Saturday, August 11, 2012

C4RH: Taking a page (and money) from the abortion lobby

by Pinoy Templars
[source:  http://pinoytemplars.blogspot.com/2012/06/c4rh-taking-page-and-money-from.html]
"They call themselves Catholics, but they readily admit that their pro-contraception positions don’t agree with the Magisterium."

They call themselves Catholics, but they readily admit that their pro-contraception positions don’t agree with the Magisterium. With help from a few dissenting clergy, they are building their own teaching authority, insisting at the same time on the authenticity of their Catholic faith. They organize and hold rallies and protests. They align themselves publicly and privately with known liberal politicians, atheists, agnostics, church/religion haters, ultra-feminists and the LGBT crowd. They rely heavily on funding from population controllers and other anti-life sources like Planned Parenthood and the Ford, Packard and Hewlett Foundations. They bash the bishops and the Pope every chance they get, and habitually twist and manipulate anything coming out of the Vatican.

This is Catholics for RH (C4RH), the mish-mash of academics, lapsed and nominal Catholics, and kibitzers out to undermine the official Church position on the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill. But that’s not the story. Looking a bit beyond the local group that has made itself a champion for the RH bill, you'll find that these “Catholics in name only” learned these strategies from a well-funded foreign mentor, and learned them well.

Their mentor, with whom C4RH's leaders have enjoyed a rather chummy relationship for a while now, is none other than the dissident US pro-abortion group Catholics for Choice.

LGBT- a pro-gay group flag raised
Catholics for Choice was founded by abortion lobbyists in 1970, under the name “Catholics for the Elimination of All Restrictive Abortion and Contraceptive Laws”. Nine years and a name change later (to Catholics for a Free Choice), Frances Kissling became its president. Kissling is vigorously pro-abortion, envisioning a huge underground of activist women “learning how to do menstrual extractions and vacuum aspiration abortions, mothers teaching their daughters, sub rosa classes at campus women's centers."  She started out as an abortion clinic director in Pelham, New York, eventually becoming the founding director of the National Abortion Federation. She was so good at what she did that abortion equipment manufacturer IPAS enlisted her help in establishing illegal abortion clinics around the world.  IPAS’ illegal activities including circumventing countries’ abortion laws, were confirmed, documented and reported by Harvard professor Donald P. Warwick in his 1980 report Foreign Aid for Abortion.

It is no surprise that Kissling found a kindred spirit in Junice Demeterio-Melgar, pro-RH lobbyist and head of Likhaan. Melgar, like Kissling, nonchalantly brags about her network of underground abortionists. Note the following exchange in a 2002 interview with Frances Kissling:

Sharpless Not to sound naïve, but how do you open an illegal clinic?

Frances Kissling
Kissling You find a doctor who is willing to do abortions. That’s the first thing, find a
doctor. Now they already had the doctor for Mexico. And you rent a space and
you start doing abortions.

Sharpless What keeps the government from shutting it  down?

Kissling What kept the government from shutting down illegal providers in the United
States of America prior to 1970? Bribes and a lack of political will. There’s never been a real political will to stop illegal abortions.

Now here’s an interview with Melgar in a 2006 video produced by Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy:  

Dr. Junice Melgar

Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy: Dr. Melgar said that faced with stories like Remy's, she had   no option but to give advice on abortions, despite what the law said.
Junice Melgar: Eventually, we give them information about the safe abortion. We also warn them against unsafe practices that could kill them.
Chinoy: But you.. But you know of service providers -- safe service providers -- who would look after these poor women and give them a proper abortion?
Melgar: Yes. I think most women's NGOs would have contact. I think if you really are pro-women you would have contact to these services that are underground.

Carlos Celdran
In a country like the Philippines where corruption is rampant at all levels of government, the Melgars of the world could operate without much opposition, and have. Like two peas in a pod, Kissling and Melgar are so attuned to each other that they even collaborated on a statement in 2004 addressed to the Holy See and titled “The Holy See and the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the Republic of the Philippines”. Like most pro-choice activists, both women see the church as an institution that has run its course and needs to go. Kissling has dedicated most of her life doing her best to make this happen. In an interview with Mother Jones in 1991, she reveals that she has “spent twenty years looking for a government that [she] could overthrow without being thrown in jail. I finally found one in the Catholic church." Agitprop specialist Carlos Celdran might have fared better had he taken a page or two from Frances Kissling.

