So, you want to ban abortion?

Any law banning abortion must be done constitutionally. Here are the essential rules that any proposal must take into account. If anyone is taking your money or your vote with a plan that does not take all of this into account, they are both defrauding you and potentially attacking your rights.
1. The unborn already have the same rights as anyone else not to be killed by the government, which is how the constitution defines the right to life. There is no constitutional right not to be murdered. Instead, it is the basis of the social contract, which trades freedom for safety. There is no natural right for government to exist.
2. State governments cannot declare personhood. Only Congress can modify the terms of the 14th Amendment. To change that, all civil rights protection against state action would be repealed with Roe, including protections for all minorities, not just freed slaves, including Latinos, undocumented children to receive public education, users of public accommodation and government, gays and lesbians, women, couples and religious minorities (like Jews and Papists). For some, taking away these rights is a feature, not a flaw.
3. You cannot treat members of the same class differently when enforcing criminal law. You cannot punish contract killers and not their clients or accessories to the crime, no matter how unpopular that rule is. Also, you cannot practice selective enforcement. You cannot investigate one kind of pregnancy loss and not others. You cannot target poor people and not rich people. To give due process and effective enforcement, you must give the government the power and  and duty to investigate all lost pregnancies. That means no targeting planned parenthood and ignoring all other OB/GYNs and midwives.
4. Members of Congress will not do anything widely unpopular. State assemblies may do so, but they are not really sovereign. It is not up to either Congress or the courts to come up with a plan to stop abortion for you. If you want it done, you must say how and it must follow these rules.

The Barr Dossier

Copied from my Twitter Feed. Remember that Barr is an old friend of Mueller who would not screw him over for Trump. He is the ultimate deep stater. Trump was a fool to appoint him. He got played.

April 2, 2019:
Someone explain to @SpeakerPelosi in little words that an election will not unseat Trump. His supporters value loyalty over fact. Impeach him now. Nothing will be more divisive than 4 more years.

April 3, 2019:
To my former lawyer, Rep. Jamie Raskin:   Please have Chairman Nadler stop grandstanding about the report. As Jill Wine Banks will tell you, her office only gave Congress the road map after the grand jury was done. As @MaddowBlog will tell you, there is an active grand jury underway. The DC Chief Federal Judge will not enforce your subpoena until it is. Let them finish their work before you grandstand. Have him quit impugning Barr's integrity in the kind of Animal House gesture that Boehner kept pulling on Obamacare. Quit trying to look busy. If you think we need an issue, talk about the constitutionality of arresting a sitting President. It will dominate the news cycle, especially if there is a hearing. If you want to do a gesture, do that. https://youtu.be/_h4DZeBleLs

Congress must respect the judiciary as coequal and not demand the Mueller Report until the grand jury finishes its work.

Frank Figluzzi should know better about waiting until the grand jury finishes. If the matter is urgent then we need to talk about why Pence has not invoked 25 and whether a sitting POTUS is immune from arrest and why not?

Barr is waiting for the grand jury to finish. We can have a purged report or we can find out how to keep an idiot in suspense. Pandering by Rep. Lieu  is not a good feature for a public official unless he wants to be a lobbyist. The Grand Jury may be investigation Pence. Let him finish.

It is entirely appropriate to not release the report because the Chief Judge of the Federal District Court for DC will not (and should not) require the release of the Mueller report until the Federal Grand Jury finishes its work.

Barr is playing good cop in what is obviously a kabuki dance. Nothing comes out until the grand jury finishes. All if this is a distraction. It may be that there is already back and forth between Nadler, Barr and Mueller.

April 4, 2019
We all know who the leak really is, either directly or by his direction. Anyone who knows this town knows who it must be. (Trump is too stupid to figure it out). Have you guessed yet? He's the one person who has seen all the summaries. Robert Barr himself.  Barr is a hero for taking your scorn. Leaking lets him get the info out without being blamed for it by Prisoner 45. I suspect you are all in on it. Great  fun.

April 5, 2019
I suspect that the Committee will get everything from Mr. Barr once the DC Grand Jury completes its work. Until it does, Barr cannot transmit the report and Congress and the media should quit bothering him and impugning his integrity for following the law. Asking for the returns is both looking busy and firing a shot across the bow to poke Trump with a stick.

April 12th
So, are you guys covering for Bob? Was he the source of the leaks? Could anyone else have been our newest deep throat? Eye 💘 Dp St8!

