"Move over intact Christian families, TV has decided Orthodox Jews ripe for mockery" (Jewish World Review, 2/28/12)

As per Jewish World Review, CBS' 2 Broke Girls - especially in one particular episode - implies

• "that no family or tradition or discipline can live up to any ideal or sanctity....
  
  "The implication is that Jews are like everybody else in turning their backs on the family of neighbors, and on family in general....
  
  "why do the writers and producers of this series persist in trying to render sympathetic [the character] Max's cynical and anti-family outlook?....
  
  "the lingering impression is that Orthodox Jewish life is unrealistic given the pull of popular culture....
  
  "[The writer] refuses to make her gratuitously Jewish characters redeemable. They are incapable of achieving self-awareness by virtue of their Orthodox Judaism, which is depicted as entirely without virtue here, as incapable of holding any generation....
  
  "[2 Broke Girls] "dismisses any kind of virtue or even common sense as unrealistic....
  
  "Either virtue is trash or this TV series is" (Move over intact Christian families, TV has decided Orthodox Jews ripe for mockery, Jewish World Review, 2/28/12).

Have our elected officials grown comfortable with such discrimination against marriage and family?

Rights & Responsibilities

Along with

•The Right to Life & the Dignity of the Human Person
•Call to Family, Community & Participation
•Option for the Poor & Vulnerable
•Dignity of Work & the Rights of Workers
•Solidarity
•Caring for God's Creation

the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops explains that Rights & Responsibilities is one of the seven key themes of Catholic Social Teaching:

“Every human being has a right to life, the fundamental right that makes all other rights possible. Each of us has a right to religious freedom, which enables us to live and act in accord with our God-given dignity, as well as a right to access to those things required for human decency—food and shelter, education and employment, health care and housing. Corresponding to these rights are duties and responsibilities—to one another, to our families, and to the larger society.”

As per Chapter 2 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, “at play in society are the dignity and rights of the person, and peace in the relationships between persons & between communities of persons….the Church's social doctrine has the task of proclamation, but also of denunciation."

The Defense of Marriage

In a scholarly work, (The Second Annual Index of Family Belonging and Rejection, Marriage and Religion Research Institute, November 17, 2011), Dr. Patrick Fagan and Dr. Nicholas Zill recently confirmed what we can see with our own eyes - MOST teenagers no longer live with both of their biological parents, who are married to each other. When teens do not live with their biological moms & dads, who are married to each other, they are

• 
  
  less likely to graduate from high school,


• more likely to experience poverty, and


• more likely to become unmarried teen parents.

Dr. Fagan and Dr. Zill's findings confirm good old Common Sense. Society has a vested interest in preserving and protecting marriage. Archbishop Chaput has called marriage protection "the issue of our time." Up to this point, however, it has been the rare political figure who has been willing to stand up for this common sense....

The Obama Administration Has Chosen to Discontinue Defending the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):

In a November 2nd letter to the U.S. Senate's Judiciary Committee urging support for DOMA, Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, chairman of the USCCB's Subcommittee for the Promotion & Defense of Marriage, wrote:

• "DOMA is rational, and its repeal would be unjust.... Redefining marriage to mean simply an arrangement of consenting adults violates justice because it interferes with basic human rights. First, changing the institution of marriage by making it indifferent to the absence of one sex or the other denies that children have the fundamental human right to be cared by both their mother and father. Such revision transforms marriage from a child-centered to an adult-centered status to the detriment of children.... Second, redefining marriage also threatens the fundamental human right of religious freedom. Those who refuse on moral and religious grounds to accept or accommodate the redefinition of legal marriage are already being wrongly accused of bigotry and hatred, bias and prejudice.... All persons have a rightful claim to our utmost respect. There is no corresponding duty, however, for society to disregard the meaning of sexual difference and its practical consequences for the common good; to override fundamental rights, such as religious liberty; and to re-define our most basic social institution."

And in Harrisburg....

The Pennsylvania Catholic Conference tells us that "a Marriage Protection Amendment to the Pennsylvania State Constitution may be the only way" to preserve marriage in Pennsylvania. As in Washington, it is the rare Pennsylvania legislator who forthrightly demonstrates an appreciation for marriage:

It is hard to believe that any of our elected officials truly fail to understand that society has a vested interest in preserving and protecting marriage. When politicians (indeed any of us) try to be so slick as to avoid standing up for common sense, they only enhance their cowardice.

