Bridgeport, Conn., May 23, 2017 / 12:32 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The leader of the nearly 2 million-member Knights of Columbus recently spoke about the importance of his group’s fidelity to Pope Francis, as well as his hopes for a successful upcoming meeting between the Roman Pontiff and U.S. president Donald Trump.
In a new interview, Supreme Knight Carl Anderson touched on these topics as well as his organization’s commitment to persecuted Christians, problems with how some media treats issues within the Church, and what the Knights make a priority in their charitable giving.
The organization recently celebrated its 135th anniversary at St. Mary’s Church in New Haven, Conn., the church where Fr. McGivney founded the Catholic fraternity that now has 1.9 million members worldwide.
Please read below for CNA’s full interview with Carl Anderson:
The Pope will be meeting the United States president this week; what should people expect from that meeting?
The pope has made clear that he is seeking common ground with the president, and I would assume the president will do the same. Some in the media focus only on the differences between the thinking of these two men, but, there is also much common ground on issues like abortion, religious liberty, persecuted Christians and human trafficking.
In what ways have the Knights worked with Pope Francis over the past few years?
From our earliest days, the Knights of Columbus has always been loyal to the Holy Father. We have a wonderful relationship with Pope Francis and have helped sponsor a number of conferences and projects with the Vatican during his tenure on topics including relief work in Haiti, the Church in America, and the continental Jubilee of Mercy. I’ve had the privilege to meet with Pope Francis privately each year and to review with him our priorities and new initiatives. Each time, I’ve come away deeply inspired by his love for the poor and those on the margins of society.
We see supporting the pope, his ministry and his charitable endeavors as central to who we are as an organization. I have repeatedly told our K of C leaders to take his words to us as our agenda, and I’ve personally assured him he can count on our support.
What are the main causes the Knights support?
We support causes large and small, but our primary focus over the past two years has been helping Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East who were targeted by ISIS. Because these communities are so small, they are too often overlooked by U.S. Government or UN aid programs and risk disappearing. We also have been supporting clean water projects in Africa, inspired by Laudato Si, and we just finished a project to improve the energy efficiency of our headquarters.
Two of the projects I’m very proud of are our work in Africa to educate and support AIDS orphans, many of whom are themselves HIV positive, and our efforts in Haiti to provide artificial limbs to children who lost their legs because of the earthquake there.
Also, at the local level, our members accompany their fellow parishioners and the members of their communities, supporting their needs in ways large and small. From food programs, to housing and clothing programs, to disaster relief, when people need us, we are there.
We also strongly support the right to life. Laudato Si section 120 states that without opposition to abortion, defending the rest of the vulnerable is increasingly difficult: “Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away.”
In our country today, abortion takes more lives each year than any other cause of death. But we certainly don’t focus all our charity efforts on beginning-of-life issues. For example, we continued to give away more than 80,000 new winter coats and more than 8,000 wheelchairs in 2015, and we are constantly engaged in tens of thousands of projects around the world to help clothe, feed, shelter and meet other pressing needs of our neighbors. Last year we gave away $175 million and 73.5 million hours to charitable causes. We also support the Vatican and national bishops’ conferences in numerous ways, including in the defense of religious liberty, especially – but not only – when assaults on religious liberty also implicate the lives of the most vulnerable among us.
How dire are things for the Christians in the Middle East and why did you choose that issue?
For the first time in nearly 2,000 years, we are reaching a point where Christians could literally cease to exist in a country like Iraq. The situation is incredibly dire, and in the next few days, we will be announcing a new initiative to help stabilize these communities because there is a real concern that they will not survive. We have been providing assistance with food for thousands of families, we have provided funding for medical clinics, for apartment buildings, rental assistance, clothing, education, etc. But even more is needed. We simply cannot allow Christianity and pluralism to be eliminated from this region by those using terrorism and genocide to achieve their ends.
I am among the many who hope that the meeting between the pope and the president this week in Rome may include breakthrough solutions and closer cooperation between the American government and its aid programs and the Church to help ensure that these people survive, and that ISIS’ goal of eliminating religious minorities is not realized. As at least one commentator has also pointed out, no two organizations are more critical to surivival of these people than the U.S. government and the Vatican.
