The contagion of the world's slow stain...

Which blinds and desensitizes.

That's from something S. Catherine of Genoa said was her concern, to beware the contagion of the world's slow stain.  It is similar to what people have warned about the war in Ukraine - 'don't get used to it' - don't get used to the atrocities - like we did with abortion and a woman's right to choose.

I'm tempted to say, finally the bishops are standing up and making their voice heard, but on some level, they always have - until it turned into a communion debate - who can and cannot receive and so on.  Then the CDF intervened and it wasn't supposed to be about barring someone like President Biden from  communion.  That is an issue for the individual conscience and the pastor - it's not my concern.  (We can judge actions, e.g. immoral acts and laws, but not the conscience or the state of one's soul. At least, that's how I see it.)

That said, what is a concern is the recent statement by Archbishop Lori, speaking for the USCCB regarding Biden's determination to codify abortion rights.  I am happy that the bishops are indeed speaking out - directly and clearly addressing the problem, without punitive threats.  Finally.

“The president is gravely wrong to continue to seek every possible avenue to facilitate abortion, instead of using his power to increase support and care to mothers in challenging situations,” Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, said Oct. 25.

“This single-minded extremism must end, and we implore President Biden to recognize the humanity in preborn children and the genuine life-giving care needed by women in this country,” he said.

The U.S. bishops’ statement noted that last week Biden declared that his top legislative priority after the November elections is to codify a national right to abortion. - CNA

That's how to do it - don't mince words - address the issue head on.  The president is 'gravely wrong'.  Call him out - remain nonpartisan and stop using canon law to control behavior. The threat here is not just against the right to life, it is against religious liberty.  If Biden's plan goes forward, it poses a threat to our democracy, moving us closer towards a new form of totalitarianism.

Backers of abortion say the Women’s Health Protection Act would codify the overturned Roe v. Wade abortion precedent. However, critics say the bill goes much further than Roe. It would declare abortion a human right, undercut existing state pro-life laws, and force objecting doctors and religious hospitals to perform abortions. The bill has repeatedly failed to advance in largely party-line U.S. Senate votes. - CNA

Since Roe v Wade most of the country has gotten used to the idea that it is a woman's right to choose, while we work and hope abortion will be safe, legal and rare.  That notion is the closest anyone can get for dialog concerning 'common ground' on abortion.  Yet it is still on the table with the 'women's right to choose' caveat.  A 'right' almost everyone has 'gotten used to'.

"Women only have the rights men allow them to have."

A former Dominican priest who had a blog used to say, "Women only have the rights men allow them to have." I think that is changing big time today. The sexual abuse claims made by women against men, who happen to be falling like dominoes, from very high places BTW - is a huge sea change. This may turn out to be a major cultural change if heads keep falling.

Looks like the ERA will finally get ratified.

This just in: Why we don't punish the mothers ...

(This isn't an April Fools post either.)

"I cherish women - I want to help women." - Trump

The most pro-life candidate ever?  Really?


When Trump said we should punish (criminalize) the mothers who have abortions, he demonstrated his ignorance of the law, and exposed our ignorance of how the law was applied in the past as well.

It's a good trick played that's been played out by the pro-abortion crowd.

Turns out - women were never criminalized for abortion - because they have pretty much always been considered the second victim of the act.  I know nothing about birth and babies, and less about women, so rather than trying to pretend I know what I'm talking about, I just want to take this opportunity to share with you an article my friend Mercury linked to in a comment on another post of mine, regarding Trump's proposal women should be punished for abortion.

Why did the states target abortionists and treat women as a victim of the abortionist? 

It was based on three policy judgments: the point of abortion law is effective enforcement against abortionists, the woman is the second victim of the abortionist, and prosecuting women is counterproductive to the goal of effective enforcement of the law against abortionists.

The political claim—that women were or will be prosecuted or jailed under abortion laws—has been made so frequently by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW over the past 40 years that it has become an urban legend. It shows the astonishing power of contemporary media to make a complete falsehood into a truism. 

For 30 years, abortion advocates have claimed—without any evidence and contrary to the well-documented practice of ALL 50 states—that women were jailed before Roe and would be jailed if Roe falls (or if state abortion prohibitions are reinstated). 

This claim rests on not one but two falsehoods: 

First, the almost uniform state policy before Roe was that abortion laws targeted abortionists, not women. Abortion laws targeted those who performed abortion, not women. In fact, the states expressly treated women as the second “victim” of abortion; state courts expressly called the woman a second “victim.” Abortionists were the exclusive target of the law. 

Second, the myth that women will be jailed relies, however, on the myth that “overturning” Roe will result in the immediate re-criminalization of abortion. If Roe was overturned today, abortion would be legal in at least 42-43 states tomorrow, and likely all 50 states, for the simple reason that nearly all of the state abortion prohibitions have been either repealed or are blocked by state versions of Roe adopted by state courts. The issue is entirely academic. The legislatures of the states would have to enact new abortion laws—and these would almost certainly continue the uniform state policy before Roe that abortion laws targeted abortionists and treated women as the second victim of abortion. 

There will be no prosecutions of abortionists unless the states pass new laws after Roe is overturned. 

This political claim is not an abstract question that is left to speculation—there is a long record of states treating women as the second victim of abortion in the law that can be found and read. To state the policy in legal terms, the states prosecuted the principal (the abortionist) and did not prosecute someone who might be considered an accomplice (the woman) in order to more effectively enforce the law against the principal. And that will most certainly be the state policy if the abortion issue is returned to the states. 

Why did the states target abortionists and treat women as a victim of the abortionist? 

It was based on three policy judgments: the point of abortion law is effective enforcement against abortionists, the woman is the second victim of the abortionist, and prosecuting women is counterproductive to the goal of effective enforcement of the law against abortionists. 

The irony is that, instead of states prosecuting women, the exact opposite is true. To protect their own hide, it was abortionists (like the cult hero and abortionist Ruth Barnett when Oregon last prosecuted her in 1968), who, when they were prosecuted, sought to haul the women they aborted into court. As a matter of criminal evidentiary law, if the court treated the woman as an accomplice, she could not testify against the abortionist, and the case against the abortionist would be thrown out. 

There are “only two cases in which a woman was charged in any State with participating in her own abortion”: from Pennsylvania in 19111 and from Texas in 1922.2 There is no documented case since 1922 in which a woman has been charged in an abortion in the United States. 

Based on this record—spanning 50 states over the century before Roe v. Wade—it is even more certain that the political claim that any woman might be questioned or prosecuted for a spontaneous miscarriage has no record in history and will certainly not be the policy of any state in the future. - Finish reading here.

There is so much double talk on the subject that people have lost their common sense.  They see Trump as some sort of savior to over turn Roe v Wade - a guy who could care less about women and children.  Every pundit that comes down the pike claiming he will overturn Roe v Wade - if elected - doesn't know what he or she is talking about.  It's Stepford-Wives-Syndrome, and Trump  has been the perfect spokesman for it.

 Abortion is huge business - women's rights are unsustainable without the abortion industry.  Obviously the lie is in danger of being exposed because of Trump, who only in the last day or so seems to have been informed that in the past the abortionist was criminalized, not the surviving victim. Will he toe the party line on this now?  By just focusing on a judicial appointment to give the impression Roe v Wade will be overturned?  It will be interesting won't it?

Thanks again to Mercury for providing the excellent link with information on this topic - I found it very helpful.  To be honest - I never understood the 'second victim' theory so well myself.