Fw: Vote is close - urgent calls needed

Call to Family, Community & Participation

Along with

•The Right to Life & the Dignity of the Human Person
•Rights & Responsibilities
•Option for the Poor & Vulnerable
•Dignity of Work & the Rights of Workers
•Solidarity
•Caring for God's Creation

the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops explains that Call to Family, Community & Participation is one of the seven key themes of Catholic Social Teaching:

“The family, based on marriage between a man and a woman, is the fundamental unit of society. This sanctuary for the creation and nurturing of children must not be redefined, undermined, or neglected. Supporting families should be a priority for economic and social policies. How our society is organized—in economics and politics, in law and public policy—affects the well-being of individuals and of society. Every person and association has a right and a duty to participate in shaping society to promote the well-being of individuals and the common good.”

As per Chapter 5 of the Vatican's Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church,

“The family possesses inviolable rights & finds its legitimization in human nature and not in being recognized by the State....Marriage is not a simple agreement to live together but a relationship with a social dimension that is unique with regard to all other relationships, since the family…is the principal instrument for making each person grow in an integral manner and integrating him positively into social life....[The] duty calling for respect does not justify the legitimization of behaviour that is not consistent with moral law....All programmes of economic assistance aimed at financing campaigns of sterilization and contraception, as well as the subordination of economic assistance to such campaigns, are to be morally condemned as affronts to the dignity of the person and the family."

And in Harrisburg....

Please see the below forwarded email from the Pennsylvania Family Institute on tomorrow's National Pray for Marriage Day....

The Right to Life & the Dignity of the Human Person

Along with

•Call to Family, Community & Participation
•Rights & Responsibilities
•Option for the Poor & Vulnerable
•Dignity of Work & the Rights of Workers
•Solidarity
•Caring for God's Creation

the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops explains that The Right to Life & the Dignity of the Human Person is one of the seven key themes of Catholic Social Teaching:

"Human life is sacred. Direct attacks on innocent human beings are never morally acceptable. Within our society, life is under direct attack from abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, and destruction of human embryos for research. These intrinsic evils must always be opposed. This teaching also compels us as Catholics to oppose genocide, torture, unjust war, and the use of the death penalty, as well as to pursue peace and help overcome poverty, racism, and other conditions that demean human life."

As per Chapter 3 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, “The Church sees in men and women, in every person, the living image of God." The late Great John Paul II made this so abundantly clear:

• “the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -for example, the right
  
  
  to health,
  to home,
  to work,
  to family,
  to culture-
  is false & illusory if the right to life, the most basic & fundamental right & the condition for all other personal rights,is not defended with maximum determination” (Pope John Paul II, Christifideles Laici)

Caring for God's Creation

This morning's Courier Times featured an anti-Catholic opinion piece by David D. Jones (not to be confused with the late Monkee), replete with tired, old charges.David D. Jones' argument is basically the Malthusian one, which has been around since the late 18th century:

"There are too many people on the planet, making life miserable for the rest of use. If I take my SUV into the city, I have trouble finding a parking space! Worse yet, I sometimes run into traffic jams, when I'm driving. If we don't do something quick, we're going to run out of food!

Sorry Dave, experts tell us that there's plenty of food to go around. In fact, the reason that we have any famines comes down to inadequate food distribution and human selfishness.

Dave, Catholics have every reason to be proud of what their Church proclaims about how we should be living among each other. Along with

•The Right to Life & the Dignity of the Human Person
•Call to Family, Community & Participation
•Rights & Responsibilities
•Option for the Poor & Vulnerable
•Dignity of Work & the Rights of Workers
•Solidarity

the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops explains, for example, that Caring for God's Creation is one of the seven key themes of Catholic Social Teaching:

“Care for the earth is a duty of our Catholic faith. We all are called to be careful stewards of God’s creation and to ensure a safe and hospitable environment for vulnerable human beings now and in the future.”

Dave, Let me emphasize this point: While we treasure and care for all of God's gifts to His people, the Church unapologetically proclaims God's Word: People Come First!

As per Chapter 10 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church,

“Only man and woman, among all creatures, were made by God 'in his own image' (Gen 1,27).... The biblical vision inspires the behaviour of Christians in relation to their use of the earth, and also with regard to the advances of science and technology....

