spacing among married women in Somaliland. The stated objectives of this report, which Dr. Ellis co-authored, are:

to identify beliefs related to birth spacing and family planning among married women of reproductive age in urban Somaliland; to assess knowledge of and sources of information for different family planning methods; to explore current and past experiences with different family planning methods; and to gain an in-depth understanding of barriers and motivators associated with family planning behaviors.

Keep in mind that Dr. Ellis came from the Population Council, where she helped produce and review a HIV/AIDS handbook which heavily promotes condom use titled, Designing HIV/AIDS Intervention Studies: An Operations Research Handbook.  With this sort of thing on Dr. Ellis’ resume, one has to wonder just how closely she is going to adhere to Catholic teaching.  Nonetheless, CRS maintains that Dr. Ellis’ participation in the “Women Deliver” conference was just to learn about newborn care:

Dr. Ellis did attend a conference in Bangladesh in May entitled “Asia Regional Meeting on Interventions for Impact in Essential Obstetric and Newborn Care.” She was there as a learning participant, focusing on maternal and neonatal health, gleaning valuable information and contacts to further CRS’ expertise in caring for and saving the lives of mothers and young children.

So, CRS admits that Dr. Ellis was indeed a participant in this conference.  What CRS fails to mention is that participants in this meeting made a series of key recommendations, including the following:

REVITALIZE FAMILY PLANNING: Family planning is a key intervention for saving lives of young girls, women and newborns. Family planning needs to be repositioned and revitalized, as family planning today is not seen as a key intervention. We also need to expand access to meet the unmet needs for contraception including that for youth / young people.

Given Dr. Ellis’ work for the Population Council and Population Services International, both major population control organizations, and the fact that she authored at least two documents that promote contraception, it stands to reason that she would carry that philosophy with her to the Women Deliver Conference which recommended the expansion of “family planning services.”

#4:  Daphyne Williams

Finally, CRS defended the hiring of Daphyne Williams, who spent her entire career working for pro-abortion, pro-contraception organizations, claiming that:

As is expected of all staff at CRS, Daphyne has carefully abided by all Church teaching in her work for CRS, adhering to CRS’ strong position against the use of contraceptives and abortions.

To this, I would simply ask CRS to explain this April 2010 document titled, Drug Recovery and Reintegration Standard Operating Procedure Manual.  The manual says:

A number of people have helped with the writing and review of this manual including: Shannon Senefeld, Senior Technical Advisor for HIV, CRS Headquarters, Natalie Kruse-Levy, CRS Southeast Asia Regional HIV Technical Advisor; Prakash Nellepalli, HIV Technical Advisor, CRS Headquarters; Daphyne Williams, CRS HIV Technical Advisor; Devon Dunsmore, International Development Fellow with CRS Vietnam and Andrew Wells-Dang, CRS Vietnam Representative.

So, to be clear, this is an official CRS document, written and reviewed by CRS personnel, including one Daphyne Williams.  It is important to be clear that Daphyne Williams participated in the writing of this document as an employee of CRS, and that this is itself a CRS document because it very clearly provides instructions regarding condoms that are NOT in line with Church teaching.  For instance, Tool 2: Agenda: Sessions for Active Drug Users Program, beginning on page 83, provides a schedule of sessions for patients in the center for drug addicts.  Session number 24, found on page 85 says, “Contest on HIV-related knowledge: questions and how to use condoms properly.”  Honestly, I can’t think of any reason why a CATHOLIC document would have the phrase “how to use a condom properly” in it.  But there’s more.

Page 160 attempts to deflect any claims that CRS has anything to do with condom distribution, but fails utterly by admitting that CRS “programs can give complete and accurate information on harm reduction methods and condoms.”  In full, the answer to the question, “Can CRS or our program distribute needles or condoms to its clients? Is:

ANSWER: No. CRS and its programs can give complete and accurate information on harm reduction methods and condoms, but it does not distribute or promote either of these items. There are other programs that distribute these commodities within the project area of CRS’ rehabilitation center. It is the responsibility of the Center to provide clients with complete and accurate information along with information on all other related services provided in the area.

Page 162 provides an outline for a 30 minute session on “Issues Related to Sex and HIV,” asks a number of questions related to “safe sex,” including whether condom use is considered to be “safe sex” by medical professionals.  Page 163 provides the statement that “women have the economic rights to refuse unprotected sex,” and the session concludes with the statement”

Thank each participant for their attendance and participation. Do not forget to provide information on local condom provision or HIV counseling and testing services. Inform them about the next topical talk/session.

Ouch.

