Secret supporters for the Culture of Death...

REMINDER: DON'T FORGET TO VOTE ON THE CATECHISM 101 TOPIC POLL TO THE LEFT - ONLY 5 DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

A couple of weeks ago, my family and I decided to participate in the Race for the Cure 5K run that raises money for cancer. It seemed like a worthy cause and the organization itself is, BUT one of the primary supporters for this event is Planned Parenthood. Once my mom found this out, we immediately withdrew from participating in the race (thankfully we hadn't signed up yet). This type of hidden support for or by various organizations or companies is something that is difficult to determine, but is very important to watch out for. Its not just silent support for worthy causes, like the Race for the Cure, but also companies we frequent every day that quietly and covertly support the Culture of Death.

Just to give you an idea of some of these "under-the-radar" supporters, I have put together a short list of companies who quietly support the Culture of Death:

Eastman Kodak: This company has a trust which contributes large sums of money to People For the American Way, an organization that advocates freedom of 'reproductive choice' as well as contraception.

Kraft Foods - owned by Altria: Altria is the parent company of Kraft Foods. Altria is an admitted supporter of Planned Parenthood.

Bank of America: The Bank of America Corporation also supports Planned Parenthood. Their reasoning, according to Andrew Plepler, president of the Bank of America Charitable Foundation is, "Our in-volvement with Planned Parenthood is driven primarily by our associates."

Nike, Inc.: Yes, Nike shoes supports the Culture of Death. What is even more disturbing is that I found this information on their very own web site in which they were touting their support of Planned Parenthood.

Starbucks Coffee: According to WorldNetDaily.net, this company not only supports Planned Parenthood but also is intent in its support and advocacy of homosexual marriage.

As you can see, this is but a short list of companies who support abortion and the Culture of Death. Life Decisions International has a boycott list that is put out bi-yearly in which they list companies supporting the Culture of Death. It can be purchased for about $15 and although I do not have a subscription, the Kenrick-Glennon Pro-life Committee at my seminary does. This is not the only list out there, however. More and more web sites are listing supporters of the Culture of Death including Planned Parenthood itself, which has a list of what it calls "Matching Employee donations to Planned Parenthood."

I am not suggesting that we boycott every company that has even remote links to the Culture of Death. If a company is owned by a company who receives their copy paper from a company supporting abortion, it seems a little overkill to boycott them. Chances are that this company doesn't even know that its parent company purchases paper from an abortion supporter and the parent company may not know it either. However, companies that directly support abortion and the Culture of Death are another story. I cannot tell my readers what to do, I can only provide you with information. I recommend that you pray about frequenting any of these above companies or any you truly find out support the Culture of Death. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 11:52 | link | comments |
blog

Govt. and their Culture of Death supporters

REMINDER: DON'T FORGET TO VOTE ON THE CATECHISM 101 TOPIC POLL TO THE LEFT - ONLY 6 DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

My last blog entry briefly touched on the Democrat supporters being widely anti-life and government's great desire to woo them. I thought we'd take a quick look as some of the Culture of Death supporters and their financial help in previous elections.

We begin with NARAL Pro-Choice America, Inc.

In support of the Congressional elections in 2002, NARAL reported $621,470 in independent expenditures to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). For the 2000 elections, a presidential election year, however, NARAL reported a massive $6.1 million to the FEC.

Planned Parenthood

In the 2000 election, they reported an incredible $9 million in donations and financial support for campaigns. The New Stealth PAC's, an organization that tracks 501(c) non-profit spending in elections (and from whom we obtained most of our stats for this blog entry) had this to say about Planned Parenthood's 2002 involvement: "In the 2002 election cycle, PPAF funded direct mail and telemarketing campaigns supporting pro-choice candidates in several closely contested U.S. House and Senate races." this included over 200,000 pieces of literature and made 190,000 phone calls for one, single candidate alone!

National Pro-Life Alliance (NPLA)

PAC said, "the NPLA-PAC reported to the FEC that 100 percent of its 2002 spending came in the form of contributions to candidates." Exact financial contributions weren't known, however, because the organization cleverly hid them by 'soft money' contributions. Soft money refers to contributions given, at least nominally, to a political party for "party building" activities rather than for the direct support of particular candidates and campaigns (source: Wikipedia).