“A correct understanding of the environment prevents the utilitarian reduction of nature to a mere object to be manipulated and exploited. At the same time, it must not absolutize nature and place it above the dignity of the human person himself….

“nature is not a sacred or divine reality that man must leave alone. Rather, it is a gift offered by the Creator to the human community….

“the goods of the earth were created by God to be used wisely by all. They must be shared equitably, in accordance with justice and charity....

“demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development....

“Inadequate access to safe drinking water affects the well-being of a huge number of people and is often the cause of disease, suffering, conflicts, poverty and even death.... the right to safe drinking water is a universal and inalienable right.

"lifestyles should be inspired by sobriety, temperance, and self-discipline at both the individual and social levels”

Some have tried to misconstrue the key theme of Caring for God's Creation. As Pope Benedict XVI has cautioned us,

"a correct understanding of the relationship between man & the environment will not end by absolutizing nature or by considering it more important than the human person. If the Church's magisterium expresses grave misgivings about notions of the environment inspired by ecocentrism and biocentrism, it is because such notions eliminate the difference of identity & worth between the human person & other living things. In the name of a supposedly egalitarian vision of the 'dignity' of all living creatures, such notions end up abolishing the distinctiveness and superior role of human beings. They also open the way to a new pantheism tinged with neo-paganism, which would see the source of man's salvation in nature alone, understood in purely naturalistic terms" (Pope Benedict XVI’s Message for the 2010 World Day of Peace)"

The CHAUSA & Dignitas Personae

Your Excellency:

Having a history of ignored letters from Executive Director Sister Carol Keehan and Senior Director of Ethics Father Thomas Nairn of the Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHAUSA), a somewhat cheeky article by George Neumayr certainly caught my eye:

• "The checkered Catholic hospitals Keehan represents as chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association stand to receive gobs and gobs of cash from the federal government if Obamacare holds up past 2012. Consequently, the members of the association are more than happy to pony up huge salaries to executives skilled at manipulating the Catholic electorate for Obama.
  
  "Keehan is worth $962,467 to them in total salary and benefits, according to the Schedule J (Form 990) 2010 document sent to me by CHA....
  
  "Fr. Nairn's order, the Franciscan Friars, snatched $194,947" (American Spectator, 2/16/12).

My concerns about Section 23 of Dignitas Personae, which strikes me as absolutely pertinent to the issue of "emergency [so-called] contraception," have been ignored by the CHAUSA. As you certainly know, §23 offers a distinction between "interceptive" methods interfering with an embryo before implantation and "contragestative" methods interfering with the embryo after implantation - while reiterating that both are illicit. Unlike Directive 36 of the USCCB's Ethical & Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs), Dignitas Personae does NOT offer guidelines for "moral" use of a potential interceptive or contragestative.

Talking Points Developed by CHA Ethics Staff on Dignitas Personae was written under the watch of Father Nairn and Ronald Hamels:

• "Comments in §23 may raise some questions about Directive 36. The paragraph states that 'anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion.' The Catholic Health Association supports this judgment. It also believes that implementation of Directive 36 of the Ethical and Religious Directives remains unchanged. Plan B, the medication of choice for emergency contraception, does not appear to have a post-fertilization effect, given the results of repeated scientific studies."

Unlike the CHAUSA, others readily acknowledge a "post-fertilization effect" (They may also accept a changed definition of conception to implantation, thus insisting - with a straight face - that there is no "abortifacient" potential.):

• "The morning-after pill can also thin the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. You might have also heard that the morning-after pill causes an abortion. But that's not true. The morning-after pill is not the abortion pill. Emergency contraception is birth control, not abortion" (Planned Parenthood).


• "If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation)" (U.S. Food and Drug Administration).

About two years ago, Marie Hilliard of the National Catholic Bioethics Center referred me to her own article on this topic (See attached.). Though she acknowledges the abortifacient potential of emergency contraception, her ultimate conclusions largely mirror those of Father Nairn and Hamels. I find them morally unconvincing:

• "Most significantly, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated that 'scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present, even if this does not mean that such interceptives...cause an abortion every time they are used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual intercourse.' The question is whether the pregnancy-test-only protocol is sufficient to achieve moral certitude that emergency contraception will not have an abortifacient effect in each specific victim of sexual assault."