In 1984, Kissling hit the jackpot when Catholics for Choice took out a full page ad in the New York Times, speaking of plurality on the issue of abortion among the Catholic faithful. Prior to this, their funding was a measly $20,000 a year, mostly from the Unitarian Universalists, but the ad catapulted the dissident group to notoriety and money began pouring in like never before. That Catholics for Choice has been repeatedly denounced by the US bishops became further incentive for moneyed anti-life organizations to support the group.

In 2007, Kissling stepped down from her throne and handed the reins to long-time fan and sycophant Jon O'Brien. O'Brien has prepared well for the position, having been a spokesperson and information officer for the Irish Family Planning Association and program manager for the International Planned Parenthood Federation in London prior to his appointment at Catholics for Choice.

Both Kissling and O'Brien have developed quite the arsenal in their work at Catholics for Choice, and funding increases through the years have enabled them to train dissident Catholic groups around the globe. The Philippine C4RH and passage of the Philippine RH bill have been special pet projects for O'Brien, who sees the “challenges” the Catholic Church presents as similar to those he had to deal with in his native Ireland. Since taking over at Catholics for Choice, he has nurtured dissident Catholics, meeting with them in the US at least once a year and even coming to Manila for a training workshop in November 2009.  A $10,000 grant isn’t pocket change after all.  He met with leaders Luz Francess “Bicbic” Chua and Magdalena Lopez in the US in 2010.  Chua and Lopez had the special privilege of paying a visit to Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette’s spanking new facilities built that year to accommodate the organization’s administrative headquarters.

Planned Parenthood, of course, is known worldwide as the foremost provider of abortion services. Funded by mostly US taxpayer money and private donations from anti-life organizations, Planned Parenthood then turns around and donates money to building more abortuaries locally and internationally. Both Likhaan and Catholics for Choice have been beneficiaries of Planned Parenthood's “generosity”.

Elizabeth Angsioco
In the interest of helping C4RH's quest to pass the RH bill, Catholics for Choice has spoonfed them anti-Catholic articles and other materials to continue the work of attacking the Church. C4RH training graduates like Elizabeth Angsioco give the material extra mileage as she posts her regular weekly Catholic bashes at Manila Standard Today. Individually and as a group, they continue to reinterpret church teaching to suit their purposes, and make sure they do it loudly to convince people that it's the official Catholic position, even when it's not. Hence the fallacious argument that having as few as two children via contraception and sterilization is also “pro-life” as it is “pro-quality of life”, disregarding the efficacy and benefits of Natural Family Planning. The $75,000 received by Catholics for Choice from the Wallace Global Fund in 2009 to promote RH in the Philippines, specifically for “opposition research” is well-utilized indeed.

Why, the reader may ask, would Catholics do this? The answer is simple. Stubbornly clinging to the name “Catholic” puts these dissident pro-choicers in the unique position of being able to attack the Church in ways that anti-Catholic or secular sources cannot. They can vilify the church they supposedly love without being branded anti-religion. Unfortunately, it is a strategy that works on the confused and/or poorly-catechized Catholics, and provides avowed atheists and other non-Catholic entities the oomph they need to further the anti-life cause, even and especially in the face of church opposition. By redefining the authentic Catholic definition of conscience, and by working to prevent conscience clauses from being passed, they ensure that this generation of Catholics and subsequent generations further lose their sense of direction. 
In the global arena, Catholics for Choice has campaigned heavily to downgrade the Holy See's Permanent Observer status at the United Nations. Locally, this means that Catholics for Choice and its trained minions has and will continue to undermine Church authority, with the ultimate goal of eliminating its influence on the culture at large.  

Interestingly, there is an item on which C4RH and Catholics for Choice don't seem to see eye to eye. While C4RH insists that the RH bill isn't about abortion, Jon O'Brien professes that “access to safe and legal abortion will always be necessary, no matter what preventative measures are available. Contraception fails, people get carried away, fetal anomalies occur, women’s circumstances change.” Or perhaps, as history has shown in most countries, legalized contraception is only the first step. Legalized abortion can always follow shortly thereafter, and has.  

Catholics for Choice, and consequently, Catholics for RH, operate on the premise that Church teaching should change with the times. They will continue to do everything in their power to bring about that change.  So far, they have failed in this mission.  They may have a long list of arguments against Church teaching, but all of these boil down to two:
  1) most Catholics do not agree with Church teaching on contraception and abortion, and therefore the Magisterium doesn’t hold the final authority on these and

 2) the priests have not been preaching about these things from the pulpit so it must be that the Vatican actually agrees with the pro-choice position.
What these pretend Catholics conveniently choose to forget are the millions of Catholics who try to live their faith, fully and authentically, every single day.  Disagreement with the Church on Her teachings doesn’t make the dissenter right, it just makes the dissenter a dissenter.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:

Fifth Progress Report:  Abortion.  The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution.  Dublin 2000. Web.

