By Save The 1 |

https://www.spuc.org.uk/news/news-stories/2016/may/mum-who-rejected-abortion-displays-quintuplet-babies

An Australian mother who gave birth to quintuplets in January has released a photo shoot of her five new babies.

It took Kim Tucci, 26, just two minutes to give birth to the massive set of new arrivals – four daughters and one son – who were conceived naturally.

Doctors had advised Kim to abort some of her five unborn children on health grounds but she refused, going on to give birth to all five babies.

Surprised by Five

Kim and her husband Vaughn, who live in Perth, already have a nine-year-old daughter and two sons aged two and four. Now their family has expanded with the arrival of Tiffany, Keith, Penelope, Beatrix and Allie!

The odds of conceiving quintuplets naturally is approximately one in 55 million. Kim documented the story of her pregnancy on her blog, Surprised by Five.

She also described how doctors had recommended that she undergo a ‘selective abortion’ – i.e. abort up to three of her unborn children in order to give the others a better chance of survival.

Refusing selective abortion

On 26 September, 2015, Kim wrote:

“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method [abortion] to give 2 babies the best chance in life … I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried, I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival?? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more.”

A team of 50 doctors and nurses assisted with the planned caesarean birth and all of the children were born healthy after spending 29 weeks in the womb.

Not always easy

Kim’s pregnancy with her quintuplets was often far from easy. She blogged about pain, extreme discomfort, sleepless nights, constant trips to the bathroom and a 6,000-calorie a day diet to sustain her five unborn babies.

But the mum-of-eight also said that all the aches and pains, the stretch marks and hospital stays were worth it, knowing that her babies are healthy. She also thanked her husband for his constant support through her pregnancy struggles.

Support

“My husband always reminds me I should wear my stripes with pride and that I should be proud of them and what my body has achieved. Without him I would have broken down a long time ago,” Kim wrote.

Now that the babies have come home, friends and family are organizing a fundraiser to help the Tuccis buy a car big enough to transport their entire family.

Photoshoot

Kim recently posted on her blog:

“50 fingers 50 toes, 6 hearts beating at once. My body fought the toughest of battles to get five babies here safely. Everything I did I did for them.”

Local business Erin Elizabeth Photography, which helped document Mrs Tucci’s pregnancy, organised a photoshoot for the quintuplets and their proud mum, which has since gone viral. You can see the rest of the pictures below:

“Every mom I know in anencephaly groups who has carried to term has no regrets, while there are so many who regret early induction/ termination. It is truly amazing (and not distinctly related to the parent’s religion).”

-The mother of Baby Joseph

Best Choices for Families Dealing with Adverse Fetal Diagnosis

Discovering one’s child has a serious medical condition is always devastating, whether it occurs at twenty years old or twenty weeks gestation. Among the many disorders that usually shorten a child’s lifespan dramatically, causing death within the first few months of life, are various Trisomy conditions, Potter’s Syndrome, and anencephaly (a neural tube disorder). Many families confronted with an adverse prenatal diagnosis have experienced a lack of resources, information, and support, and often face unwelcome pressures as well, but those who carry to term usually find peace nonetheless.

Dum Vivimus Vivamus

“Dum vivimus vivamus…While we live, let us live” is a fitting motto for families who give their babies a chance to survive, contrasting sharply with many historical and current medical prac-tices. What follows are four stories from a limited geographical region (western Ohio) representing hundreds of regions across the country; your own communities; your own hospitals.

The life of Joseph

Diagnosed with anencephaly at 20 weeks; lived 37 weeks in the womb and 88 minutes after birth.

The ultrasound doctor who diagnosed anencephaly gave Joseph’s parents one option: “we could induce early (like next week!) and then we wouldn’t have to go through the rest of the pregnancy…I thought to myself: If my firstborn, was diagnosed with a terminal illness and had only 4 months to live, would I ask the doctors to end her life right now, or would I love and cherish every moment until God called her home? Thinking of it that way, the answer was clear. It was obvious it wasn’t a choice at all. I was incredibly sad and discouraged having to be in this position, but the only possible choice we could live with is to just love this baby as long as we can.” After their initial office visit, they were fortunate to experience the support of family and friends, as well as that of their trusted family physician, who “grieved with us, prayed with us.”

The life of James Thomas

Son of Ben and Lynn, diagnosed with Potter’s Syn-drome at 22 weeks; lived 36 weeks in the womb and 90 minutes after birth.

James’ mom shared their experence, “At the initial appointment [22 week check up] when we discov-ered the Potter’s Syndrome, the first words from the doctor’s mouth were: ‘If you choose to terminate, you need to do so by the end of the week.’ ” James’ parents were “surprised, angry and hurt by this recommendation.” So much so that, at their request, the ethics board of the hospital has changed their guidelines for doctors, instructing them to present, in a compassionate manner, a full range of options to clients. James’ parents wondered, “Why was this the first option given to us?” The only risk factor for James’ mom was a previous history of pregnancy hypertension unrelated to Potter’s Syndrome. It was treatable and only a concern closer to term when James would be viable outside the womb.

Fortunately family and close friends were very supportive. Yet “lots of other people questioned the decision. No one could give any rationale for terminating, but the gist was ‘why would you want to continue with the pregnancy [considering it an inconvenience] when you know he is going to die anyway?’ ” The response of James’ parents was, “Why not? Why not give him the best chance at life that we could?”

The lives of Elizabeth and Jacob

Children of Scott and Julie, both diagnosed with Potter’s Syndrome at around 20 weeks gestation, with different outcomes.

Elizabeth and Jacob’s parents had a significantly different experience with their first child diagnosed with Potter’s syndrome than with their second. Elizabeth and Jacob’s stories are a poignant illustra-tion of the contrast between two different decisions. With Elizabeth, their first child with Potter’s, they followed advice from doctors and other counselors, undergoing “early induction” at 23 weeks. Doctors had avoided the word “termination” so they didn’t realize the implications—until later—nor the deep regret that came with “early induction” of an essen-tially non-viable baby. Nor would they have chosen that route had they been better informed. When Jacob came along, diagnosed with the same condi-tion, they knew they didn’t have to “induce early.” This time, “we were more at peace because we had given him every chance to live.” Monitoring vital signs closely, they carried Jacob as close to term as possible, birthing him at 37 weeks after discovering he passed away in the womb. Their only living child was almost 3 as they said their goodbyes to Jacob at the birth. With both Elizabeth and Jacob, pictures from the day of birth are precious memories, even though the children had not survived. A deeper regret lingers, however, with regard to the short time leading up to Elizabeth’s last day of life: “We feel like we weren’t given time with Elizabeth like we were with Jacob between diagnosis and birth. With Elizabeth we had a week and a half to make a decision and prepare. That wasn’t enough time and made everything harder after.” They had hoped for a live birth with both children, even if the time with them alive would be limited. In both cases it was not as they had hoped, but with Jacob they were grateful for those extra 14 weeks they had with him alive in the womb. “Doctors are afraid of giving false hope,” they added, “but parents need hope. The hopes are not naive; they give parents the opportunity to try to do something to help their child.”