These are three of the biggest Culture of Death fundraising supporters for political campaigns. It will be interesting to see how much they contribute for 2006 elections, but more importantly how much they contribute to the presidential election year of 2008. Something to think about. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 15:39 | link | comments |
blog

What is the media's angle???

REMINDER: DON'T FORGET TO VOTE ON THE CATECHISM 101 TOPIC POLL TO THE LEFT - ONLY 7 DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

I have mentioned ocassionally on the blog that the media has an agenda when reporting various issues (big surprise there). Specifically, I have pointed out that the media give vast amounts of airtime and newsprint space to any advance in embryonic stem cell research while almost completely ignoring any advances, even major advances, from adult stem cell research. Fortunately, this is finally beginning to be noticed in the public.

There are a few recent articles pointing out the media bias on pro-life issues from embryonic stem cells to cloning, which is a sub-issue of stem cell research. One prominent name that is exposing the media bias and the Culture of Death is Wesley J. Smith. This attourney is the author of 11 books, including Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America. He has written articles for many publications and has appeared on numerous television programs. such as Larry King and CNN Crossfire. Mr. Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute , a consultant for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture (http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/). The reason I point out his extensive credentials is to show that this man knows what he is talking about.

Two of Mr. Smith's articles within the last five years that got my attention concern various forms of media bias. The first is an article from 2002, but it is no less relevant today. The title is Spinning Stem Cells and in it he seeks to point out some of the ignored advances in adult stem cell research. 

While he doesn't go into the specifics of the media bias in that article, he does in this next one. Titled, The Silent Bias, he discusses the various sneaky and cunning ways in which the media hide the truth of cloning, especially in its use of vocabulary. This may be one of the most in-depth articles I have read on how the media skews its 'news' to suit its needs.

Lastly, the Minnesota Daily - from which I posted a similar article on media bias in my March 28th blog entry - recently had an article on embryonic stem cells and the media bias titled, Embryonic Stem Cell Fairy Tales. In this article, among other things, a couple of reasons for the media bias are brought forth. The article says, "People who want the government to fund embryonic stem cell research are expecting taxpayers to pay for science projects that knowledgeable investors will not." The embryonic stem cell advocates actually have the audacity to acknowledge the bias that they are spinning, but as Natl. Institute of Health researcher Ronald D.G. McKay said, "To start with, people need a fairy tale. Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand." Children’s fairy tales are good because it helps them learns morals and to build a healthy imagination. Spinning fairy tales to adults to deceive them and give them false hope is evil...period! Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 11:59 | link | comments |
blog

Minors and abortion

REMINDER: DON'T FORGET TO VOTE ON THE CATECHISM 101 TOPIC POLL TO THE LEFT - ONLY 8 DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Congress is seeking to pass a bill in which persons who take minors across state lines, excluding the parents, can be prosecuted. The concept is: parents have the right to know the situation their daughter is in and give consent to an abortion. While there is widespread public support for this bill, some Democrats are trying to dilute the bill to creat loopholes for these teens. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said, We should not criminalize the grandparents or clergy members to whom a teen in trouble might turn for help." Why the heck should they not be punished...are they the child's parents...NO. Do they have the right to make that type of decision for a child that is not their own...NO.

As a 'clergy' I would NEVER presume to make such a decision. Besides the fact that I'd NEVER, EVER recommend an abortion for ANYONE, I don't have the right or the entitlement to make such a decision that a parent has the sole responsibility to make. Not only does that responsibility fall on them, the consequences fall to them as well. They emotional distress and grief that this abortion will eventually plague this teen should fall on the parents who have made this decision to kill a life.

When it comes down to it, these people proposing this amendment, which failed miserably April of 2005 in the House (177 - 252), are simply seeking as many ways as possible to a) satisfy their big financial supporters and b) to make abortion as available as buying bubble gum. While Sen. John Ensign, sponsor of the original bill said, "This is clearly not an issue divided on pro-life or pro-choice lines," I think in regards to this amendment it is such an issue. This is an attempt to woe abortion supporters, their supporters, in an election year. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 14:43 | link | comments |
blog

Calm and rational ways to argue for life

REMINDER: DON'T FORGET TO VOTE ON THE CATECHISM 101 TOPIC POLL LOCATED ON THE UPPER LEFT PORTION OF THE BLOG

A question asked on the blog Saturday was, "how do I argue for and try to convince someone who isn't pro-life of the sanctity of life?" This is an excellent question and one that I want to explore.

