Catholics In the Know
Sunday, February 29, 2004
The Passion of The Christ and Anne Catherine Emmerich and Mary of Agreda
Apparitions/Private Revelations
EUROPE FORGED LARGELY BY CHRISTIAN SPIRITUAL, MORAL VALUES
MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II FOR LENT 2004
French bishops warned on secularism
Apparitions/Private Revelations
EUROPE FORGED LARGELY BY CHRISTIAN SPIRITUAL, MORAL VALUES
MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II FOR LENT 2004
French bishops warned on secularism
Saturday, February 28, 2004
- Earth was minutes from asteroid alert
- An Interview with Rabbi Daniel Lapin
- Schiavo's husband faces contempt of court allegations
- Conservative views on radio could be labeled 'indecent' if ...
- Why Mel Owes One To The Jews
If you have not decided to see, "The Passion of the Christ", it is a must!
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
SD Senate Passes Abortion Bill
compiled from News reports from KELO-TV and KSFY-TV
The state Senate has just revived a bill banning abortions in South Dakota.
The bill passed 18-to-15, which is the minimum number of votes needed for passage.
The measure would outlaw all abortions - unless a mother's life is in danger. Legislators refused to make an exception in cases of rape.
The bill declares that life begins at conception. It also says abortions harm women by causing them both physical and emotional problems. The bill would punish those who do abortions with five-year prison terms. Doctors who do abortions in order to save the lives of pregnant women would be exempt from punishment. The measure makes it illegal to give women drugs that would cause abortions or to do the actual physical operations.
Supporters hope the measure will prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to finally decide when life begins. Opponents argue that the bill is only a moral statement. They say it will be challenged in court and South Dakota will lose.
The bill is almost the same as one that passed the House earlier. But it must go back to the House now, because the Senate did make some changes.
Assuming the House approves the few changes made by the Senate, the bill will then go to the Governor for signature.
Let us be in prayer that the measure is passed and signed by the Governor and that the Supreme Court will be motivated to reconsider Roe v. Wade.
compiled from News reports from KELO-TV and KSFY-TV
The state Senate has just revived a bill banning abortions in South Dakota.
The bill passed 18-to-15, which is the minimum number of votes needed for passage.
The measure would outlaw all abortions - unless a mother's life is in danger. Legislators refused to make an exception in cases of rape.
The bill declares that life begins at conception. It also says abortions harm women by causing them both physical and emotional problems. The bill would punish those who do abortions with five-year prison terms. Doctors who do abortions in order to save the lives of pregnant women would be exempt from punishment. The measure makes it illegal to give women drugs that would cause abortions or to do the actual physical operations.
Supporters hope the measure will prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to finally decide when life begins. Opponents argue that the bill is only a moral statement. They say it will be challenged in court and South Dakota will lose.
The bill is almost the same as one that passed the House earlier. But it must go back to the House now, because the Senate did make some changes.
Assuming the House approves the few changes made by the Senate, the bill will then go to the Governor for signature.
Let us be in prayer that the measure is passed and signed by the Governor and that the Supreme Court will be motivated to reconsider Roe v. Wade.
Cardinal Ratzinger on Communion
Cardinal Ratzinger on Relativism, and Communion for the Remarried
Bush...support for marriage amendment
Court changes mind in 'Roe' case
Democrats vow to fight Nader
U.N. Finds Iran Hid Some Nuke Experiments
Sex-change laws on agenda
Cardinal Ratzinger on Relativism, and Communion for the Remarried
Bush...support for marriage amendment
Court changes mind in 'Roe' case
Democrats vow to fight Nader
U.N. Finds Iran Hid Some Nuke Experiments
Sex-change laws on agenda
Monday, February 23, 2004
U.S. Catholics are looking for a pope to support their views
San Francisco to resume gay marriages, dividing Americans and politicians
U.N. calls Israel bus bombing 'war crime'
Taliban claim responsibility
Virus closes US army bases in Germany
Berkeley creating car tax of multiple vehicles
San Francisco to resume gay marriages, dividing Americans and politicians
U.N. calls Israel bus bombing 'war crime'
Taliban claim responsibility
Virus closes US army bases in Germany
Berkeley creating car tax of multiple vehicles
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Greetings Brothers and Sisters in Christ
God should strike you dead!
Australia's top mufti calls for holy war
"4 Words -- 'The Jews killed Christ"
WHY ROME SUPPORTS THE UNITED NATIONS
What is Just War?
In His Name.
God should strike you dead!
Australia's top mufti calls for holy war
"4 Words -- 'The Jews killed Christ"
WHY ROME SUPPORTS THE UNITED NATIONS
What is Just War?