Now I wonder what precisely the Vatican would think about this?  Oh yes… we already know the answer to that question thanks to Pope Benedict XVI’s papal address on 30 August 2012:

Dear brothers and sisters, the martyrdom of St. John the Baptist reminds us, Christians of our time, that we can not stoop to compromises with the love of Christ, his Word, the Truth. The Truth is the Truth and there is no compromise. Christian life requires, so to speak, the daily “martyrdom” of fidelity to the Gospel, that is the courage to let Christ grow in us and direct our thinking and our actions. But this can only happen in our lives if there is a solid relationship with God. Prayer is not a waste of time, it does not rob much space from our activities, not even apostolic activities, it does the exact opposite: only if we are able to have a life of faithful, constant, confident prayer will God Himself give us the strength and capacity to live in a happy and peaceful way, to overcome difficulties and to bear witness with courage. St. John the Baptist intercede for us, so that we always maintain the primacy of God in our lives.

I offer a warm welcome to all the English-speaking pilgrims and visitors, especially those from England, Indonesia, Japan and Malta. Today, the Church celebrates the Martyrdom of Saint John the Baptist. John, whose birth we celebrate on the twenty-fourth of June, gave himself totally to Christ, by preparing the way for him through the preaching of repentance, by leading others to him once he arrived, and by giving the ultimate sacrifice. Dear friends, may we follow John’s example by allowing Christ to penetrate every part of our lives so that we may boldly proclaim him to the world.  (emphasis added)

Now does any of this institutional rot at Catholic Relief Services sound like “boldly proclaim(ing) Him to the world” to anyone else?

Didn’t think so.

CONCLUSIONS

So, there you have it folks … a CRS-published Standard Operating Procedure Manual instructing CRS staff to tell people participating in its program where to find condoms.  This is contraceptive promotion, it is being done by Catholic Relief Services, and Daphyne Williams is named as a writer/reviewer of this document that does instructs CRS staffers to inform participants where they can find condoms.

Yet CRS continues to defend its grants to pro-abortion organizations.

CRS defends the dues-money it gives to organizations spreading abortion and contraception.  CRS is defending the hiring of employees who come from organizations that spread abortion and contraception.

…and this is just the stuff that exists on the internet.

Does anyone want to wager that a full-fledged investigation of Catholic Relief Services conducted by an independent review panel on behalf of the American bishops would turn out a whole heck of a lot more?

The Jeffersoniad Blog Alliance has issued a letter to Republican Party of Virginia chairman Pat Mullins demanding that the WaPo’s Laura Vozzella — who wrote a bizarre article attempting to link Republican U.S. Senate nominee George Allen with a judicial appointment — have her press credentials to the Republican National Convention revoked:

082112_Letter to Pat Mullins_FINAL

Vozzella is no stranger to controversy. During her tenure at the Baltimore Sun, the caustic Vozzella didn’t exactly win Miss Congeniality awards:

In the column, Vozzella thanks State Del. Jill Carter “for lying about your age in Baltimore magazine’s ‘Top Singles’ issue, cussing me out and not paying your water bill for two years.”

Carter responded, tweeting “Bye-bye troll! @LVozzella http://bsun.md/ra1U1V U 1st insinuated I was elected ‘looks’ Ur selective jabs got pettier& meaner. #goodriddance”. I think a word is missing there, but you get the point.

But Carter wasn’t done, tweeting again a few minutes later: “@LVozzella #goodriddance PS This isn’t curse out: ‘U’ve never written a word about my work,leg,or pol challenges&u now call re:effn age bs’”

On her last day, Vozzella is entitled to air whatever beefs/grievances she has with anyone—if not now, when? And in her new job, she’s going to be based in Richmond, covering Virginia, so it’s unlikely any of her flame-throwing will come back to haunt her there.

Oops.

Of course, the Washington Post’s frequent blasting of Republican candidates and elected officials hasn’t gone unnoticed within the Virginia blogosphere, with conservative bloggers constantly pushing back against the newspaper’s liberal media bias.  Now that Vozzella — which has a log rap sheet over at Newsbusters — has feathered a new nest over at the WaPo’s Richmond bureau, the marriage couldn’t have been more convenient.

…which is all the more reason why the Republican Party of Virginia has a duty to give Vozzella the boot.

At some point in time, Republicans are going to have to make the distinction between journalists, reporters, and partisan hacks.

So long as the Washington Post pretends to draft objective journalism while spouting Tim Kaine and DSCC talking points, conservatives ought not to be content to just call them out on it.  We need to invite them to leave — post haste.

It’s about time the MSM got its hand smacked.  Should Vozzella remain, it’ll be a clear sign to conservative bloggers that while Republicans in Virginia may offer nods to independent media, we should just be calmly told that the expected beatings from the Washington Post will continue until morale… improves?