The preamble to a dialogue with someone on topics such as abortion, euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research is just that: it must be a dialogue and not an argument. As soon as it turns into "I'm right and you are wrong" the other person is simply turned off and shuts you out. You've lost them because they feel you simply want to preach to them in a condescending way.

For today, lets explore arguments against abortion. A good starting point is to ask when life begins. You will get many varying answers, including the following:

• 4 weeks (when the baby is planted in the uterine wall)
• 6 weeks (when the baby's heart begins to beat)
• 12 weeks (when the heartbeat can be heard)
• 20 weeks (first in-depth ultrasound)
• all the way up to some who will say that it is not life until birth from the mother's womb

The question to ask in response to this is that a baby's development varies from pregnancy to pregnancy, so how to you determine at what moment the fetus is transformed to actually being life?

All of the above mentioned arbitrary factors can vary greatly as to when they occur and can even be difficult to identify. A baby being recognized as life from the moment of conception, however, is a specific moment that doesn't vary from woman to woman - the moment of fertilization is that moment - and it doesn't rely on arbitrary calendar dates or pre-fixed stages of development that may or may not hold true for that particular pregnancy.

Another angle to approach in your dialogue is that most people are not absolutely 100% positive that an embryo is NOT life. Once you have gotten them to acknowledge this, you might ask them this question: If you are not 100% sure that an embryo isn't life, would you not want to error on the side of caution? IF you feel that this person is someone with which you can be more aggressive, you might use this analogy as well: If you had a gun in your hand and you weren't 100% sure that it had no bullets, would you aim the gun at your friend and pull the trigger anyway? As I said, the analogy is NOT something you will want to use on everyone, but it can be a very convincing bit of logic.

Lastly, realize that it is very unlikely that you are going to change their mind right then and there. Your primary goal is to leave them with some valid points to ponder and to assure them that if they have any questions or if they want to discuss this more to please contact you. Conversion takes time and is not an overnight process, whether you are bringing someone into the Catholic faith or emphasizing the sanctity of all life. We will explore arguments for other pro-life issues in upcoming blogs. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 15:29 | link | comments |
blog

Cycle of Life

REMINDER: DON'T FORGET TO VOTE ON THE CATECHISM 101 TOPIC POLL LOCATED ON THE UPPER LEFT PORTION OF THE BLOG

It has been such an interesting week for me. God has graced me with the opportunity to be of service to so many others through my ministry as deacon. It has been such a blessed week in which I have literally been a witness to the whole cycle of life.

Wednesday, I assisted at the funeral of a long-time Holy Trinity parishioner. To be able to be an instrument for God to use in imparting his love, comfort and peace is an awesome experience. On Saturday, I celebrated a marriage ceremony for a young couple. It was a privilege and a blessing to be a witness to two persons who are committing their lives to each other and to sharing Christ together. Today, I baptized a little girl for a parish family. To bring newborn children into the Catholic Church through the sacrament of baptism is one of my most enjoyable experiences of my ministry.

So, you can see that my ministry has literally encompassed the whole span of life this week...from birth into the Church...to the outward expression of love for God and for each other...to our final return to God from whence we came. What a blessing to be a witness to the cycle of life and to be an instrument of God's love and presence in our lives. Glory and praise to God forever!!! Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 11:07 | link | comments |
blog

Catechism 101 is nearing it premiere...

You might notice a new section in the upper left corner of the screen titled, Catechism 101. Below it you will find a button that takes you to the poll page where you can vote on the various topics suggested to me for the new Catechism 101 feature. I ask ALL my readers to please vote. It is completely anonymous - even I cannot see the domain name of who voted - and it takes about 10 seconds. If you have additional topics to suggest, please feel free to tell them to me in the comments section of this or any of my blog entries. While I won't add them to this poll, they will be added to the next poll in a few weeks to choose our second topic of discussion. Polling will be open until Aug. 4th at which time it will close. At that time, I will take the winner and create the first Catechism 101 feature, which I will hopefully post on August 15th.

My goal is to post a Catechism 101 feature at least once a month and maybe more depending on my class workload this fall. These features will be 3 - 5 minutes in length and will be a mpeg video segment that will be downloadable to an iPod. I welcome feedback on this new endeavor. I have already had positive comments from a couple of priests, including my summer priest here at Holy Trinity.