With all respect to Hilliard, the CDF in Dignitas Personae did NOT raise that "question"; it does NOT offer guidelines for "moral" use of a potential interceptive or contragestative. In fact, Dignitas Personae specifically states that "the use of means of interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral. Furthermore, when there is certainty that an abortion has resulted, there are serious penalties in canon law." Though Hilliard quotes Dignitas Personae, her scholarly article misses that point:

• "we make no claim that there must be scientific certitude that emergency contraception will not have an abortifacient effect before it is administered. Rather, there must be moral certitude that administration of the emergency contraceptive is consistent with directive 36 of the ERDs."

Your Excellency, I readily acknowledge that I am NOT a medical professional (My masters are in rehabilitation and theology, and my doctorate is in counseling.). I recognize that my credentials can in no way match those at CHAUSA, Catholic Health East, or the National Catholic Bioethics Center. Yet be that said, I also seem to stand alone in lacking a financial interest in this topic. Were I not to share my concerns, I'd have much more to answer for on Judgment Day, than I already will!

Respectfully,

Senator Casey - Exactly why is it so difficult for you to understand the need for conscience protections?

This past November, I had the good fortune of going on a retreat led by Pennsylvania's own Father Dennis Wilde, OSA. Father Wilde was arrested on Thursday for his opposition to the HHS mandate....

"STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- The Rev. Denis Wilde, OSA, associate director of the New Dorp-based Priests for Life, was among six people arrested yesterday during a peaceful protest outside the White House.

"Father Wilde was representing Priests for Life at an organized protest of the Health and Human Services contraception mandate. Priests for Life on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration that seeks to permanently block the implementation of the mandate because they deem it imposes clear violations of conscience upon any American citizens who morally object to abortion and contraception.

"Father Wilde and the other protesters, including the Rev. Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, were cited for 'Failure to obey a lawful order' as they knelt in prayer in front of the White House....

"'Occupy Wall Street protesters have been occupying federal property for months, but when we kneel in prayer, the police are called in and we are arrested,' Father Wilde said." (silive.com, 2/17/12)

As per a February 14th mailing from the Susan B. Anthony List, "President Obama announced a 'compromise' after his mandate forcing religiously-affiliated institutions to pay for insurance coverage of abortifacient pills, contraception, and sterilization caused a national uproar. This compromise – which makes government the arbiter of individual conscience -- can be described in one word: unacceptable....Contact your Senators immediately and ask them to vote for the Blunt Amendment #1520 which will reverse the President’s mandate."

When I called Senator Toomey's office on February 15th, I was immediately advised that he would support the Blunt Amendment. At that time, I did not yet realize that Senator Toomey was one of the original co-sponsors (See pages 35 & 36 of this link.)! Thank you Senator Toomey!

When I called Senator Casey's office that same day, I was told that he'd yet to make a decision on the Blunt Amendment. After commenting that it should not be a difficult call for one who identifies himself as pro life, the phone was hung up on me. Of far more concern to me than the rudeness of Senator Casey's office is the fact that this amendment is a "no brainer" for ANYONE who claims to be pro life.

Senator Casey - Exactly why is it so difficult for you to understand the need for conscience protections?

Catholic Charities Appeal & CCUSA's

Your Excellency:

On the very weekend of the Catholic Charities Appeal, this absolutely disheartening posting appears on the web site of Catholic Charities USA:

• "Rev. Larry Snyder, President and CEO of Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA,) responds to the Administration’s announcement on religious freedom and believes this is a step in the right direction:
  
  
  
  'Catholic Charities USA welcomes the Administration’s attempt to meet the concerns of the religious community and we look forward to reviewing the final language.
  
  'We are hopeful that this is a step in the right direction and are committed to continuing our work to ensure that our religious institutions will continue to be granted the freedom to remain faithful to our beliefs, while also being committed to providing access to quality healthcare for our 70,000 employees and their families across the country.'

With all respect Your Excellency, it appears that the faithful would be better off donating their hard earned funds directly to charities which are completely committed to authentic Catholic Social Teaching.

Thank you,

The White House's insulting response....

HR 3, HR 358, HR 361, HR 1179, H.CON.RES.25, HR 875

Dear Representative Fitzpatrick,

Thank you for your support of pro life legislation, championed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

• 
  
  The USCCB urged support for the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. Thank you for voting for HR 3.


• 
  
  The USCCB urged support for the Protect Life Act. Thank you for voting for HR 358.


