Catholic News 2

Full Article

Full Article

Full Article

Paris, France, Nov 23, 2016 / 02:23 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A French court has drawn international backlash for ruling that a popular video showing happy children with Down syndrome was “inappropriate” for French television.

“It’s so absurd. I have never heard of a ruling so egregious,” said Michelle Sie Whitten, president and CEO of the Global Down Syndrome Foundation.

She called the decision “shocking” and “offensive,” adding that it “flies in the face of freedom of speech.”

The video in question, entitled “Dear Future Mom,” was released in 2014 for World Down Syndrome Day and has received more than 7 million viewers online alone. It shows children with Down syndrome from around the world reassuring a mother whose child has received a diagnosis. The children tell her that her child “can be happy – just like I am” and reinforce what they are able to do and accomplish.  

On Nov. 10, the French Council of State, a body of the French government, ruled that the short video was inappropriate for broadcast on French television as a commercial. 

In a decision upholding the French Broadcasting Council’s earlier ban of the video, the Council of State said it failed to meet the criteria for a public service announcement. In its reasoning, it pointed out that the happiness of the children shown in the video was “likely to disturb the conscience of women who had lawfully made different personal life choices.”

The Council of State only banned the film as a commercial or announcement, and said it would not ban the video from broadcast in other forms. 

Sie Whitten told CNA that the alarming decision should be overturned immediately. 

“We need to stand up to this,” she urged. “We need to join the people in France who understand that is a slippery slope.” 

Down syndrome, also known as Trisomy 21, is a genetic condition where a child is born with an extra copy of the 21st chromosome. It is typically associated with intellectual disabilities, delays and abnormalities in physical growth, and other concurrent medical issues. 

Due to the high rate of prenatal screening, as many as nine out of ten children diagnosed with Down syndrome in utero are aborted. However, advances in care for people with Down syndrome has raised the life expectancy and quality of life for children born with the condition.

A 2011 study found that 99 percent of people with Down syndrome report being happy with their life, higher than surveys of the general public.

The French video was produced, along with other organizations, by the Jerome Lejeune Foundation, which appealed the original ban by French Broadcasting Council. The organization will now appeal the decision at the European Court of Human Rights.

Jean-Marie Le Mene, president of the Jerome Lejeune Foundation in France, criticized the court’s ruling in a statement, saying that the decision puts the destruction and protection of human life on the same plane “as if the two acts had the same value.”  

“Indeed, experience shows that women who have given birth to a child with a disability do not regret having chosen life,” Le Mene stated. He further criticized the decision as removing “happy Down syndrome children from view.” This position of the court, he continued, asks people to “consider whether the freedom of expression of people with Down syndrome should bow down in favor of the right to abortion.” 

Dr. Monica Lopez Barahona, president of the Jerome Lejeune Foundation, in Spain also commented on the situation, saying that the video campaign was created “to help families with a child with Down syndrome, to show that these children can be as happy as any.” 

The Jerome Lejeune Foundation is an international organization founded by friends and colleagues of Professor Jerome Lejeune, the French scientist who is widely considered the father of modern medical genetics.

Lejeune discovered the genetic causes of Down syndrome in 1958, the first discovery of a chromosomal anomaly. An ardent Catholic, he worked for the rest of his life against the use of prenatal testing to target unborn children with the condition for abortion.

He was named by Pope Saint John Paul II as the first president of the Pontifical Academy for Life in 1994. His cause for canonization is open. 

Full Article

Albuquerque, N.M., Nov 23, 2016 / 03:10 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A fire – allegedly set by arsonists – has closed a pro-life pregnancy center and chapel in New Mexico, shutting down its operations for the foreseeable future.

The Albuquerque Fire Department received a call at 12:32 AM on the morning of November 23, alerting them to smoke coming out of Project Defending Life, a pro-life pregnancy center in the city. When the firefighters arrived, they extinguished a fire in the chapel as well as others in rooms with pro-life information. No one was injured in the blaze. 

Holy Innocents Chapel, located within the Project Defending Life center, is a Catholic chapel that was open for prayer and benediction. The Eucharist was reserved in the tabernacle at the time of the fire, but was safely removed, undamaged.

In an update to their website, Project Defending Life stated that they “will be closed for an indefinite period of time for repairs.” 

Albuquerque authorities are still investigating the exact cause of the fire. However, arson is suspected, and members of Students for Life of America – who frequently volunteer at the organization – have told SFLA and the FBI that they believe the fire was an intentional act of arson. 

“We are disgusted by this hate crime committed against Project Defending Life, a peaceful organization whose only aim is to help women facing unplanned pregnancies,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of SFLA in a statement, adding that she was thankful that no one was injured in the fire.

“The domestic terrorists who committed this heinous act must be found and brought to justice,” she continued, calling on pro-abortion activists to denounce the fire. “Planned Parenthood of ABQ and other pro-abortion forces must denounce this act immediately,” Hawkins urged. 

“Violence has no place in our society, regardless of whether it is committed upon the most defenseless preborn child or a peaceful pro-life office.”

