PRO-LIFE YOUTH CONFERENCE THIS WEEKEND!!!

Some of us are going to this:

Youth 4 Life Conference

March 27, 2010

St. Michael Center, Baltic, CT

4-8 p.m.

The Academy of the Holy Family’s Teens of Pro-Life Club (TOP-Life Club) and the Connecticut Right to Life Corporation are sponsoring the new and improved 2nd annual Youth 4 Life pro-life conference on Saturday, March 27, 2010, from 4-8 pm at the Academy of the Holy Family's St. Michael Center on School Hill Road in Baltic. In a new format, there will be live testimonies, breakout sessions, live band, film presentation, Mass and confession, music and pizza & …!

Meal is included. Requested donation is $10. Register by mailed form or by calling 860-822-8241.  Questions? Ask for Sr. Marie-André or e-mail:

prolifespanish@ahfbaltic.org

Bring your friends and come enjoy one of the biggest pro-life youth events in Eastern Connecticut!

Picketing and Breakfast Meeting

This morning we picketed in front of Hartford Gyn from 7 a.m. until 8:20 or so.  It's always really sad, especially when the mother does not want to go while her boyfriend or mother or aunt or gym teacher or whatever has her by the elbow.  Today we had what appeared the opposite ... the boyfriend wanted to stay and talk with the sidewalk counselor.  We prayed (because that's the best way to witness while the sidewalk counselor does his or her thing.)


After, we went to Ashley's for breakfast and had a meeting, because a lot of members showed up to picket today.  We'll be posting about upcoming events and projects when we get the notes sorted out ... more on the tag sale, the Conference and a possible celebration for St. Gerard's to celebrate the arrival of the ultrasound! And bake sales.  Actually, the only baked stuff we have ever sold has been at tag sales and bazaars.  The humble bake sale can make a lot of money for the effort.



It's really gorgeous here in Connecticut today ... really sad to think that some of those mothers will remember an early spring day as the day their baby died. Or maybe they'll be like some of the speakers we've had ... not really remembering at all, but sort of having this overwhelming sadness that no one ever talks about. And maybe some of them won't have an abortion today.  Please God.

You Can Now Follow Us on Twitter AND Conference is October 16th!

We stuck a Twitter button on the blog, so while we're waiting for Tim to continue his Roe v. Wade series, we want to let you know the Conference is a go Saturday, October 16th at Holy Apostles in Cromwell, CT and we have Fr. Tad!  Mark your calendars.  Nunc.

INSTALLMENT 3: Why the Supreme Court Decision in Roe Versus Wade was Legally Incorrect and Unconstitutional

If you haven't read Installment No. 1, please click here

If you haven't read Installment No. 2, please click here

Please find below the third part of an article written by Timothy J.  Once again, the stars stand for footnotes, which will be put into the series as Tim gets them sent to us.  Read on:

As the Supreme Court was inaccurate and biased with its interpretation of English common law, it also did not obtain the correct view of early American law.  According to the official case document, most restrictive abortion legislation began appearing after the Civil War and was only for the purpose of protecting the interests and health of the mother.  For evidence of the first claim, the Court mentioned Eugene Quay, who had written an appendix of all the abortion legislation passed before 1960.  Interestingly enough, the very proof that the Courts recommended for their position was the thing that disproved their assertion, as Quay had on record that thirty-one of the states had laws punishing abortive practices before the Civil War even started.*  This was not the scarce minority of laws that the Court had claimed existed prior to 1860.  With regard to the second claim, that the laws enacted were solely for the protection of the woman, this too is easily refuted by the fact that the evidence the Court cited works against such claims.   For example, one of the cases the Court used was an 1858 New Jersey case, State v. Murphy, which has a passage that reads “the procuring of an abortion, or an attempt to procure an abortion, with the assent of the woman, was not an indictable offense, as it affected her, but only as it affected the life of the fetus”.* This passage clearly demonstrates that the protection of the mother was not the only legitimate interest at stake, but, yet, this was the case the Court cited as evidence that American law of the 18th century did not protect the interests of the unborn child.   One must therefore conclude that the Court purposely flipped critical information on early American law and relied on a mass of legal language to keep the real truth from emerging.

