Jivin J’s Life Links 3-3-09
by JivinJ
Then there is the challenge posed by those pro-Sebelius Catholics. Their strategic goal seems clear: to nail down the “pro-life/pro-Obama” position pioneered by Douglas Kmiec and others, and indeed to extend it by arguing that the “universal health care” to which the Obama administration proposes to lead us is the real and overarching pro-life position, irrespective of the administration’s reversal of the Mexico City policy, its likely assault on the conscience rights of Catholic health care professionals, and what one can reasonably assume will be its refusal to revisit the RU-486 controversy or to examine the abortion/breast-cancer link.
This attempt to spin and redefine the pro-life position, such that one can claim to be a pro-life Catholic while supporting candidates or nominees who have taken extreme pro-abortion positions, must be publicly repudiated by the appropriate Catholic authorities at Gov. Sebelius’ hearings so that, no matter what the fate of her nomination, a clear, bright, and unmistakable line is drawn.
District Attorney Richard Consiglio said he was so upset when he learned of the decision that he met with President Judge Jolene Kopriva, who oversees Adult Drug Court.
He said if Drug Court ever again funds an abortion, he will refuse to recommend individuals for participation, “effectively shutting down Drug Court.”…
The money typically is used to help people stabilize their lives. For example, the court paid $75 for lead testing one participant with a child needed before she could obtain a particular apartment.
An anonymous donor repaid the money used for the abortion to Drug Court.
I’m glad Van der Graaf is speaking up for the free speech rights of pro-life students and some of his arguments even sound similar to pro-life arguments I’ve heard:
Here’s the thing about rights: it’s not as though they’re personal. They’re not things we can hold close to our chests to protect. We all share our fundamental rights, equally.
Does that include the right to life?
And that brings me to my second point. The last thing you want to do is endanger the rights to free speech that pro-choicers have and exercise. If our opponents’ rights can be infringed upon, so can ours.
Replace free speech with right to life and pro-choicers with unborn human beings and Van der Graaf’s argument is basically a pro-life argument.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Thanks for citing my article. But it can’t be construed in any way as pro-life. I remain vigorously opposed to a point of view that denies a woman’s right to deal with her own pregnancy as she sees fit. If I was in that position and people were trying to force me to do one thing or the other, I would be up in arms. And I think it is simply a fantasy to equate a fetus with an adult person. Sorry dudes.