Participants in a demonstration against Proposition 1 outside the California capitol in Sacramento, Oct. 6, 2022. / Photo courtesy of California’s No on Prop. 1 Campaign
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Nov 9, 2022 / 09:22 am (CNA).
Ballot initiatives to protect and expand abortion passed across the nation on Election Day.
Americans in five states voted on the issue of abortion during the 2022 midterm elections. Three states — California, Michigan, and Vermont — proposed constitutional amendments to advance abortion. All three passed.
At the same time, citizens in Kentucky weighed a pro-life amendment and Montana voters considered a measure that promises to protect babies who are born alive after attempted abortions. Kentucky voted no to its pro-life measure. Montana’s results are still coming in, with a current majority voting no.
Stephen Billy, who serves as vice president of state affairs at the national pro-life group SBA Pro-Life America, early Wednesday morning stressed that life is still winning.
“Anyone arguing abortion is winning is missing what happened tonight,” he told CNA. “We had strong pro-life candidates at the federal and state level win because they seized on life as a winning issue and exposed the extreme taxpayer-funded abortion until birth policy of their opponents.”
“We know life is a winning issue, we know how to win on life, and we know the American people reject the extreme policy of Planned Parenthood and their candidates,” he added. “Going forward, we have to do better at using our winning strategy and using it to fight back against the millions of dollars Big Abortion puts into ballot initiatives to cause confusion and hide their extreme policy. When the voters see the abortion industry pushing abortion on demand, they reject it — and if we focus on exposing that extreme policy we will win.”
The ballot measures on Election Day follow the Supreme Court’s June decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and freed states to legislate on abortion. They also come after a pro-life amendment recently failed in Kansas.
California: Proposition 1
Proposition 1 will amend California’s constitution to explicitly protect abortion after citizens voted to pass it.
As of mid-Wednesday morning, the New York Times reported that 65.1% voted yes to Proposition 1 and 34.9% voted no, with 41% of the votes in.
Following the election results, Catherine Hadro, director of media relations for California’s No on Proposition 1 campaign, stressed a disconnect between what Proposition 1 allows and what California voters support.
“We know that more than 80% of Californians reject late-term abortion. They oppose late-term abortion,” she previously told CNA. “And that’s exactly what Proposition 1 would allow.”
The proposition reads: “The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”
California currently allows abortion for any reason before viability, when a baby can survive outside the womb — generally considered to begin around 24 weeks of pregnancy. After viability, California allows abortion when a woman’s life or health is threatened.
The California Catholic Conference encouraged pro-life voters to say “no” to Proposition 1, calling it “an expensive and misleading ballot measure that allows unlimited late-term abortions — for any reason, at any time, even moments before birth, paid for by tax dollars.”
A campaign for the amendment led by pro-abortion groups, called Yes on Proposition 1, argued that Proposition 1 would “ensure that, in California, people continue to have the power to control their own bodies and personal decisions.”
Michigan: Proposal 3
Michigan’s proposed constitutional amendment, Proposal 3, will advance abortion in that state.
As of mid-Wednesday morning, the New York Times reported that 56% voted yes to the proposal and 44% voted no, with 87% of the votes in.
On the ballot, the amendment is identified as a “proposal to amend the state constitution to establish new individual right to reproductive freedom, including right to make all decisions about pregnancy and abortion; allow state to regulate abortion in some cases; and forbid prosecution of individuals exercising established right.”
In Michigan, women can obtain abortions for any reason before viability. After viability, abortion is permitted to save the woman’s life.
The Citizens to Support MI Women and Children coalition, which includes the Michigan Catholic Conference, advised pro-life citizens to vote no on the amendment. The group said it would “radically distort Michigan’s Constitution to create a new unlimited right to abortion.”
“This poorly-worded amendment would repeal dozens of state laws, including our state’s ban on tax-funded abortions, the partial-birth abortion ban, and fundamentally alter the parent-child relationship by preventing parents from having input on their children’s health,” the group said.
In support of the amendment, Reproductive Freedom for All argued that “in addition to ensuring access to a broad range of reproductive health care, this amendment would make sure no one goes to prison for providing safe medical care.”
Vermont: Article 22/Proposal 5
In Vermont, citizens voted to pass the constitutional amendment Article 22, also known as Proposal 5, which promotes abortion.