By now, one should see how the Court knowingly went against the evidence of established historical and legal precedent, but it can also be ascertained that the Court went against the intentions of the United States Constitution as well.  In its examination of the Constitution as a whole, the Court did not once touch upon the critical area of the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, thus making its judgment legally incorrect.  If the Supreme Court had been looking to resolve Roe versus Wade in the most accurate manner possible, then it most definitely would have looked into the framers’ intent, for there is no better way of discerning how the Constitution should be interpreted.  Accordingly, there were several indications about what abortion mentalities were accepted around the time of the drafting of the Constitution.  First of all, two previously cited sources have held that Blackstone and his pro-life principles were well known and accepted by the American people, including the framers of the Constitution.*  Also, by looking in a popular dictionary of the times, a fetus was described as a child, who was in turn described as a living person.*   Finally, Thomas Jefferson, who was one of the leading politicians of his day, wrote a letter praising the man who had drafted a model penal code for Louisiana that included a prohibition of abortion.  There was no record of Jefferson abstaining from expressing his approval of any part of the code and the fact that this statute became so popular was evidence that the majority of the informed public agreed with it.*  Thus, at the time of the framing of the Constitution, it can be ascertained, with a high degree of certainty, that many Americans, including the original drafters, would not have had an abortion mentality. 

INSTALLMENT 2: Why the Supreme Court Decision in Roe Versus Wade was Legally Incorrect and Unconstitutional

If you haven't read Installment No. 1, please click here.
Please find below the second part of an article written by Timothy J.  Once again, the stars stand for footnotes, which will be put into the series as Tim gets them sent to us.  Read on:

Installment No. 2:

In addition to this argument, the Court misinterpreted the words of Plato and Aristotle to mean that they supported abortion, when in reality they did not.  While the Court cited several examples to prove their point, all of them are subject to a good degree of skepticism.  In one of the most interesting ones, Plato spoke about ways to regulate the population and mentioned everything from encouraging temporary abstinence to sending out colonies.  The court maintained that this was one of the proofs that Plato supported abortion, but the fact is that abortion was not mentioned even implicitly in this passage.*  Clearly, the Court’s opinion of abortion in ancient Greece and Rome was unsound and ethically questionable.  After such an obvious misrepresentation of the actual historical records in just the first section of its investigation, one begins to wonder if the Court was merely ignorant, or if there were ulterior motives.

 In the area of common law, which can be explained as the collective decision and belief of previous judicial bodies, the Supreme Court concluded that it was “doubtful”* that the killing of a “quick” fetus was ever held as a crime.  To support this position, the Supreme Court relied heavily on the testimony of Cyril Means*, a pro-abortion supporter from the 1950’s and 60’s.  By placing so much confidence on an abortion advocate without balancing the opposite viewpoint, the Court violated the neutral position that it is supposed to assume in resolving any case.  This would explain why the Court’s historical probe was so weak, for in an effort to support a position that it knew went against historical fact, it was selective with the evidence and distorted facts to make it appear that its arguments were supported.

 

As the common law principles of the United States came largely from England, it is essential to look at that country’s view of the issue as it pertains to the unborn.  James F. Stephen has written a thorough account of English criminal law in which he notes that even before the time of the Norman Conquest of 1066, abortion was held as a crime.*  In addition, there are written statements from four of the best English authorities on common law, Bracton, Fleta, Coke, and Blackstone, that abortion was a serious crime.  Although the Court acknowledged the comments of Bracton and Fleta condemning abortion, it seemed to regard them as unimportant and continued to rely singularly on the work of Means.  With Coke, who said that abortion was a “great misprision, but no murder”, the Court took the modern understanding of this phrase, which is that “misprision” can be translated to mean “misdemeanor”.*  However, Blackstone, whose name was synonymous with law in the mid 18th century*, took a different approach and said that “misprision” could be translated to mean a grave offense that was not punishable by death, but was nonetheless very serious.*  Furthermore, Blackstone also commented that, “One who is in the womb is already born, whenever a question arises for its benefit.”*  This quote from such an influential person in common law history proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that English common law held that the unborn were persons and protected them accordingly.