Safeguarding Women’s Health and Applying Moral Principles

The short lives of the children introduced in this brochure deeply touched their families, calling them to love. All of these families experienced many blessings from choosing to carry their babies to term. They were fortunate to have access to information beyond the limited options given at the hospital, and to have ample support for their decisions from friends and family. These life-lim-iting prenatal conditions primarily affect the babies, not posing serious risk to the mother.

The hypertension that doctors feared for James’ mom didn’t result from Potter’s Syndrome; she also developed it during other pregnancies. Joseph’s mom had concerns about polyhydramnios (swelling from excess amniotic fluid) but the primary concern with that (besides discomfort) is early labor or stillbirth, which again concerns the baby, not the mom. Elizabeth and Jacob’s mom did not experience complications, but was told infection could follow if the baby died in the womb. All of these complications are manageable; none are life threatening or permanently damaging to the mother. In cases such as these, some try to use the princi-ple of double effect to justify actions that end the baby’s life. But double effect can only be invoked when the primary intended effect is not morally wrong. The intended effect of “early induction” (or “termination”) is to shorten the pregnancy by birthing a non-viable child. It may be a well-mean-ing attempt to minimize the parents’ grief, but it actually does nothing to take away the pain of infant loss. Early induction does directly result in the baby dying earlier rather than later and this is the primary intended effect of the procedure, not merely an unfortunate secondary result.¹ In this case, “early induction” is not the only conceivable means of relieving grief, and is mostly ineffective. In fact, there is ample evidence that abortion often causes additional emotional complications, both from the grief of loss and from disrupted hormonal balance.² The drastic hormonal shifts have also been shown to cause dramatically increased risk for disease, notably breast cancer.³ In addition, there is evidence that termination of pregnancy (abortion) can have a traumatic effect on those involved, including medical personnel who participate or witness the event.⁴ In any case, what if the diagnosis was wrong, which has been known to happen?

Why Couldn’t We…?

It’s natural for parents to ask if there is anything they can do to help their child survive as long as possible. With anencephaly and Potter’s Syndrome, possibilities are extremely limited because vital organs are severely affected. Unfortunately, possibil-ities are further limited by the hopeless practice of early induction. Since Potter’s Syndrome involves inadequate amniotic fluid, most parents ask the obvious question: “Can’t we try to inject synthetic amniotic fluid into the womb as needed?” Parents are told, “No.” Yet in 2013, a US Congresswoman, Jamie Herrera Beutler, and her husband wouldn’t take no for an answer. They found a team of doctors willing to try the injections. Their daughter Abigail became the first known survivor of Potter’s Syndrome, receiving a standing ovation on the House floor a year after her birth. Abigail’s dad, Daniel, said in a Today Show interview, “There are no guaranteed solutions…for [Potter’s Syndrome], but don’t be satisfied with one opinion because there are a lot of intelligent doctors with different perspectives and experiences and opinions, so work to find one who will partner with you to find anything possible.”⁵

Citations

1. Principle of Double Effect, download at Catholics United for the Faith: www.cuf.org/FileDownloads/doubleeffect.pdf

2. Afterabortion.org lists physiological effects of abortion.

3. The Breast Cancer Prevention Inst. (bcpinstitute.org) presents the physiological explanation and statistical correlation of abortion to breast cancer.

4. Many former abortion providers share their stories at ProLifeAction.org/providers and ATTWN.org (And Then There Were None.)

5. Steven Ertelt, “Congresswoman’s Miracle Baby Still Doing Well After Doctors Said She’d Die,” LifeNews.com, September 6, 2013.

Text by Anne Schmiesing Right to Life—Shelby County, OH

This brochure is not intended as a resource for medical information about the conditions mentioned. Note that although Down Syndrome is included in the list (as Trisomy 21), children with Down Syndrome have a much higher chance of survival than children with the other conditions named in this brochure. The life expectancy for all of these prenatal conditions increases with advances in medical knowledge and technology.

Information for stories was collected from personal interviews and with permission from a blog about Joseph. More information from the interviews is available at ShelbyCountyRTL.org. For additional stories and resources, see PrenatalPartnersForLife.org and SufficientGraceMinistries.org.

The book, I Will Carry You by Angie Smith chronicles the creative ways one family found to spend time with their child in her short life. This is a helpful resource for families faced with a life-limiting prenatal diagnosis.

Benjamin Hartings, father of James Thomas, has written a book about his experience. Return to the Altar: A Sacred Journey through Grief and Joy is the story of a family’s loss, a death of a son, and how it transformed their view of the world. What brought the family back to the Altar was not an experience that was expected, but one that was accepted as God’s plan.

CHAPEL HILL, NC, June 9, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – A new study recommends that doctors implant IUDs into new mothers’ wombs while they are still in the hospital for childbirth, in an effort to increase the number of American women fitted with the abortifacient device.

Previously, new mothers were told to wait six months after birth to have an intrauterine device implanted. But a new study published in Obstetrics and Gynecology says too often women do not return to have an IUD implanted, and as a result, get pregnant.

Patients at North Carolina Women’s Hospital in Chapel Hill were studied and researchers found that women who received IUDs during cesarean sections were more likely to have them six months later than women who were told to return to the doctor’s office to receive one.

So, the professionals say, implant IUDs at childbirth.

The American Life League considers the North Carolina study’s recommendations medically irresponsible, because women who have just given birth are far more vulnerable, physically and emotionally, than after waiting six months to consider a major life decision like surgically implanted “contraception.”

“Medically speaking, this push to implant IUDs immediately after delivery is a travesty,” Rita Diller, the national director of the American Life League’s Stop Planned Parenthood Project, told LifeSiteNews. “Abnormal bleeding, one of the signs of uterine perforation, could be missed in the days following delivery, since women are already bleeding at that point.”

“It is extremely disturbing that mothers who have just delivered their babies are being encouraged to accept IUDs,” Diller said. “Uterine walls can be softer than usual in postpartum women, increasing the risk of uterine perforation and even resultant IUD migration to other parts of the body, which can cause additional internal injuries.”

The complications with surgical implantation of IUDs are magnified when implantation takes place at a new mother’s childbirth.

“IUDs also increase the risk of ectopic pregnancies and contribute to infections like pelvic inflammatory disease. More than 70,000 Mirena IUD complications have been reported to the FDA since 2000,” Diller elaborated. “In New York and New Jersey alone, there are over 1,000 lawsuits on file for IUD injuries.”

No mention was made in the study of the fact that an IUD is not “contraception” at all, but is an abortifacient. The IUD stops implantation, not just conception, up to 95 percent of the time, according to the Life Issue Institute, based in Cincinnati.

The IUD destroys the ability of the already fertilized egg – the “conceptus” – to implant in the uterine wall. Because s/he cannot implant in the mother’s womb, the conceived child dies.