Not exactly a bargaining position I’d like to suffer through.

Catholic Relief Services’ membership in MEDiCAM — an un-Catholic organization totally committed to expanding access to abortion, abortion training, and propaganda about abortion services — calls into serious question CRS’ funding practices.  In defending its $5.3 million grant to CARE International, a pro-abortion, contraception-distributing organization, Catholic Relief Services had this to offer:

“We do not fund, support or participate in any programming or advocacy that is not in line with Church teaching, including artificial birth control.”
It made this claim on the basis that the money to CARE was not “fungible” and did not come from Catholic donations.

The current question at hand is this: How can CRS claim that, “We do not fund, support or participate in any programming or advocacy that is not in line with Church teaching, including artificial birth control,” while simultaneously defending its dues-payments to MEDiCAM, which itself  is pushing for abortion throughout Cambodia?

CRS’ response was to deflect its problematic membership by posing a completely different problem (commonly referred to as a “straw-man”). In a press statement dated 16 August, CRS claimed,

“Recently, Catholic Relief Services was criticized for its membership in MEDiCAM because of the risk of scandal.”

This is completely untrue.  In fact, if Catholic Relief Services’ activities were restricted to membership only, there would be no scandal.

Every article that has been posted about CRS’ membership in MEDiCAM centered around the fact that resources raised by Catholics ostensibly going to a Catholic purpose was ultimately going to an organization expanding access to abortion.

CRS’ disingenuous defense of its dues-paying membership in MEDiCAM doesn’t stop there. After bloviating about how MEDiCAM provides all sorts of services and tools for Catholic Relief Services, their response says:

“MEDiCAM, similar to some networks and professional associations to which CRS belongs, include organization members and program areas which do not align with all tenets of Catholic teaching.”

Organization members of MEDiCAM that promote abortion is not at issue. It makes no difference that Marie Stopes International, Planned Parenthood’s number one competitor, is also a member of MEDiCAM.

The problem is that MEDiCAM has, as an organization, illustrated in its own position papers and newsletters, worked for the expansion of abortion in Cambodia. CRS’ membership dues are paying for this.

CRS acknowledged this in the statement above, but fails to reconcile this fact with its initial claim that CRS does not fund programs that are not in line with Church teaching. Membership dues are fungible, which means money given by Catholic Relief Services are spent anywhere within MEDiCAM, and as such, go on to support the MEDiCAM’s un-Catholic abortion-expanding projects.

Furthermore, CRS’ membership in MEDiCAM lends legitimacy to an organization that is seeking to eliminate poverty by exterminating the poor.

The facts are clear. CRS is paying membership dues to MEDiCAM. MEDiCAM is working for the expansion of abortion in Cambodia.

Yet CRS claims that it does not fund “any programming or advocacy that is not in line with Church teaching.”

…and I hate to use words that would get you thrown out of the House of Commons, but this?  There’s no other word for it.  This is a lie.

But worse than the lie is the fact that Catholic Relief Services has the audacity to defend its membership in such an organization as MEDiCAM at all.

When the USCCB was discovered to have been a member of the abortion-promoting Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, its immediate response was to withdraw from the conference,

When the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) was found to be funding organizations that were members of pro-abortion coalitions, CCHD rightly adopted new guidelines that read in part, “CCHD will not fund groups that are knowingly members of coalitions which have as part of their organizational purpose or coalition agenda, positions or actions that contradict fundamental Catholic moral and social teaching.”

What kind of audacity exists at CRS which places it above the CCHD or even the USCCB, allowing it to justify taking actions and giving money that the bishops themselves refuse?

The bishops know there are some un-Catholic things going on in their name.  The priests are starting to realize this.  Lay Catholics who thought they were feeding (and not exterminating) the poor are coming to grips with the un-Catholic spending at CRS.

There are some very un-Catholic things going on at Catholic Relief Services.  The questions will keep coming until systemic reform more in line with the timeless  spirit of Blessed Pope John Paul II rather than the modern political winds of the day.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article about the fact that Catholic Relief Services is a dues-paying member and on the board of an organization called the CORE Group, a virulently pro-abortion organization operating under the protection and advisement of CRS.

Catholic Relief Services pays about $3,000 per year in membership dues, is represented on the board of directors, and co-chairs the HIV/AIDS working group of the CORE Group — the same working group reviewed by CRS staff  promoting contraceptive use.

Their response?  The sort of mental gymnastics that offends common sense but rewards semantics:

We see our membership in the CORE Group as a means of demonstrating our faithfulness to Church teaching … CORE Group offers us an opportunity to highlight our work and improve the quality of our programming so mothers and children can live and thrive.

