Please help protest Planned Parenthood in Fitchburg

Planned Parenthood is in the abortion business. Abortion is the intentional taking of a human life and it must be stopped. Please help picket Planned Parenthood's proposed move to Fitchburg. The effort is worthwhile. Picketing is also enjoyable. This may seem surprising, but much good is accomplished every day we picket. People's hearts are changed and our own capacity to love is strengthened. Please give it a try. You will be happy you did.

Schedule:
Weekdays 3:45 pm to 5:00 pm, Saturdays 12:00 Noon to 1:00 pm, Sunday is for rest.

Location:
391 Main Street, Fitchburg, Ma., the proposed site of Planned Parenthood, occupancy may be planned for March or April.

Fitchburg, MA: City Council Meeting 2/16/10

Citizen comments (FATV video) about two proposed zoning ordinances that would if passed result in Planned Parenthood not being allowed to open an office/operation in downtown Fitchburg, MA.

Note: the City Council opted not to take up the proposed ordinances based on advise of their legal council. Therefore, the public effort to keep a Planned parenthood business out of downtown Fitchburg continues.

We The People Open Video Letter to President Barack Obama

Patriot Americans will love this We The People Open Video Letter to President Barack Obama. Obama worshipers will try to silence it.

---

H/T ARRA News Service

While There Is Lfe, There Is Hope

Streiff at RedState: Back in 2005 the pro-life movement took a hit when judge after judge decided that an incapacitated woman could be killed by dehydration. At the time, we on the pro-life side were lambasted as some kind of mindless Neoliths who were incapable of understanding even the simplest biological concepts while those in favor of this abomination patted themselves on their all too often white- and black-clothed backs and congratulated themselves on successfully squaring the circle of a previously unsolved ethical conundrum. In short, it was a replay of the arguments over abortion except this involved a helpless woman who was inconvenient to her husband, not a baby who was inconvenient to its mother. We were right then to fight for the right of the defenseless to not be killed and today the science vindicated our position and especially the position of Terri Schiavo’s parents who claimed they detected lucidity beneath the paralysis.

Today’s Washington Post reports “In ‘vegetative state’ patients, brain scanners show some alert minds”

Many of the patients were labeled with the same grim diagnosis: “vegetative state.” Their head injuries, teams of specialists had concluded, condemned them to a netherworld — alive yet utterly devoid of any awareness of the world around them.

But an international team of scientists decided to try a bold experiment using the latest technology to peek inside the minds of 54 patients to see whether, in fact, they were conscious.One by one, the men and women were placed inside advanced brain scanners as technicians gave them careful instructions: Imagine you are playing tennis. Imagine you are exploring your home, room by room. For most, the scanner showed nothing.

But, shockingly, for one, then another, and another, and yet two more, the scans flashed exactly like any healthy conscious person’s would. These patients, the images clearly indicated, were living silently in their bodies, their minds apparently active. One man could even flawlessly answer detailed yes-or-no questions about his life before his trauma by activating different parts of his brain.

“It was incredible,” said Adrian M. Owen, a neuroscientist at the Medical Research Council who led the groundbreaking research described in a paper published online Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine. “These are patients who are totally unable to perform functions with their bodies — even blink an eye or move an eyebrow — but yet are entirely conscious. It’s quite distressing, really, to realize this.”

Although Owen and other experts stressed that much more research is needed to confirm findings and refine the technology, they said the results could provide profound insight into human consciousness — one of the most daunting scientific mysteries — and lead to ways to better diagnose brain injuries and treat tens of thousands of patients. The technology also offers the tantalizing possibility of being able to finally communicate with some patients and ask, at the very least, whether they are in pain and need relief.

Imagine, indeed. While I can understand the selfishness of the husband and the addlepated behavior of judges in this case I’ve always been at a loss to understand the callous, if not gleefully anticipatory, behavior of the a substantial number of the medical profession when given the chance to off the helpless. When the Hippocratic Oath’s first rule is “do no harm,” great swaths of the medical profession lined up to sentence Terri Schiavo to a slow death. Yet another parallel this case has with the fight against abortion.

On issue after issue we, as a people, are being inveigled with the idea that we should submit the very important decisions in our lives to the experts. We are supposed to trust Michael Mann and his ilk to reorder our economy to prevent global warming. And we are supposed to rely upon the medical profession as authorities in just about every thing else.

What this study demonstrates is that science is not fixed but rather changes with time. We don’t know if Terri Schiavo was vegetative or conscious and we never will but what we know today is that no one at the time she was killed knew either. Instead selected members of the medical profession decided to support the idea of euthanasia when they had a moral and ethical obligation to oppose the idea. They were abetted in this killing by judges who decided that 5,000 or so years of Judeo-Christian tradition and Western jurisprudence was subordinated to convenience and quackery.