In terms of how we chose this issue, it came naturally to us, since the Knights of Columbus has been concerned about religious persecution throughout our history. We spoke up for Catholics being persecuted in Mexico in the 1920s, for Jews being persecuted in Germany in the 1930s, for people of faith being persecuted in the Cold War, and now, for these victims of ISIS.
You also mentioned your pro-life work. There have been some real advances in that area recently – what trends do you see?
We have seen some great strides in this area over the past months including moves to stop the taxpayer funding of abortion including via the Mexico City Policy. Appointments to the court and several cabinet positions are also very pro-life and this is very heartening as well.
As our polling shows, support for abortion restrictions is bi-partisan. For example, 70 percent of Democrats and 94 percent of Republicans support banning taxpayer funding of abortion abroad. In addition, about 6 in 10 Democrats, 7 in 10 Independents and 9 in 10 Republicans support substantial restrictions on abortion, and would limit it – at most – to the first three months of pregnancy.
Practicing Catholics are united in support for abortion restrictions in overwhelming numbers as well.
Some may see abortion as a political or divisive issue, but that does not mean that it is. And we do not see or intend our opposition to it as political. For us it is a matter of morality and values.
In fact, it is my fondest hope that both of our country’s major parties would embrace a pro-life platform. If that were to happen, the issue could cease to be seen as partisan, and voters could move on to other issues. We’ve been working on this for more than four decades, with nearly 60 million abortions since Roe v Wade. The scandal is that too many Catholics in public office have refused to take action to protect unborn children. As Catholics we are called to build a culture of life and that certainly includes more than abortion. But I do not see how it is possible to build a culture of life with public officials who insist on maintaining a legal regime that results in a million abortions a year.
I have personally voted for pro-life candidates of both parties. Those who criticize our pro-life work as partisan miss the fact that far from being partisan, it is consistent with our help of the defenseless and marginalized. It exactly fits with Pope Francis’ statements in Laudato Si and also in Evangelii Gaudium, where he stated in section 213: “Among the vulnerable for whom the Church wishes to care with particular love and concern are unborn children, the most defenseless and innocent among us. Nowadays efforts are made to deny them their human dignity and to do with them whatever one pleases, taking their lives and passing laws preventing anyone from standing in the way of this. Frequently, as a way of ridiculing the Church’s effort to defend their lives, attempts are made to present her position as ideological, obscurantist and conservative. Yet this defense of unborn life is closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right. It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development.”
How can we help poor individuals and families, the intellectually disabled, and refugees from ISIS and ignore the unborn? It’s not possible. We are talking about a million lives each year that are lost, and that demands our attention.
The same outlook applies to our work in defense of religious freedom – in which we have been supported by Pope Francis. This isn’t a new – or political – endeavor for us. It is the defense of a fundamental right that we have engaged in for more than a century.
What is your opinion of how the news media covers the Church today?
Pope Francis, in his book, On Heaven and Earth, was very hard on the media. He pointed out that too often the media tries to generate conflict and misinforms. He said: “Today, there is misinformation because only part of the truth is said, only what interests them is taken for their convenience, and that does a lot of damage because it is a way of favoring conflict.”
We see this with some reports leading up to his meeting with the president. Some push what they see as points of conflict, ignoring the points of common ground.
Unfortunately, in this country too, we frequently see reporting focused on advancing a political agenda instead of getting the facts right.
We ourselves have even sometimes had partisan reporters or commentators complain about a donation or two that we made that they don’t agree with. In such cases, they typically ignore the majority, totality and context of what we do – in other words, the literally hundreds of donations we make that they probably would support as well.
As Pope Francis said, those in the media can tell a half truth and do damage by generating conflict, and let me give you one example that really illustrates the point. A commentator recently intimated that a $1.5 million dollar donation we gave to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia a couple of years ago somehow showed sympathy to opposition to Pope Francis. Leaving aside the many ways in which that assertion is problematic on its face, in fact, exactly the opposite of what was asserted was true.