Not only does this not address the fact that CRS is paying dues to an organization promoting condom use and the integration of family planning into “Maternal and Child Health” programs, but it seems that this is fairly minor in light of another organization to which CRS pays dues.

It turns out that CRS is a member of an organization called MEDiCAM  and as a member, pays about $3,000 in membership dues.  Furthermore, CRS is listed as a 2011 member of MEDiCAM’s steering committee.

The problem with this is that MEDiCAM is heavily involved in efforts to expand the legalization and provision of “safe” abortions in Cambodia.  Here’s a run-down of what I discovered about MEDiCAM:

• According to this schedule, CRS participated in a discussion on MEDiCAM’s Position Paper for 2011 at its Annual General Meeting.  A draft of this position paper reveals that MEDiCAM recommends “expanding awareness on the abortion law, making people understand that abortion is not illegal so that they can seek a safer place for their induced abortion.”  Furthermore, in a document born out of the MEDiCAM’s Annual General Meeting (of which CRS was a participant) titled “Recommendations for 2012,” says, “scale up abortion services according to the Abortion Law.”  Folks, as I go through these, keep in mind that CRS is paying this organization with money YOU donate.
• In December of 2011, MEDiCAM published a document titled, “NGO Good Practices on Emergency Obstetric and Newborn Care and Safe Abortion.”
• MEDiCAM’s pro-abortion position, however, is not new.  This 2010 report from MEDiCAM applauds the increase of abortion-providing hospitals, the increase of trained abortion providers, the increase of women seeking “legal abortions,” the reduction of fees for abortions, and the increase of contraception use following an abortion.
• MEDiCAM’s position paper from 2008 echoes its position from 2007, and specifically calls for expanded access to safe abortion.
• This April 2005 issue of MEDiNEWS, the official newsletter of MEDiCAM, contains an article written by MEDiCAM’s Advocacy Coordinator, titled, “Comprehensive Abortion Care: A Gap In Reproductive Services.”  The article opens with the following statement:

Maternal morbidity and mortality in Cambodia would be significantly reduced through increased access to affordable, safe abortion and post-abortion care services.

MEDiCAM’s entire article is based upon this one premise, calling for an expansion of “safe” abortion. 

…and Catholic Relief Services has linked arms with this organization, for better or worse.

There are literally thousands of similar documents on MEDiCAM’s website, promoting “safe abortion” and heavily promoting all forms of birth control. What remains as a question is why would Catholic Relief Services ever consider paying membership fees to an organization so clearly committed to furthering the values of abortion culture?

The intelligence community has a saying, “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and three times is enemy action.”  Yet a pattern of aiding some very un-Catholic activities at Catholic Relief Services is beginning to emerge.

– Catholic Relief Services gave a $5.3 million grant to a viciously pro-abortion, pro-contraception organization called CARE;
– Catholic Relief Services is a dues-paying member of the CORE Group, which is highly committed to spreading birth control to poor people in third world countries;
– and Catholic Relief Services is a dues-paying member and on the Executive Committee of MEDiCAM, an organization dedicated to expanding “safe abortions” in Cambodia.

When faithful Catholics put money in the second collection on Sunday morning for Catholic Relief Services believing the money is going to help the poor, why then is Catholic Relief Services giving CORE Group and MEDiCAM the money to help exterminate the poor?  Why is CRS giving any organization supporting the abortion its money, its name, and its leadership?

Whatever the reasons may have been, the only answer is for CRS to stop.

The gold standard for Catholic charity in the modern age will remain Mother Teresa of Calcutta — and for good reason.  From her first moments of lifting a man out of a ditch to presiding over the worldwide charism of the Missionaries of Charity, not once did Mother Teresa inch away from her Catholic faith.  Instead of collaborating, she fearlessly challenged groups operating under the guise of charity while promoting Third World population control.  Rather than compromise, Mother Teresa fearlessly lived the Gospel and took on the abortion industry.

Would Mother Teresa be proud of what Catholic Relief Services has become?  Is doing?  Continues to do?

The answer is no.  Our answer should be the same.

Time for faithful Catholics to start contacting our bishops.  Tell Catholic Relief Services to stop giving aid and comfort to organizations diametrically opposed to what the Catholic Church is supposed to uphold — not only a preferential option for Mother Teresa of Calcutta’s poorest of the poor, but the unequivocal defense of the dignity of human life that those human beings deserve.

The good folks over at Life Site News just uncovered a rather unsettling relationship between CRS and an organization called the CORE Group, but there seems to be more to the story than a simple working relationship.