As of mid-Wednesday morning, the New York Times reported that 77.4% voted yes to the proposal and 22.6% voted no, with more than 95% of the votes in.
It reads: “That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”
Abortion is legal up until birth in the state.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, which includes the entire state of Vermont, published a piece in its diocesan bulletin warning that the amendment “promises to enshrine unlimited, unregulated abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy in our state’s founding document” and “would permanently block any attempt to protect the unborn — even those who can survive outside the womb.”
Vermont Right to Life Committee urged citizens to vote no.
Led by pro-abortion groups, Vermont for Reproductive Liberty Ballot Committee argued: “We need this amendment because important medical decisions should be guided by a patient’s health and well-being, not by a politician’s beliefs.”
Kentucky: Amendment 2
Kentucky voted against a pro-life measure — Amendment 2 — which says the state’s constitution does not protect abortion.
As of mid-Wednesday morning, the New York Times reported that 52.6% voted no to the amendment and 47.4% voted yes, with 88% of the votes in.
It reads: “To protect human life, nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion.”
Kentucky currently prohibits abortion with exceptions for saving a woman’s life or preventing serious risk to her physical health.
The Yes for Life alliance, which includes the Catholic Conference of Kentucky, asked pro-life citizens to vote yes. The group said that the amendment’s language “will prevent state judges from asserting their own preferences over the will of legislators and the voters.”
Opposing the amendment, the Protect Kentucky Access coalition claimed that the amendment would “pave the way for the state to ban abortion in all cases.”
Montana: Legislative Referendum 131 (LR-131)
Voters in Montana considered Legislative Referendum 131, which says it will protect babies who are born alive after attempted abortions.
As of Wednesday morning, the New York Times reported that 52.6% voted no to the amendment and 47.7% voted yes, with 80% of the votes in.
It reads: “An act adopting the born-alive infant protection act; providing that infants born alive, including infants born alive after an abortion, are legal persons; requiring health care providers to take necessary actions to preserve the life of a born-alive infant; providing a penalty; providing that the proposed act be submitted to the qualified electors of Montana; and providing an effective date.”
Montana law allows abortion before viability. Abortion is also permitted after viability to save a woman’s life or prevent serious risk to her physical health.
SBA Pro-Life America’s Katie Glenn previously told CNA that she found the ballot initiative in Montana — a state she said has been getting progressively more pro-life — the most interesting.
“I think that one’s different than the other four, which are all very much time-gestational bans, in that this is not a pro-life/pro-choice issue,” she said. “This is about providing lifesaving care to a child who’s already been born.”
Opposing the referendum, Compassion for Montana Families claimed that it “would introduce extreme penalties for medical providers who, at the family’s request, do not take a dying infant away from its parents in order to perform invasive and even painful medical treatments in tragic circumstances where they have no chance of survival.”
[…]
Human beings are searching for a glue that can bind and heal them. Religions are relevant and important. Interreligious dialogue has the power to build bridges.
What is relevant is Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Religions are man made and an attempt to reach upward to God.
Christianity, on the other hand is God reaching down to mankind through the loving grace of Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 4:15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,
1 John 4:19 We love because he first loved us.
Romans 12:16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight.
Romans 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
God bless you as you walk with Jesus.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-the-catholic-church-became-a-defender-of-islam/
Thank you for the link, Deacon Jim, quite informative!
The difference between Islam and Christianity is as vast as the difference ;between chalk and cheese.
Many years ago, I read an opinion article on the “elephant in the living room” problem with the pro-life community: basically, if you are pro-life and struggle with various gov’t agencies and NGOs at the UN over the issues or abortion and the family, GREAT! We’re allies and friends.
.
People very quickly forget that “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” isn’t always true.
It isn’t always true but sometimes it applies. There have been recent cases of Muslims & Jews coming together in Europe to protest proposed laws to outlaw circumcision.
Tens of thousands of Jews persecuted & expelled from Spain & Portugal were given a safe haven in the Ottoman Empire.
Muslims & Christians have united in the UK to protest mandatory sex ed. in schools, etc.
William Kilpatrick is an excellent Islamologist, and I always appreciate his articles, as well as his excellent books. It is too bad that the link you give has, in its comments section, such vicious diatribes and lies about the Catholic Church.
Quoting from Nostra aetate, a declaration of the Second Vatican Council, Francis said: “The Church believes that all ‘humanity forms but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock that God created to people the entire earth, and because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness and saving designs extend to all mankind.’”