The money donated was actually in support of Pope Francis’ trip to the United States as part of the Vatican’s World Meeting of Families in that city. At best what can be said about this kind of thing is that it reflects what lawyers might call a reckless disregard of the truth.
What makes such episodes of misleading or untruthful reporting particularly sad is that it seems that often what drives this reporting is dissent or disagreement with Church teaching, not just disagreement with us. But the media should not stoop to politicizing the pope or trying to drive wedges between him and faithful Catholics who love him.
The pope is pro-life, he is in favor of religious liberty. He visited the Little Sisters of the Poor and has spoken about “polite persecution” in Western countries to underscore the importance of religious freedom. These aren’t political positions for him – or for us. They are values positions based on our Catholic faith.
It is worth noting that we support a number of Catholic media outlets – large and small – because we see the importance of quality Catholic journalism.
The Knights of Columbus is unique as a business entity. Can you talk a little about that?
Unlike non-profits that are charities with fundraising operations, the Knights of Columbus is also one of the nation’s largest – and best rated – life insurers. We have an arm that takes donations, but many of the dollars we donate come from the business side.
We were founded by the Venerable Father Michael McGivney to help provide Catholic families with support for their faith and in their financial future. The faith side is obvious, and the financial future side has grown into a Fortune 1000 insurance operation exclusively focused on our members and their families. Many people are surprised by the size of the Knights of Columbus insurance program. We sell more than $8 billion of insurance each year. We have over $106 billion of insurance in force and we have over $23 billion of assets under management. Our members have entrusted us with their hard earned cash, and they count on us to be there to provide for the future of their families.
We have a responsibility to their future, and we take this responsibility seriously on both fronts. One way that we do this is to seek to invest in ways that are sustainable, and to use Catholic screens on our investments so that we are not putting our members’ money into enterprises that run counter to our faith.
To do that, we hire top professionals to manage our business and our investments. We have about 900 employees at our headquarters in New Haven and we are one of the city’s largest private employers. Given that we are operating at such a high level in the financial services industry, while we pay our executives less than the market average, we also understand that we have to pay competitively enough to attract the caliber of talent needed to run a Fortune 1000 company and to successfully manage the financial futures of our members and their families. People’s livelihoods depend on us hiring and retaining the highly competent people able to deliver at the highest level, and our members deserve nothing less than the best professionals we can hire.
This has been our approach to the business side of the Knights of Columbus for decades. And it has worked. We have consistently received top ratings for our financial strength.
[…]
Yesterdays judgement on abortion drugs shows quite clearly that Sen. Finkelstein was wrong, the dogma DOES NOT live loudly in E.C. Barrett! Like the supposed red wall myth, the prolife leanings of her and Cavanagh are just that: A MYTH! she should reflect on her decision before Sunday, or did the fear of the mob get to her? A shame and pox on them all, the exception being judges Alito and of course, the great Clarence!
Horrific as it sounds but I think there is such a thing as abortion fatigue.Here in Ireland there is a movement to further liberalize abortion law. Many good people who believe abortion to be evil have given up the fight and it is easy to see why. Abortion was legalised by the will of the people. All msm is pro choice the church threw the towel in and the battle and war appear won. It is not right but I do think many now think it is down to conscience and God will have the final word.
Hi Alice I am Irish & somewhat agree with you. But late term abortions need to be banned & the fight must continue. Many people support this so-called right to choose, but forget about a females right to be born. Females suffer horrible deaths in the womb. And its so-called womens organisations who support/advocate & demand their deaths through abortion. Quite hypocritical.
Has his position actually evolved? Return of the abortion rights issue to the States was, when he assumed the presidency, his, as well as Supreme Court Justice Alito’s position, the jurist who wrote the majority Opinion. As well as the realistic opinion of most lettered Catholics, Republicans.
Certainly, it would be best if abortion were prohibited altogether. Although the striking down of Roe is a realistic beginning with the prospect of changing the majority mindset of a nation. As well intended as Marjorie Dannenfelser is, it isn’t prudent to attack the person responsible for overturning Roe, and hopefully beginning the process of changing minds and hearts.
