A Long Time Since . . .

I promised to write more about Title IV-D, back on May 28th, of this year (2015.)

Today is October 1.

Alas!

Four months have passed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NB:  

I am not an attorney. This is not legal advice.

It is information from my experience, or from reading, or some combination. I try to ensure accuracy by checking sources as much as I can, but I am also not a professional journalist.

For several decades, U. S. society has implicitly supported abortion in many different ways. Sixty million unborn babies have died cruel, violent deaths for no reason except "convenience."

But, those abortions have been much less convenient than raising a son or daughter would have been. I made that same tragic mistake myself --- TWICE!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Definition: "Title IV-D" refers to state-run child support enforcement programs which are funded through grants provided for by the Social Security Act of 1975. [Please note the date. --- Two years after Roe v. Wade.  I believe that Title IV of the Social Security Act may have been intended to save babies from abortion.]

Title IV of the Social Security Act covers grants to states for the purpose of providing aid and services to needy families with children and for child-welfare services. Part "D" of that law covers child support and the establishment of paternity. (Although Title IV-D is also for divorced parents.) 

(The above is quoted from the Single Parents section on About Dot Com.)

The main thing you need to know is this:  Get yourself to the district attorney's office, or the corporation counsel's office of your county, whichever county you happen to be in.

If you are in the United States of America, you are in a county.

Even if you are not in any city, town, village or township (municipality), you are still in a county.

Each county has a district attorney to represent state interest in criminal matters, and a corporation counsel, to represent the state interest in civil matters.

Title IV-D is important to mention whenever anyone tells you that you "cannot afford" a new baby, because you're single --- or for another reason.

People may tell you this in order to convince you that you should kill your unborn baby. Pro-aborts are quite adept at figuring out these excuses for killing your unborn baby.

 Here is the complete text of Title IV of the Social Security Act, in case you feel like boring yourself to death someday


Part D—Child Support and Establishment of Paternity 

Ultrasound is rape, but abortion is totally non-invasive, according to dailykos

Dailykos publishes something about something. It's difficult to tell what's going on, exactly.

I hate including a link to their silly "journal" but I suppose I must, just for proper attribution purposes.

 All I can say is they love dead babies, and they love moms who kill them.

In order to prevent themselves and their readers from thinking about the very inconvenient fact that abortion kills a human being --- as well as the other inconvenient fact that abortion is never medically necessary --- they distract by writing the word, "rape" many times.

As if that were the issue.

Ultrasounds Save Lives

They are afraid that a mom might see an ultrasound of that little guy or gal, and be moved to change her mind about killing/aborting. They are afraid of that because it has happened many times. Many moms have changed their minds when seeing the little person on an ultrasound.

dailykos doesn't want "choice." They only want abortion.

When Did My Party Become the Abortion Party?

Governor Walker has a great pro-life record. That's why I voted for him, even though I have been a registered Democrat since 1969 --- the year I first became old enough to vote.

Here's a quote from the dailykos article: 

Since penetration of a woman's body without her consent is rape, and since Republican Legislatures are legalizing just that, Republican legislators should be brought up on rape charges. That includes Governor Walker, every Legislator who voted for a state mandated rape law, and every Governor who signed one into law.

Law suits need to be filed by women's groups. The American Medical Association should sign on as co-plaintiffs, refusing to be forced into being accomplices. Individuals subjected to such assaults should file class action suits.

All of us who are appalled at this twisting of our laws in order to hide Republican assaults upon our families, friends, and neighbors need to be raising our voices in righteous outrage.

This author actually wrote this with a straight face?

Of course she or he doesn't mean it. It's just pretense.

Pro-aborts love to pretend to burst with righteous indignation.

An ultrasound is a little sensor on the tummy, while you're fully clothed. (Maybe you have to pull your shirt up so the sensor can "sense" better?) I know this because I've had six kids.

I am sad to say that I have also had two abortions, may God forgive me.

(I received Absolution for these abortions, of course, before returning to the Sacraments for which I had longed so earnestly.)

Somebody on EWTN said that in the past, one could not simply receive Absolution for abortion in regular Confession. The priest had to go ask the bishop for special permission because it was rare back then --- before 1973. The penitent had to wait for that permission from the bishop.

Unfortunately, abortion is no longer that rare.

Still, I wish I could have my babies back. I think of them always, every day. I miss them. I wish I could see them again, but they are with the Lord. I was the one who sent them there prematurely.

The worst thing about an ultrasound is that it can hurt the baby's ears, I've heard. It makes a loud screech, that only the baby can hear.

(That is, of course, unless you want to promote abortion. In that case, everything about ultrasound is bad. That's why dailykos is so against it.)

I wish grievously, sadly, powerfully, that someone would have "forced" an ultrasound on me on those two dates. Because then my babies would be here with me now.

No, not "might."


Would.

