Boston Cardinal O'Malley Blasts Democratic Party

[babylonsister]

Whatever happened to separation of church and state? Has it always been like this?

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/11/17/24034/268

Boston Cardinal O'Malley Blasts Democratic Party
By Frederick Clarkson Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 02:40:34 AM EST


The U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops is too poor, according to The Boston Globe, to send to its local parishes, its traditional instructional mailing on how to approach politics and public policy. The Globe did not explain why the Bishops are broke and buried the point in the last paragraph of the story -- but we can guess that it probably has something to do with the massive payouts the church has made to settle lawsuits related to the priest pedophilia scandal.

Traditionally, the document has been mailed to all parishes in the United States; this year, to save money, the cash-strapped bishops' conference will e-mail the document to parishes and post it on a website.

However, the Globe headlined the story, O'Malley draws line with Democrats: Backing abortion rights candidates 'borders on scandal'.

The Globe reported:

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, saying the Democratic Party has been persistently hostile to opponents of abortion rights, asserted yesterday that the support of many Catholics for Democratic candidates "borders on scandal."

In his sharpest comments about the political landscape since he was installed as archbishop of Boston four years ago, O'Malley made clear that, despite his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, he views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers.

"I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church's position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues," O'Malley said.

The Globe continued:

O'Malley's predecessors as archbishop of Boston were also staunchly antiabortion. Cardinal Bernard F. Law called a news conference to criticize a Republican governor, William F. Weld, for his support for abortion rights, and Law had the lieutenant governor at the time, Paul Cellucci, also a Republican, disinvited from a Catholic high school for the same reason; Law also blasted Geraldine A. Ferraro, the Democratic candidate for vice president in 1984, for her support of abortion rights. Law's predecessor, Cardinal Humberto S. Medeiros, in 1980 tried unsuccessfully to persuade Catholics to vote against two Democratic congressional candidates, Barney Frank and Jim Shannon, because of their support for abortion rights.

Interesting, but I don't recall -- and the Globe does not mention -- any Catholic official ever having blasted any Massachusetts Republicans in recent years for their positions on abortion -- such as the formerly prochoice Gov. Mitt Romney or continuously prochoice Lt. Gov and later gubernatorial candidate Kerry Healey -- although I suppose I could have missed something.

It is interesting too, to see the Cardinal attack the Democratic Party as a whole, as if it had a lot of say, or should have a lot of say over who the membership picks as its candidates, and who the voters ultimately choose as its representatives.

[Beelzebud]

1. Oh no, someone from NAMBLA doesn't like us.

[marmar]

2. The more these religious "leaders" talk, the more they speed themselves toward irrelevancy....

:nopity:

[saltpoint]

3. It would be instructive for reporters to ask the good Cardinal how he feels

about the unnamed Iraqi men, women, and children who have been killed in a Republican war of discretion against a sovereign country.

I'd like to get the Cardinal's take on that.

[bluerum]

11. His take would be - "they are not catholics - who cares?"

[saltpoint]

17. Then the reporter would have to go to the larger landscape and ask if

Iraqi citizens are not also creations of God. I can't be that reporter and I'm not any longer affiliated with any church, but I'd love to see someone persist with that question.

"Cardinal, in your opinion, is the current Democratic position on reprductive freedom more menacing to the expectations of the Creator for his creations than the callous destruction of men, women, and children in a pointless war?"

[CBHagman]

24. You've got it.

Truthout, from a year ago:

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/66/23841

"Because the war was such an election issue and became very partisan, our hope is, now that the elections are over, that all of the national leaders will come together and try and work together for a reasoned solution and transition out of Iraq without abandoning the people of that country," Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston said in an interview after the vote. "We asked them not to go in in the first place, but now that we're there, we're looking for a withdrawal that would be as soon as possible, but at the same time without abandoning the people that are there and causing a worse situation."