• 
  
  The USCCB urged support for the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act ("Passage of ANDA is urgently needed to protect the civil rights of health professionals and other health care entities. This bill reaffirms a basic principle: No health care entity should be forced by government to perform or participate in abortions.") Thank you for co-sponsoring HR 361.


• 
  
  The USCCB urged support for the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. Thank you for co-sponsoring HR 1179.

With regard to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, chairman of the USCCB's Subcommittee for the Promotion & Defense of Marriage, has stated that

• "DOMA is rational, and its repeal would be unjust....
  
  "Redefining marriage to mean simply an arrangement of consenting adults violates justice because it interferes with basic human rights.
  
  "First, changing the institution of marriage by making it indifferent to the absence of one sex or the other denies that children have the fundamental human right to be cared by both their mother and father. Such revision transforms marriage from a child-centered to an adult-centered status to the detriment of children....
  
  "Second, redefining marriage also threatens the fundamental human right of religious freedom. Those who refuse on moral and religious grounds to accept or accommodate the redefinition of legal marriage are already being wrongly accused of bigotry and hatred, bias and prejudice....
  
  "All persons have a rightful claim to our utmost respect. There is no corresponding duty, however, for society to disregard the meaning of sexual difference and its practical consequences for the common good; to override fundamental rights, such as religious liberty; and to re-define our most basic social institution" (November 2011).

Representative Fitzpatrick, it was a great disappointment that you did NOT co-sponsor of H.CON.RES.25 , "Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the Obama administration's discontinuing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act."

Representative Fitzpatrick, will you co-sponsor and support H.R.875, the Marriage Protection Act?

Sincerely,

Archbishop Chaput: "the current administration has created an HHS mandate that is the embodiment of culture war."

(Clicking on the below images should enlarge the text. Just in case, a copy is also included as an attachment. Highlighting was added by this blogger.)

"Bishops Renew Call to Legislative Action on Religious Liberty" (USCCB, 2/10/12)

With regard yesterday's supposed resolution of the morally repugnant HHS mandate....

Yesterday's ill-advised statement from Sister Carol Keehan and the Catholic Health Association should come as no surprise to anyone who remembers Sister's and the CHAUSA's earlier betrayal of their fellow Catholics:

• "The Catholic Health Association is very pleased with the White House announcement that a resolution has been reached that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions."

With all respect Sister, this issue is not simply about your preferred insitutional protections (And by the way Sister, there are plenty of indications that your own CHAUSA moral house is NOT in good order.).

Considering Senator Robert Casey, Jr's longstanding endorsement of President Obama and "Obamacare," it should come as no surprise that Senator Casey's own statement evidenced appalling ignorance of the nature of Catholic moral teaching (Yet, it was admittedly less gleeful than that of Sister Carol Keehan & the CHAUSA.):

• "I support greater access to contraceptives but I do not believe that religious institutions should be forced to violate their beliefs....I will review the details of today’s announcement to determine whether it strikes the right balance."

Sister & Senator, let me help you out here. The White House "resolution" will NOT protect "the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions" (to say nothing of other institutions and individuals). It absolutely does NOT strike "the right balance," and handing out abortifacients/contraceptives is NOT health care. You urgently need to get up to speed on authentic women's health care. As per yesterday's statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,

• [we] "urged HHS, if it insisted on keeping the mandate, to provide a conscience exemption for all of these stakeholders [i.e., insurers, employers, employees, schools, students]—not just the extremely small subset of 'religious employers' that HHS proposed to exempt initially....
  
  "[The President] has decided to retain HHS's nationwide mandate of insurance coverage of sterilization and contraception, including some abortifacients [emphasis added]. This is both unsupported in the law and remains a grave moral concern. We cannot fail to reiterate this, even as so many would focus exclusively on the question of religious liberty....
  
  "the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer's plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer....
  
  "today's proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions....The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services....
  
  "we renew our call on Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. And we renew our call to the Catholic faithful, and to all our fellow Americans, to join together in this effort to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all."

As a registered Democrat, I am especially embarassed by Senator Casey's continued failure to co-sponsor the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (S 1467). Senator Casey's flimsy alternative, S 1489 - which has NO co-sponsors - is ABSOLUTELY NOT AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE. Kudos to Senator Pat Toomey for being one of the 36 co-sponsors of S 1467.