Harvey, Brett. "The Morning After." Mother Jones Magazine May 1989: 27+. Web.

"Frances Kissling." Interview by Rebecca Sharpless. Population and Reproductive Health Oral History Project.Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College. Web. .

Warwick, Donald P. "Foreign Aid for Abortion." The Hastings Center 10.2 (1980): 30-37. Print.

City of Guilt. Dir. Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy. Perf. Junice Demeterio-Melgar. 
. Sharmeen Obaid Films. Web.

Likhaan, Child Justice League and Catholics for a Free Choice.  The Holy See and the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the Republic of the Philippines. Rep. Web.


Theodorou, Naomi.  “Hail Frances.” Mother Jones Magazine May-June 1991: 11.  Web.

Woods, Jr., Thomas E. The War on Faith: How Catholics for Choice Seeks to Undermine the Catholic Church. Rep. New York: Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, 2009. Web.

National Catholic Conference of Bishops. Abortion and “Free Choice”:  Statement of the NCCB Committee on Doctrine. Nov. 1984.  Web.

United States Catholic Conference of Bishops.  NCCB/USCC President Issues Statement on Catholics for a Free Choice.  May 2000.  Web.

Lopez, Magdalena M.  Philippines’ Achievements Year One.  Report to IIE-LDM.  2009. Web.

"Annual Report." Planned Parenthood. Web. 03 Jan. 2012. 


Simon, Stephanie. "Planned Parenthood: By the Numbers." Business News & Financial News - The Wall Street Journal - Wsj.com. The Wall Street Journal. Web. 03 Jan. 2012. 
.

Banerjee, Neela.  “Backing Abortion Rights While Keeping the Faith.”  The New York Times February 27, 2007.  Web.

Form 990.  Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax.  Planned Parenthood, 2007.  Web..

Catholics for Choice. Catholic Organizations Call on Secretary Sebelius to Include Contraception as a Preventive Method under Affordable Care Act (ACA). 26 July 2011. Web.

O’Brien, Jon.  “Reducing the Need for Abortion.”  Conscience Magazine 30.1 (2011).  Web.
Posted by at No comments:

A CRITIQUE OF IGLESIA NI CRISTO EXECUTIVE MINISTER EDUARDO V. MANALO’S STATEMENT ON THE RH BILL


Iglesia ni Cristo Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo supports the RH Bill which promotes abortifacients 
(photos of Mr. Manalo are from the Pasugo)

A CRITIQUE OF IGLESIA NI CRISTO EXECUTIVE MINISTER EDUARDO V. MANALO’S STATEMENT ON THE RH BILL

PART IV


[This is the fourth part of my critique of Iglesia ni Cristo Executive Minister Eduardo V. Manalo’s position on the RH Bill. The words of Mr. Manalo are in greenwhile my comments are in black.]

Abortion and the use of abortifacients involve the taking of life, which God explicitly forbids (Exod. 20:13).

Earlier, Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo makes this statement: “We support their [modern methods of contraception] use as long as these methods are empiricallynot abortifacient.”

That statement is neither here nor there. He is supporting the RH Bill on one hand yet qualifies that support by stating that only those modern artificial methods of contraception that are “empirically not abortifacient” are the ones he support. Excuse me, but has Mr. Manalo really read and understood the RH Bill?

The RH Bill, which Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo and his church strongly support, actually promotes abortifacients. What is an abortifacient? Abortifacient means “causing abortion,” “an agent that induces abortion,” “an instrument or material capable of terminating a pregnancy.”[1]

Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo is neither here nor there

For Mr. Manalo to fully understand how an abortifacient works, he has first to learn when human life begins. Unfortunately for Mr. Manalo (and the Filipino people), the RH Bill (House Bill 4244) does not deliberately define when human life begins. But as we discussed in another article, the 1987 Philippine Constitution holds that human life begins at conception which means fertilization.[2] Medically, what happens at fertilization? The answer is obvious – the beginning of human life:

“If and when a sperm does penetrate the shell of the ovum, it sheds its tail, and will proceed slowly into the center of the ovum. Its 23 chromosomes will line up next to the ovum's 23 chromosomes, thus constituting a new cell, a fertilized ovum of 46 chromosomes. From the entrance of the sperm until the first cell division is a period of about 24 hours.