Two weeks ago, Life Site News revealed that CRS gave a $5.3 million grant to a pro-abortion, pro-contraception, and pro-homosexual organization known as CARE.   It’s bad enough that CRS has been so rigidly defensive about giving large sums of money to such a vicious enemy of The Church, but far worse than that is the fact that every argument CRS presented totally collapses in the light of its relationship with the CORE Group.

In short, CRS claims that the money granted to CARE was not “fungible,” so it couldn’t have been used to fund birth control; the money came from the government, so Catholic funds didn’t go to CARE; CRS does not support or participate in CARE’s birth control promoting programs.  John Rivera, CRS’s communications director summed it up by saying, “We do not fund, support or participate in any programming or advocacy that is not in line with Church teaching, including artificial birth control.”

According to the information provided by Life Site News, CRS’s statement is completely untrue.

Catholic Relief Services is a dues-paying member of the CORE Group.  In addition to that, CRS’s senior technical advisor in nutrition, Mary Hennigan, is on the board of the CORE Group and CRS’s Global Director of Health and HIV, Dr. Shannon Senfeld co-chairs the CORE Group’s “working group” on HIV/AIDS.

Why is this a problem?  Because the CORE Group itself heavily promotes birth control, which means that Catholic donations to CRS went to pay for the membership in this organization (this IS fungible).

Sadly, there’s more.

According to the CORE Group’s description of its board of directors,

The CORE Group Board of Directors is the governing body of the organization and is dedicated to advancing CORE Group’s mission, values, strategies, goals, priorities, and policies.

As a member of the “governing body” of CORE Group, CRS’s senior technical advisor in nutrition would be a part of the decision-making for the organization, including philosophies, policies, and projects.  And one of those projects is a working group on “Safe Motherhood and Reproductive Health,” which actively promotes contraception.

In fact, nearly 50% of CORE Groups budget for fiscal year 2011 went toward “family planning” and “Maternal and Child Health,” (MCH) and its MCH programs are specifically designed to be integrated with “family planning.”

It’s bad enough that CRS is paying its own money into an organization that so heavily promotes birth control to poor people in third world countries, and with board member oversight of the organization, CRS cannot claim ignorance.

But the saddest and most shocking aspect of this whole thing is found in a single document on the CORE Group’s website.  CORE Group produced a document titled, “Improving Access To and Use of Quality: Voluntary Counseling and Testing (VCT) Services,” through its HIV/AIDS working group, which is co-chaired by CRS’s Global Director of Health and HIV.

Not only was this document produced through a project that CRS had direct oversight for, but the acknowledgements identify two CRS employees, Rolando Figueroa, Regional Technical Advisor for the Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Office and Kristin Weinhauer, HIV/AIDS Technical Advisor, as having reviewed the document.  Just take a look at the document is all about.

Page 21 says, “Prevention services can offer male or female condoms, advice about how to negotiate safer sex, etc.”

Page 39 says, “Safer sex. A client who tests negative should be counseled on how to stay negative. The counselor should remind the client about the various risk behaviors for HIV and explain about safer sex, the use of condoms, and how to negotiate safer sex with one’s partner.”

Page 55 under the heading “A Few Recommendations,” says, “HIV prevention education. In wider programming, increase public awareness about condom use and sexual behavior change, especially among the reproductive age group.”

Page 57 says, “Youth VCT also needs to be integrated into youth-friendly contraception and reproductive health services, including diagnosis and treatment for sexually transmitted infections.”

Page 58 says, “As noted above, young people are especially vulnerable to HIV, for a number of reasons:

• limited knowledge of sexuality, reproductive health, and contraception
• cannot afford condoms or are denied them by retail outlets or clinics

Page 60 says, “the following issues should be addressed and/or given special emphasis when counseling young people:  the proper use of a condom.”

There is no doubt, in this situation, Catholic Relief Services is funding a staunchly pro-birth control organization with its own money, it has direct oversight of the entire organization through its board membership, and it specifically oversaw the publication of a document promoting condom use.  None of the defenses it used regarding CARE apply here at all.  And if CRS is so intimately connected with this birth control providing organization, where else is it doing things it claims it doesn’t?

So why does this squabble over “birth control” matter to non-Catholics?  Because once again, we have a presumably Catholic institution doing some very un-Catholic things.  The scandals run fairly high — the funding of left-wing groups under the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, the heretical “Nuns on the Bus” grand tour around America, and revelations that CCHD funding went to train then-community organizer Barack Obama back in 1986 — politically divisive efforts, all performed in the name of the Catholic Church.

Faithful Catholics — as well as their priests and bishops — are aware of the problem and have been for years.  Doing something about it is a bit trickier than a business boardroom.  But as Richard John Neuhaus so eloquently put it regarding yet another scandal tarnishing the reputation of the Catholic Church in America:

Fidelity, fidelity, fidelity!