Previous Catechism 101 features will be archived when a new feature is posted and will be available by clicking on Catechism 101 link in the Archives section on the left side of the page. I am very excited about this new method of teaching and the use of web technology as an education tool on the Catholic faith. Again, I welcome your comments, suggestions and ideas for this new feature. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 09:56 | link | comments |
blog

Questions to ask about embryonic stem cell research

With the president having vetoed the Embryonic Stem Cell research bill and Congress unlikely to override that veto, certain congressmen and senators are already talking about re-introducing the issue next session. Their insistence upon the vast popularity of the people and their belief that we should blindly do what the people 'want' raises a number of questions.

Why the insistence on federal funding?

Some are complaining that this will severely damage stem cell research and at the same time these people are strongly supporting state legislation that they say, " Nancy Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger both tried scare tactics by stating that the original 20 embryonic stem cell lines are contaminated. They neglected to note that these are the 20 stem cell lines given federal funding "even as private foundations and states, including California, funded their own (embryonic stem cell) research. This isn't a medical life-saving issue...its a money issue. Those who want to see these advances in embryonic stem cell research want government funding instead of putting up their own investments.

Why not use these embryos which will be destroyed anyway?

Susan Estrich, who writes for Fox News, recently wrote an article on Fox.com that you really should read. In this article she is asking this same question. Her assertions disturbed me so much that I felt compelled to respond to her via e-mail. In my response I said the following:

Your assertion that we should support embryonic stem cell research because 72% of Americans support it is flawed. WHY should we blindly do something simply because 72% of Americans support it??? If a majority of Americans said we should kill half the U.S. population to reduce our dependence on oil would we blindly seek to pass legislation to do this too?

In your article you are quoted as saying: "If you care about life, why not use these frozen embryos to try to save life? Isn’t that better than simply destroying them? Or to put it another way, isn’t that the "pro-life" choice?"

The Nazi's were going to exterminate the Jews in concentration camps anyway, so why not use them for medical experiments??? ANSWER: because destroying life for ANY reason if immoral, wrong and evil. Period.

Just because a person has a slim chance of survival does not mean we simple treat them as 'raw material' to suit our own benefits. Following that logic, a person who is terminally ill should be killed to harvest their organs because 'they're going to die anyway'

Scary logic and an extremely dangerous path to begin going down.

That, my readers, is the type of logic being expressed by those who blindly support embryonic stem cell research. That is why this battle reigns so prominent in my recent blogs and in my mind. Life has become a money and materials issue. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 14:27 | link | comments (1) |
blog

Devotion. Struggle. Eucatastrophe.

TITLE: Curse of Chalion
TYPE: Science Fiction book
WRITTEN BY: AN
Lois McMaster Bujold’s Curse of Chalion tells the story of a battered once-knight Cazaril, tutor to the beautiful and headstrong Royesse Iselle.  Unfortunately the land of Chalion lies under a dreadful curse.  When the curse seizes on Iselle and propels her to court, Cazaril must some how break it, surrounded by enemies who have destroyed once already.  But the curse, prophecy says, can only be broken when a man dies three times for the royal family. 

Curse of Chalion achieves a tremendous eucatastrophe.  J.R.R. Tolkien, the father of modern fantasy, coined the word eucatastrophe to describe the highest purpose of a fairy tale: “the sudden joyous ‘turn’ … [this joy] denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will) the universal final defeat and in so far is evangelium, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief.” (Tree and Leaf, 68)  As Curse of Chalion progresses a reader is pulled along by glimpse of hope and their love for Bujold’s always vivid and appealing characters.  At the same time, the reader has a growing sense that the curse is inescapable and even deserved.  And yet, just as the trap snaps shut, the snare is breaks and “life, like a bird, has escaped from the snare of the fowler.”  (Ps 124)

Bujold so masterfully crafts Chalion’s eucatastrophe that the story reads almost like a mystery novel.  She puts all the pieces of the solution right in front of the reader, but I could see no way the story could end happily even forty pages from the end of the book.  Chalion’s surprise ending is as providential and satisfying as Gollum falling into the Crack of Doom. 