Father, with all due respect I must take issue with your position, “Certainly, it would be best if abortion were prohibited altogether.” Of course we pray that all abortions are unnecessary. However, I would consider medical conditions as the exception… emotional/physical reasons for an abortion. If my innocent 10 year old daughter were raped, I would not abandon her by forcing her to carry the fetus of the rapist. I would support a families decision with their doctor’s for a woman whose life is threatened by an ectopic pregnancy, or intrauterine infections that happen from infections that start in the vagina and travel to the uterus.
Catholics must reject all frivolous abortion. Given the use of abortion as woman’s health does not state any exceptions. The Church has been reticent to vocally allow for medical and emotional exceptions.
We pray that one day the word abortion will no longer be a part of our vocabulary.
“Catholics must reject all frivolous abortion.”
Please define “frivolous.”
And read some of the many secular publications (print and online) and listen to the many liberal TV/radio broadcasts featuring pro-choice activists. (Have a barf bag and your Maalox ready, as well as your Rosary and Kleenex to cry into.)
You will learn that many women in the U.S. consider ALL of their reasons, including their education, their career, their current relationship with a man, their weight, their salary, their home, their city or town, their plans for a big trip, their retirement plan, etc. as SERIOUS reasons not to have a baby just now.
Most “woke” women today and the many organizations and online sites that shape their opinions, believe that there is no such thing as a “frivolous” reason to avoid an abortion.
ALL reasons, including “I don’t want to gain weight” are considered legitimate and serious reasons to choose abortion. ANY attempt to deprive women of this “CHOICE” is a dangerous act, and those who advocate limiting access to abortion are extremists who must be “stopped,” or even criminals who must be imprisoned.
Don’t kid yourself and don’t give any ground, not even the “rape exception”, over to the “pro-choice” crowd. ALL abortions kill a human being. There are people today who were “rape babies” who denounce abortion because they like being alive and are grateful that their mother chose to let them live.
Dear Mrs. Whitlock. Your response leaves me aghast. Your well thought out position on the subject reflects a depth I will not challenge. However, my grasp of English may help US with the following definition…
Webster: ADJECTIVE, frivolous, not having any serious purpose or value for life. I may have used “abortion on demand” or “woman’s total disregard for the fetus”.
Thank you.
Well-stated, Mrs. Whitlock. The Church’s teaching on abortion is crystal clear and supremely compassionate, but many Catholics wrongly believe that they can ignore the Church’s moral teaching and substitute their misguided self-righteous immoral rationale for permitting direct abortions in certain circumstances.
As indeed the Church rightly teaches, there is absolutely no legitimate moral reason that would permit any direct abortion. The oft-cited circumstances of pregnancy via rape or incest, as hideous as these are, do not rise to the level of permitting the murder of the innocent child in the womb. Interestingly, morally compromised people who support such exceptions invariably resort to the bogus “burden” and/or “unfairness” arguments to try to justify murder of the innocent child in the womb, and they always wrongly present their views as morally superior in their hideous advocacy of murder.
Thankfully the Church has remained steadfast in its teaching. Part of this teaching involves the moral reasoning known as double effect, and this can also confuse people who do not learn the basic elements of the approach while preferring their own ignorance over clear Church teaching. Under this principle, a mother’s serious life-threatening medical condition can be treated with the understanding that such treatment will likely result in a most unfortunate and most regrettable side effect of the fetus not surviving the procedure, but in no way, shape, or form is the fetus to be directly killed (direct abortion) in the process, and the good effect of the treatment of the mother must not come about from or through the death of the fetus.
Because of such circumstances wherein the child is indirectly killed, unthinking people wrongly accuse the Church of hypocrisy in “permitting direct abortion in some circumstances but not others,” but an honest review of the Church’s teaching and application of the teaching also clearly demonstrates why the teaching is morally sound, and no direct abortion is ever involved.