We both know that Beryll will never give Nadler a subpoena until July 4 or let Bob ask for one. Even if he asked you guys to, don't lay it on so thick. Bring on the fun topic that will drive the Moron in Chief up the wall. Raise the question of whether he can be arrested. We know he can be and as a protectee he is technically under arrest. If we unnerved him too much it will force Pence to man up. What say you?

I know it is not nice to dump on an old man in his dotage, but he should not be in the Offal Office. Discuss

Am I blowing the secret If I ask whether Bob is a Trojan Horse? Of course, if U ask, they will think I am a crackpot. But keep the thought alive until July 4th. https://t.co/6gZQBviTxD

Thomas Whitmore is my President. Nice bumper sticker.

April 17th
It is out tomorrow. Barr and Mueller are Newman and Redford. Trump and the Press got played.

May 25th
For the past month, everyone has gone with the meme that Barr is acting like Trump's personal attorney, including his raising the question that the Trump campaign may have been spied on. The reality is that it was spied on by Christopher Steele (ain't that a poster!) and the intelligence community tracking the known Russian agents in the Trump campaign. We now find that the US was tipped off to Russian interference by one of our assets in the Kremlin. It is called counter-intelligence for a reason. This has led Trump to give Barr complete declassification authority just as the DOJ is sending all of its classified intelligence to the House. Coincidence or has Trump just been punk'd?

May 31st
Today is the day. The Flynn portions of the Mueller Report is going live by COB unless there is massive obstruction by Barr. If there is not, then it is proof that he is Trump's bright shiny object allowing the DOJ to do its work. I also expect the House Intelligence Committee to get its material today or next week, as ordered. The big thing to watch is whether Vice President Pence is mentioned by Flynn (I cannot see how he could not be) and what was said about him. If it says what I think it does, he will be out of office by COB, pleading no contest and meeting with the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment on the way out the door. This will make Nancy Pelosi acting President, unless Trump resigns instead (although he will still be hospitalized as a danger to himself, but not no longer to the nation. I have been saying this for a while, but it was always contingent with the Mueller redactions coming off regarding Flynn. Off they come.

Responding to Dulles on ordaining women

Avery Dulles on women and the priesthood (from 1996)

According to the Apostle Paul, all who saw the Risen Lord and shared that witness had the title of Apostle. Mary Magdalene was first, Junua and Priscilla were specifically mentioned by Paul and that witnesses came in married pairs, so half were women. Priscilla co-founded the Roman community (Paul did not mention Cephas) and was regarded by history as a Presbyter. When her husband was tasked with pastoring another gathering, she did not accompany him, leaving her as sole bishop in her own right.

The Mass is modeled after both Seder and Shabbat, which are home centered, not assembly centered. Women certainly can say the blessing now. If the source of the tradition evolved, so can we.

I will not argue that tradition excluded, but a traditional error is still an error. Theological reasoning must consider the fact that there is no natural difference between male and female souls. Male jealousy of procreation is envy, not reasoning. Magisterial simply means from the throne. The throne can and will change its mind. 

Later Avery Cardinal Dulles was good to raise the issue, but his loyalty beat out both his fortitude and live for his sister's. Presbyter Priscilla undoubtedly had a few words with him in Heaven.

I will address Dulles' 10 points:

1. Arguing from authority proves nothing. Jesus did not make up the rituals of bread and wine. They pre-existed in Seder and Shabbat. His sacrifice added new meaning to these practices, transforming his flesh and blood into real food.

2. St. Priscilla cannot be defrocked almost 20 centuries later.

3. Victor's justice goes both ways. In 1922, the superior Oecumenical Patriarch and the Great Synod recognized Anglican orders, which makes them an Autocephalus Great Church competent to regulate its own orders within Catholicism. Rome is only the Western Patriarchy. New Rome has been over all since Constantine. Arguing toward a predetermined result is good Scholasticism, nut not good reason.

4. The divine order in marriage is a social phenomenon, not an essential. In modern marriage, gay or straight, parties are equal and the old analogy falls. To claim the past shows God's will is superstition. So is the Charleton Heston version of the Ten Commandments. We now know that all of the Torah was consolidated during the Exile.

5. The perpetual virginity of Mary was an artifact of the idealization of asexual idealism in the classical church. That it is based in make believe is demonstrated by the pious musings of St. Jerome regarding the Holy Family. The Latin Church traded Marcus Aurelius for Christ.