While science may inform our decisions, it is a pathetic society that allows science to order it. That is a society devoid of humanity. For the same reason we should oppose an expert commission to make tax and spending decisions we must demand that life decisions are properly within the purview of the people, not a clique of philosopher kings. In these discussions we must be guided by morality to choose the difficult right of preserving inconvenient life rather than the easy wrong of killing the weak, the defenseless, and eventually the unfortunate and unpopular. Back to the story.

Finding a way to communicate with brain-damaged patients has long been a goal of neuroscientists. It has also been the subject of literature and films, including the 2007 film “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly,” which told the story of French editor Jean-Dominique Bauby. Bauby, paralyzed in a “locked-in syndrome” by a stroke, could communicate only by blinking his left eye.

But some urged caution, saying that the new technique raised a host of thorny questions. “If a patient wanted to die, if they were asked, ‘Do you want to die?,’ could they explain themselves adequately?” said Joseph J. Fins, chief of the division of medical ethics at Weill Cornell Medical College. “If they say yes, what does that mean? If this person said yes but meant maybe, or it was ’sort of yes,’ we may not be able to understand that sort of nuance. You have to be very careful.”

Sure you have to be careful when you ask an ambiguous question. But why doesn’t Dr. Fins recommend the simple solution. Ask “do you want to die of thirst?” or “do you want me to kill you?”, which is what he’s really asking with his nebulous “do you want to die?” question? The reason is obvious. He knows that in most cases a person who is alive clings to life. And while some number of terminally ill people decide to end their lives the overwhelming majority fight tenaciously for every moment of life. Because so long as you are alive there is hope.

---

H/T ARRA News Service

Man Who Attacks Pope as “Hurting People in the Name of Jesus” Gets Appointed to Oversee Faith-Based Initiatives

by Erick Erickson, RedState: This is really disturbing. Barack Obama has appointed Harry Knox to the White House’s Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. In March, Knox began an attack on the Catholic Church during a speech before the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign. Knox, attacking Pope Benedict XVI directly, said the Pope and, through him the Catholic Church, is “hurting people in the name of Jesus.”

After his appointment, Knox was confronted with his comment and reaffirmed that he hates the Pope. The Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships’ charter states that it “will work on behalf of Americans committed to improving their communities, no matter their religious or political beliefs.” Really? A man who is willing, even with such an appointment, to attack the head of a church with millions of active congregants , cannot be trusted to fairly work with Catholics. The Pope is called the Holy Father for a reason and attacking the Holy Father does little to prove a commitment to improving communities no matter their religious or political beliefs.

The St. Michael Society has a petition calling for this man to resign. I’m Presbyterian, but I signed it too. This man is an insult to the Christian faith when the basis for his attack on the Catholic Church is its position on homosexuality — a position shared across denominations of Christians.

Photo: Jesuit No Parking Sign

H/T to Thomas Peters at CatholicVoteAction.org for copying the following photo from a friend's facebook page – a great reminder that Jesuits can have a healthy sense of Catholic humor:

Leave the Doritos Home When Climbing

Funny - that is not me! Doritos - yes, Climbing - yes, Together - no!

Take A Stand! Support Tebow Family Super Bowl Ad

Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families: Last week we applauded our friends at Focus on the Family and the Tebow family for having the courage to speak up for the sanctity of life in a 30-second Super Bowl ad. CBS is coming under a barrage of attacks from radical pro-abortion groups and the usual suspects on the Left for agreeing to air the ad.

Sarah Palin defended the ad last week, writing on her Facebook page, “Women should be reminded that they are strong enough and smart enough to make decisions that allow for career and educational opportunities while still giving their babies a chance at life.” Appearing on Fox News Thursday, Palin took on the National Organization for Women, saying, “For NOW to have chosen this...to come across sounding quite offended by hearing that a pro-life commercial will air on the Super Bowl day, it’s baffling.”

Palin is being polite. This is just one more example of the gross intolerance of the Left, attempting to silence speech it disagrees with. Even the New York Times chastised the Left for its “puzzling and dismaying” reaction.

Don’t let the Left dominate this debate. Please take action in defense of our values. Click here to send a message of encouragement to the executives at CBS through its website’s feedback form.
Also Read: NFL Football Players Support Tim Tebow, Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad With Mom

Pro-Life Unity February Action Call!

If you consider yourself Pro-Life, pro-life activism is not an option. It is our DUTY to get involved. Below are some suggested some potential activities beyond the situation we are facing in the Fitchburg at the moment:

Friday, February 5th is Call for Life Day. Contact all your elected officials (federal, state and local) using telephone, email and written letters to let them know how you feel about their abdication of duty in regards to defending innocent human life.