Curse of Chalion also has a characterful and original setting, a difficult accomplishment in the crowded fantasy genre and sympathetic and morally upright characters, also praiseworthy among the often-immodest publishing of today.  Catholics, however, must judge that Chalion’s religion has serious failings.  Even here Bujold has noteworthy and unusual accomplishments – her religion is more than platitudes mixed with access to magical powers and her deities are more than overgrown superheros – but her Quintarity politically corrects the Trinity, promotes homosexuality as divinely intended, and makes the demonic only ‘mostly bad’.  In this she fails to make “by the law in which we’re made.” (Tree and Leaf, 54)  This real failure of Bujold’s subcreation doesn’t ruin the appeal of the work, but makes the background of her story rankle at times. 

Despite these faults, Bujold’s Curse of Chalion is an enjoyable and edifying story.  Cazaril bears witness that in Providence’s hand, self-sacrifical love can make a crooked, clueless life write straight: “it came right despite myself, in the end, by the Lady’s grace.” (Chalion, 441)

posted by: crossman at 09:35 | link | comments |
catholic blog review

Life survives...for now

Today, President Bush issued the first veto of his presidency against the Embryonic Stem Cell Research bill, which would have lifted the ban on federal funding on embryonic stem cell studies. The fact that this was the first vote of his presidency despite the fact that he had threatened to do so 141 times previously sould speak VOLUMES as to the importance and moral danger he saw from this bill.

Bush sometimes stumbles and bumbles when speaking on a subject or explaining why he chose to do what he did. Today, however, he was VERY clear in his reasons and the dangers of letting this bill pass. He said, "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others." The Catechism clearly states that this is immoral:

• A good intention does not make behavior that is intrinsically evil good or just. The end does not justify the means - CCC para. 1753.
• One may not do evil so that good may result from it - CCC para. 1756.

This is exactly what embryonic stem-cell research proponents wish to do. There may be potential benefits from embryonic stem cells, although none have been found as compared with adult stem cells having treated over 70 diseases already. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm The potential or actual benefits of an act makre no difference if the act is immoral. Killing half the U.S. population would greatly reduce our dependence on oil, but it is obvious that doing so is immoral. That might not be an equal comparison but it gets my porint across: just because there is a benefit from doing something doesn't mean that we blindly do it soley because of the benefit.

Bush made another comment related to this that I found to be very wise. He said, "As science brings us every closer to unlocking the secrets of human biology, it also offers temptations to manipulate human life and violate human dignity. Our conscience in history as a nation demand that we resist this temptation." This supports my assertion that just because an action has benefits doesn't mean that we should blindly pursue this action.

Responding to Bush's veto, Senator Bill Frist made a completely contradictory statement saying, "I am pro-life, but I disagree with the president's decision to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Given the potential of this research and the limitations of the existing lines eligible for federally funded research, I think additional lines should be made available." One CANNOT be pro-life and support embryonic stem cell research in ANY way!!! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060719/ap_on_go_pr_wh/stem_cells_52

The bill now goes back to Congress where they can attempt to override the veto. To override the veto both houses need a two-thirds majority voting for the override. In the Senate, they would need 67 votes. The initial vote to pass the bill only had 63 yes votes. In the House, they would need 292 votes to override the veto if all Representatives were to vote. Their original vote was 238 - 194 or over 50 votes shy of the two-thirds needed.

The debate and battle over embryonic stem cell research is NOT over. Those who are hell bent on finding 'miracle' cures will continue to fight for embryonic stem cell research despite its currently being a pipe dream. Unfortunately, all the focus on embryonic stem cells obscures the ACTUAL treatments found from adult stem cells.

I'm probably going to continue on this topic for a few more days as its so important and has such moral reprucussions in our world today. As always, I welcome comments, dialogue and your thoughts on this or any of my blog entries. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 17:26 | link | comments (1) |
blog

Embryonic stem-cell debate in D.C.

Greetings! The Senate, tonight, passed the Embryonic Stem-Cell Research Bill (H.R. 810) that lifts the Bush Administration ban on federal funding of embryonic stem-cells. Thankfully, President Bush has stated solidly that he will veto the bill - the first of his two-term presidency - and Congress doesn't seem to have the votes to override the veto (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060718/ap_on_go_co/stem_cells_33)

What scares me is the "logic" being thrown around by supporters of the embryonic stem-cell bill. The Associated Press has repeatedly reported that "polls show as much as 70 percent public support for embryonic stem cell research." Just because a majority of the public supports it makes it right and moral??? A majority of the public supported slavery in the early 1800's. Did that make slavery right or moral (http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html)??? Hilary Clinton seems to think that what the public wants the public should get. She is quoted as saying, "there has been an upsurge of demand."