6. Women can preside at Seder and Shabbat, which prefigures the Mass. The symbolism around the required maleness of the priest is artifice. It was made up by men, not Christ. Mary Magdalene is also always considered the first Apostle and higher than the Twelve (who all had wives, as did Jesus).

7. Birth envy is no reason mot to ordain women.

8.  Politics and Superstition. Since New Rome recognizes Canterbury, the argument on the East is shredded. Change will come to all in a global world. With God, all things are possible, especially ordaining women.

9. Arguing from authority is a surrender to illogic. Again, the primacy of Peter is in New Rome. While the Latin Patriarch can say mot now, he can never say never. As we say in American Government, one Congress can not bind another.

10.  We do not need the clergy to do our thinking for us. Authority does not make error true. The sky is still blue. Also, our baptism is equal to the baptism of the clergy. They have no monopoly on either grace or truth. Like any government, they only have the authority we give them. Their money comes from us as well. It always has. That the authority of the Church has changed with time is evident in its journey from Gregory XV whining about democracy and Garibaldi to Poo No no on infallibility, the doctrinal oppression of Pius X in opposition to the spectre of modernism to the persecution of John Courtland Murray for proposing the freedom of conscience adopted (incompletely and grudgingly by some, including St. John Paul) at Vatican II in Dignitatis Humanae. The female deaconate is the next step. It cannot and will not be the last.

On the summary points, we reserve the right to think for ourselves, even as we surrendered it previously; official teaching can change as officials change; growth always is painful, which does not make it less necessary; and it is not the laity who should be worried once it has become woke.

Abortion in Alabama, Part II

I never knew that Alabama was the abortion capital of the South! Of course, it isn't. Between social pressure and outright harassment, I doubt that there are many abortions there at all, which is why I contend that this is all about overturning Plessy v. Ferguson, not just banning abortion state-by-state. I doubt the law will ever be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Indeed, it may get enough people active to vote the GOP out of office to moot the suit defending it.

The real action is the June Medical Services v. Gee, the Louisiana trap law case. If SCOTUS decides it in the same way as Texas, or simply overturns the Fifth Circuit without hearing it, then the meme of an increasingly conservative Court whittling away at abortion rights will have been disproved. That would not be good for fundraising on either side. Nothing gets less money than a settled issue. Abortion will soon have a March of Dimes problem. So will gay rights if the Second Circuit decides, as expected, that Sex (Gender) in the Civil Rights Act includes Sexual Orientation (Gender Identity).

The Alabama Abortion Law is integral to Making America Great Again. Both are reactionary movements and both have essentially the same membership. Their average age bodes ill for both movements and for the GOP as a whole, so covering this issue is not the welcome distraction from impeachment we had hoped. Indeed, if Trump is removed, it will do to the GOP electorally what Nixon's resignation did - but this time the GOP may not come back.

The final stake in the heart of the pro-life movement would be to identify them with repealing Plessy and to force them to face the issue of fighting abortion by enacting an adequate tax credit for families with children and a life-time subsidy for citizens with Downs Syndrome so that they are not reduced to manual labor once their support system (parent) dies. They are mostly the Republican Party at prayer, so there is no chance it will support a financial solution to abortion, although I am willing to be surprised.

I would be nicely surprised if the Democrats took up the mantle of a middle class level child tax credit (donors be damned). That would be over $1000 per child per month and should increase with inflation. Paired with a $15 minimum wage, it would be a guarantee of prosperity, although by nature it would cause inflation - but only a bit. It would mostly lead to growth as unmet needs are met.

The Democrats should also use either the Louisiana or an Alabama case as a teachable moment. Instead of simply calling this a woman's freedom issue, it should mention that rights for everyone are at stake and that the right wing's targets are Latinos (Hernandez), minority children (Brown), birth control users (Griswold), especially women (Roe), migrant students (Plyler) and Gays and Lesbians (Roemer, Lawrence and Perry). All would fall if Roe fell, bring back the state power that was the real gist of Plessy. Just look at the GOP platform and legislative agenda if you have any doubts.

The Democrats should also explain that the unborn have the same right to life as anyone has against the state. Mandatory abortion and the execution of women are banned by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments at the federal and state levels. Further, they have the same right of tort relief if they are harmed when their mother is. The law that enforces that right also codifies as federal law an exception for abortion. Even if Justice Thomas were right that the Court could use derived power from Congress under the 14th Amendment to change the terms of personhood, it cannot do so as long as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is in force (which is why it must be reauthorized immediately). If the GOP balks at that, they should be shamed.