Wise words regarding what it means to be a Christian in public life, especially at a time when so many seem to desire compromise, abrogation, and self.

Man oh man… did the Republican Party of Virginia drop a bombshell tonight!

The target?  The Richmond Times-Dispatch’s much applauded Politifact, which now seems to deserve a taste of its own medicine:

For quite some time we’ve had growing concerns regarding PolitiFact Virginia’s approach towards Republicans in general, and in specific, “separating fact from fiction” against Republican candidates, officials and committees.

On February 16th of this year, the Republican Party of Virginia had a meeting with the Editor and Publisher of the Richmond Times-Dispatch regarding the paper’s PolitiFact Virginia unit. In late April – two months later – we had a subsequent conference call to follow up on our original meeting.

Since the original meeting – nearly five months ago – PolitiFact Virginia has meted-out 36 rulings, not including recent “Ad Watch” articles. Of those rulings, 26 targeted Republican candidates, elected officials, our State Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. At the same time, PolitiFact Virginia handed down only 10 rulings on Democrats and one 3rd party organization.

PolitiFact Virginia purports to sit in objective judgment on the truthfulness of factual assertions by leading public figures, yet it fails to meet the very standard it claims to enforce. An objective analysis shows that PolitiFact Virginia’s approach and rulings are heavily biased against leading Republican public officials and candidates in the Commonwealth, as well as Republican Party Committees and aligned 3rd party organizations.

The 87-page document is researched about as deeply and as intensively as any opposition file researcher could make it.  RPV invested a lot of time in this, to be sure — and it’s perhaps one of the finest documents to come out of the state party in a long, long time.

Politifact is doomed.

UPDATE:  Check it out.  I think RPV did a press conference and flushed out all the Politifact assessments.  Turn up the speakers for this one…

Boom.

Mentally unstable guys putting their trucks into mosques 10 years ago in Florida… that’s what.

Of course, that’s the point the Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force chief Jim Lafferty was making at a rather warm (someone turned the air conditioning off in a packed room of about 150 CPAC attendees — wonder why?) presentation at CPAC this weekend.

The People for the American Way’s Right Wing Watch had to drive their own truck into the conservative pow-wow up in Washington this weekend, recording tiny snippets of everyone’s commentary and posting it out of context just to see what stuck.

In this instance, the target was Jim Lafferty’s exposition on how Islamist apologists here in the United States will take a 2002 incident and use it as justification not to apologize for any of these events.

Naturally, some Americans like Jim Lafferty take umbrage with that — and call ‘em out.  See below:

…and that is what has Right Wing Watch all up in a tizzy this Sunday morning.  One guy… one truck… and one Jim Lafferty willing to stand up and call the Islamist apologists out on how that 2002 incident doesn’t wipe out a patter of Islamist terror against the United States.

Now just for kicks, what was this “one incident” of driving a truck into a mosque?  The Tallahassee Democrat doesn’t have the article up anymore, but a quick search online revealed this little tidbit from the article, reposted on Yahoo! Groups:

The man who crashed his truck into a campus mosque late Monday has a history of bizarre behavior linked to Florida State University.

Charles Franklin, 41, was arrested in 1992 after he used a metal pipe to vandalize the disc-jockey booth at V89, an FSU radio station. In 1998, he was investigated for allegedly driving his van at a group of students near the Student Union, according to FSU police.

Now, he’s charged with burglary and felony criminal mischief in Monday’s attack on the Islamic Center of Tallahassee. Franklin told police he did it because he “hated Muslims” and could face additional hate-crime penalties if convicted, said Scott Hunt, Tallahassee Police Department spokesman.

Now how many cards short of a full deck is this Charles Franklin fella playing with?

Yet this — as Lafferty was making clear to everyone in the room — is the counterpunch when someone mentions that there are 800 new mosques built in the United States over the last 10 years, that of those mosques, 80% of these new mosques are being “radicalized” according to the perr-reviewed Middle East Quarterly.  That there are indeed Islamist terror training camps and cells in the United States.  That “no-go” zones are indeed being established in places such as Dearborn, MI.  That shariah-finance and the halal foods industry is slowly creeping into American life — an industry worth $7 billion and with direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Lafferty made his position clear with this earlier statement:

I do not support, encourage or condone driving a truck into any mosque or any other religious building.At CPAC, I made the same statement that I have made many times – that the slide show in the Justice Department Hate Crimes presentation focuses almost exclusively on incidents of pick-up trucks being driven into a mosque wall or exterior. None of the incidents of church or synagogue vandalism make it into the DOJ presentation.

