Posts Tagged ‘EPA’

Pro Life Pretenders

January 27, 2017

Charles Camosy, Professor of Ethics in Fordham’s Theology Department, chided Sister Simone Campbell, spokesman for “Nuns on the Bus”, for calling “Pro-Life” proponents “Pro-Birth”. Once a baby is born it’s abandoned to the mercy of air, water, food and environment polluters and other merchants that put profit before life..

According to Reuters (7-14-05) Unborn US babies “are soaking in a stew of chemicals,” including mercury, according to a report by the Environmental Working Group based on tests of umbilical cord blood that reflects what the mother passes to the baby through the placenta. That stew of 287 chemicals includes 180 that cause cancer in humans, 217 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests. A Government Accountability Office report said the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the powers it needs to fully regulate toxic chemicals. “Pro-Life Pretenders” is the more accurate name for those want to weaken or eliminate the EPA.

Professor Camosy wants a Catholic religious (sharia) law to become a federal law that favors the “most vulnerable” but denies religious freedom to others. Dr. Camosy believes the most vulnerable in a pregnancy is a zygote (fertilized egg) although more than half of zygotes are not implanted. That 50+ percent would be the most vulnerable of the “vulnerable” because have no possibility of life. Yet, no one. including Camosy, proposes any effort to save them. They receive no religious rites and are treated as body waste without protest. Are they to be favored over a family? The mother loses her life, the children lose their mother and the father loses his wife. The family seems most vulnerable to me.

A nun suggested a federal law requiring a father to donate a kidney in exchange for a kidney for his fetus, baby or child should it require one. That seems a good law. The baby, fetus, child is clearly most vulnerable. Most fathers can live an ordinary life with one kidney and he would have some skin in the law. The law would be less prejudiced if the father were required to donate whatever could be transplanted—heart, lungs, liver, skin. So far, no Pro-Life Pretenders in politics, ethics or religion have made any effort to include the father in protecting the “most vulnerable.”

If it’s about “life” or “most vulnerable” which is more vulnerable, the father or the mother?

Abortion is not about Sanctity of Life

April 19, 2011

Like others who support Planned Parenthood, I am pro-life. I am pro-all life, even if it breathes. Thirty-three countries (including Cuba, China, El Salvador) hold life more sacred than America does. At least they have a lower infant mortality rate. Twenty-eight nations don’t believe a woman loses the sacredness of her life or her right to private property if she becomes pregnant. They have a lower maternal death rate. Yet, House Republicans want to cut funding for Women, Infants, and Children nutrition assistance program; Hunger Free Communities Grants, the Global Health and Child Survival Account, assuring that even more babies and mothers  will die. No honest person dare call that “pro-life.”

It’s not even pro-selected life. American fetuses soak in chemicals, including mercury, according to the Environmental Working Group. Of the 287 chemicals detected in umbilical cord blood, 180 cause cancer in humans or animals, 217 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests. In 2005, a Government Accountability Office report said the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the powers it needs to fully regulate toxic chemicals. (Reuters, 7/14/05) House Republicans want to reduce the funding and power of the EPA, assuring more stillbirths, more dead infants, more birth defects.

It’s not anti-abortion either. Republican House speaker, John Boehner, has identified limiting women’s access to abortion and contraception as a “top priority.” That’s like the popular but well-known folly of starting wars and cutting taxes. Limiting access to contraception increases abortions. The Guttmacher Institute, a leading authority on reproductive health, says cuts in family planning for low-income women will result in some 400,000 more abortions a year. In France, where abortion is covered by universal health insurance, there are 20% fewer abortions per capita than in the U.S. Is that because they’re the “Christian” nation?

The war on women and children doesn’t end there. Republicans in Congress tried to narrow the legal definition of rape, giving aid and comfort to pedophile priests and others who prey on women and children. Nebraska State Sen. Mark Christensen (R) introduced a bill to make killing an abortion doctor justified homicide. For some “pro-life” means pro-murder.

I haven’t heard a single “pro-life” spokesperson or Republican politician call for measures to protect pregnant women, embryos and fetuses in Iraq or Afghanistan. Maybe that’s because they know that when God commanded warriors to destroy a nation, pregnant women, embryos, fetuses weren’t spared. (Deut.20:16)

In Texas, Republicans are trying to cut family planning by more than $52 million, which will cost taxpayers over $250 million in long-term Medicaid costs. Abortion: it’s not about the money.

What do they want? They appear to dream of the power of Southern slave owners to require procreation. Birth on demand. Our own “Sharia” law against women.