Thompson News

Where can I send my check?

According to the Knoxville News Sentinel, the buzz is that Fred Thompson is expected to announce his candidacy formally on the 4th of July holiday.

You Could Say It's a Habit with Her . . .

While reading a women's magazine I like, I came across a blurb about a Catholic nun, Sister Madonna Buder, who - at the age of 75 in 2005- completed the Hawaii Ironman Triathlon, becoming the first woman of her age group to ever do so in the triathlon's history. And she only started running at the age of 49!

Quotes Sister: "I train religiously."

I have been working my own way back into a lifestyle that is more healthy, after recently passing my 46th birthday. A story likes this reminds me that (a) you're never too old to do so, and (b) the Holy Spirit works!

Remember the Fallen

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

—By John McCrae

Read more in an excellent column in today's Orange County Register by Gordon Dillow.

Don't Go in the Water

Hammerhead Shark Gives Virgin Birth

With a headline like that, ya gotta do a double take.

Take Me to the River

On this day in 1961, at St. Brendan's Church in the Bronx, NY, I was baptized as an infant into the Catholic Church.

For some reason, that came to mind as soon as I woke up. Please remember in your prayers my godparents, both deceased now - Marie Martin and Michael Koretzky.

Hey, Ma!

To Dorothy Koretzky Martin:

Happy Mother's Day, Ma!

Yer still turnin' heads!

That's my Mom, taken on her honeymoon

back in November 1956

Happy Mother's Day

This is one of the funniest Mother's Day tributes I have seen - and can I tell you how much it reminds me of me and my siblings? Hilarious!

Divorce As a Magic Bullet

Around the water cooler at the office, we legal minds have been remarking about the billboard in Chicago that happily is coming down.

I do not like it, and not simply because it serves to feed the image of the slimy "divorce lawyer," versus what I consider myself to be, which is a family law attorney. I do not like it because it fosters the image of divorce as a magic bullet.

Too often - and especially in these times of subprime lenders going under - I have clients who arrive at a divorce with the mistaken belief that it will be the cure for all that ails them. Too much credit card debt? Get a divorce. House in foreclosure? Get a divorce. Stuck in a go-nowhere job? Get a divorce? Spouse has put on a few too many pounds? Get a divorce. You've put on too many pounds? Get a divorce . . .

These same people become dismayed when I have to explain to them that a divorce will not undo the consequences of choices they have made - be they medical, financial, educational, etc. - many of which are unrelated to the marriage. As one of my colleagues commented, quite often with regard to their material situation, they are going from bad to worst. There are legitimate reasons for divorcing, but it should be a measure of last resort.

And now comes this ad, that places divorce at the same level as some miracle "fat-burning" pill! "Better abs in 90 days with Dissomaster!" "This month in Cosmo - Dump the Ex for Better Sex!" "I Lost My Wife But Gained a Six-Pack!" "Both My Breasts and I Got a Lift - From a Divorce!"

Jimbob at Shaking Off Sleep has a good idea, having a billboard that shows the "realer" side of divorce for many people in a middle-class situation. I recall statistics that state a person can expect a 30% decrease in their quality of life post-divorce. I also recall Fr. Raymond O'Brien, a professor of law at Catholic University who was a visiting instructor at my law school, Loyola Law School, bitterly relating to the class how he, as a child of divorce, remembers the hangars cutting into his fingers as he carried his "week's clothes" back and forth between his mother's home and his father's home, as he alternated his visitations with his parents - still some rancor some 50 years after the fact.

Divorce is a serious option and cannot be treated so lightly. I would hope this ad came to the attention of Illinois' state bar's ethics committee.

Abortion and Down's Syndrome

Interesting post over at Dappled Things regarding a report in the New York Times that states 90% of pregnant women who are told in a prenatal examination that their child has Down's Syndrome go on to have an abortion.

I note that many women who are pro-life choose simply not to have such screening. I am not sure that is wise. With both of my children, I underwent amniocentesis as both would be born after my 35th birthday (Kate at 36, Patrick at 39). I was asked at the time by colleagues whether I would "take the right steps" if I found out there was a chromosomal abnormality. Indeed I would, I replied - I would use that information to seek parents of children with such issues and support groups, to prepare myself to raise a special needs child.

But 90 percent! That must mean that a lot of women who support restrictions on abortion would still have an abortion if they knew the child would have Down syndrome. In the future, it seems, anyone taking care of a child with Down syndrome will be viewed as a saint... or, perhaps, misguided and foolish.

Final Score: Girls - 2, Boys - 0

Ma Beck over at WardWideWeb posted about this article written by a journalist about he and his wife's decision to have an abortion:

MY WIFE AND I just had an abortion. Two, actually. We walked into a doctor's office in downtown Los Angeles with four thriving fetuses — two girls and two boys — and walked out an hour later with just the girls, whom we will name, if we're lucky enough to keep them, Rosalind and Vivian. Rosalind is my mother's name.

And the boys were named . . .?

We don't feel guilty. We don't feel ashamed. We're not even really sad, because terminating these fetuses — at 15 weeks' gestation — was a medical imperative. This has been a white-knuckle pregnancy from Day 1, and had it gone on as it was going, Tina's health would have been in jeopardy, according to her doctor. The fact is, multiple pregnancies are high risk, and they can go bad very suddenly. I wasn't going to allow that, though the fires of hell might beckon.