Likewise, this from the Second Vatican Council: “The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light . . .Christ the Lord…by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to himself [!] and makes his supreme calling clear” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 22).
Somewhere later in the dialogue, then, the “transcendent” “proximity,” both, that “the Word was made flesh” (John 1:14)–the self-disclosed and concrete universal of the otherwise unknowable and inarticulate “Beyond.”
We need a new pope
Christ alone suffices. It really is that simple.
Is there any word on Pope Francis ‘dialoging’ with Muslim religious leaders to stop their religious genocide on Christians in Africa and around the world?
If the ‘Seventh Congress of the Leaders of World and Traditional Religions’ did not ‘dialog” with the Muslim religion, about the Muslim religion Jhad massacres against all other religions, then I don’t think we need an ‘Eighth Congress of the Leaders of World and Traditional Religions’. We can simply tell our Catholic brothers and sisters in Africa, who are being martyred by the masses by the Muslim religion, that Pope Francis just plain does not care about them at all.
Per Phil Lawler (Catholic Culture) and (Kazakhstan) Bishop Schneider, a little skepticism may be in order.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life (Jn 3:16 16). Christ’s mystical body, the Church in the world has as its mission to spread the Gospel to all men. There’s a tendency among Catholics to presume an antagonistic dividing line between the Christian, and the non believing world, which to an extent is true, although not to the extent that we neglect Christ’s last commandment, Go out to all the world and teach the Gospel to every person (Mk 16:15).
All Francis’ words in Kazakhstan are good words that address the reality of Man’s search for God in myriad forms or worship, “Interreligious dialogue is no longer merely something expedient. It is an urgently needed and incomparable service to humanity, to the praise and glory of the Creator of all”. His mention of transcendence, the Beyond, brotherhood touch a disputed entry in dogmatic Lumen Gentium.
“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place among these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God” (LG 16). Controversy occurred along these lines at Abu Dhabi, Francis later qualified his words that were parallel to LG 16. Nevertheless, we have Saint Pope John Paul II kissing the Koran at the Vatican when presented to him by an Imam. We can excuse both Francis and John Paul as acts of good will toward perennial adversaries, a good thing, or perceive these acts as obscuring the vital difference, that “All men are called to belong to the new people of God” (LG 13).
It inevitably works out for the better when Catholics retain their faithful conviction of the singular and necessary truth of the revelation of Christ. Inevitably since adherence to the exclusivity of the truth of our faith in Christ, the Son of God, elicits grace, and it’s grace, the gift of the Holy Spirit that inspires good will and peace, and conversion to a far better vision of brotherhood.
Additionally, the following is worthy of submission as related to where we stand regarding Catholic belief on receiving the Holy Eucharist, and as it relates to pluralism, and now [doctrine on the Eucharist] undermined by the German Synodalweg, and reconsidered by a number of high ranking prelates assigned to the Synod on Synodality.
Pope Francis issued a letter Desiderio desideravi in June weeks after Cardinal Cordileone prohibited the Eucharist for Nancy Pelosi in May. His Holiness says in Desiderio, “To be admitted to the feast all that is required is the wedding garment of faith which comes from the hearing of his Word”. A number of notable signatories issued a statement this September in response to Desiderio desideravi:
“On the day that Desiderio desideravi was issued, Pope Francis received in audience Nancy Pelosi, and on that day, she received Holy Communion at a papal Mass. Francis responded to the Press, ‘When the Church loses its pastoral nature, when a bishop loses his pastoral nature, it causes a political problem. That’s all I can say.’ This response rebukes Archbishop Cordileone for his justified application of Canon 915 causing scandal to Catholics over all the world” (Maike Hickson for LifeSite News).
Signatories include a large list of eminent prelates and scholars some mentioned here: Most Rev Joseph Strickland Bishop Tyler TX, Most Rev René Henry Gracida Bishop Emeritus Corpus Christi, Most Rev Robert Mutsaerts Aux Bishop S’Hertogenbosch Netherlands, Most Rev Athanasius Schneider Aux Bishop Astana Kazakhstan, Anthony Esolen PhD, Fr Gerald E Murray JCD, Dr Claudio Pierantoni Universidad de Chile, Dr John Rist emeritus professor U of Toronto, Edward Schaefer president The Collegium, Wolfram Schrems Mag theol Mag phil, Eric Sammons Editor Crisis Magazine, John-Henry Westen Co-Founder Editor in Chief of LifeSiteNews.com.