In His Name.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Abortion bill advances
House passes measure; Senate next stop
By Bob Mercer
American News Correspondent
PIERRE - When the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 13, 1971, heard the first round of oral arguments in the Roe v. Wade case that eventually legalized abortion, Justice Thurgood Marshall asked the key question challenging the state of Texas claim that life begins at conception.
"Do you have any evidence to support that?" Marshall queried, and after an exchange of further questions and answers, Texas lawyer Jay Floyd conceded. "Mr. Justice," he replied, "there are unanswerable questions in this field."
On Tuesday afternoon the state House of Representatives decided it was time to try again to answer that question, armed with 25 years of DNA research. After debating for two and one-half hours, House members voted 54-14 to outlaw nearly all abortions in South Dakota.
"Since that time, they have not really gone back and reviewed when life began," Rep. Don Van Etten, R-Rapid City, said.
Getting the nation's high court to revisit the Roe v. Wade decision is the very point of the legislation, House Bill 1191. Its language aims directly at Justice Marshall's question. It declares that life begins at conception and that the due process of law under the South Dakota Bill of Rights applies equally to born and unborn human beings.
"This is the hour, this is the place, we are the people," Rep. Bill Van Gerpen, R-Tyndall, said.
"One thing we can all agree on is this law will be litigated. We all know that," said Rep. Ben Nesselhug, D-Vermillion.
The other big question in the case was posed during the second round of oral arguments on Oct. 11, 1972. It focused on the See ABORTION, Page
Abortion
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that says no state "shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
According to author Peter Irons, in his book "A People's History of the Supreme Court," Justice Potter Stewart raised that equal protection issue to Sarah Weddington, the attorney for the anonymous "Jane Roe" who sought the abortion.
"If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the 14th Amendment, you would have an almost impossible case here, wouldn't you," Stewart asked. She replied, "I would have a very difficult case."
The prime sponsor of HB 1191, Rep. Matt McCaulley, went straight to Stewart's question when he made the final statement of the debate Tuesday. "What due process is there for an unborn child?" McCaulley, R-Sioux Falls, asked.
"As to the arguments that some abortion opponents don't believe the high court's current membership will be willing to overturn the Roe decision, McCaulley said, " I refuse to wait for the right to life."
Trimester system: What the Supreme Court did instead in its 1973 decision legalizing most abortions was to develop the trimester system of viability. It permitted abortions without restrictions during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. During the second 12 weeks, the state could regulate abortions in order to protect the mother's health. During the final 12 weeks, states could outlaw abortions except to save the mother's life.
Rep. Mel Olson, D-Mitchell, argued repeatedly Tuesday that the legislation being passed by the House was unconstitutional and would be rejected by the Supreme Court. He said his vote against the bill was a vote to uphold the constitution.
"The power to change that (the Roe v. Wade decision) does not rest with me in this chamber," Olson said.
He instead offered a new version of the legislation that would have relied on the viability theory that is the basis of the Roe decision.
Olson sought to establish viability at 19 weeks of pregnancy and to prohibit abortions after that, except to save the life or protect a major bodily function of the mother. But House members rejected his amendment by a broad margin.
Rape, incest exemption rejected: The House majority likewise turned down a broad variety of other amendments, including $1 million to pay court costs if the state loses, and an exception to allow abortion in the event of rape or incest.
"It doesn't matter how a child begins. It matters what they become," Rep. Kair Weems, R-Sioux Falls, said. "It is a greater injustice to kill the blameless child."
The only exception in the bill is to allow an abortion to save the mother's life. The bill also places no restrictions on normal use of legal contraceptive prior to the time that pregnancy can be determined using conventional testing.
The measure now heads to the Senate for a second committee hearing and then, in all likelihood, consideration by the full Senate in a floor debate later this month. The bill has 18 Senate co-sponsors, the exact number needed for passage on a simple majority.
As the House members debated Tuesday afternoon, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected an attempt to repeal South Dakota's death penalty for criminals on a 27-8 vote.
The anti-abortion legislation says there is no justification for taking "a guiltless human life."
House passes measure; Senate next stop
By Bob Mercer
American News Correspondent
PIERRE - When the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 13, 1971, heard the first round of oral arguments in the Roe v. Wade case that eventually legalized abortion, Justice Thurgood Marshall asked the key question challenging the state of Texas claim that life begins at conception.
"Do you have any evidence to support that?" Marshall queried, and after an exchange of further questions and answers, Texas lawyer Jay Floyd conceded. "Mr. Justice," he replied, "there are unanswerable questions in this field."
On Tuesday afternoon the state House of Representatives decided it was time to try again to answer that question, armed with 25 years of DNA research. After debating for two and one-half hours, House members voted 54-14 to outlaw nearly all abortions in South Dakota.