“IUDs are intended to close off all hope of life developing in the womb, and take away a woman’s ability to be open to life, and to snuff out the life of any child who may begin developing while the device is in place,” Diller explained. “The womb is intended by God to be a place of life, not a tomb.”

The Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services admitted that intrauterine devices cause early abortions. IUDs can inflame the lining of the uterus, making implantation of a newly conceived child impossible, inducing abortion.

A government report put out by the Center for Disease Control singles out the use of IUDs, calling them “as effective as sterilization.” Brian Clowes of Human Life International puts it clearly: “All of the longer-acting methods sometimes act as abortifacients…which will actually lead to an increase, not a decrease, in total abortions,” he told LifeSiteNews.

The new North Carolina study’s recommendation follows similar recommendations from the World Health Organization (WHO), which encourages the use of abortion-inducing “contraception” for new mothers around the world.

Along with the new study, the publication printed an editorial by Dr. Lisa M. Goldthwaite, who wrote, “We are meeting a woman’s needs better when they get their contraception at the time of delivery.”

Dr. Erika E. Levi, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, explained, “We need to make it easier for women to get access to the kind of contraception they want as new mothers.”

In 2010, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews found that four times as many women who get an IUD implanted at childbirth expel the device (eight percent), compared with those placed later (two percent).

Diller concluded, “It is unconscionable for medical personnel to pressure women, when they are extremely vulnerable following a delivery, to be implanted with devices that may have very negative long-term consequences on their health and actually take the decision to be open to life out of their hands.”

2014-10-15 Vatican Radio

(Vatican Radio) The concerns and the challenges of the family in Southern Africa have been brought to the Synod arena by the Archbishop of Cape Town, Stephen Brislin, who is also the President of the Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference (SACBC).

Pointing out how hard Synod participants are working, with long and intense sessions that require much concentration and focus, Archbishop Brislin said the Synod is a wonderful opportunity to listen to first-hand accounts of different realities across the globe with the aim of finding ways of giving pastoral help to families in crisis. “Getting away from judging and condemning” he said “we have to find ways to give support” by finding and taking “what is good, and building upon that”.

Speaking to Vatican Radio’s Linda Bordoni, Archbishop Brislin said the social and family reality he and his brother bishops are faced with in Southern Africa is quite particular as, according to recent research, in South Africa there is no “typical” family…

On behalf of the SACBC Brislin says he presented the input and concerns about the pastoral concerns of families, noting that in his geographical area there is no such thing as a “typical” family in the sense that only 27 % of African children grow up in families where both biological parents are present.

That – he says – is just an example: “there are many broken families, many families experience abuse, conflict and violence, and we do realize that many children are growing up in families that are characterized by trauma and violence”.

Pointing to the fact that at the opening of the Synod Pope Francis invited all participants to speak freely and to listen carefully to the input of others – and Brislin says that it is his impression that everyone is doing just that, Brislin says “There is nobody pushing a particular ideology or a particular standpoint”.

Of course – he said – people are bringing up their concerns and there is a great diversity, but he says he believes people are listening and trying to understand the particular local circumstances brought to the forum.

Brislin says that because of its history and political past, the situation in Southern Africa is quite different to the situation in other Sub Saharan African Nations, but he notes, there are common threads – not only in Africa but throughout the world.

He points to the issue of divorce and separation which is a growing problem in Africa as it is in the rest of the world. But the example of polygamy – brought up by some of the other African Bishops – is a first for a Synod and he says it is a very interesting question.

Brislin agrees that inter-religious marriage and coexistence presents issues that are, generally speaking, not a problem in Southern Africa where – he says – there is a respect for the other. And in his experience the issues that come to the surface in mixed marriages are issues that can be sorted out pretty peacefully.

The Archbishop of Cape Town speaks very positively of the testimonies provided by the couples who have been invited to speak to the Synod Fathers of their thoughts and experiences which he says have been very helpful: “we should never forget this is a pastoral synod that recognizes that there are many families in pain, many families that are failing, that are seeking help, solace, comfort and consolation”.

What we are saying – Archbishop Brislin said – is that the Church does and must teach about marriage “but this is not about laying down the law, it is about how can we reach out to people? How can we recognize that in all the imperfections of our humanity and all the imperfections that exist in families, how can we take what is good and what is positive and try to develop that even better?”

Brislin says the issue of the effects of forced migration on families is a huge one at the Synod and it is coming out from a number of countries. South Africa – he says – deals with this problem because of the legacy of apartheid where so many families were forced apart, mainly because of work (men who worked on the mines were forced to leave their families for years at a time), and he says this continues today where people have to leave their families to seek work in the cities, and from this many problems derive with a huge impact on Southern African families.

“The whole Synod in a sense is going further than family life itself in it that it is asking itself: what sort of a Church should we be?” he said. “

We should be a church that is reaching out to people, a Church that is caring, a Church that is compassionate, a Church that is not judging or condemning people, but a Church that is welcoming and accepting” he said.

And finally, asked what he will be taking back with him once the Synod comes to a close Brislin said : “What I will be taking back to Cape Town and to South Africa is the urgency about having to find ways of giving pastoral help to families in crisis”.

“We have to get away from judging and condemning and to say how can we give support? How can we build? How can we take what is good and build upon that?” he said.

And if that message can get across and into our Parish communities then I think we really will become a better Church” he said.