O'Malley said the United States should do a better job getting assistance from the international community, particularly Muslim nations, in securing Iraq. He added that lasting peace in the region will require finding a way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"We asked them not to go in in the first place."

There's more. Note what the Vatican did in March 2003, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/05/sprj.irq.bush.vatican/index.html

A Vatican envoy who met with President Bush Wednesday said he "clearly and forcefully" conveyed a message from Pope John Paul II that a war against Iraq would be a "disaster."

"You might start, and you don't know how to end it," said Cardinal Pio Laghi said after his half-hour meeting at the White House. "It will be a war that will destroy human life. Those people that are suffering already in Iraq, they will be in a really bad situation."

(SNIP)

In his efforts to avert a war, the pope has met with three of Bush's chief supporters, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, as well as U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.

He also sent Cardinal Roger Etchegaray to Baghdad for a meeting with top Iraqi officials, including President Saddam Hussein.


We're Democrats. We focus on the facts.

[saltpoint]

26. I'm aware of and applaud the Church's able administration of its objection to

Bush's war plans prior to the Iraq invasion, but my point went to the difficulty so many have with that same Church that it cannot appear to get its head of out its patoot regarding reproductive freedom, the ordination of women as priests, and LGBT identity and justice.

Those are also facts.

O'Malley's remarks are disproportionate to the menace the subject he assails actually represents to the Church or to the populace.

Not only his "flock" are in the path of his bias against resolution of those issues.

More to the point, the Church would persuade more people of its compassion if it further intensified its efforts against war and spent a great deal less time, preferably none at all, trying to control people's private sexual lives.

[CBHagman]

49. No, I agree with you there.

My experience has been that individual priests and nuns are often more progressive than the hierarchy. Just the other week I attended a discussion on Vatican II, and the priest giving the talk pointed out what I had heard from a priest many years earlier: that Catholics are to look to their individual consciences. He was speaking very specifically of Humanae Vitae, the encyclical on birth control.

One of my biggest beefs is that the church openly protests abortion but doesn't push hard enough for universal health insurance. Catholic social teaching holds that health care is a right, not a privilege, but you'd never know it from most of the news coverage.

[pnwmom]

31. I know. They're against the taking of "innocent life."

I guess a fetus, in some of their minds, is more innocent than an actual baby.

[saltpoint]

36. Hi, pnwmom. While on one hand I won't speak for the Cardinal, I do

question why sexual issues predominate the Church's condemnation of women generally and many others as well, as opposed to the absence of the same ferocity directed against the war.

Poster CBHagman is right to insist that many in the Catholic heirarchy did their best to dissuade Dubya from warmongering, but of course, Dubya and Dick and Don and Condi had already made up their minds, such as they are.

So point taken that the effort was made, that it was strenous, and that it was genuine. But the Church's oppositional stance to a woman's right to choose, or for a women to be ordained, or for lesbian and gay people to love each other, is disproportionate and dangerously so.

[pnwmom]

41. Hi, Old Crusoe. I think for a lot of people, including Church hierarchy,

it's just easier to condemn the sin that you're never going to have to worry about committing.

No man is ever going to have to have an abortion.

As to the rest of the sexual issues, I don't know. Maybe it has to do with the Church -- because of its stance on celibacy -- drawing in so many men who have issues with their own sexuality. So rather than facing up to their own issues, they feel the need to control everyone else's. It's really sad. I just read about the settlement between the Jesuits and the Oregon Province, and I'm sick at heart.

:cry:

[saltpoint]

45. Despite the unhappy news headlines of late, sometimes I yank Louis Malle's

fine film AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS off the shelf and watch it.

It concerns a Third Reich-era Catholic school whose staff try to take in and conceal a Jewish child from the Nazis.

Not all Catholics in Europe were as brave, but some were. This is a tale about them. And it lifts the heart again.

[pnwmom]

46. Thanks for the reminder. I'm sure I watched it a long time ago,

but it would be good to watch it again with my sons.

They're really down on the Church, and who could blame them.