My remark was a clumsily- worded acknowledgement that pick-up truck collisions with mosques usually occur in the South and usually involve alcohol.

I support the free exercise protections of the First Amendment to the Constitution for all religious beliefs and practices.

I am, at all times, a firm supporter of the Constitution and the rule of law. Illegal activity will eventually be investigated and prosecuted by authorities.

What was clear to the folks in the room at CPAC is that some folks “in the South” get the threat that shariah-compliance poses to American communities in the heartland.  That one incidence of violence from a loon doesn’t repudiate the exhaustive pattern of terrorism, radicalization, and violence from factions of the Islamist community in the United States.

Of course, the liberal left will do everything in its power to squash and destroy conservatives — even if it’s a temporary alliance with an Islamic faith who believes the punishment for homosexuality should be death, that women have only half the say of men in society, that “good speech” should nominally replace free speech, where “freedom of worship” should replace our First Amendment freedom of religion, or that shariah does indeed trump the U.S. Constitution.

Anything for short term gain, right?

The long and short of this is that Lafferty and the 150 people packed into that room understand radical Islam and the threat of shariah law as something very different from say, the experience of Catholics over the 19th century (or perhaps, the still-ongoing experience of Catholics even today).  Whereas Catholics sought to find a place in American life, the Islamist experience thus far seeks to transform American life.  Whereas canon law applied for monasteries, shariah law seeks to apply itself to everyday occurrence — right down to the foods you eat.

While Catholics rightly argue for the liberty of human conscience, radical Islam — even their so-called “moderate” voices — deliberately seek to squelch those rights in favor of “hate speech” or “libel”.

It was Pope John Paul II’s great wish that the Church would learn to “breathe with both lungs.”

I couldn’t help but notice the sturm-und-drang over the national personhood movement, most especially by Steve Ertelt in the following post.  Arguments against are legion:  it bleeds cash and resources, it’s not politically viable, and worst of all, it deprives Republicans the chance to elect a pro-life president with a nominally pro-life Congress.

Of course, were this even remotely true, abortion would have ended with the election of George W. Bush, and the Republican Congress would have passed a series of bills defunding Planned Parenthood, mandating parental notification and consent laws, passing a series of fetal pain bills, forcing abortion clinics to meet the basic standards of medical care, and perhaps even joined hands with the personhood movement and passed a bill recognizing the basic right to exist — ultimately thrusting the decision into the hands of a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court and ending abortion once and for all.

One small problem.  This never happened.

In fact, not only did it not happen, but the partisan majority was never a pro-life majority.  Even the softballs failed to manage much more than tacit recognition from U.S. House leadership, as items such as the Pence Amendment which would have defunded Planned Parenthood – the nation’s largest abortion chain — only managed to garner 183 votes.

Since 1973, the pro-life movement has fractured time and time again based on hairline differences of opinion.  One difference marks the movement more than anything else.  Either one believes that any legislation that ends abortion is a net positive (the “greater good” argument), or one believes that every human being must be saved, and that any laws creating a maze that — should they be navigated — end with the death of a child are a net negative (the “common good” argument).

I’ll set aside the very deep theological arguments pro- and con- between the two positions.  Needless to say, rather than working as counterparts, or at the very least agreeing to “do no harm” to the other wing, the pro-life movement’s internecine warfare has raged almost as fiercely as the struggle to end abortion itself.

What has unfortunately happened over the course of almost four decades is that many Americans who are nominally pro-life have become discouraged from participating in the movement, as Ertelt accurately depicts.  It’s a long slog, the resources are thin, and precious resources are often spent in rearguard actions rather than ending the tragedy of abortion.

In 2008, I was first introduced to the personhood movement.  I had political involvement in Colorado in 2006 (successfully running then-Rep. Marilyn Musgrave’s re-election campaign) and knew many of the players in the state.  Instantly, I threw in my support behind the movement, without hesitation or reserve.

Why?  Because the argument for personhood was so undeniably true.  In short, every human being has the basic human right to exist.  And further, all human beings deserve the protection of our laws.

That’s personhood — and it’s that language that has carried into over 30 states across the country in the form of either legislation or constitutional amendments.  What’s more, all hopes are hung on the actual language of the now-entrenched Roe v. Wade, in which Justice Blackmun famously emphasized:

The appellee and certain amici [pro-lifers] argue that the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.

What has happened in only a few short years is precisely as Ertelt and others have described it.  Energized by the new approach, thousands of pro-lifers have rallied to the battle standards.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been poured into the effort.  Old stalwarts who fell away either from infighting or disillusionment have come back to a movement they loved so dearly in the ’70s and ’80s.