What is present at fertilization is an entire new human body, even though it is yet a single cell. This is the most complicated cell in the universe, for it contains within itself all of the information that is needed for this human to develop into a mature adult.

The embryo then floats freely down through the mother's tube. During this first week, the one cell divides until this new being constitutes millions of cells.When this new human is one-week-old, he or she plants within the lining of the mother's uterus, burrows into the spongy, nutritive wall of her womb, contacts the mother's blood stream and sends a chemical, hormonal message. This message goes to a gland at the base of her brain and tells the mother's body that there is a new occupant. Accordingly, this gland sends hormones into the woman's body that prevent her from menstruating.”[3]

Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo was once like these

To belabor the obvious, at fertilization, haploid gametes combine together to form a diploid zygote, a genetically different individual from the parents. This zygote now has 46 chromosomes – a new life! Textbooks on embryology attest to that scientific fact, thus:

“The male and the female sex cell or gametes … unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.”[4]

“Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte(egg) and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)...

Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte (egg) ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent (multi-potential) cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”[5]

More textbooks and manuals on embryology can be cited but the above references are enough for Mr. Manalo to get the point. At any rate, the Philippine Medical Association affirms that life begins at fertilization.

Fertilization: Life starts here

Where do abortifacients come in? The RH Bill which the Executive Minister of the Iglesia ni Cristo supports defines “reproductive health care” as referring “tothe access to a full range of methods, facilities, services and supplies that contribute to reproductive health and well-being by preventing and solving reproductive health-related problems” (Sec. 4, H.B. 4244). Moreover, the RH Bill, once enacted into law, mandates that “[a]ll accredited health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning methods” (Sec. 7).[6]

What are included in the “full range of modern family planning methods”which INC religious leader Eduardo V. Manalo supports? Answer:ABORTIFACIENTS. That’s why Mr. Manalo’s statement that “[w]e support their [modern methods of contraception] use as long as these methods are empiricallynot abortifacient” does not make sense because the RH Bill which Mr. Manalo supports actually includes abortifacients! And the RH Bill makes these products and supplies for “modern family planning methods” as “essential medicines”[7] to be regularly purchased by national and local hospitals and other government health units (Sec. 10).

What are these abortifacients included in the “full range of modern family planning methods” in the RH Bill and categorized as “essential medicines”? These are mainly the intrauterine devices (IUDs), pills and injectables which have post-fertilization effects; hence, abortifacients.

"We support their use as long as these methods are empirically not abortifacient," according to Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo

1.    Intrauterine device (IUD) –

“The IUD or intrauterine device is available in two different types in America. The hormonal IUD called Mirena, and the copper IUD called Paragard. Mirena releases levonorgestrel, which is a progestogen. Its primary function is to prevent implantation by the tiny developing human (embryo).

Preventing ovulation appears to function as a distant second. A study of women, one year after inserting the IUD, showed about one-half (45%) of women were still ovulating. After four years, 75% of women were ovulating. Obviously, the greater the number of women ovulating means the higher the chance for fertilization to occur. Other mechanisms of Mirena include thickening the mucus of the cervix, thus not allowing sperm to enter the uterus, or affecting the mobility or survival of sperm.

If fertilization occurs, most likely the tiny unborn child will be prevented from attaching to the lining of the womb and he or she will die. This is a very early abortion.

The copper IUD's effectiveness comes from a continuous release of copper into the uterine cavity; however, they aren't sure why this works. The general consensus is that this is accomplished by preventing implantation of the human embryo.

With both forms of IUD, if the woman becomes pregnant, she has a greater chance of having an ectopic or tubal pregnancy. This is when the tiny developing baby attaches to the lining of the fallopian tube and may threaten the woman's life.

The IUD is not considered safe for women if they have not first given birth to at least one child, have a history of or had breast cancer, or have multiple sexual partners.”[8]

Health risk to women: CT Scan showing translocated IUD that perforated the rectum 

2. Oral contraceptive pills –

The first effect of oral contraceptive pills is to stop ovulation although this doesn’t happen all the time. The second effect is the prevention of sperm from migrating to the fallopian tube. The first and second effects are not yet abortifacient. But the third effect is. The third effect of pills is that they prevent implantation of fertilized egg when breakthrough ovulation occurs considering that prevention of ovulation is not 100% effective. The third effect makes the pills abortifacient. More so with emergency contraceptive pills (like Plan B) which prevents implantation or rejection of an implanted embryo; hence, chemical abortion happens. The following are examples of oral contraceptive pills:

“The Birth Control Pill is the most popular and widely used method of hormonal contraception. It involves taking a month-long series of pills—three weeks of pills containing hormones, and one without. This allows the woman to have a menstrual period. The Pill contains two synthetic hormones, progestin and ethinyl estradiol and has three mechanisms: 1) it prevents ovulation, 2) thickens the cervical mucus, which makes it harder for sperm to enter the uterus and 3) affects the endometrium or lining of the womb to make it more hostile to implantation. This means the tiny developing baby (embryo) cannot attach to the uterine lining and dies, which is a very early abortion. Even so, they define this as "preventing pregnancy."