What the unborn do not have is a right to life on the federal level unless Congress uses its power to find that they are persons from whatever point Congress wishes. Of course, doing so would require that miscarriages be investigated with abortions, because selective enforcement is a clear violation of the due process rights of mothers and their doctors. States have no power in this area at all.

The unborn do not have a constitutional right to not be murdered. No one has. Not being murdered is part of the social contract. We all give up our rights to total self-determination in exchange for the protection of the government. To say otherwise would be to declare that having a government itself IS a civil right. I doubt the Republicans would admit to such a thing - but it would be great fund to put the issue in these terms and ask them.

Catholic politicians should argue these points as something that they believe, not just tolerate, explaining these matters to the Bishops in small words. They must also justify their defense of pluralism using the Magisterium of Vatican II.  While Dignitatis Humanae was never meant to be a justification for abortion rights, the same right of conscience in not requiring Catholic leaders (both civil and ecclesial) to fight to make all states Catholic and be governed as so, by extension it means that the Church cannot insist that they must criminalize abortion, although they certainly can do so or, in a way more in tune with doctrine, support economic measures like those mentioned above to provide a living wage to families with children, particularly children with special needs who would otherwise be aborted. See Casti Connubii for details. Indeed, Casti is not really optional, including for Catholic Republicans.

Any brief on either Alabama or June should include the above discussion of positive and negative rights of the unborn (and the impossibility of the Court enacting protections under either Scalia or Thomas theories of the case). It should not be shy in recognizing the right of Congress to change the terms of personhood and explain why due process rights of women and doctors would not allow first trimester abortion bans without also investigating all miscarriages. There are a few interesting questions to address so that they may be asked of the Respondents in June, particularly the Solicitor General if intervening for the Respondents (although the resignation of Pence and Trump would change that dynamic):

Do respondents (Gee) or does the United States wish to reverse Hernandez through Perry and on what logic does overturning Roe in favor of state action not do so, thus re-instituting Plessy?

Is there a constitutional right to not be murdered and where is it found in the text or the writings of the Framers? Does this imply that the existence of government is also a natural right or is it contractual, as the Framers clearly intended in the Declaration of Independence (which although not legally binding, indicates their intentions)?

Those two questions will forever end the abortion rights movement. While it is better that June be reversed rather than heard, these are still delicious questions for public debate.

Sour Home Alabama

I could have used the terms foul or rancid, so you got off easy with sour.

Let me first say that, even if the worst happened and Roe was overturned on state power grounds, that the wealthy, especially wealthy white girls, will get all of the privileges they now enjoy. They will have unobstructed access to abortion services and their doctors will not have to worry. Why would I say such a thing (which many who think there is no discrimination will call hateful)? Because poor white meth traffickers and poor ethnic crack traffickers are in jail while rich white people get rehab.

Second, for the best information and speakers, go to https://www.reproductiverights.org/  I dealt with this organization when I was shopping an Amicus on Gonzalez v Carhart that stated that the PBA was unconstitutional because it did not cite congressional enforcement power in the 14th Amendment to justify the law.

Apparently, the Commerce Clause was all the justification Chief Roberts needed. The opinion would have been neater had my argument been made, but it is a rare day when the Chief does not uphold congressional statute. Counting the Justices made the loss inevitable because of how Kennedy reacted to what he considered infanticide. Even then, when state laws came before him, he struck them down anyway due to Federal v State power issues.

Privacy is not about secrecy, it is about the sphere of private influence for protected classes being superior to the power of state legislatures. Every case from Griswold to Perry is based on that principle. This all depends on Brown v. Board of Education and Hernandez v. Texas, which were not really about race. It was about revoking the state power ruling in Plessy.

Congress has the absolute authority to find that life begins at conception, gastrulation or a fetal heartbeat. That is a federal plenary power as well as a prohibition on state power to say differently. There will never be abortion and non-abortion states. The rule will be uniform. If Congress acts, it will be on a national basis.

Justice Thomas affirmed PBA based on the derived power of the Congress on equal protection rights that the Federal Courts enjoy, particularly the Supreme Court. If the other four justices who upheld PBA agreed with his theory of the case, abortion would be banned at where ever the justices drew the line.This goes a bit beyond viability, which was derived from the ability to be born, but not by much. The Alabama law could be upheld on that basis, but Chief Roberts would likely not go along with such state level judicial activism, although he would certainly uphold congressional action to limit abortion by shifting the start of legal personhood.