This is the miracle of personhood.

Detractors within the pro-life movement are certainly not “anti-personhood” by any definition.  I believe many of them to see a worthwhile goal in personhood, but heavily invested both in the acrimony of previous infighting as well as the time and energy invested in pursuing incrementalist legislation.  This is all well and good — and one can tell the difference between a sincere disagreement and a D.C. lobbyist or lawyer whose livelihood depends on the wrong strategy.

Let me give you five good reasons why personhood is the right strategy for the upcoming decade:

1.  Personhood is bringing new people into the pro-life movement. Period.  It’s no secret that many evangelicals and Catholics view abortion through the eyes of faith.  Such a view encourages us to look at abortion as an attack on the human family — the Body of Christ.  For this, Christians seek the common good of all those members, and will not sacrifice a single one to gain a greater goal.  That sort of ethic — common to any member of America’s military or emergency personnel — is easily identifiable, and strikes deep in the heart of the souls of those disillusioned with what are perceived to be half measures.

2.  Personhood is bringing new money into the pro-life movement. When you hear the phrase “scarce resources” bantered about, it’s from the perspective that pro-lifers are old, dying, with pensions and savings accounts being dwindled away every day.  That sort of defeatism (and it is defeatism) is precisely what has driven away any donor from any organization, regardless of the cause.  With personhood, there is a battle plan and a light at the end of the tunnel…

3.  Who believes personhood is the right strategy?  Planned Parenthood. In 2008, and in Colorado alone, Planned Parenthood committed over $10 million towards defeating the Colorado Personhood Amendment.  In 2010, they spent over $3 million doing the same.  $3 million multiplied by 30 efforts across the country puts Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry out of business in months — not years.

4.  Personhood works in tandem with every pro-life strategy embarked upon over the last four decades. This is where we get to the “breathing with both lungs” argument — there is no threat to other efforts by engaging communities in personhood, other than the traditional resistance to new ideas.

5.  One in three Americans is already on the side of Personhood. Marketers would argue that the idea is “pre-sold” to the American public.  What’s more, certain states stand a better chance than Colorado (arguably a battleground state if there ever was one) in passing personhood legislation and state amendments.  All it takes is for one state to pass personhood… and the likelihood of a 5-4 decision in the U.S. Supreme Court upholding personhood, though a coin flip, is altogether better than never taking the chance at all.

I happen to consider Ken Buck a friend, though by acquaintance and a few dozen hours campaigning in and around Weld and Larimer Counties.  Not being on the inside of his campaign for U.S. Senate but cheering as loudly as I could from Virginia, I haven’t the foggiest idea why Buck turned away from his endorsement of personhood.

But the argument that personhood tanked Buck’s campaign?  Specious at best.  In fact, the converse may very well be true.  Modern polling shows that pro-lifers care passionately about their issue, and to the exclusion of many others.  Did personhood proponents vote for Amendment 62 and leave the checkbox next to Ken Buck blank?  Possibly.  Was the abortion lobby going to attack Ken Buck on his impeccable pro-life credentials?  Absolutely.  Why did the campaign advisors argued that Buck should come down from his principled position — a position embraced by 30% of the Colorado electorate — and muddy the waters?

That’s above my pay grade.  And probably above all outside commentators’ pay grades as well.  Still, the simplest answer being the easiest is that, should Buck have held fast in the best environment for conservatives since the 1994 Republican Revolution — Buck may very well have been selecting drapes for his new offices in Washington right now.

Pro-lifers should determine for themselves the worthiness of the personhood movement, not based on what our friends within the movement would tell you — but on the reaction of those whose livelihoods and careers are based around killing children in the womb.  It’s no secret that Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry attempted to grab literally millions of dollars from the public purse during the 2010 lame duck session.  There’s a reason for that.  Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry could not survive without it.  They know, as we do, that resources are limited everywhere.  The further they are stretched on as many fronts as possible, the easier it is to dismantle the machinery of abortion on demand.

Pro-lifers such as Steve Ertelt have devoted countless hours to the cause, and all in their own ways.  I suggest, if you want to learn more, visit those who have supported the movement for years such as Judie Brown at American Life League (FULL DISCLOSURE: I work for ALL… but there truly is no better resource).  If you feel encouraged enough to find out what all the excitement is about, find a state initiative through Personhood USA and get moving.

Find others, talk about abortion, let people know where you stand, and ask questions about what we value as a country and as a society.  Do *all* human beings have the basic right to exist?  Or not?

If after all of that you’re still not convinced… well, sign up for Life News and keep a great resource going.  But above all else, find a way to get involved.

Thousands of lives are counting on your ‘yes’ — and we need both lungs to keep moving.