Ben Johnson recently wrote a great article about the damaging effects of the Gardasil (HPV) vaccine.  In his article, he talks about women who have died, 96 to be exact. And those are just the ones that have been reported. He talks about women who have lost their fertility after receiving the highly regarded HPV vaccine. But the main focus of the article is how the Gardasil vaccine is being heavily promoted to the African-American community through ad placement on BET (Black Entertainment Television). When I read his article, my conspiracy alarms went off. Now, I’m not a conspiracy theorist (although I find people who are quite entertaining). But when I heard about these ads, my memory was triggered. Of course Planned Parenthood is trying to target minorities with this vaccine…they are getting big reimbursement for injecting their low income patients with this dangerous drug! Then I knew I had to write this article about my own experience inside Planned Parenthood regarding Gardasil. When Gardasil came out, Planned Parenthood was PUMPED. “Such a wonderful way to serve women,” they said. “This will help prevent cancer for so many young women,” one of my coworkers raved. But then I heard the real reason behind the excitement, “We are going to make so much money off of this vaccine.” Bingo. Of course they were excited. Each injection was going to cost around $200, and women have to get three to be “fully protected.” Six hundred dollars for a vaccine. That was a lot of money. But then I thought to myself, “Our clients don’t have $600 for a vaccine. This is going to be a huge flop.” What I didn’t know about at that time was the “Merck Vaccine Assistance Program.” Merck is the manufacturer of Gardasil. This program would pay 100% for the cost of the vaccine itself. Our patients would just have to pay a little $30 “injection fee” per vaccine. Ninety dollars versus six hundred was definitely doable. Next we were instructed to offer Gardasil to EVERY woman age 11-26 who walked through our doors. “Oh, you are here for a vaginal infection? How about a vaccine, too?” “Oh, I see you marked that you had Herpes and need treatment. Well, you better get this vaccine so you won’t get genital warts, too.” These may seem funny, but it was seriously how we were told to sell this vaccine to our clients. So, we started signing people up by the dozens. We faxed off countless applications for the “Vaccine Assistance Program.” Almost everyone was approved (most of our clients were low income). We were running out of vaccines. Those little bottles were flying off our refrigerator shelves at around $170 a piece, for which Planned Parenthood was being reimbursed by the Merck program. I’ve never been of the belief that Planned Parenthood operates solely out of racism, but strictly sees money-making opportunities and goes for them…unfortunately, that is usually at the expense of minority women. I don’t know if any of these women came back in with complications. I don’t know if they presented to the ER with problems. It’s not like we did any follow up. Heck, I don’t even know if they got all three doses. My gut tells me that 80% of them did not. Back to the conspiracy idea. Planned Parenthood just ran a series of ads promoting Gardasil on BET (Black Entertainment Television). Ninety-six women have died, several have experienced sterility, and yet Planned Parenthood launches a big campaign targeting the African-American community? The pro-life movement has talked for years about how Planned Parenthood targets our minority community in the United States. And even if we totally scrap the fact that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a raging racist we can still look and find racism inside of the organization. I’ve written before about the document that we were NOT to talk about inside of Planned Parenthood…the “Jaffe Memo.” Here is my article about that memo and what it entailed. This document was written in the late ’60s by a high level official with Planned Parenthood. You will notice some really interesting ideas in the document. “Fertility control agents in water supply” “Eliminate Welfare payments after first 2 children” “Encourage increased homosexuality” “Compulsory sterilization of all who have two children except for a few who would be allowed three” “Payments to encourage abortion” The document was proposed to the Population Council (a eugenics-based population control organization led by its first president, Frederick Osborn, who also served as the President of the American Eugenics Society). This was one of Planned Parenthood’s first attempts (after Margaret Sanger’s shenanigans) to reduce the minority population. We also know that currently over 70% of Planned Parenthood facilities are located in low income, high minority communities. We know that more than 50% of African-American pregnancies end in abortion. We know that Planned Parenthood has dumped tons of money into “Promotora” programs that go into Latino communities and convince them that Planned Parenthood is the ONLY place they can go for health care. And now, they are targeting these same communities for the dangerous Gardasil vaccine. I mean, am I crazy? How is it that rational people can’t see what Planned Parenthood is doing here? I’ve never been of the belief that Planned Parenthood operates solely out of racism, but strictly sees money-making opportunities and goes for them…unfortunately, that is usually at the expense of minority women. And the bottom line is that this will continue to happen until these minority communities wake up to the realization that Planned Parenthood is USING them to pad their bottom line. They don’t care about health care for minorities. They care about making money off of you! This won’t stop until people stand up to this abortion giant and say “NO MORE.” What will it take for these Black and Hispanic women to simply say, “We will not be used. We will not be your pawns. We will no longer be lied to. We are better than Planned Parenthood.” Kris Ford, an African-American woman who runs Women’s Health and Justice Initiative, said it better than I can. “Planned Parenthood has ignored the voices of women of color and the organizations that women of color lead for years. Planned Parenthood continues to raise large sums of money off of issues of reproductive justice while framing the issues as a binary that leaves out the experiences of women and communities of color.” It’s time to do something about it. Stop buying the lie.

According to a recent study, vasectomy, a surgical procedure for male sterilization, not only damages the vas deferens, but poses a higher risk of prostate cancer, especially advanced or fatal prostate cancer.

The study was published this month in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The effect appears to be stronger among men who had a vasectomy at a young age, according to the study. The results support the hypothesis that vasectomy is associated with an increased risk of advanced or fatal prostate cancer.

The researchers mentioned that this study is follow up of an initial publication on vasectomy and prostate cancer in 1993, with 19 additional years of follow-up and ten times as many cases. Data from 49,405 North American men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, who were followed for 24 years from 1986-2010 were analyzed.

The results showed an increased risk of prostate cancer overall by 10 percent in men who had a vasectomy. Vasectomy was not significantly associated with the risk of low-grade cancer, but was associated with a stronger risk of advanced prostate cancer and lethal prostate cancer, with an increased risk of 20 percent and 19 percent, respectively.

Among men who received regular examinations, the relative increase in the risk of lethal prostate cancer was 56 percent.

The researchers found that the association remained even among men who received regular examinations, suggesting an increased risk of fatal cancer cannot be explained by diagnostic bias. Neither the results were not influenced by differences in the levels of sex hormones, sexually transmitted infections, or cancer treatment.

5/19/2014 11:41:00 AM
By Laurie Higgins -Illinois Family Institute

Last week, Princeton University law professor Robert P. George delivered the following speech titled “Ashamed of the Gospel?” at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast. Every faithful follower of Christ-Catholic and Protestant-should read this speech. Pastors and priests should read it from the pulpit. Adult, college, high school, and middle school Sunday school classes should read and discuss it. Give copies of it to your pastors, priests, elders-even if doing so is uncomfortable.
Anyone who claims they don’t have time to read it, should give up one television program, skip reading one newspaper, or abbreviate one workout session this week to read it. It is that important.
After reading it, think deeply and talk about what you are prepared to give up in order to be a servant of Christ who willingly chose a brutal death so that you could have eternal life.

Ashamed of the Gospel?

By Robert P George

The days of socially acceptable Christianity are over. The days of comfortable Catholicism are past. It is no longer easy to be a faithful Christian, a good Catholic, an authentic witness to the truths of the Gospel. A price is demanded and must be paid. There are costs of discipleship-heavy costs, costs that are burdensome and painful to bear.
Of course, one can still safely identify oneself as a “Catholic,” and even be seen going to mass. That is because the guardians of those norms of cultural orthodoxy that we have come to call “political correctness” do not assume that identifying as “Catholic” or going to mass necessarily means that one actually believes what the Church teaches on issues such as marriage and sexual morality and the sanctity of human life.

And if one in fact does not believe what the Church teaches, or, for now at least, even if one does believe those teachings but is prepared to be completely silent about them, one is safe-one can still be a comfortable Catholic. In other words, a tame Catholic, a Catholic who is ashamed of the Gospel-or who is willing to act publicly as if he or she were ashamed-is still socially acceptable. But a Catholic who makes it clear that he or she is not ashamed is in for a rough go-he or she must be prepared to take risks and make sacrifices. “If,” Jesus said, “anyone wants to be my disciple, let him take up his cross and follow me.” We American Catholics, having become comfortable, had forgotten, or ignored, that timeless Gospel truth. There will be no ignoring it now.

The question we face
The question each of us today must face is this: Am I ashamed of the Gospel?And that question opens others: Am I prepared to pay the price that will be demanded if I refuse to be ashamed, if, in other words, I am prepared to give public witness to the massive politically incorrect truths of the Gospel, truths that the mandarins of an elite culture shaped by the dogmas of expressive individualism and me-generation liberalism do not wish to hear spoken? Or, put more simply, am I willing, or am I, in the end, unwilling, to take up my cross and follow Christ?