Of course, Congress will never act in this way because to do so would mandate investigation of all miscarriages. Anything less would require selective enforcement, which is unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment's rights to due process.

The Alabama law is all about state power, and not just abortion. To recognize the power of states in this matter is to do so in all matters having to do with state law on equal protection and due process. It would bring back Plessy and overturn everything from Brown and Hernandez on. For reactionary conservatives and the hard core members of the Federalist Society (especially Scalia), this is a feature, not a flaw.

This is how it will be briefed regarding by those opposing any request for Certiorari (unless the lawyers are really dumb) on the Alabama case.

The lawyers at the Center for Reproductive Rights are not dumb. Nor are any of the Federal judges or justices considering this case. The law has zero chance of ever taking effect. This is simply the anti-abortion movement trying to look busy to keep their funding stream active and the Democrats need to respond as such come 2020.

Note further that the unborn do have the same constitutional rights as everyone else, that they may not be executed by federal (5th Amendment) or state government (14th) without due process of law. It is why pregnant women cannot be executed nor abortion mandated.

It is also why the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is constitutional (the law also recognizes a federal abortion right, which also makes the Alabama law unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause in Article IV).

There can be no state positive (i.e., legislated) right to life by an unborn child against his mother because such a law would violate the rights of women as a protected class. All negative rights to life already apply to the unborn. Again, this is all about State Government power.

Again, This is not about the unborn. This is about returning to the state power regime of Plessy v. Ferguson. For reactionaries, this is a feature, not a flaw. If SCOTUS affirms Alabama's right to pass this law, everything from Brown and Hernandez to Perry will fall.The takeaway is a that if you are a black parent, Latino, female, married or gay, Alabama wants to make you behave.

The Church Needs a Sexual Revolution of its own

The hopes and challenges of priestly celibacy today? Is addressed in America Magazine today. The author claims that the sexual revolution had something to do with because crisis. No. Here is why.

It was not the sexual revolution which caused an uptick in abuse. Rather, it was the revelation of non-belief. Until the early sixties, there was a belief in the belief in God. The highest form of that belief was ordination to the priesthood. Such a belief is a barrier to authentic formulation. It is grandiosity over faith and it still plagues the Church. The desire to serve God, or even the belief that God actually needs this service, is the pride which felled Satan. We depend on God, not the other way around. Ordination should be confined to those who wish to bring God to others for their sakes, not because God needs their obedience.

The need for celibacy comes from the adoption of Sacred Continence, which sees carnal knowledge of a woman as disqualifying to celebrate Mass. This went hand in hand with the belief that original sin was an act of disobedience which comes to us through sexual activity. There is nothing sacred about either teaching. It has its roots in Hellenistic idealism. It's champion was not Christ but Marcus Aurelius. All of the martyrs from Jesus Maccabee to Jesus Christ and his early followers died resisting Hellenic ideals.

Celibacy comes naturally for those of an asexual orientation. The Church denies such a thing even exists. Instead, it is seen as a mark of holiness rather than a sexual state even more rare than homosexuality. The Church community cannot help priests to cope with what the Church denies. To be clear, most asexuals form an adult sexuality, sometimes with and sometimes despite the Church.

Homosexuals in the clergy are more likely to have adult relationships in their development. They do not see their sexuality as either aberrant or holy. Most accept it as an integral part of themselves. In minor seminary, they studied Fagothy's Right and Reason. The natural law argument for and against homosexuality is even, with the tie broken by theism (that belief in the belief of God). Authentic faith teaches them that they are beautifully made.

Clergy of any orientation who are hiding from themselves and/or are victims of abuse have little or no ability to form adult relationships, even with their own gender preference, or to resist sexual expression with those of their sexual immaturity, i.e., children. It is why "Uncle Ted's" incidents of abuse were adolescent. Adult homosexual expression was beyond him.

The entire body of natural law sexual teaching is infected with both asexual and misogynist biases and the belief that God requires moral behavior for His own sake rather than ours. This is hardly gentle and humble of heart, an easy yoke or a light burden, nor is it perfect live as the Father is perfect.

The only way out of our sexual insanity is to embrace the ordination of women and adult sexuality, which can include marriage. Resisting the sexual revolution is not the answer. The Church must embrace it instead.