[saltpoint]

48. That's a good idea. I got to go to the American premier of the film in

Miami. Malle talked to the audience for a good half-hour.

A great deal of the story is true, he said, and he emphasized the anonymous and dedicated human working under the Nazis' radar. A question of survival.

Well, if you decide to watch it with your sons, maybe post on DU how they responded.

[pinkpops]

4. Counterargument: Only Dems can protect our little boys from Cardinals

[AX10]

5. RAPISTS! RAPISTS! RAPISTS! RAPISTS!

The Catholic Church is PRO-RAPIST!

SHUT UP you GD PERVERTS!

TAX THE SHIT OUT OF THEM!

[zanne]

6. Fuck Cardinal O'Malley.

If he can put himself out there publicly about politics, I can say "fuck him" all I want. He is no longer a religious official--he's a political pundit.

[zanne]

7. May I please have my friggin' icon back?

You want me to donate. I get it. You don't have to embarass me.

[Vexatious Ape]

33. I'm with you on that.

Tax those kiddie fuckers into oblivion, and turn their damn church's/palaces into public schools.

[eleny]

8. he needs to just shut up and pray

:evilgrin:

[bluerum]

9. The church's position. Who cares. The church long ago ostracized the

very people it is now demonizing. And now we are supposed give a flying cardinals ass about what the church thinks. These people are still living in the 1400's.

I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church's position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues," O'Malley said.

For any church to involve itself directly in regional politics, or to align itself for or against any political party is scandalous. These pigs should be paying their fair share of taxes.

[saltpoint]

10. I realize that Congressman Frank, for example, is problematic for the

higher-ups in the Catholic heirarchy, but at what point do those very higher-ups admit that Congressman Frank's compassion for others eclipses their objection to his support for lesbian and gay justice?

At what point do people who are genuinely good-hearted Catholics let their higher-up Catholics know that they will continue to send Congressman Frank and Senator Kerry to Washington to make laws?

It looks to me as if this has been the case for years.

The conclusion, IMO, is that the work of Congressman Frank and Senator Kerry are more important and vivid to the everyday Catholic voter than anything O'Malley might have to say on abortion.

O'Malley is entitled to his view. So are voters entitled to theirs.

[LiberalFighter]

12. Cardinal NoMalley... we support abortion rights to keep you and your kind

from molesting the children.

Who are you to talk about abortion since technically by canon law?? you are prohibited from marrying and sex?


Elected Catholics supporting choice need to tell the Cardinal and his cronies to go back to their circle jerking.

[Ravy]

13. So, abortion trumps ALL other moral issues... What he is missing is

that it is the GOVERNMENT, our representatives, that are killing people in prisons, torturing, waging war, and thumbing their noses at the poor.

It is individuals who CHOOSE to have abortion, not "We, the people". If the Government *forced* someone to have abortions, then I could see his point.

[sarge43]

25. Excellent point, Ravy

That's a keeper.

[xchrom]

14. women owning their own bodies and in control of their own reproductive organs is

the only pro-life issue.

any other way to look it is immoral, cardinal -- right up there with protecting priests who molest children.

[CBHagman]

15. For those who are unfamiliar with O'Malley, here are details.

While I don't agree with his targeting of the Democratic Party, I would point out that O'Malley has a solid reputation in the progressive community, particularly in the Washington, D.C., area. Look at the whole picture before you start judging him.

http://www.hwwilson.com/Currentbio/cover_bios/cover_bio_1_04.htm

O'Malley subsequently founded Centro Catolico Hispano, which provided immigrants and others with legal advice, employment referrals, English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) and GED classes, and medical and dental services. He also confronted foreign ambassadors serving in D.C. about the way they treated domestic help, transported medical supplies to Central American countries, doled out food and medicine to those in need, opened a Spanish-language bookstore, and founded the first Spanish newspaper in the area. This work, coupled with O'Malley's Sunday Masses in English, Spanish, Portuguese, and French, cemented his connection to immigrant communities, a connection that would become the hallmark of his career.