Saturday, February 6th is Adopt the Mills Day. Get out to an abortion mill or an abortion referral office and demonstrate your opposition to the massive human rights violations being committed behind their walls. Counsel the poor women going inside and make a difference in two lives.

40 Days for Life begins February 17th. Sign up at www.40daysforlife.com to pray and counsel at a local mill. This is not a big sacrifice to make and it has a great impact. Many abortion minded women will not go in if we are present, and abortion mills have been known to close after 40 Days campaigns!

What can I do to stop Planned Parenthood from coming to Town

You may be wondering, what can I do to stop planned parenthood. Well I was too, until I found STOPP on their site they give a plan for stopping planned parenthood from coming to your town! The site offers concise advise on how to stopp Planned Parenthood.

I love how the site starts with "Those who rely on God and follow Matthew 10 will see positive results-if they will persevere."
Some thoughts on this relevant to Fitchburg!

The site recommends working through an existing group or starting your own. Do not go it alone. MA Citizens for Life (Fitchburg/Leominster chapter) is one such organization that you can support. Contact me if you need help getting in touch with them.

Fitchburg Town Hall Meeting Feb 2nd to Discuss Planned Parenthood

by Brian Smith: You probably have heard by now that Planned Parenthood is trying to set up shop on main street in DOWNTOWN Fitchburg. This is something I am absolutely opposed to. There is a Town Hall meeting on Tuesday night Feb 2nd at 6:30 P.M. I will be attending the town hall meeting and probably speaking.

No matter whether you live in Fitchburg or the surrounding towns this affects you. Planned Parenthood expects to get business from Fitchburg, Leominster, and Lunenburg. PLEASE come out tomorrow night if this is an issue that you care about.

Fitchburg does not need Planned Parenthood

By JayG:

Planned Parenthood has been given a $387,000 federal grant to provide Health Awareness Services in an office at 391 Main St., Fitchburg, MA. Six members of the Fitchburg City council have “slammed” these plans according to a Fitchburg Sentinel report, specifically voting “to draft a resolution urging Planned Parenthood to abandon plans to open a Fitchburg chapter.”

We agree with this resolution, and with Councilor-at-large Dean Tran, who said "there already exist many social services providing help to women and we do not need another one in Fitchburg." Tran wants to combat the “reputation of Fitchburg as the epicenter of social services.”

But more importantly, we disagree with the Planned Parenthood concept of "health awareness." When we see the Planned Parenthood signs and their hot pink Toyota Scion with the tag line "Sexual Health Matters" we want to know exactly what they mean. We get that meaning from their Web site teenwire.com, where such topics as "Will the Gyno (gynecologist) tell your mom that you are having sex?" assure young girls not to worry, but to check first and avoid those gynecologists who might inform their parents. The “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered and Questioning” link claims that we are either gay or bisexual from birth, yet we may take a long time to question our sexual orientation. In other words, try it, all of it.

Planned Parenthood has had a generation to work to reduce sexually transmitted disease, and we do not believe their approach has worked. We believe the promotion of promiscuity, the mocking of monogamy, and the band-aid of safe-sex has been totally ineffective. Couple this colossal ineffectiveness with the fact that the Fitchburg Planned Parenthood office will be a feeder to the Worcester Planned Parenthood abortion center and you have all the reason Fitchburg needs to keep Planned Parenthood out of town.

Becoming a Family Man

Brian Smith: I started downhill skiing because I thought I loved downhill skiing. In reality, what I really loved was fun, and the thrill of the adventure. I also loved the challenge of becoming a better skier. Eventually, I became a downhill ski instructor, and became a proficient downhill skier. I got my family into downhill skiing because I thought it would be a good sport for the family. The hours spent skiing alone, teaching, and socializing with my ski instructor buddies were not helping me to be a better family man. I said I got my family into downhill for the family, but it was really for myself.

Last week, I went cross country skiing with my two oldest children, my best friend Tom and his family. It just felt right. Even though leaving my wife with the babies would have normally made me feel a bit guilty, she was with her best friend, and that seemed less like abandoning her, and more natural.

Tom and I had a great time. My daughter soon had the hang of it, and was quickly striving to lead the pack. With her good friends around her she pushed herself. With our friends, everyone looked out for everyone. After one of Tom's kids tuckered out, we sent the kids and teens inside for Hot Cocoa, which felt much safer than sending our sends inside by themselves at a major downhill resort. Tom and I snuck of for one run and reminisced about old times. It just felt right.

This family man thing isn't so bad, if you can find the balance that works for the whole family.