Well-stated, Mrs. Whitlock. The Church’s teaching on abortion is crystal clear and supremely compassionate, but many Catholics wrongly believe that they can ignore the Church’s moral teaching and substitute their misguided self-righteous immoral rationale for permitting direct abortions in certain circumstances.
As indeed the Church rightly teaches, there is absolutely no legitimate moral reason that would permit any direct abortion. The oft-cited circumstances of pregnancy via rape or incest, as hideous as these are, do not rise to the level of permitting the murder of the innocent child in the womb. Interestingly, morally compromised people who support such exceptions invariably resort to the bogus “burden” and/or “unfairness” arguments to try to justify murder of the innocent child in the womb, and they always wrongly present their views as morally superior in their hideous advocacy of murder.
Thankfully the Church has remained steadfast in its teaching. Part of this teaching involves the moral reasoning known as double effect, and this can also confuse people who do not learn the basic elements of the approach while preferring their own ignorance over clear Church teaching. Under this principle, a mother’s serious life-threatening medical condition can be treated with the understanding that such treatment will likely result in a most unfortunate and most regrettable side effect of the fetus not surviving the procedure, but in no way, shape, or form is the fetus to be directly killed (direct abortion) in the process, and the good effect of the treatment of the mother must not come about from or through the death of the fetus.
Because of such circumstances wherein the child is indirectly killed, unthinking people wrongly accuse the Church of hypocrisy in “permitting direct abortion in some circumstances but not others.” However, an honest review of the Church’s teaching and its application also clearly demonstrates why the teaching is morally sound, and no direct abortion is ever involved.
Although your judgment may be understandable, it is nonetheless emotionally-based and logically indefensible. It’s not the baby’s fault how he/she was conceived. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
With all respect the emotional let out is a piece of string. A spot on the face of an ordinary person is annoying but to a supermodel it is devastating. Abortion is the head of a rotten plant who’s roots need a thorough root and branch clear out. All of us hold some guilt for a society where a ten year old could be raped. It goes back to acceptance of wide spread filth, societies who hold a two tier morality for men and women, neglect of children, diminished respect for life, the list goes on. Abortion will never disappear until a truly Christian society is at least seriously attempted. I understand your perspective, but even contemplating such a fate for a ten year old should make all of us double down on attempts to clean up our own backyard at least
Sorry morgand your analysis is wrong..you state that all abortions should be illegal and then hive reason to not do that…ectopic pregnancy has always been treated as a serious condition even before 1973 to terminate results in that the doctor has 2 patients to care for and unfortunately on life is sacrificed for the life of the othet…that is not abortion…also emotional distress is not a reason to murder an innocent life..the same for rape…however I would make an exception but encourage the victim to choose life by praising her decision thanking her for her sacrifice and choosing adoption as an end good…we should always protect life….period
Ronald:
Just a bit of a clarification is needed. The death of a fetus during a procedure to help the mother must only come about indirectly to coincide with Catholic Moral teaching. As such, regarding the ectopic pregnancy example you mention, if you say the child is sacrificed, an assumption can easily arise that the child is directly killed in the process in order to save the mother. This is not the case. The child’s death is a regrettable side effect of treating the mother. The Principle of Double Effect is what the Church employs in such situations, but always keep in mind that the direct killing of the child to save the life of the mother is never approved by the Church as it would be an immoral act.
There are also no exceptions for rape, incest, or anything else. Exceptions excuse murder for the benefit of another, and they cannot be approved. Thankfully, the Church is crystal clear on this teaching even though many Catholics are unfamiliar with significant parts of this teaching, and other Catholics have wrongly convinced themselves that some exceptions are morally acceptable when they are actually quite despicable and flat out wrong.
Agreed, Father!
Thank you for being a clear voice in the discussion. No one but Trump got Dobbs done; it was due to his Supreme Court appointments. Seems like some who have commented are unaware of the facts: all optional abortions are prohibited by Church law. You want this to apply nationally? Then get busy at the state level and make it happen.
Trump is right, in a sense.