Somehow I doubt this writer ever gave a moment's thought to the fires of hell. One might also wonder, if multiple pregnancies are so ricky, by not terminate three of the fetuses? Ah, read on .

Then, at about 12 weeks, we underwent a type of genetic testing (chorionic villus sampling, similar to amniocentesis), reasoning that if we had to abort two, it would be better to abort any fetuses with genetic abnormalities . . .

Some wanted to know how we decided to keep the girls. Partly, it was a matter of how the fetuses were arranged. Partly, it had to do with other factors. Some studies show offspring of older fathers (I'm 47) run a higher risk of autism, and males are four times as likely to be autistic. Still, I had reservations about bringing girls into the world now, when forces seemed to be aligning to disenfranchise them (nine of 10 GOP presidential candidates favor reversing Roe vs. Wade). I hate to think my girls will have to fight the battles their mothers and grandmothers fought.

So, since the probability was higher that his sons could have autism, although there does not seem to be any solid, concrete evidence of autism - well, sorry boys, but since your gender lost in the war of statistics, you became "medical imperatives."

So, he hates to think about little Viv and Roz growing up in a world where they may have to fight again for the right to kill their children - *sniff*. But his sons - feh. I mean, this man could not have even bothered at 15 weeks to give them names, although his daughters got names. But that should not surprise you - the boys were to be discarded, so they are simply "fetuses" where the girls - precious Roz and Viv . . . well, to the winners belong the spoils, which in this case is recognition of their humanity.

For our part, we are grateful that [the doctor who performed the "reduction"] was out there. Without her, we wouldn't have been able to have a family. When Roz and Viv grow up, I hope one day I can introduce them to her. I think she'd be proud.

Without her, he would have had a larger family. And I bet the girls would really, really benefit by meeting this kindly, so they could learn that the only reason they are alive is because, by virtue of their gender, they would be least likely to be burdens - like autistic children - on their parents. I would be willing to bet that they learn their parents love them, so long as it is convenient to Mommy and Daddy. And Mommy and Daddy would be willing to do anything for them, so long as it doesn't mean Mommy and Daddy have to take risks.

What a guy.

Expect an Outcry

Pope Benedict XIV told reporters today that he supported the possibility of Mexican Church leaders excommunicating pro-abortion politicians in that country.

The Pope was asked whether he supported Mexican Church leaders threatening to excommunicate leftist parliamentarians who last month voted to legalize abortion in Mexico City.

"Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon (church) law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ," he said.

"They (Mexican Church leaders) did nothing new, surprising or arbitrary. They simply announced publicly what is contained in the law of the Church... which expresses our appreciation for life and that human individuality, human personality is present from the first moment (of life)."

What I expect is, of course, the cry of "Foul!" from such politicians and their supporters for "interfering" with democracy and the "people's will."

In recent months, the Vatican has been accused of interference in Italy for telling Catholic lawmakers to oppose a draft law that would grant some rights to unwed and gay couples.

But, if the charge is that the Church's stance on abortion is outdated, and they do not consider canonical law to be binding on them, then of what substance is a bull of excommunication to them? How do you call the Church a meaningless institution and then get offended when it defends its beliefs?

It Occurs to Me . . .

. . . that some folks in their zeal to be Catholic, appear to forget to be Christian.

Cinco de Mayo

La Senorita Bonita

St. Joseph Church Cinco de Mayo Celebration

Santa Ana, CA

Copyright 2007

Partial Truth Abortion Commentary

While catching up on my reading of The Daily Journal, I was taken aback to read an editorial by Susan Estrich, who is a law professor at USC, writing about the latest Supreme Court decision on partial birth abortion - or what she terms "a slogan invented by smart Republicans activists."

Partial birth abortion is not a medical term. It is a slogan invented by smart Republican activists and legislative staffers who were looking for a new approach to undermining Roe v. Wade.

What "partial birth abortion" is generally understood to refer to is the D and X procedure, occasionally used by doctors in abortions after the first trimester, in which the fetus’ body is delivered largely intact rather than being dismembered first.

I fail to see the difference. Again, this is an attempt to bypass plain English - "fetal tissue" or "by-product of conception" rather than "fetus" or "baby" - in an effort to "keep it clean, keep it clinical" so no one really catches on to what the reality is. And that reality is stabbing scissors into the back of a viable baby's skull and removing its brain.

But Ms. Estrich is quite aware of that and concedes:

Gruesome? Sure. More gruesome than dismembering the body first and then counting body parts to make sure you haven’t missed anything? That shouldn’t be the standard. No one likes abortions, much less late ones. They are prohibited after viability in every state, unless necessary to save the life of the mother.

The issue here is not when a woman should be allowed to have an abortion, but whether her doctor should be free to use whatever procedure is safest for her in cases where she does have a right to choose. Legislative distaste should not be a reason to subject women to unnecessary risk in the exercise of their constitutional rights.

I recall when I was pregnant with my first child who, as she neared term, remained steadfastly in a breech position. The doctors advised me that due to the risk involved, they would have to perform a caeserean delivery rather than attempt vaginal delivery in such a position.

Granted, the breech delivery of a baby with the intent to collapse its skull is less risky because there is no worry that the head will fail to pass through the birth canal, but a risk remains - and one, by Ms. Estrich's terms is imposed upon a woman in a predicament where her life is in danger.

If an abortion is needed to "save the life of the mother" in late term, then why not simply deliver the child?