Powerful forces and currents in our society press us to be ashamed of the Gospel-ashamed of the good, ashamed of our faith’s teachings on the sanctity of human life in all stages and conditions, ashamed of our faith’s teachings on marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. These forces insist that the Church’s teachings are out of date, retrograde, insensitive, uncompassionate, illiberal, bigoted-even hateful. These currents bring pressure on all of us-and on young Catholics in particular-to yield to this insistence. They threaten us with consequences if we refuse to call what is good evil, and what is evil good. They command us to conform our thinking to their orthodoxy, or else say nothing at all.

Do you believe, as I believe, that every member of the human family, irrespective of age or size or stage of development or condition of dependency, is the bearer of inherent dignity and an equal right to life? Do you hold that the precious child in the womb, as a creature made in the very image and likeness of God, deserves respect and protection? Then, powerful people and institutions say, you are a misogynist-a hater of women, someone who poses a threat to people’s privacy, an enemy of women’s “reproductive freedom.” You ought to be ashamed!

Do you believe, as I believe, that the core social function of marriage is to unite a man and woman as husband and wife to be mother and father to children born of their union? Do you hold, as I hold, that the norms that shape marriage as a truly conjugal partnership are grounded in its procreative nature-its singular aptness for the project of child-rearing? Do you understand marriage as the uniquely comprehensive type of bond-comprehensive in that it unites spouses in a bodily way and not merely at the level of hearts and minds-that is oriented to and would naturally be fulfilled by their conceiving and rearing children together? Then these same forces say you are a homophobe, a bigot, someone who doesn’t believe in equality. You even represent a threat to people’s safety. You ought to be ashamed!

But, of course, what you believe, if you believe these things, is a crucial part of the Gospel. You believe the truth-in its fullness-about the dignity of the human person and the nature of marriage and sexual morality as proclaimed by the Church-our only secure source of understanding the Gospel message. So when you are invited to distance yourself from these teachings or go silent about them, when you are threatened with opprobrium or the loss of professional opportunities or social standing if you do not, you are being pressured to be ashamed of the Gospel-which means to give up faith in the Lordship of Christ and hope in the triumph of goodness, righteousness, and love in and through Him.

Heavy costs
To be a witness to the Gospel today is to make oneself a marked man or woman. It is to expose oneself to scorn and reproach. To unashamedly proclaim the Gospel in its fullness is to place in jeopardy one’s security, one’s personal aspirations and ambitions, the peace and tranquility one enjoys, one’s standing in polite society. One may in consequence of one’s public witness be discriminated against and denied educational opportunities and the prestigious credentials they may offer; one may lose valuable opportunities for employment and professional advancement; one may be excluded from worldly recognition and honors of various sorts; one’s witness may even cost one treasured friendships. It may produce familial discord and even alienation from family members. Yes, there are costs of discipleship-heavy costs.

There was a time, not long ago, when things were quite different….Biblical and natural law beliefs about morality were culturally normative; they were not challenges to cultural norms. But those days are gone. What was once normative is now regarded as heretical-the moral and cultural equivalent of treason. And so, here we are.

You see, for us, as for our faithful Evangelical friends, it is now Good Friday. The memory of Jesus’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem has faded. Yes, he had been greeted-and not long ago-by throngs of people waving palm branches and shouting “Hosanna to the Son of David.” He rode into the Jerusalem of Europe and the Jerusalem of the Americas and was proclaimed Lord and King. But all that is now in the past. Friday has come. The love affair with Jesus and his Gospel and his Church is over. Elite sectors of the cultures of Europe and North America no longer welcome his message. “Away with him,” they shout. “Give us Barabbas!”

The days of comfortable Catholicism are past
So for us there is no avoiding the question: Am I ashamed of the Gospel? Am I unwilling to stand with Christ by proclaiming His truths? Oh, things were easy on Palm Sunday. Standing with Jesus and His truths was the in thing to do. Everybody was shouting “Hosanna.” But now it’s Friday, and the days of acceptable Christianity are over. The days of comfortable Catholicism are past. Jesus is before Pilate. The crowds are shouting “crucify him.” The Lord is being led to Calvary. Jesus is being nailed to the cross.

And where are we? Where are you and I? Are we afraid to be known as his disciples? Are we ashamed of the Gospel?

Will we muster the strength, the courage, the faith to be like Mary the Mother of Jesus, and like John, the apostle whom Jesus loved, and stand faithfully at the foot of the cross? Or will we, like all the other disciples, flee in terror? Fearing to place in jeopardy the wealth we have piled up, the businesses we have built, the professional and social standing we have earned, the security and tranquility we enjoy, the opportunities for worldly advancement we cherish, the connections we have cultivated, the relationships we treasure, will we silently acquiesce to the destruction of innocent human lives or the demolition of marriage? Will we seek to “fit in,” to be accepted, to live comfortably in the new Babylon? If so, our silence will speak. Its words will be the words of Peter, warming himself by the fire: “Jesus the Nazorean? I tell you, I do not know the man.”
Perhaps I should make explicit what you have no doubt perceived as implicit in my remarks. The saving message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ includes, integrally, the teachings of His church on the profound and inherent dignity of the human person and the nature of marriage as a conjugal bond-a one-flesh union. The question of faith and fidelity that is put to us today is not in the form it was put to Peter-“surely you are you this man’s disciple”-it is, rather, do you stand for the sanctity of human life and the dignity of marriage as the union of husband and wife? These teachings are not the whole Gospel-Christianity requires much more than their affirmation. But they are integral to the Gospel-they are not optional or dispensable. To be an authentic witness to the Gospel is to proclaim these truths among the rest. The Gospel is, as St. John Paul the Great said, a Gospel of Life. And it is a Gospel of family life, too. And it is these integral dimensions of the Gospel that powerful cultural forces and currents today demand that we deny or suppress.

History is not our judge
These forces tell us that our defeat in the causes of marriage and human life are inevitable. They warn us that we are on the “wrong side of history.” They insist that we will be judged by future generations the way we today judge those who championed racial injustice in the Jim Crow South. But history does not have sides. It is an impersonal and contingent sequence of events, events that are determined in decisive ways by human deliberation, judgment, choice, and action. The future of marriage and of countless human lives can and will be determined by our judgments and choices-our willingness or unwillingness to bear faithful witness, our acts of courage or cowardice. Nor is history, or future generations, a judge invested with god-like powers to decide, much less dictate, who was right and who was wrong. The idea of a “judgment of history” is secularism’s vain, meaningless, hopeless, and pathetic attempt to devise a substitute for what the great Abrahamic traditions of faith know is the final judgment of Almighty God. History is not God. God is God. History is not our judge. God is our judge.