Under the Constitution, each State can decide whether a live birth of the victim is required if causation of death can lawfully be proved, or whether the clearance of an earlier life stage is sufficient. At common law, a child in the womb cannot (save under statute) be a victim of a crime of violence – but if injured in the womb, and afterwards born alive, then the defendant is guilty of murder if the child subsequently dies.
Only a State can legislate to the effect that the death of a child in utero can be a criminal homicide and that causation of the death in utero admits of lawful proof. It is not within the power of the Congress of the United States to remove such legislation or prohibit its application in court.
The fact that causation of death is not proved (or cannot lawfully be proved) does not assist a defendant arraigned of attempted murder – this is a crime under Federal law as well as under the law of several States.
Feinstein. More to the point, we are still trying to pretend that Donald Trump is some sort of savior when the reality is that his candidacy has been a narcissistic farce from the beginning. If we still want a two party system the Republicans need to repair once again to the little white schoolhouse in Racine.
Ann, you are right about the savior, Trump. Seems that he conveniently switched to Pro-life when he decided to run for the Presidency. It was then that we Catholics were duped. We ignored his continued prolific lying, narcissism, power hungriness, insurrectionist with the insanity of denying Biden’s fair election by enticing the invasion of our US Capitol. Today, Trump has entered the 2024 run for his disgraced former tenure.
Moreover, Trump’s recent statement that he would support the states assumption of abortion. That would cause a “patchwork” of control.
Excerpts: “It was the abortion issue, poorly handled by many Republicans, especially those that firmly insisted on no exceptions, even in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother, that lost large numbers of voters,”. It was my understanding that our Church supported the exceptions of rape, incest and the mental and physical health of the mother.
“It was my understanding that our Church supported the exceptions of rape, incest and the mental and physical health of the mother.” As for rape, incest and mental health of the mother–NOT true! As for the physical health, the church’s teaching is a bit more complicated, and I hope I’m doing it justice–but it boils down to abortion being excusable (although not justifiable) if it is the UNintended result of treatment for the mother’s medical condition. But it can never, under any circumstances, be the intended result of any treatment, even for a serious maternal medical condition.
Funny how no one listened to this back in 2016. I guess he got it done and sadly to many liberals his position is still horrid but it should be to truly pro life people too, but sadly in America it seems that rather than wanting abortion gone Trump and co just want it far away from them. What sucks is much like his fellow candidates in 2016, he’s just like them. Also, I think he used us like they have for years. Maybe we need to vote with our feet and either go to another party or actually create a real culture of life and not just one where the minimum becomes the maximum.
I think it’s time we moved past Trump. He was never more than a populist. He supported pro-life people when he thought it was politically advantageous and he’ll abandon us the moment he thinks it will help him somehow. It’s time conservatives rallied behind a dependable candidate with less baggage who can win comfortably in 2024 instead of maybe squeaking in 49% to 48%. We thank him for his service and for the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, but it’s time to upgrade to a better candidate.
I m hoping he and DeSand run together so we can knock back Biden, UNMASKED NEWSTONED, and Whitmer, amongst others
Trump and DeSantis cannot run together, P and VP from the same state are not allowed.
Mark: Actually, there is no constitutional provision against a presidential candidate and vice presidential candidate coming from the same state. There is, however, a funky situation involving how the electoral college operates, and it could cause a rare but significant problem in a very close election involving the total electoral votes. This is also where the ongoing myth of “there cannot be a presidential and vice presidential candidate from the same state” originated. In fine, the Constitution prevents the electors from voting for both candidates from the same state as the electors, so it only impacts one state. All of the electors from the other 49 states are free to vote for both candidates, but in the state where both candidates on the same ticket are residents of that state, each elector can vote for either the prez candidate to be the president, or they can vote for the vp candidate to be vice president, but not for both.
Again, in a very close election, this rule could cause a serious problem, and so to avoid the rare possibility, it is prudent to have a ticket of candidates from different states. Of course, if it is assumed that having candidates from the same state will lead to a blow-out where splitting the electoral votes between the VP and Prez candidate in their home state will not alter the final outcome, then that would be considered a reasonable risk to take.