The pill kills! The third effect of the pill is that it prevents the fertilized egg from implantation

Plan B or Emergency Contraception is designed for emergency use and not recommended to be used as a regular method of birth control. Plan B One Step is a single pill containing a high dose of progestin, and is available to women without prescription if they are 17 or older. It claims that if taken within 72 hours of "unprotected" sex, it will prevent ovulation, but it also prevents the already conceived embryo from implanting in the endometrium, causing an early abortion.

According to the pro-abortion blog site, Reproductive Health Reality Check, Plan B isn't as effective as first touted, which has caused financial backers to put funding on hold. In addition, the blog site acknowledged that women are "abusing" Plan B by repeatedly using it instead of other birth control methods.

Yaz and Yasmin are not the same thing; however, they are very similar. Both are classified as a fourth-generation birth control pill that contains two synthetic hormones: progestin and ethinyl estradiol. There is only a slight difference in dosage of the two drugs. Yasmin has a slightly higher level of ethinyl estradiol than Yaz. Both Yasmin and Yaz function identically. They prevent ovulation, thicken the mucus of the cervix and make the endometrium more hostile to implantation. This medication is also used to treat the symptoms of premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD).

Yaz and Yasmin have proven to be even more controversial than NuvaRing. Consumer advocates have called on the FDA to recall the drugs. The FDA has accused Yazmin of misrepresenting their products and downplaying adverse side effects in their advertising. A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yaz products on behalf of 74 women who have developed severe health problems from these drugs.

Yasmin under fire for its scary side effects
(http://collegecandy.com/2011/12/18/yaz-and-yasmins-side-effects-are-more-common-than-you-think)

The Minipill is similar to the regular birth control pill, except that it contains only progestin. As a result, this pill must be taken every day of the month, compared to the regular birth control Pill that requires only three weeks. The Minipill still operates using the three common mechanisms of hormonal contraception: preventing ovulation, thickening the mucus of the cervix and making the endometrium more hostile to implantation, which is a very early abortion. It is considered less effective than the combined progestin and estrogen pill.

The progestin-only pill is considered to be Continuous Birth Control. This usually results in stopping the woman's menstrual period (a selling point of the drug). Types of birth control pills that are considered Continuous Birth Control are Seasonale, Seasonique and Yaz.”[9]

3. Injectables –

“Depo-Provera is like the Minipill, a progestin-only drug, but it is injected every three months into the woman's arm muscle or buttocks. Since it is progestin only, it functions in the same way the Minipill does, including the prevention of implantation.”[10]

Look at how they market Depo-Provera!
(http://www.coloribus.com/adsarchive/prints/depo-provera-birth-control-surrounding-her-lifestyle-4376505/)

Let us now hold Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo to his own word: “Abortion and the use of abortifacients involve the taking of life, which God explicitly forbids (Exod. 20:13).” As already demonstrated, the RH Bill which Mr. Manalo supports includes abortifacients as among the full range of modern family planning methods. If indeed Mr. Manalo is sincere in what he says, and if he truly obeys the commandment of God, Mr. Manalo has no other recourse but to emphatically reject the RH Bill and enjoin the members of the Iglesia ni Cristo to do the same. Unfortunately, Mr. Manalo continues to support the RH Bill which promotes what God explicitly forbids (Exo. 20:13). What does that make of Eduardo V. Manalo? An enemy of God.

Enemy of God: Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo, Executive Minister of the Iglesia ni Cristo supports the RH Bill which promotes what God explicitly forbids 

[4] W.J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livinstone, 1998) pp. 1-17.
[5] K. Moore  and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology(Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, 1998 [6th Ed.]) pp. 2-18.
[7] It may be asked Mr. Eduardo V. Manalo: “Why are contraceptives included as essential medicines? What do they cure? Pregnancy? Does Mr. Manalo support the idea that pregnancy is a disease?”
[10] Ibid.

"Let me live": The unborn pleads to be born. Is Mr. Manalo listening?
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)