One commenter posted this brilliant (NOT) insight to the article: 

" . . . I asked a close friend, who's also conservative and devoutly Catholic -- what he thought of this.  And he put it perfectly -- the way any thinking, feeling person on the Right should see it:  "Abortion is wrong.  But destroying the dignity of women doesn't make it any less wrong."
Would that all religious conservatives had that sensibility."

[NB:  Why all the labels? "Thinking?" ---- "feeling?"---- "on the Right?" ---- "conservative"?" What about the actual issue --- a baby has died, or will die in abortion? Why doesn't it make perfect sense to do as much as possible to prevent that death? ]

Abortion destroys the dignity of all involved.

Abortion destroys the life of a healthy baby.

Abortion also sometimes destroys the life of the mom, as well. (We don't really know how frequently moms are killed by abortion.)

If you don't want "penetration," don't get an abortion. Just let the little guy or gal continue to grow until she or he is ready to meet the world and continue growing in the outside world, as nature intended.

Yes, abortion IS wrong. But, just making that statement doesn't do anything or change anything. It's static.

"Abortion is wrong.  But destroying

 the dignity of 

women 

doesn't make it any less wrong."

I find myself wondering what kind of allegedly "devoutly Catholic" person of any political stripe would or could say such a thing.

It seems to me that it is a little like saying, "Homicide is wrong. But, taking away that firearm from the potential murderer doesn't make it any less wrong. Because that firearm is her or his property, and nobody can interfere in her or his property rights."

Whether or not gun deprivation or ultrasound "makes" something "less wrong," isn't really the question, though, is it?

It PREVENTS that wrong from occurring in the first place. 

Later on, philosophers and theologians can debate on the hierarchy of wrong or harm.

Abortion is much more invasive and penetrating than any rape could ever be.

If you find yourself unexpectedly pregnant, be grateful that your body is nice and healthy. Then, start checking out all the sources of help that are out there, whether you decide to raise the little guy or gal yourself, or to look for an adoptive family.

Be sure to start with Title IV-D at your local county, if you are keeping the little guy or gal. Title IV-D is a federal program, totally free in every county of the U.S.

I will write more about Title IV-D in another post.

I Pledge to Vote for a Pro-Life Candidate for President Petition | GoPetition

A Faithful Catholic Teacher in her Fifties Loses Health Insurance and Job

I am grateful for this article, on First Things.

There have been far too  many allegedly "Catholic" teachers and legislators arguing for their  non-existent "right" to publicly promote abortion, criticize the Holy Father, and vilify the teachings of the Magisterium in every way possible.

I am partly incorrect when I say their right does not exist.

Of course, being U.S. citizens, they certainly do have a legal right. But, no faithful practicing Catholic has any moral right to publicly take exception to the doctrine or dogma of Holy Mother Church.

At the very least, I think they would have to ask for Confession before receiving the

~~ *B*O*D*Y* of *C*H*R*I*S*T* ~~.

If she is threatened with being fired for what she said, then her job is on the line because she is a devoted Catholic. If she is under the gun for how she said it—and the fact that the Sensitivity Police are offended by it—then she has lots of company, and in high places too.

I used to think that we U.S. citizens were free to state our personal opinions.

Further, if a U.S. citizens happens to be Catholic, and teaching in a Catholic school, then it would be normal and reasonable for that citizen's opinion to reflect the teachings of the Magisterium.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Becoming a Pro-Life Progressive

I joined an online group for "pro-life progressives."

Of course, pro-lifers are frequently accused of being conservative Republicans. (I've never been able to figure out what is so Democratic or liberal about killing babies before they're born, but I digress.)

A few days after I joined this group, a female posted a picture of our Holy Father, Pope Francis, with a recent quote reminding Catholics to uphold the two-thousand year-old teaching of Holy Mother Church by not using artificial birth control.

Her comment on this picture and quote:  "I'm Catholic, but I totally disagree. Some people can't afford to have kids." That is, she claimed to disagree with our Holy Father, Pope Francis, on a matter of doctrine and dogma.

I reminded her that she is not actually Catholic, because Catholics are not free to disobey, or even doubt, the doctrine and dogma of Holy Mother Church. We are certainly not free to influence others to disobey?

Was it St. Thomas Aquinas who said, "Ten thousand difficulties do not make a single doubt?"

She then proclaimed that I am not "progressive" enough, and her group was for "progressives."

Well, I tried to explain that I am highly progressive, but that doesn't mean that my fellow Catholics are off the hook when it comes to admonishment for their sins. If a Buddhist, a Baptist, or a Lutheran publicly took exception to a teaching of Holy Mother Church, it would not concern me.

But, please notice the little inverted turnabout here:  Her standard for "progressivism" is higher than the Holy Father's own pronouncement of Catholic doctrine and dogma. She is free to publicly call attention to her own heresy, but I am not free to call myself "progressive" outside of her standard.

This person could have simply ignored the Holy Father's statement. She could have just kept it to herself, and struggled privately with her difficulty. It almost seemed that she felt that publicly proclaiming herself as "Catholic," would lend credence to her dissent. There's no need to even consider any religious topics, in a "progressive" group.