(SNIP)

O'Malley's work in the Washington, D.C., diocese prompted his installation as an Episcopal vicar for the Hispanic, Portuguese, and Haitian communities, and as executive director of the archdiocesan Office of Social Ministry in 1978. Six years later the Vatican granted his wish to serve in a foreign mission by appointing him coadjutor bishop of St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands; a year later he was made full bishop. While there he built shelters for the homeless, established an AIDS hospice, and helped islanders rebuild after Hurricane Hugo, in 1989.

So yes, I think he's putting far too much weight on the abortion issue, but don't mistake him for some supply-side, war-mongering, anti-immigrant neocon.

[Beelzebud]

18. Perhaps he should look at the whole picture before he judges...

[bluerum]

22. Not at all. He is just a tool.

[Ravy]

27. I don't view it as a religious issue at all, it is a political philosophy.

Does the government have the right to torture?
Does the government have the right to impose the death penalty?
Does the government have the right to wage a war of pure agression and greed?
Does the government have the right to limit personal freedoms for religious/moral reasons?

Republicans typically say yes to all of the above, Democrats typically say no. It is about the role of government.

[monmouth]

39. Prior to his going to Boston, he was here at St. Ann's in West Palm Beach.

I really liked him, he's very charismatic and smart as a whip. We were sorry to see him leave and go to Boston, but he had a real mess to clean up there. Perhaps his priorities are a little skewered.

[CBHagman]

50. Yeah, they liked him in DC too.

I hear from one of my progressive Catholic friends that he's basically a mensch. It's a bit sad to see him doing this little bit of politicking, though.

[NC_Nurse]

16. Give it up dude. The middle ages are over.

You are witnessing the downhill slide of your woefully primitive beliefs.
Why don't you go actually HELP someone and STFU about politics. You know, like Jesus would do.

[napi21]

19. What's very strange to me is the BIG change of combining the

church & politics. I was raised Catholic, and attended a Catholic grade school & high school. I was in HS when Jack Kennedy was elected. I remember a few discussions in class about politics, but I also remember being told "we CAN'T support any candidates or we risk losing out tax exemption!" What the hell happened? I don't recall and change in the laws, but over the years a lot of churches decided to jump right into the middle of presidential politics! Is it because the IRS secretly decided they weren't going to persue the violations?

By the way, I also remember being taught that supporting the death penalty was a sin, and people should think about that when deciding who to vote for.

[pnwmom]

30. It makes me very angry. n/t

[sarge43]

20. But support of a preemptive war based on lies is a hand wavium.

Come on Your Em, please tap dance your way around St Augustine's just wars only restriction. Those 3000 Americans and God only knows how many Iraqi are less dead than a six week old embryo?

[MBS]

21. He's been infuriating,for sure , but there were great responses by local

Catholics and Democrats. .

LTE's on November 17:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2007/11/17/abortion_politics_and_the_church/
(4/6 opposing O'Malley)

My personal favorites:

November 17, 2007
AS A practicing Catholic woman who understands that abortion can be a tragedy with devastating psychological consequences, I am appalled that Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley "views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policy makers" ("O'Malley draws line with Democrats," Page A1, Nov. 15). Taking this position after the Republican Party has led the country into a shameful war is the real scandal.

What could have been on the front page of the Globe was the statement Tuesday on the Iraq war by the outgoing president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, William Skylstad ("Key bishop voices alarm over Iraq," Page A16, Nov. 14): "Our Conference encourages our national leaders to focus on the morally and politically demanding, but carefully limited goal of fostering a 'responsible transition' and withdrawal at the earliest opportunity consistent with that goal. The moral demands of this path begin with addressing the humanitarian crisis in Iraq and minimizing further loss of human life."

In this time of war, this should be O'Malley's message.

MEIGHAN MATTHEWS
Bedford

WHAT EXACTLY is O'Malley not getting about the separation of church and state? The Catholic Church's tenuous right to tax-exempt status should be motivation enough to keep his personal political views to himself.