An Open Letter to U.S. Catholics regarding Faithful Citizenship

As we are two days away from the special election for the people of Massachusetts’ Senator to the U.S. Senate, and an incredibly sensational race between Martha Coakley and Scott Brown (and let’s not forget Mr. Kennedy), I have spent some time thinking not only about my ability to vote and politically support either candidate. By political support, I don’t just mean my vote, but also my time, talents and treasures going to support a candidate that I believe in as a Catholic. I consider myself to be a faithful Catholic, and I want to remain faithful to the Catholic churches teaching. In recent days I have asked myself the questions:

1. Does one political issue (e.g. legalized abortion) carry more weight than others?
2. Can I support a candidate (vote, time, talent and treasure) who supports things that are intrinsically evil?
3. What level of support can I give?

In my search for answers I have spoken with close friends, as well as sought pastoral advice from church teachers. I have found that the Faithful Citizenship website, and particularly, the U.S. bishops' statement Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship [PDF] which is a very useful guide. I would ask that all Catholics take the time to read it and let this document be a guide to political conscience and voting.

This document provides answers to the questions:
- Why does the Church teach about issues affecting public policy?
- Who in the Church should participate in political life?
- How does the Church help the Catholic faithful to speak about political and social questions?
- What does the Church say about Catholic social teaching in the public square?

I found this 42 page document to be a very easy but compelling read (as opposed to the 2000 page documents that our Senators are passing without reading). I will also take the time to share with you some quotes which I found to be useful in my search for answers (see quotes below).

I will not tell you my decisions with regards to whom to support, but I will share with you my personal conclusions with regard to the questions I posed above.

Does one political issue (e.g. legalized abortion) carry more weight than others? Yes, however, that does not mean that I believe in single issue voting. Just that some issues based on whether or not they are supportive of something intrinsically evil, can carry more weight. You cannot focus on only one issue with regards to the sanctity of life and then simply ignore all other issues that dealing with the value of all humans and social justice.

Yes, this was the hardest thing for me to come to grips with, especially with regards to money or holding a sign. But I had to ask myself:
Does my support directly participate in something intrinsically evil? No
Does my support indirectly support something intrinsically evil? Yes and no.
I call your attention to this quote: Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and “the art of the possible.” At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. In this case, I am going for the art of the possible, and not supporting the candidate who is going to take us further down the path to what is evil.

Will my support bring scandal on the church? If the answer is yes, then I cannot support. In the case of one candidate, I believe the answer is yes, in the case of the other, I believe the answer is no. But if the answer is No, then I believe that support in addition to my vote is allowed.

I believe that supporting the phone banks, calling people, and raising their awareness of the truth on issues, is entirely acceptable. I believe that a sign or call, or money for a candidate who I can support might be worth an investment of my time. However, I also have to consider my family and if that time away from family is what God is calling me to. What about my money, or is it better to give that money to the people in Haiti. In the end, prayer and a well formed conscience should be your guide.

Your brother in Christ,
Brian

Additional thoughts from the statement Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship follow:

Some question whether it is appropriate for the Church to play a role in political life. However, the obligation to teach about moral values that should shape our lives, including our public lives, is central to the mission given to the Church by Jesus Christ. Moreover, the United States Constitution protects the right of individual believers and religious bodies to participate and speak out without government interference, favoritism, or discrimination. Civil law should fully recognize and protect the Church’s right, obligation, and opportunities to participate in society without being forced to abandon or ignore its central moral convictions. Our nation’s tradition of pluralism is enhanced, not threatened, when religious groups and people of faith bring their convictions and concerns into public life. Indeed, our Church’s teaching is in accord with the foundational values that have shaped our nation’s history: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

In the Catholic Tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation.

As the Holy Father also taught in Deus Caritas Est, “The direct duty to work for a just ordering of society is proper to the lay faithful” (no. 29). This duty is more critical than ever in today’s political environment, where Catholics may feel politically disenfranchised, sensing that no party and too few candidates fully share the Church’s comprehensive commitment to the life and dignity of every human being from conception to natural death. Yet this is not a time for retreat or discouragement; rather, it is a time for renewed engagement.

Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and “the art of the possible.” At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. For example, Pope John Paul II taught that when a government official who fully opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely overturning a pro-abortion law, he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life, “limiting the harm done by such a law” and lessening its negative impact as much as possible (Evangelium Vitae, no. 73). Such incremental improvements in the law are acceptable as steps toward the full restoration of justice. However, Catholics must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death.

When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.

Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics "Probably Shouldn't Work in the Emergency Room"

Martha Coakley was on with Ken Pittman from WBSM in Massachusetts on Thursday. She told Ken that if you object to abortion then "You probably shouldn't work in the emergency room."