All that being said, it is highly unlikely that Trump would select DeSantis or anyone else from Florida as his running mate, so this issue will not be in play.
Sorry, I am a Republican and want to win in 2024. However, many GOPers do not support Trump. They feel, as I do, that he lost us the race in 2022. The Teflon Donald With the court calendar, he carries to much potential criminal baggage.
Andrew, agree with you with one minor exception, i.e., “squeaking in with 49%.” Trump probably can win some Republican primaries due to their “winner take all” rule even if the winner gets far less than 50% on the vote. But he can’t win in the general election. Couldn’t get anywhere near 49% of the vote. But apart from that nitpick, you’re absolutely right. Time for the Republican Party to move and stop losing election after election.
In earlier notes I insisted on challenging the 15-week assumption and other assumptions and that there should be no giving in or wrong cooperation!
US pro-life has always been the vanguard for no exceptions. Why I have so admired you! The 15-week compromise, propositional or temporary, is not that; and I am standing in solidarity instead, with what I know the truth to be. Integralism handicaps the topic philosophically and thus politically; and makes it so much easier for other topics to get carried off, such as we see now with the abortion pill.
But integralism also misapprehends the meaning of abortion in legal circles and in doing that is giving the judges the free pass all over again.
Listen! I must reprimand my friend!
Listen! Listen outside the box.
Listen! Apprehend!
Abortion is crime of murder: intention to eliminate a known pregnancy. The stage is irrelevant, what matters is evidential knowledge.
THAT is law.
But law also recognizes criminal negligence not just murder. So that if a child is born deformed as a result of the pill, the people are liable both in tortious negligence and in criminal grievious bodily harm (“GBH”) notwithstanding that at the time of prescribing and taking the pill there was no conception or knowledge of any particular conception. If the infant then dies, manslaughter. THAT is law.
THAT is law. The rest is gibberish killing and maiming.
This is about JURIDICAL RESPONSIBILITY or integrity. It was the problem with Roe and it remains the problem with Dobbs. The JURISTIC BASES are still very wrongly being rooted up/flouted/bypassed/de-structured/carved up and left as -somehow- “unknown”; not responsibly acknowledged and effected as JUSTICIAL DUTY.
So that now the Supreme Court is in effect saying JURIDICALLY that there can be no such thing as tortious negligence and/or GBH in the use of the pill. Which is just absurd and stupid. Rubbish!
AND that abortion is for the States (Dobbs) but the abortion pill is for the Supreme Court (Danco). Which is self-cancelling or meaningless.
In its own way this description of things proves how Trump can not lead the charge. But is pro-life America going to let us down too?
No! No! No! No! No! NOT MY FRIENDS! NO!
US pro-life can not / may not negotiate abortion. Do not do it. Bargaining over babies lives and for their flesh is the work of the Devil who needs to establish his position in every related dimension including inside pro-life milieu.
Satan is the Big Snake in the Garden of Redemption. “What did God say? Did God really say that?”
“Of course you may bargain about the babies, it is all to the good. Yes? Good lord in the morning, God knows your eyes will be opened and you will avoid being an ideologue. You will be able to study Dante and Peguy in peace and allow the atheists like Scalfari enough time to interview the Pope and eventually repent with no-one getting flustered. Babies have nothing to do with that. Or do you want to be a temptation to the Pope for him to rebuke you as the gattopardo with the diaper? It will all be all your fault.”
Kudos to Marjorie D. for being willing to start criticizing Trump. If he gets the nomination he would lose to Biden again and likely drag Senate and House candidates down to defeat with him, resulting in one party, Democrat, control of the entire US government. DeSantis could beat Biden, Haley could beat Biden, Tim Scott could beat Biden, Chris Christie could beat Biden. But the Bozo Base says it wants Trump again. Somehow the party of Lincoln needs to be wrested back from this suicide pact with the most self-centered man ever to head a major party, and from his ignorant fan base (not the millions who voted for him because, duh, he was better than Hillary and Joe) who can sway many primaries but appear politically clueless about the end result. Pro-lifers are a major force and can be key if they back DeSantis or some other candidate who could win the general election and ask their supporters to leave Donald behind in the dust of history.