"Progressive" is a secular label.

A Thankless Job for Us

So, those of us who actually give a hoot, are left here in the wilderness with the thankless task of admonishing the sinner all by ourselves, which nobody else seems able or willing to do these days.

One person from a local eatery said to me, "I only go to Confession once a year unless they show me a reason to do otherwise."

{Well, how about this for a reason:  You committed a mortal sin and you cannot receive the ~~ *B*O*D*Y* of *C*H*R*I*S*T* ~~ unless you are in a state or Grace. You can only be in a state of Grace again if Confess your mortal sin first? } 

I thought, but did not say.

I even asked a priest about this (in Confession, by the way, because I felt that I had sinned by not instructing her in her ignorance.) Strangely enough, Father said I had no obligation to do so.

Another person told me he had not been to Mass for twenty years, and asked if he could go to Mass with me. (Well, he didn't need ME for that, so why did he wait twenty years? Very mysterious.)

A few days before we were supposed to meet for Mass, I started worrying that he did not know or remember that he needed Confession before receiving the *B*O*D*Y* of *C*H*R*I*S*T* in the EUCHARIST.  I realized that I had an obligation to either remind him, or tell him for the first time. 

(The way catechesis has been going for the past forty years . . . ? It might even be possible for a man in his fifties to not know the basics.)

I tried to leave a message on his voice mail telling him about Holy Mother Church's doctrine. 

He did not show up --- thank Heavens! He claimed he could not hear the message, but I'm not sure if that was the real reason. I'm just glad he did not show up.

A young relative of mine saw a friend from school at Mass. My relative knew the friend had not been to Mass for a long time, because the friend had confided this privately. This relative wrote a little note to the friend, reminding the friend of her Sunday obligation, mortal sin and the necessity of being in a state of Grace before receiving the *B*O*D*Y* of *C*H*R*I*S*T*. She even asked Father about it, but he did not offer much guidance or support. He did mention the admonishment of sinners, and instruction of the ignorant, but he kind of shrugged it off.

Perhaps I can understand  --- a little? We don't want to start a brawl or make a scene during Mass, of course. 

But, what U.S. Catholic isn't wondering why Nancy Pelosi is still pretending to be "Catholic?" Can't her bishop tell her the truth?

And, that seems to be going on everywhere these days, here in the U.S. Thank goodness for Cardinal Burke!

The Catholic Teacher's Bishop Does Not Want to Talk About It

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/03/threatened-for-her-zeal-for-the-faith

Bishop Bootkoski makes statements that are mutually exclusive. First, he claims that his "compassionate Catholic community . . . never wavers from our traditional Catholic teachings."

Personally, when I read of a parish or a diocese being called, ". . . Catholic community. . . " I think I already know I'm reading an author who subscribes to only the "spirit" of Vatican II but not its documents.

I guess he doesn't count that traditional Catholic teaching that says that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered? CCCC 2357.

On the other hand, I do get a little tired of people who claim that someone is committing an act in private when they have no way of knowing that. (There's only one way to know.) The Catechism also says that nobody has the right to know everything about another person. Just because a person has a same-sex attraction doesn't mean she or he is acting on it, and we have no right to bring or cause scandal, or to indulge in gossip.

Then, Bishop Bootkoski says, "Pope Francis reminds us that we are to accept all of our brethren. We must ensure that our educators steer away from harsh and judgmental statements that can alienate and divide us." 

Bishop Bootkoski says this as if "acceptance" of our fellow human beings means that we should also accept their sinful lifestyle.

But the teacher's statement was neither harsh nor judgmental. It was based on logic. She stated that sexual orientation is not an unchanging, inborn physical characteristic.

Therefore, it would not make sense to consider sexual orientation under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Catholics never can accept a sinful lifestyle as the norm. The Spiritual Works of Mercy tell us that we must:  

• Admonish the Sinner;
• Instruct the Ignorant;
• Counsel the Doubtful;
• Bear Wrongs Patiently;
• Forgive Offenses Willingly;
• Comfort the Afflicted;
• Pray for the Living and the Dead.

I would so love to get this coloring book for
my grandbabies.
But, alas, I am verboten from
telling them about Mass,
or Our Lord, or Holy Mother Church.
I did manage to sneakily teach them
the Sign of the Cross, though :-)

Perhaps Bishop Bootkoski --- like many "Spirit of Vatican Two" adherents from the '70's and on --- would like to work only the Corporal Works of Mercy:

• Clothe the naked;
• Feed the hungry;
• Give drink to the thirsty;
• Visit the sick;
• Visit the Imprisoned; 
• Shelter the Homeless;
• Bury the dead.

It always seems to me that alleged "liberals" only follow the Corporal Works of Mercy. They forget about the Spiritual Works of Mercy.


Alleged "conservatives" only want to deal with the Spiritual Works of Mercy. They forget about the Corporal Works of Mercy.


They're both wrong.