Nancy Reagan, widow of the late President Ronald Reagan, made one of the most contradictory statments I've ever heard regarding the passage of the bill saying, "With this important vote in favor of embryonic stem cell research (H.R. 810), the pleas of so many suffering families have finally been heard. Time is short, and life is precious, and I hope this promising research can now move forward." Her statement should have said, "life is precious...except when its defenseless life and we can exploit this new life for our own wants."

It kind of makes me shiver when I think of statements like that, especially when the same type of mindset was prominent with the Nazi experimentation during World War II. James E. Dobson made such a statement in early August of last year and took alot of flak for it, but I have to agree with it (http://mediamatters.org/items/200508030007). Think about the similarities and you may shiver too.

Pray over the next few days that a) President Bush vetos the bill, b) that Congress cannot muster enought votes to override the bill and c) that those who are so supportive of embryonic stem-cell research may be shown the truth by God. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 20:03 | link | comments |
blog

Religion and morality under fire again...

As we draw ever-closer to both primary and general elections, many of the same issues are re-appearing that have sparked debate between Catholics and the secular world. I thought we'd explore just a few of these debates as well as their consequences on our faith and morality.

ABORTION:

South Dakota has a bill on the November ballot that would ban abortion in the state except if necessary to save the life of the mother. Lawmakers approved the ban earlier in the year but Planned Parenthood got it on the fall ballot in hopes that the public will reject the bill. This has major implications throughout the United States because if passed, it would be the first law of its kind in the U.S. since Roe vs. Wade in 1973. You can read more on this at LifeNews.com.

In Oregon, legislatures are trying to pass a law that would require parents to be informed if their child is seeking an abortion. Supporters got over 115,000 signatures to have the bill placed on the ballot while only needing 75,000. As reported in the Corvallis Gazette-Times, "the Oregon law would require that the parents of girls between the ages of 15 and 18 be notified before their daughter has an abortion. Girls would not be allowed to get an abortion until 48 hours after the parent receives written notice of the proposed abortion by certified mail."

EMBRYONIC STEM-CELLS:

The Senate is considering a bill (HR 810) that would lift the Bush Administration ban on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. You can read the full bill on the U.S. Senate web site. This bill greatly concerns me, although Bush has already said he'd veto it if it came across his desk. The reason it concerns me is that I DO NOT want my taxes being used to fund immoral and unethical activities.

A much talked about bill, even on my own blog, is the Missouri Stem-Cell Initiative that would promote embryonic stem-cell research and open the door for cloning. LifeNews.com reported in June that it wasn't sure whether the bill would make the ballot in November. While waiting to see if the initiative makes it on the ballot, which must be certified by Aug. 8th to be placed on the ballot, supporters and opposition to the initiative are forming. The Catholic Church is mounting a strong opposition to the bill as reported by the Jefferson City Tribune.

That is just a few of the moral challenges facing our country as the November elections near. I'm going to post some more November issues in the next couple of days, so if you know of any out there in your state or nearby, please feel free to add them to the comments of this blog entry. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 11:13 | link | comments |
blog

Pro-life & coming elections

I have been seeing a lot of campaigning for Congressional and Governatorial seats in the U.S. Many pro-lifers are facing serious challenges by pro-abortion candidates. I got curious as to who in these various races was facing who and what their life stances were. So, I decided to compile a table that shows the Congressional races, the life stance of the current office holder and the stance of the person(s) challenging for that seat. The table is as follows:

RED=PRO-ABORTION
GREEN=PRO-LIFE
GREY = NEUTRAL / UNKNOWN
INCUMBANT	STATE	U.S.	ELECTION	CANDIDATE		CANDIDATE
R-Jim Kolbe	AZ	House	Retiring	D-Weiss	vs.	R-Graf
R-John Kyl	AZ	Senate	VS.	D-Pederson
R-Bob Beauprez	CO	House	Retiring	R-O’Donnell	vs.	D-Perlmutter
R-Marilyn Musgrave	CO	House	VS.	D-Paccione
D-John Barrow	GA	House	VS.	R-Burns
D-Melissa Bean	IL	House	VS.