One day we will give an account of all we have done and failed to do. Let no one suppose that we will make this accounting to some impersonal sequence of events possessing no more power to judge than a golden calf or a carved and painted totem pole. It is before God-the God of truth, the Lord of history-that we will stand. And as we tremble in His presence it will be no use for any of us to claim that we did everything in our power to put ourselves on “the right side of history.”
One thing alone will matter: Was I a faithful witness to the Gospel? Did I do everything in my power to place myself on the side of truth? The one whose only begotten Son tells us that he, and he alone, is “the way, the truth, and the life” will want to know from each of us whether we sought the truth with a pure and sincere heart, whether we sought to live by the truth authentically and with integrity, and-let me say this with maximum clarity-whether we stood up for the truth, speaking it out loud and in public, bearing the costs of discipleship that are inevitably imposed on faithful witnesses to truth by cultures that turn away from God and his law. Or were we ashamed of the Gospel?
The Gospel is true. The whole Gospel is true. Its teachings about life and marriage are true-even its hardest sayings, such as Christ’s clear teaching about the indissolubility of what God has united and about the adulterous nature of any sexual relation outside that bond.

“I do not know the man”
If we deny truths of the Gospel, we really are like Peter, avowing that “I do not know the man.” If we go silent about them, we really are like the other apostles, fleeing in fear. But when we proclaim the truths of the Gospel, we really do stand at the foot of the cross with Mary the Mother of Jesus and John the disciple whom Jesus loved. We show by our faithfulness that we are notashamed of the Gospel. We prove that we are truly Jesus’s disciples, willing to take up his cross and follow him-even to Calvary.

And we bear witness by our fidelity to the greatest truth of all, namely, that the story does not end at Golgotha. Evil and death do not triumph. Yes, it is Good Friday, but the one who became like us in all things but sin conquers death to redeem us from our transgressions and give us a full share in eternal life-the divine life of the most blessed Trinity. The cross cannot defeat him. The sepulcher cannot hold him. His heavenly Father will not abandon him. The psalm that begins in despair, Eloi, Eloi lama sabachtani, ends in hope and joy. Easter is coming. The crucified Christ will be raised from the dead. The chains of sin will be broken. “Oh death, where is thy victory? Oh death, where is thy sting?”

I grew up as a Catholic in a Protestant culture. The Protestants of my boyhood were what we today call Evangelicals. In those days, the religious differences between us seemed vast, though today the personal and spiritual bonds we have formed in bearing common witness to marriage and the sanctity of human life have relativized, though, of course, not eliminated, those differences. We now know that Evangelical Protestants are truly our brothers and sisters in Christ-separated from us in certain ways, to be sure, but bound together with us nevertheless in spiritual fellowship. Growing up, I admired the strength of their faith, and their willingness openly to profess it. And I loved their hymns. One of the most familiar ones contains a vital message for us Catholics today. You will recognize the first verse:

On a hill faraway, stood an old rugged cross,
The emblem of suffering and shame;
I love that old cross, where the dearest and best,
For a world of lost sinners was slain.
And the chorus goes:
I will cherish the old rugged cross,
Till my trophies at last I lay down.
I will cling to the old rugged cross,
And exchange it someday for a crown.

Yes, there’s the story. Christ must endure the sufferings of Good Friday to fulfill his salvific mission. But Easter is coming. And we, who cherish his cross, and are willing to bear his suffering and shame, will share in his glorious resurrection. We who cling to that old rugged cross will exchange it someday for a crown.

And then comes the next verse, and how perfectly it captures the attitude we must adopt, the stance we must take, the witness we must give, in these times of trial if we are to be true disciples of Jesus:

To the old rugged cross, I will ever be true,
Its shame and reproach gladly bear,
Till he calls me someday, to my home far away,
Where forever his glory I’ll share.
Yes.
And I’ll cherish that old rugged cross,
Till my trophies at last I lay down.
I will cling to the old rugged cross,
And exchange it someday for a crown.

Yes, for us Catholics and all who seek to be faithful, it’s Good Friday. We are no longer acceptable. We can no longer be comfortable. It is for us a time of trial, a time of testing by adversity. But lest we fail the test, as perhaps many will do, let us remember that Easter is coming. Jesus will vanquish sin and death. We will experience fear, just as the apostles did-that is inevitable. Like Jesus himself in Gethsemane, we would prefer not to drink this cup. We would much rather be acceptable Christians, comfortable Catholics. But our trust in him, our hope in his resurrection, our faith in the sovereignty of his heavenly Father can conquer fear. By the grace of Almighty God, Easter is indeed coming. Do not be ashamed of the Gospel. Never be ashamed of the Gospel.

Robert Peter George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, where he lectures on constitutional interpretation, civil liberties and philosophy of law. He also serves as the director of the James Madison Program.

To listen, beginning at about 20 minutes:

Note:
Carlo Maria Vigano, Apostolic Nuncio to the Untied States, read a prayer by Pope Francis as the closing prayer for the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, 2014. The Pope’s prayer ended this way:
“Our Lady of America, pray for us. Amen.”

Original article from:http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com

Chicago, IL: Women who claim they have suffered from Beyaz side effects might be watching Yasmin litigation closely, especially after a jury awarded a plaintiff $14 million in her lawsuit concerning Yasmin. Beyaz birth control is similar to Yasmin and carries similar warnings. So far, however, the focus of litigation has been on Yasmin and Yaz.

Yasmin Lawsuit Nets Million Award; Will It Affect Beyaz Lawsuits?In Yasmin litigation, a jury in Chicago recently awarded a woman $14 million in her lawsuit against her doctor, who recommended she take Yasmin. Thirteen days after she started the medication, Mariola Zapalski suffered a stroke. She survived, but was paralyzed on her left side and has a permanent brain injury, and requires round-the-clock care from her husband, who had to quit his job, according to The Associated Press (4/20/14).

The medical malpractice lawsuit against the doctor alleged that the physician did not tell Zapalski about the risks associated with Yasmin and should not have placed her on the drug because Zapalski had underlying risk factors. A lawsuit filed against Resurrection Medical Center, which referred Zapalski to her doctor, was reportedly settled for $2.5 million.

Many lawsuits concerning fourth-generation birth control such as Yasmin and Yaz allege that the drugs’ manufacturer knew or should have known about the risk of blood clot and stroke but did not adequately warm women about those risks. Zapalski’s lawsuit is different because it alleged the doctor did not inform her of the risks.

Yasmin, Yaz and Beyaz all contain drospirenone, a synthetic progestin. Beyaz is slightly different from the other fourth-generation birth control pills because it also contains folate. Drospirenone has been linked in studies to an increased risk of blood clots and stroke. In 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning that birth control medications containing drospirenone could potentially carry a higher risk of blood clots than other forms of birth control.

Preliminary results of an FDA study into drospirenone-containing birth control suggests that women who take such birth control are at 1.5 times the risk of blood clots as women who take other hormonal birth control. Despite critics arguing that there are safer forms of birth control that are just as effective, the FDA has not removed Yasmin, Yaz or Beyaz from the market.