The secular reason for celibacy must also be addressed. It was also enacted to preserve Church property from feudal inheritance. It still embraces feudal management style when a non-profit structure can accomplish the same ends, while starting the process of more democratic Church governance. Feudal titles come from the world of the Gentiles. It is time to reject beneficies and benefactors. It is what the Lord intended for his Church.

Trump and Abortion at America Magazine

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2019/04/30/how-trump-able-exploit-abortion-issue-and-why-thats-bad-everyone
Father Sam Sawyer, SJ did an editorial about Trump pandering on abortion and how Democrats should respond. He clings to the line that Democrats should at least acknowledge the humanity of the child.

A few facts are important. The unborn have the same right to life vis-a-vie the federal and state governments as anyone else. They cannot be executed without due process of law. If their mother is pregnant, she cannot be executed. If they are killed in a violent crime against their mothers, the perpetrator cam be prosecuted. What they do not have is a right to protection from their mothers. Doing so would violate the rights of women as a class, which is prohibited under the 14th Amendment. The Congress, but not the states, can grant them personhood or allow them to be aborted. Indeed, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act now being debated specifically recognizes a right to abortion.

There can be no first trimester ban because you cannot selectively investigate abortions without also investigating all miscarriages. Selective enforcement is a prohibited due process violation. Period. Leaving that fact out us to defraud, which thou shalt not do.

The conservatives want to overturn all federal rights to be left alone by state government if they are in a protected class matters, aka privacy. This includes civil rights in housing, public accommodations, marriage, selective law enforcement, both by race and in sexual matters (including abortion and sodomy). Reactionaries want all these protections reversed, which is why appointing justices is an excuse to support Republicans. Success on one is success on all. It would effectively bring back Plessy, which would be unconscionable. Most judges and lawyers know this, although Fr. Sawyer does not. Offering this as a possibility is helping perpetrate a fraud.

Candidate Biden needs to pull the bishops up on this issue and end it. He must also promise to increase the child tax credit to $1000 a month, distributed with a $15 per hour wage and a minimum hour requirement and benefit for family wage earners. The unemployed should get this, even if they quit, are fired for cause or in training. The bishops should be shamed into not only endorsing this, but paying it without waiting for changes in law.

Most Republican Pro-lifers would reject any such measures to provide the kind of living wage by employers or the government by the Magisterium of Pope Pius XI. These are not optional teachings. Indeed, opposing such measures amounts to supporting abortion. If such measures are socialism, then make the most of it! It is still wrong to do so and it proves that the pro-choice movement is correct when they claim that the pro-life movement is anti-woman.

The Church needs to prove that contention wrong by condemning those who would oppose living wage measures. It should also celebrate all pregnancies, even among Catholic high school students. Shaming these young women for their sexuality is anti-life. It leads to abortion to cover such activities. You can't fight for life and condemn sex without, again, being correctly charged with being a misogynist.

Abortion has always been with us. It was a standard part of being a midwife. Abortion law never existed until obstetrics was the province of doctors. Where you find Satan is in the capitalists who pay too little for families with children to support themselves and their Republican cheerleaders.

Not paying a family wage such that abortion is necessary should make that employer as culpable for that abortion as the doctor performing it. Catholics who do not pay an adequate wage should consider themselves excommunicate.

Born alive bills that require extraordinary measures for any child, whether born in an abortion procedure or naturally cannot require extraordinary measures. These can never be required at any stage in life. Natural death is what happens when such measures are not used. Abandoning Catholic doctrine for political purposes is particularly shameful.

Telling the truth about abortion rights is not a sin. Ever. Recommending abortion in a specific case or stating that it is a positive good for society or young women is what is prohibited. Indeed, going against Church guidance in some cases in late term pregnancies is more befitting natural law reasoning and Christian charity than the knee jerk prohibition of all such cases.

Humanae Vitae was an asexual manifesto imposing their peculiar sexuality on the rest of us.

In the coming days, members of the Trump campaign will be called to testify to Congress about collusion. My former lawyer is on two if these committees. Rest assured that they will be asked about whether Russian hackers obtained the HRC briefing books, particularly about late term abortion, whether members of the campaign coordinated with the USCCB and Midwestern bishops about their response to these matters and any information they received about such collusion. This matter will come up now and during the 2020 campaign. We deserve to know what the Church is doing in our name and the effect it had in the outcome of this election and the debacle which followed. All will be laid bare. I promise.