Mark, Trump has a maniacal MAGA base and illegal dark money support. In the first week of announcement for 2024 he raised more than $150K. He continues to be the GOP gold-standard. But, the GOP has many more drags on its integrity. McCarthy sold his soul to the extreme and dangerous volatile right for the Speakership. After a round of kisses the toxic rebels, Marjorie Taylor Green, Paul Gosar, Laure Bobert and Jim Jordan, etc. emerged to take powerful committee assignments. DeSantis, with his blatant autocratic control of Florida could be even more radical.
We can’t let 2020 happen again. We must seek a voice that encourages American unity by getting past Trump and his past .
Let’s get this straight.
Roe was about The Constitution. It goes like this “Congress has certain and enumerated rights ….” Nowhere in The Constitution is there a right to abortion. There is, however a right to life. in Roe the Warren Court in 71, I think it was, found some clause about privacy and created a right to abortion. Not unlike Dreed back before the Civil War, where the head judge found that you could own a human being via private property.
So, don’t try to blame this on Trump. When he says it’s a matter for states (or in fact Congress) the point is that Congress and the states make the laws of the land. They can of cause make an amendment to The Constitution. No one in the GOP or DNC dare touch the abortion issue. It goes back to early progressivism and Mageret Singer. And their idea was that it was a violation of the woman’s right to deny her the right to kill her baby. “My body my choice”
Now, that is of cause a disgusting idea. And they are overlooking a dilemma about the right to life of the unborn child. But femminism has taken this in as some kind of women’s rights.
Trump is not perfect. He’s done a lot of things and said even more. He’s come a long way, and if it wasn’t for Trump’s nomination of constitutionalists to the Supreme Court, Roe and quite a few other creative findings in The Constitution would still be in place.
Btw. Joe didn’t win the election of 2020. They cheated and got Joe on the podium to take the oath of office. Likewise in 2022 they cheated and only lost The House by a narrow margin and gained one vote in The Senate. In both elections, Trump and the GOP won in a landslide.
So the USA is run by an illegitimate government, a regime. With the help of God and his Son, Jesus Christ, all these crimes and many more will be exposed and Trump will be reelected for a third time in 2024.
SBA is proposing a federal law allowing abortion up to the 15 week mark? This is a pro-life position? This is more pro-life than Trump’s leave it up to the states position?
We have abortion not because of anything the POTUS or SCOTUS did or didn’t do, but because we are an unchaste society that barely tolerates babies but very much tolerates fornication, contraception, porn, IVF and the like.
I don’t think the 501c3 pro-life groups are really able to come to grips with that in any meaning way, since they likely get a large percentage of their monies from people who favor contraception and sterilization (and IVF).
.
I am guessing Protestants no longer have the theological foundation to condemn contraception or the other sexual sins. Rome and the bishops seem to be disinterested in that fight as well–indeed, they seem to be doing all they can to join with the Protestants in overturning nearly 2,000 of condemning the various sexual sins to lead us into the child sacrificing culture in which we find ourselves.
I supported Trump with my money, my mouth, and my vote twice; he was clearly better than either of the ghouls who opposed him. But let’s be clear, he is far, far from perfect and there are very legitimate reasons to oppose his politics. To enumerate just a few: [1] he often hangs around with disreputable scoundrels like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo and then compounds this error by appointing these people to offices of great power; [2] his thinking about both abortion and sodomy is muddled at best, a reflection of political calculation rather than solid principles; [3] try as he may (and he’s never really tried at all), he cannot escape responsibility for Operation Warp Speed, one of the greatest blunders, perhaps even one of the greatest crimes, in human history. Excepting his SCOTUS appointments — and they too can be questioned to some degree — Trump’s political history is rather shabby at best and was mostly erased in one day by strokes of the pen of the fake Catholic fake president who followed him into the Oval Office. Knowing all this sorely tempts me to close my wallet, my mouth, and my front door on voting day for the 2024 campaign.