"Since that time, they have not really gone back and reviewed when life began," Rep. Don Van Etten, R-Rapid City, said.
Getting the nation's high court to revisit the Roe v. Wade decision is the very point of the legislation, House Bill 1191. Its language aims directly at Justice Marshall's question. It declares that life begins at conception and that the due process of law under the South Dakota Bill of Rights applies equally to born and unborn human beings.
"This is the hour, this is the place, we are the people," Rep. Bill Van Gerpen, R-Tyndall, said.
"One thing we can all agree on is this law will be litigated. We all know that," said Rep. Ben Nesselhug, D-Vermillion.
The other big question in the case was posed during the second round of oral arguments on Oct. 11, 1972. It focused on the See ABORTION, Page
Abortion
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that says no state "shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
According to author Peter Irons, in his book "A People's History of the Supreme Court," Justice Potter Stewart raised that equal protection issue to Sarah Weddington, the attorney for the anonymous "Jane Roe" who sought the abortion.
"If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the 14th Amendment, you would have an almost impossible case here, wouldn't you," Stewart asked. She replied, "I would have a very difficult case."
The prime sponsor of HB 1191, Rep. Matt McCaulley, went straight to Stewart's question when he made the final statement of the debate Tuesday. "What due process is there for an unborn child?" McCaulley, R-Sioux Falls, asked.
"As to the arguments that some abortion opponents don't believe the high court's current membership will be willing to overturn the Roe decision, McCaulley said, " I refuse to wait for the right to life."
Trimester system: What the Supreme Court did instead in its 1973 decision legalizing most abortions was to develop the trimester system of viability. It permitted abortions without restrictions during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. During the second 12 weeks, the state could regulate abortions in order to protect the mother's health. During the final 12 weeks, states could outlaw abortions except to save the mother's life.
Rep. Mel Olson, D-Mitchell, argued repeatedly Tuesday that the legislation being passed by the House was unconstitutional and would be rejected by the Supreme Court. He said his vote against the bill was a vote to uphold the constitution.
"The power to change that (the Roe v. Wade decision) does not rest with me in this chamber," Olson said.
He instead offered a new version of the legislation that would have relied on the viability theory that is the basis of the Roe decision.
Olson sought to establish viability at 19 weeks of pregnancy and to prohibit abortions after that, except to save the life or protect a major bodily function of the mother. But House members rejected his amendment by a broad margin.
Rape, incest exemption rejected: The House majority likewise turned down a broad variety of other amendments, including $1 million to pay court costs if the state loses, and an exception to allow abortion in the event of rape or incest.
"It doesn't matter how a child begins. It matters what they become," Rep. Kair Weems, R-Sioux Falls, said. "It is a greater injustice to kill the blameless child."
The only exception in the bill is to allow an abortion to save the mother's life. The bill also places no restrictions on normal use of legal contraceptive prior to the time that pregnancy can be determined using conventional testing.
The measure now heads to the Senate for a second committee hearing and then, in all likelihood, consideration by the full Senate in a floor debate later this month. The bill has 18 Senate co-sponsors, the exact number needed for passage on a simple majority.
As the House members debated Tuesday afternoon, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected an attempt to repeal South Dakota's death penalty for criminals on a 27-8 vote.
The anti-abortion legislation says there is no justification for taking "a guiltless human life."
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
I apologize for being late in posting and I have no excuse. I have been reading three books, "Making Sense Out of Suffering", "Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal's Pense`es" by Peter Kreeft and "Finding God's Will For You" by St. Francis de Sales. Surprisingly; they all fit together and you do not have to have a dictionary opened and beside the book you are reading at the time.
I do not recommend "glossing" over them as much will be missed; each page builds on the previous page. Many references are made to the "ancient" philosophers by Kreeft. Another reason, for burying myself in these books was, "I was tired"; tired of the things going on in the world. I needed a retreat from this. and as said, "all good things must come to an end."
GAYS HAVE FULL MARRIAGE RIGHTS, MASSACHUSETTS COURT SAYS...
Girl says 'hell' in school, suspended...
Court Backs Internet Limit on Child Porn Convict
I do not recommend "glossing" over them as much will be missed; each page builds on the previous page. Many references are made to the "ancient" philosophers by Kreeft. Another reason, for burying myself in these books was, "I was tired"; tired of the things going on in the world. I needed a retreat from this. and as said, "all good things must come to an end."
Two verses for assurance:
Romans 8:38 "For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor might,
(Note: I am sure. . .That is, I am persuaded; as it is in the Greek, pepeismai.)
39 "Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