Bayer, maker of Yasmin, Yaz and Beyaz, has settled some lawsuits involving allegations about Yasmin and Yaz.

BY KIRSTEN ANDERSEN, Thu Feb 13, 2014

INDIANAPOLIS, IN, February 13, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – “The media claims we don’t exist. Freedom Indiana claims there are none of us left. But as young Hoosiers, we are here today.”

Those were the words of Shane Weist, 33, who along with a group of more than 100 other young adults, held a press conference Tuesday in which they sought to prove that – despite media reports to the contrary – not every young person in America backs legally-sanctioned same-sex “marriage.”

Weist and his companions make up Young Hoosiers for Marriage, an Indiana-based group fighting for passage of HJR-3, an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Also at issue in Indiana are so-called “civil unions,” which give many of the legal benefits of marriage without the name or federal recognition.

The House passed a version of the marriage amendment that stripped a provision banning civil unions, but the Senate must now debate whether to add the provision back in.  A vote on the issue was expected late Thursday.  If the two houses can come to an agreement on wording, the final version will appear on the general election ballot in November for approval by voters.

Weist told reporters that Young Hoosiers for Marriage support the amendment as it was originally conceived.  He urged the Senate to add the language banning civil unions back in the bill.

“The Senate should restore the second sentence because without it, marriage remains vulnerable to redefinition and will more likely face prolonged litigation in court,” Weist explained.

“We are committed to rebuilding culture to ensure that children are not intentionally deprived of a mother and a father,” he added.

The Young Hoosiers’ public debut was met with mockery and derision by homosexual activists, who quickly launched a competing Facebook page called “Young Hoosiers 4 Marriage” serving up personal attacks on Weist and his allies, whom they dubbed “Stepford Kidz.”

Jennifer Wagner, spokeswoman for Freedom Indiana, a gay activist group fighting the proposed ban, accused the Young Hoosiers of “astroturfing,” or pretending to be grassroots when they are not. “Where have they been the last six months?” Wagner asked the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette. “Some of the national groups … have realized their voice has been lacking.”

In an interview with LifeSiteNews Thursday, Isaac Cramer, 24, said neither he nor his fellow Young Hoosiers have any connections with national organizations, and if they are late to the party it is due to their very lack of organization or funding.

“It is never too late to take a stand for something you believe in,” Cramer told LifeSiteNews. “Right now Indiana is in the middle of this debate. We are the only State this year that would have a marriage amendment potentially on the ballot. Everyone is looking at Indiana. We want to show that there is a strong contingent of young Hoosiers who believe in preserving the truth about marriage.”

“It’s really hard with a grassroots, kind of organic coalition to thrive without funding and without any kind of networking outside of the people we know and the people they know, which is kind of how we grew,” Cramer said.  “We knew people who knew people, and we kind of just kept forming by word of mouth. Before we knew it, we had people contacting us, saying ‘Hey, can I participate in your group?’”

Cramer says he believes the real number of young people who oppose redefining marriage is much higher than media reports would have people believe, but that the controversy over the issue is so intense that many are afraid to speak up.  Even Cramer himself was hesitant to speak on the record for this article, citing concerns about how his employers might react.  But ultimately – stressing that his personal beliefs are his own, and should not be taken as representing his employers’ – he said he decided to go on the record because “it’s important to be willing to stand up.”

While the Young Hoosiers for Marriage are currently focused on getting the marriage amendment passed, they believe that is just the first battle in a larger war for the future of the culture.  After the vote, they plan to expand their activism from the State House to Indiana’s college campuses and church youth groups, giving talks on the importance of traditional marriage and participating in debates with supporters of same-sex “marriage.”

Cramer said he hopes that by publicizing the fact that young people who support traditional marriage do exist, Young Hoosiers for Marriage will give others the courage to stand up, too.

“I think any time there is an issue that seems controversial, other people are going to be a little bit hesitant to speak out about it,” Cramer said.  “I think that it takes somebody to be bold, and somebody to be courageous to take a stand for something, and … other people see that and they realize that, ‘You know what, I can join forces.’  There’s always strength in numbers.”

Cramer told LifeSiteNews that since Tuesday’s press conference, their group – which includes the 100+ young people at the press conference, plus “around another 100 who couldn’t make it because they worked or had class” – has received many more requests from other young people in Indiana wanting to join.  Most of them are in their early 20s, juniors and seniors in college.

Asked what he would say to young people who oppose gay “marriage” but are afraid to speak out, Cramer said, “It takes courage to stand up for something you believe in.  Sometimes you’re going to receive negative backlash for a stance you take, but that shouldn’t discourage you from taking a stand.”

Cramer encouraged young people who want the safety in numbers provided by Young Hoosiers for Marriage to start their own groups.

“You know friends, you know people in your community, you know kids in school, or college classmates who would be on your side, and that’s how you start,” he said.  “You talk to people and you get their opinions, and a lot of times, your friends will share the same positions as you.  You start small, and then you grow.  It seems like it would be really hard, but really, you find that small group, and you just kind of build from there.  That’s how we came together.”

For more information on Young Hoosiers for Marriage, you can e-mail the group at younghoosiersformarriage@gmail.com.

To read an opinion editorial supporting traditional marriage by a college student named Julie Kitchel, one of the group’s founders, see  http://www.jconline.com/article/20140212/OPINION03/302120017/Guest-column-Why-marriage-HJR-3-still-matter-young-Hoosiers?nclick_check=1

By Al Langsenkamp, Update 1/26/2014

This past week we seated our jury on Tuesday Morning.  Opening statements were made in the afternoon and Kevin McCarthy was on the stand for the remainder of the week for direct examination.  Cross examination will start tomorrow afternoon.

Anyone thinking of attending the proceedings on Monday morning, please be advised that the trail has been postponed until 1:00 PM due to weather.

God Bless you and keep praying that truth prevails in all of these proceedings.

_Al–317-713-8633 (O), 317-946-0495 (C)

BACKGROUND 1/19/2014

Dear Friends and Family,

Once again, please allow me to ask for your prayers.

Starting this past Tuesday, January 21, I have been in a Federal Court Trial (as a Plaintiff) that revolves around the question: does a certain person own a devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.   This trial has certain constitutional and religious issues which have already set legal precedent (and may set more) concerning separation of Church and State issues.  The fundamental question however is does the defendant own copyrights and trademarks concerning the Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary under the title of Our Lady of America.

Many of you know that I have been dedicated to promoting this devotion to The Blessed Virgin Mary under the title of Our Lady of America.   This devotion originates with appearances of the Blessed Virgin as Our Lady of America to a Sister Mary Ephrem, C.PP.S. (8/2/1916-1/10/2000) in 1956 in Rome City, Indiana and continuing until 1960 in other locations.  The devotion was approved by the Archbishop of Cincinnati, Paul Francis Leibold.