INSTALLMENT 1: Why the Supreme Court Decision in Roe Versus Wade was Legally Incorrect and Unconstitutional

Please find below the first part in an article written by Timothy J.  You will find this timely, since many of us are all headed to D.C. for the March for Life on January 22.  Here's your history lesson, so you can go armed with all the information you could possibly need to defend the pro-life position.  The stars stand for footnotes, which will be put into the series as Tim gets them sent to us.  Thanks, Tim!  Fantastic job on this series.  Without further ado ...

Installment No. 1:

Regardless of what side one takes on the issue of abortion, it is obvious that the decision made by the Supreme Court on January 22, 1973 in the case of Roe versus Wade, which legalized abortion during all three trimesters of pregnancy, was of historic proportions.  As notable as this case was, it is now quite clear that Roe versus Wade was fatally flawed, being both legally incorrect* and unconstitutional in a myriad of ways.  Although the justices who presided over the case were able to conceal their biased reasoning to the untrained eyes and ears of the general public, further research reveals gaping holes in their assertions and the proof they cited as evidence of these.  Thus, the aim of this research report will be to expose the main areas of Roe versus Wade’s problems and ultimately provide reasons why this case was neither legally correct nor in accord with the Constitution of this great land.

The Supreme Court’s investigation into Roe versus Wade started by looking at the history of abortion in ancient times.  After only a brief investigation, the Court concluded that “ancient religion did not bar abortion”*. However, the Supreme Court looked mostly at Greek and Roman history for evidence of the acceptance of this practice.  Yet, abortion concerned more than just the Greeks and Romans and interestingly enough, the first legal evidence of abortion appeared much further back in history than these civilizations with a reference in the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, which appeared in about 1728 B.C.  This reference spoke of the penalties pertaining to a person who “unintentionally but culpably caused a woman to miscarry”.*   Thus, the first ever-recorded reference to abortion does not infer its approval, but rather the penalties for such an act.  It must be further noted that substantial evidence exists that many other ancient civilizations, besides the Babylonians, clearly had an anti-abortion mentality, among which were the Assyrians, Egyptians, Hittites, who had “notoriously low” sexual standards, and particularly the Jews, from whom evolved Christianity and many of its established principles in the Constitution.*  Given the legal scope the Court was looking for in history, this information would have been fairly easy to find, but yet there was no mention of any of it in the Court’s examination.  From these facts, one can see that the Court’s research of abortion throughout history was glaringly incomplete and that its findings did not reflect the established standard in ancient times of many cultures.

With regard to the Greeks and Romans, the Supreme Court took the position that abortion in Greco-Roman times was “resorted to without scruple”.*  However, abortion was not so commonplace that society was silent on the issue.  Many of the most eminent and influential people in Greece and Rome made very clear statements against abortion, among whom were: Soranus, Seneca, Rufus, and Ovid, the poet, who wrote that “the first one who thought of detaching from her womb the fetus forming in it deserved to die by her own weapons”.*  If some of the most famous people in Greece and Rome spoke out against abortion, it can be safely reasoned that abortion was not resorted to with as little scruple as the Court declared, for history continuously shows that the common people invariably follow the ideology of those who hold power and prestige.

Y-LIFE Meeting Sunday, January 17th

Ella B. writes:

Hi Everyone,
We will be having a Y-LIFE meeting at 4:00 on Sunday, January 17th at Holy Apostles College and Seminary. We will be discussing the March for Life as well as our upcoming conference.  Please let me know if you plan on attending the meeting.
With love for life,
Ella
ylifeprovita@gmail.com