As a lifelong practicing Catholic, I do not understand how he rallies around the unborn but not the born. He is willing to overlook the execution of Americans by the state, the carnage in Iraq, the flagrant deception of the American people by the current administration, and policy-making that supports big business conglomerates at the expense of the poor, sick, and helpless. O'Malley needs to spend more time with the teachings of Jesus Christ. And he wears a Franciscan robe? For shame!
LYNNE MALONEY
Scituate

and today, on the front page of the City and Region section:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/18/cardinals_criticism_is_met_with_silence_by_democrats/

excerpts:

City Councilor-at-large Michael Flaherty, in an interview, quoted the prophet Micah: "We are called to act with justice, to love tenderly and to walk humbly with God," he said. "Instead of hearing about the church plans to exclude groups of people from God's table, I would rather hear how the church could be a place where we are all truly welcome.". . .

The "faithful citizenship" document approved last Wednesday also calls upon Catholics to support politicians who care about a range of issues important to the Roman Catholic Church, such as helping the poor, promoting justice, caring for the environment, and opposing torture.

But this year's statement put an especially strong emphasis on abortion, calling it an "intrinsic evil" and warning Catholics not to vote for politicians who support it, lest they jeopardize their salvation.

Some Catholic Democrats, however, argued that O'Malley's statements contradicted other aspects of the document.

Patrick Whelan of Watertown is the executive director of Catholic Democrats, a national political network that started in Massachusetts during the last presidential election to defend Kerry, the Democratic nominee, after he was condemned by several Catholic bishops for supporting abortion rights.

Whelan said O'Malley's statements conflicted with the document's assertion that the church "is not partisan" and "cannot champion any candidate or party." He also said that the faithful citizenship document requires voters to do good as well as to oppose evil, and to actively support programs that encourage childbirth.

O'Malley, Whelan said, seemed to endorse the Republican position on abortion - criminalization - as the best way to end the practice, while ignoring the Democratic approach, which he said is to do everything possible to decrease abortions by helping the poor, supporting access to healthcare, and increasing assistance to programs that support pregnant women and their families.

"I think an honest reading of the document really supports both the Republican and Democratic stance," he said.

Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, added that President Bush had vetoed Democratic legislation aimed at reducing unwanted pregnancies and giving pregnant women the support they need.

"The broader definition of 'pro-life' outlined by the bishops is completely consistent with the shared values of Democrats," he added, "who continue to address core issues of poverty, healthcare, and the war in Iraq, and a major reason Catholic voters will continue to support our candidates."

Whelan added that he thought it was a curious time for O'Malley to cast abortion as such a partisan issue, given that "Republicans have a likely nominee named Rudy Giuliani who himself has views that are indistinguishable from all the Democratic candidates.

"It doesn't make any sense," he said.

[OHdem10]

23. Apparently OMalley has decided to order the "Position of

American Catholic Bishops" Catholics can measure a number
of Moral Issues in determining how they will vote.

They want to avoid such extremist type situations as
Politicizing the Sacraments of the Church.

Cnn ran a programs illustrating how a Catholic could possibly
vote for a Pro-Choice Candidate.

It is the old story of some individuals trying to be holier
than the pope.

[pnwmom]

28. This is one reason Hillary Clinton's pro-choice position is very smart.

When she is asked about abortion, she consistently frames the issue not as about "abortion" per se, but in terms of PRIVACY and freedom of conscience, a concept the Catholic Church strongly espouses. (With regard to the govt. that is -- the Church wants the church to be involved of conscience formation, not the government.)

And she favors reducing numbers of abortions by supporting birth control. (The Church doesn't favor artificial birth control but it doesn't regard it on anywhere near the same plane as abortion.)

So Catholics can vote for her understanding that we are voting for freedom of conscience and helping to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies (and thus, abortions). Some bishops may disagree with our decisions, but we're still left with individual conscience.