“It is essential that Project Defending Life’s doors to be opened back up as soon as possible because so many women are in need of help, compassion and love,” Hawkins concluded.

New Mexico is one of only a handful of states that permits abortion throughout the entirety of pregnancy, including the third trimester. Because of these laws and state laws permitting government funding for abortion, the state has become a center for abortion within the American Southwest. 

Project Defending Life is located within walking distance from a Planned Parenthood, which performs abortions up to 19 weeks, and is also several miles away from Southwestern Women’s Options, which performs third-trimester abortions. 
 

Full Article

IMAGE: CNS photo/Jim Lo Scalzo, EPA

By Carol Zimmermann

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- The Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious employers that challenged the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act have been cautiously breathing a sigh of relief since the presidential election.

"Everyone is still protected by the Supreme Court's order," but they know with a new administration it could change in minutes," said Mark Rienzi, lead attorney for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the Little Sisters of the Poor in the case before the court earlier this year.

And even though nothing has been announced yet, Rienzi seems confident Donald Trump's campaign promises to repeal some or all of the Affordable Care Act would very likely put the contraceptive issue off the table.

"We feel optimistic," he told Catholic News Service Nov. 22, stressing that a major part of Trump's victory stemmed from religious voters convinced he would best represent them with pro-life policies and Supreme Court nominee picks.

The court heard oral arguments in the case March 23. In a unanimous decision May 16, the justices sent the matter back to the lower courts for the parties to work out a compromise. The court also has ordered the government not to impose on the plaintiffs hefty fines it has set up for noncompliance with the mandate.

"The previous administration went aggressively too far in bullying religious groups," he added, saying people supported Trump over Hillary Clinton specifically for his "promises to do things for religious liberty."

Rienzi also said he hoped that Trump, whom he described as "a practical man and a businessman" would recognize there is no need for the government "to be fighting the Little Sisters of the Poor" and should be able to work out a reasonable solution.

"I'm optimistic he will do what he was sent to do," Rienzi added.

Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, expressed similar hope of working out this issue with the new administration.

A week after the election he told reporters at the bishops' fall general assembly in Baltimore that although he wasn't sure what the Trump administration would do, he hoped "we can sit down with the administration or meet with them in some fashion, perhaps even in terms of Congress, relative to some pro-life things. I would certainly think some aspects of the Affordable Care Act would be great if we could sit down and see them worked out, relative to, let's say, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and analogous things."

The Little Sisters of the Poor is just one group involved in the case before the court, although the religious order has become synonymous with the entire argument challenging the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employers cover contraceptives in their employee health plans despite their moral objections to such coverage.

The case of Zubik v. Burwell also involves Priests for Life, the Pennsylvania dioceses of Pittsburgh and Erie, and the Archdiocese of Washington and other religious groups who did not fit the narrow exemption to the contraceptive mandate given to churches.

In mid-May, the Supreme Court sent the cases back to the lower courts, which cleared the slate from their previous court rulings when five appeals courts had ruled in favor of the contraceptive mandate and one ruled against it.

Although the Supreme Court justices expressed hoped that both sides might be able to work out a compromise, that has not happened. Instead, lawyers for both sides have applied for extended deadlines in negotiations in eight separate federal appeals courts.

Legal analyst Lyle Denniston, longtime writer for a blog on the Supreme Court who is now writing for National Constitution Center, wrote in mid-November that 20 cases are awaiting word on whether the two sides can come to an agreement. He also noted that federal government officials have told appeals courts that they are still processing the public comments on possible changes in the mandate.

He noted the new administration will not be able to simply do away with the mandate by presidential order because binding regulations are in place that determine when a religious employer is exempt from having to provide contraceptives to its employees or to students attending religious colleges.

If there is to be a change, new regulations will have to be written and then submitted to the public for comment for 60 days or more, he said.

Since the health law falls under the Department of Health and Human Services, many are looking at Trump's potential pick to head that agency. Signs are currently pointing to Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia, who has spoken of repealing the Affordable Care Act or at least its contraception mandate.

Another factor in the mix, should these cases find their way back to the Supreme Court, is that Trump will be nominating a candidate to fill the vacant ninth seat, held by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and he has stated that he would pick a conservative justice.

Two judges on his list of potential nominees: Timothy Tymkovich and Neil Gorsuch, serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, and both had voted in favor of -- but were outnumbered-- reconsidering an exemption to a contraceptive mandate case last year.

The two were part of a dissenting opinion that said: "The issue is not just about access to birth control services, but a core question about religious freedom to decide what one's own faith principles are."

- - -

Follow Zimmermann on Twitter: @carolmaczim.

- - -

Copyright © 2016 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. www.catholicnews.com. All rights reserved. Republishing or redistributing of CNS content, including by framing or similar means without prior permission, is prohibited. You may link to stories on our public site. This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To request permission for republishing or redistributing of CNS content, please contact permissions at cns@catholicnews.com.

Full Article

Full Article

Full Article

Full Article

Full Article