The messages are a call to purity for our county.  There are certain requests made by Our Lady of us individually and of our Church collectively.  If we respond, she has promised graces greater than those given at Fatima and Lourdes.   During the course of these apparitions Jesus, St. Joseph, Our Lady, and St. Michael all appeared.  You can learn more about the devotion and additionally download the messages atwww.ourladyofamerica.org.

In late 2005 Kevin B. McCarthy (a friend of mine) was asked by two U.S. bishops to find out why this devotion had fallen into dormancy and to “Get it going”.    Terry and I discerned that we should help in this charge by the Bishops.

Starting in late 2005 we started collaborating with a Sr. Mary Joseph Therese, C.I.T. (Patricia Fuller) from Fostoria, OH.  She was in the cloister of the Precious Blood Sister with the visionary.  In the late 70’s the Precious Blood Sisters closed the cloister and the visionary left the Order.  Sr. Joseph represented that a new Order was founded called the Contemplative Sisters of the Indwelling Trinity that she and the visionary went to after leaving the Precious Blood Cloister and that she was the last living member of that Order.  She claimed copyrights and trademarks concerning the messages and devotionals.  Unfortunately, I never met the visionary.

Kevin & I collaborated with Sr. Mary Joseph Therese and many things were accomplished to promote the devotion from 2006-2007.  The statue of Our Lady of America attended the U.S.C.C.B. Conference in 2006.  It was displayed in the Archdioceses of New Your, Galveston-Houston, St. Louis, Newark, Indianapolis and Milwaukee.  Additionally, many Dioceses also promoted the devotion to some level.   While it was a struggle working with her, we continued our collaboration until late 2007 when the relationship broke down and we simultaneously learned that Sr. Mary Joseph Therese was not recognized as a Catholic Religious by the Holy Roman Catholic Church and did not live in a convent.  Subsequently, we also learned that Sr. Mary Joseph Therese was dismissed from religious life in 1982 for “incorrigible disobedience”.    In other words she misrepresented her status and in essence who she was.

This caused a serious threat to the devotion.   As a nun under a vow of poverty, Sr. Mary Joseph Therese could own trademarks and copyrights in her name that would through the operation of a vow of poverty belong to the Church.  However, as a lay person, if those copyright and trademarks were allowed to stand then a lay person would own, under the laws of the United States, what may be one of the greatest gifts of grace available through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin.

In 2005, Kevin McCarthy, BVM Foundation, Inc and I filed a lawsuit in Federal Court, primarily seeking to overturn these copyrights and trademarks arguing that they were either owned by the Catholic Church or were in the public domain.  Patricia Fuller and her co-defendant countersued with anything they could imagine producing a laundry list of illegal and immoral activities with which the created claims in the lawsuit.

This case has spanned over 5 years and has involved statements from 2 Bishops, the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, a diplomatic note from the Apostolic Nunciature, an Amicus Curie brief from the Vatican and a successful appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  Truly this has been a battle of “Powers and Principalities”.

The trial will last 4-6 weeks and is being held in the courtroom of William T. Lawrence at the U.S. Courthouse in downtown Indianapolis.

Terry and I sincerely implore your prayers that truth will prevail in this trial and that the evil one will be prevented from influencing anything about this trial resulting in a devotion which is free for the faithful and the bishops to practice.

The trial is open to the public.  Should you be able to attend and pray silently during the proceedings, it would certainly be appreciated?  If you are not able to attend, please offer your prayers for our success.  The trial is expected to last for the next 3 weeks or beyond.

We need prayer warriors, so feel free to forward this message or post it.

May Jesus bless you and Our Lady of America intercede for you!

by Kelsey Harris | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 1/22/14

Today, tens of thousands of people from around the country will gather in Washington to brave the cold for a cause they believe in. Some are marching for the first time, and others have been traveling to the nation’s capital since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. For the 41st year, they’ll meet again for the same reason — the sanctity of life.

We’re also celebrating life today, and we hope you will, too. Here are 19 moving reminders of the beauty of new life:

Learn more: “How to Speak Up for Life,” produced by Heritage in collaboration with Alliance Defending Freedom, Americans United for Life, Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, March for Life Education and Defense Fund, and the Susan B. Anthony List Education Fund

LifeNews Note: Kelsey Harris writes for the Heritage Foundation.

It happens every day. A couple, excited about their pregnancy and the birth of their child, receive the devastating news of a
prenatal diagnosis.

But even if the diagnosis includes those heartbreaking words – “incompatible with life” – every life deserves to be celebrated, and every baby deserves to be loved. As the friend or family member of someone who has received such a diagnosis, you have the power and the ability to help the couple cope, heal, and find joy.

Listen

Many parents who receive a diagnosis of their unborn children are being told by their doctors that abortion is the best option. Even if the parents don’t want to abort, they may be feeling a lot of pressure to do so. Some may even have doctors and family members telling that keeping their baby is selfish. It’s the hardest time in this couple’s lives, and the last thing they need from you is your unsolicited advice. It is best to listen to them. Let them cry. Let them get angry.

Let them experience the pain that this diagnosis has caused them. In the beginning, they don’t need you to tell them anything. They just need you to listen and hug them. Don’t disappear for fear of upsetting them. Make yourself available whenever your friend needs to talk, and call to check in on her. When the couple is ready to listen to your advice, be kind and non-judgmental. Remember that they want their baby, but they are afraid. Use examples of other families in similar situations to show them that loving a child is not dependent on a child’s health.

Support

Be there to support your friends’ decision to continue with the pregnancy. It’s the right decision, but they may be getting a lot of flak from doctors, friends, and even family about how others think they are doing their child a disservice. Attend doctor appointments with the expectant mom if her partner can’t be there. Be a positive, life-affirming presence in her life. Let her cry when she wants to cry. Let her yell when she wants to yell. Let her know she’s doing the right thing. Make her dinner. Take her to lunch. Help her find resources of support concerning her child’s condition.

Celebrate

Most expectant moms get a baby shower to celebrate their new bundles of joy. But when a couple receives a diagnosis for their unborn child, family and friends often worry about whether or not to throw a baby shower. They often wonder how they can possibly celebrate during such an emotionally devastating time. Before planning a Celebration of Life shower, talk with the couple and make sure they’re okay with it. If they are, help them start a baby registry. Even if they have been told their child won’t survive birth, there is always the hope and the chance that the baby will. The baby may even end up going home after all.

You can ask guests to bring gifts for the mom that include gift cards to restaurants or a spa for a day of pampering. Gifts can also include blankets and quilts with the baby’s name on them. An amazing gift would be a pregnancy photo session. And of course, include the usual gifts such as outfits and baby toys.

Just because a baby has received a prenatal diagnosis does not mean his or her life should go uncelebrated. This child, and his or her parents, need all the love and support they can get, and there’s no better way to do that than by showing how much you care for all of them.

LifeNews Note: Nancy is a work at home mom who writes about parenting, special needs children, and the right to life. She is the lucky mother of two spirited little girls, one who has cystic fibrosis, and she spends any free moment she can find fundraising for a cure for CF. You can read her personal blog at www.ChronicAdmissions.com. Reprinted from Live Action News.