[Warpy]

29. Time to go to the IRS

O'Malley is engaged in blatant politics. It's time for his church to be taxed as a political organization.

That would be such an enormous tax boon to that city that everyone else's rates would go down considerably.

That's how much property those "vows of poverty and chastity" churchmen own.

If O'Malley has forgotten where the line is, he should realize that exhorting his parishoners to refuse abortion for problem pregnancies is within his job description. Nagging a them to stop supporting a political party that enables them to make that choice is not.

[SpiralHawk]

32. Bush's buddy Pope Ratzinger must be jerking some Red strings

George "Skull & Boner" Bush and his BFEE syndicate are totally tight with Pope Ratzinger.

It appears that they have gazed into each other's eyes, and come to an Occult Understanding

[K8-EEE]

34. I'm an ex-Catholic since 2004 because these idiots keep helping BushCo

Yeah that's really supporting "life..." start more wars, have more poverty!

[Solly Mack]

35. Piffle

"...extremely insensitive to the church's position..."

LMAO

[wellstone dem]

37. Today, the priest at my church

said there are troubling positions taken by each party. That each party has positions that are against Catholic teaching. He clearly did not state which party had the stronger position.

I also talked to another priest a few weeks ago who said he had always voted Republican solely because of the abortion issue, but that after seeing how Bush and his allies passed law after law focussed on benefiting the wealthy, he was no longer going to vote as he had.

[riverdeep]

38. So, in other words,

he's for government-sanctioned forced pregnancy? Because that's really what it comes down to. I'll split the difference here, the next time O'Malley gets pregnant, he can choose not to have an abortion.

In 1992, the church finally forgave Galileo, only some 360 years later. So, they're not exactly known for being on the cutting edge.

[PA Democrat]

40. The bishop shows his ignorance on this issue.Outlawing abortion does not change the rate of abortion

It just guarantees that more women will DIE when they have illegal abortions. If the Catholic church really wanted to reduce abortion, they would support education and access to birth control.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=1&ex=1350187200&en=b8a170af9a900626&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

Legal or Not, Abortion Rates Compare

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: October 12, 2007
ROME, Oct. 11 — A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.

Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.

The results of the study, a collaboration between scientists from the World Health Organization in Geneva and the Guttmacher Institute in New York, a reproductive rights group, are being published Friday in the journal Lancet.

“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

[L. Coyote]

42. How many poor parishes want to give up tax exemption?

Churches that play politics better consult with an expensive lawyer first!

[Canuckistanian]

43. TAX THE CHURCHES

Whenever they start interjecting themselves into politics, that's when you call in the FEC.

They tried this shit in Canada but got shut down pretty quickly.

[opihimoimoi]

47. I'm with you....TAX THE CHURCH....if they wanna play politics...TAX UM

[HughMoran]

44. "How dare they be hostile to opponents of abortion" said the head of "perverts united"

What a bunch of fucking hypocrites these people are. Worry about your own backyard before you start criticizing others you bigoted cretins.

[ellie]

51. Here in Toledo,

at mass yesterday, a statement was read from the bishop calling on all local Catholics to reject the city's domestic partner registry. My 77-yr-old mother was so upset, she almost walked out. She asked if all the other problems in the world have been solved to be worried about this nonsense. Of course not! She is looking for another church.

[Highway61]

52. I am so sick of this

Who the fuck do you know who is PRO ABORTION???????????
It's all about a women's personal choice....the word is CHOICE!
O'Malley should be more outraged over scandals like Foley ....oh wait...that's young boys....that OK. Give me a break. Organized religion strikes again

[KakistocracyHater]

53. what spiritual powers do they get for not

using birth control? What's up with the whole no abortion-their slang for all forms of birth control? There are countries that have outlawed birth control & they pimp their children out(see Born into Brothels) or sell their kids into the army, or simply abandon them, like in some parts of Eastern Europe. How is that "pro-life"?