At what point does the truth of Revelation make an appearance to those who have swallowed whole the sweet poison of pluralism?
Perhaps Francis once he finished with his trip to Khazakistan can now find the time to meet with the four “Dubai Cardinals” who requested a meeting with him some 4-5 years ago. (Oh, I just remembered that two of them have since died.)
That was meant to read: “Dubia Cardinals.”
As a refresher, here’s a link including the complete dubia from 2016:https://www.ncregister.com/blog/full-text-and-explanatory-notes-of-cardinals-questions-on-amoris-laetitia
Even when Francis tackles a valid subject, as Father Morello’s comments make clear, it’s always hard to take Francis seriously given his history. I just can’t believe he approaches any subject from much greater concern than personal vanity.
Dialogue has its place clearly, but it’s hard to accept it in a meaningful way from a Pope who will not dialogue with his own Cardinals on whether there are God given moral absolutes embedded in the negative prescripts to the natural law, who calls attempts to convert others a sinful act, and who has equated sketchy reports in secular Italian newspapers of domestic violence, assuming the protagonists are Catholic, as the moral equivalency to Islamic acts of beheading Christians and therefore a justified basis for not speaking out against the beheading.
i.e. “Dubia Cardinals.”
I think I was mistaken in thinking I’d read an article by Phil Lawler on this topic. I’ll have to go with just Bishop Schneider.
A krist je rekao da će doći mnogi krivovjrni proroci. I došli su. Da li i njihovo sljedbenici traže Boga?
There is ONE WAY TO THE FATHER. To deny that or spin it in any way is to call Jesus a liar—exactly what Vatican II did and its “spirit” does. Whether or not pagans or Protestants go to hell is up to God. And we should work with men of good will to further the ends of Jesus Christ. But to claim God wills or desires any religion other than the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is heresy. It’s time to admit Vatican II was an abject failure and consign it and all its rotten fruit to the fire to be burned to ash.
“In His goodness and wisdom God chose to reveal Himself and to make known to us the hidden purpose of His will (see Eph. 1:9) by which through Christ, the Word made flesh, man might in the Holy Spirit have access to the Father and come to share in the divine nature (see Eph. 2:18; 2 Peter 1:4). Through this revelation, therefore, the invisible God (see Col. 1;15, 1 Tim. 1:17) out of the abundance of His love speaks to men as friends (see Ex. 33:11; John 15:14-15) and lives among them (see Bar. 3:38), so that He may invite and take them into fellowship with Himself. This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having an inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them. By this revelation then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation.” (Dei Verbum, 1)
“Christ is the Light of nations. Because this is so, this Sacred Synod gathered together in the Holy Spirit eagerly desires, by proclaiming the Gospel to every creature,(1) to bring the light of Christ to all men, a light brightly visible on the countenance of the Church. … Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation through which He communicated truth and grace to all.” (Lumen Gentium)
“The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. For Adam, the first man, was a figure of Him Who was to come,(20) namely Christ the Lord. Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling clear. It is not surprising, then, that in Him all the aforementioned truths find their root and attain their crown.
“He Who is “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15), is Himself the perfect man. To the sons of Adam He restores the divine likeness which had been disfigured from the first sin onward. Since human nature as He assumed it was not annulled,(22) by that very fact it has been raised up to a divine dignity in our respect too. For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man. He worked with human hands, He thought with a human mind, acted by human choice(23) and loved with a human heart. Born of the Virgin Mary, He has truly been made one of us, like us in all things except sin.
“As an innocent lamb He merited for us life by the free shedding of His own blood. In Him God reconciled us(25) to Himself and among ourselves; from bondage to the devil and sin He delivered us, so that each one of us can say with the Apostle: The Son of God “loved me and gave Himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20). By suffering for us He not only provided us with an example for our imitation, He blazed a trail, and if we follow it, life and death are made holy and take on a new meaning.” (Gaudium et spes)
Thank you Carl Olson. If you sleep with dogs you will get fleas or something like that.
Amen!
“Interreligious dialogue”… Pope Francis has such charmingly quaint outlooks and expressions. With him, it always full-steam ahead to the 1970s.