Kudos to Pennsylvania Representatives Lou Barletta (11), Mark Critz (12), Mike Fitzpatrick (8), Mike Kelly (3), Tom Marino (10), Patrick Mehan (7), Tim Murphy (18), Todd Platts (19), Bill Shuster (9), and Glenn Thompson (5) for being among the 172 co-sponsors of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (HR 1179).

The attached list summarizes publicly available information on positions which have been advocated by the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, looking at legislators who represent parts of the archdiocese (If you spot any errors, an email would be appreciated.). Legislatos identified as Catholic have been highlighted :

Pro Life

• Especially in light of the scandal surrounding Kermit Gosnell & his associates, how did the senator or representative vote on SB 732, to add common sense regulations to abortion facilities?


• How did the senator voted on SB 3 and how did the representative voted on HB 1977, to limit abortion funding in "Obamacare"?


• If a member of the House health committee, how did the representative vote on the Women's Right to Know Act, HB 1077, providing for ultrasound testing?

Pro Marriage/Family

• If part of the Judiciary Committee, did the senator vote for SB 707 (i.e., the Marriage Amendment), by voting NOT to table it? Did the representative join Rep Metcalfe in introducing HB 1434?

School Choice
NOTE: There does NOT seem to be a strong correlation between consistently voting pro life (and pro marriage/family) and voting in favor of school choice. For example, some seantors who have voted AGAINST pro life positions (e.g., Dinniman, Hughes, McIlhinney, Washington, Williams) voted FOR school choice.

• How did the senator vote on SB 1? Is the representative part of the education committee?

Pa Senate _ House members from Archdiocese

Putting Kids First - Why School Choice Has Become Essential

Dear Senators and Representatives,

I am writing to you, because at least some of your constituents reside in one of five counties which are particularly dear to me - Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia. Those five counties compose the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

While some might try to argue cause and effect, it is undeniable that we have seen a terrifying rise in child abuse statistics, during the decades of legal abortion in the United States. As a society, I believe that we have come to place much less value on all human life - this is a trend which we must reverse. Along those lines,

• I applaud those senators and representatives who voted for SB 732, which has been signed into law by the governor.


• As abortion is in no manner, shape, or form "health care," I applaud those senators who voted for SB 3 on 6/7/11 and those representatives who voted for HB 1977 on 12/12/11.


• I applaud those members of the House Health Committee, who voted for HB 1077, the Women's Right to Know Act. As per the Pennsylvania Family Council, this would:
  "•Require abortion clinics to perform an ultrasound at least 24 hours before an abortion (or provide a list of other ultrasound providers, including pregnancy care centers);
  •Require that pregnant women be informed of their right to view the live ultrasound image of her unborn baby while the test is being performed;
  •Require that printed photos of those ultrasound images be provided to women."
  Please support HB 1077.

Over the years, I have taken great interest in the National Marriage Project (which is now at the University of Virginia) and the Fragile Families and Child Well Being study (Princeton and Columbia Universities). Because kids are absolutely essential, each and every one of us has a duty to be concerned with preserving the best social program ever put forth for the care, education, and well-being of children. Simply put, the fact that kids do best in the care of their own moms and dads who are married to each other has been getting grossly overlooked. At this juncture, the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference reminds us that "a Marriage Protection Amendment to the Pennsylvania State Constitution may be the only way" to preserve marriage in Pennsylvania. House Bill 1434 needs to successfully make its way out of the State Government committee and be passed by the House & Senate, en route to the governor's signature. The well being of children requires putting aside political differences and supporting this time-tested social program.

Education is obviously an essential component of children's well being. Decisions about educational policy must be driven by what is best for kids. When this 53 year old was a kid, I vividly recall being taught that certain utilities / public services HAD to function as monopolies. Yet if I used the term now, I doubt that either of my two young adult children would recognize the name, "Ma Bell." Just as it is true that phone service did not need ATT to survive, education does NOT require that public school systems exercise exclusive strangleholds.

My wife and I sent our two children through Catholic grade school and high school in Lower Bucks County, thus saving other taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars which would have gone to the public school system. When our kids were high school age, our local school system told us that all residents of Morrisville Boro were within walking distance of the school - Historically, Morrisville School District (as well as Bristol Boro School District) has thus justified its failure to even provide transportation for parochial school kids. Heretofore, we just swallowed that injustice. At this juncture, however, we are learning that genuine school choice options are needed for parochial school systems to survive.

School Choice would be in everyone's best interest - other than those, of course, who are NOT interested in putting kids first.

Sincerely,