House approves health-care bill and aborts Democrats for Life

Washington Post reports on the House passage of the Senate health-care bill.  Just as abortion dismembers an intact body and splits mother from child, so it continues to divide and polarize our body politic. Expect conservatives to make the argument that "pro-life democrat" is a contradiction in terms and expect most pro-life people to believe it.  Fewer Democrats will believe that abortion is an issue they will sacrifice for or win on. Remember it was just two elections ago that Democrats won a few House seats with new pro-life candidates. It was a little glimmer of promise since it's very difficult to pass major social legislation if it's supported by only one party. What little momentum may have started in 2004 will likely peter out and pro-life Democrats will be a thing of the past giving Republicans one-party control of the pro-life movement.

Pro-lifers may well become to Republicans what African-Americans are to Democrats. You can use 'em, run 'em, party with 'em but you can never give 'em what they really want. Keep them hanging on the line always living in hope.  Where do they have to go after all? Pro-lifers aren't going to be jumping to the Democrats and African-Americans have proven that there remain so few of them among Republicans that they are almost always guaranteed a speaking berth at Republican gatherings and conventions.

Protecting the unborn needs to be a bi-partisan issue. Major social legislation needs support from both sides of the aisle or it gets bloody, gridlocked and ultimately unresolved. We've had bi-partisan pro-life victories in the past.

For example, banning partial birth abortion legislation had been vetoed twice by President Clinton. Then in 2003 its time had come. In the House, the final legislation was supported by 218 Republicans and 63 Democrats. It was opposed by 4 Republicans, 137 Democrats, and 1 independent. Twelve members were absent, 7 Republicans and 5 Democrats. In the Senate the bill was supported by 47 Republicans and 17 Democrats. It was opposed by 3 Republicans, 30 Democrats, and 1 independent. Two Senators were absent, Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tx.), a supporter of the bill, and John Edwards (D-NC), an opponent of the bill. It was truly a pro-life victory with support from both parties.

Or consider the Hyde Amendment which is a rider attached to the Appropriations Bill each year barring HHS funds from being used for abortions. It primarily effects Medicaid funding for the poor. The original Hyde Amendment was passed in 1976 by the House of Representatives, by a 207-167 vote. Why wouldn't pro-lifers have been satisfied with a Gerald Ford executive order banning Federal funds for abortion? At that time Ford was clearly pro-life and opposed Roe v. Wade as stated in a letter to Archbishop Bernardin of Cinncinnati who was president of the NCCB.  Further, he wanted a constitutional amendment to return the decision to the states and he rejected abortion on demand. Ford was pushed further by his opponent Jimmy Carter because the Southern Baptist while personally opposed to abortion but tolerant of Roe v. Wade refused to support funding for abortion. So a Ford executive order may have serve President Ford quite well as the campaign went on.

The Hyde Amendment represented the first major legislative success by abortion opponents. It was a major bipartisan effort, 207-167. This is not true of this health care reform act. The behavior of Ben Nelson and Bart Stupak will make future bi-partisan pro-life victories less likely.  I'd like to believe Stupak got something for his efforts beyond a face-saving but when all the pro-life legal minds, at this point, are holding their nose, then I smell defeat.

Democrats for Life of America headed by Kristen Day (see pix left) hasn't been burning up the track racing around to pick up new members. But now with Ben Nelson's flip and Stupak's failure the brakes have been slammed on the once hopeful organization. Today, it stands opposed to every single major pro-life organization by applauding the Stupak/Obama executive order. I'd love to be proven wrong but even Planned Parenthood and NARAL seem only disappointed not threatened. They are unhappy with rhetorical restrictions on abortion. They don't like their pro-abortion champion even giving the time of day to this anti-choice extremist Stupak.  The President knows and Stupak does too that an Executive Order cannot stop domestic abortion funding unless the limits are approved by statute. That was the reason for the Hyde Amendment and not a Gerald Ford executive order. Unless there is a silver legal lining in this executive order Democrats for Life sounds oxymoronic.

Listen to their press release for Sunday. It's almost self-parody: "Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) applauds the President Obama for his bold leadership in agreeing to an Executive Order that bans taxpayer funded abortions in the health care reform bill expected to pass the House this evening."

"We are proud to support this historic healthcare legislation. President Obama's Executive Order shows that when we work towards common ground in Washington we can do the people's business and end the gridlock. By working with House Leaders and the White House, DFLA shows how the pro-life Democrats are a key and growing constituency."

"Hubert H. Humphrey best stated it when he said, “ ... the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped. “

"End gridlock"? "Key and growing constituency"? Who is she kidding? Nelson's disgrace and Stupak's failure only guarantee that pro-life people will gravitate to one party (it's already been trending that way for two decades) but this isn't good for the pro-life movement.  I've always loved the Hubert Humphrey quote about the moral test of government. But maybe our expectations should be more modest. How about basic honesty and loyalty, Kristen?

NRLC on EO: "issued for political effect." Pro-abortion groups not threatened

The National Right to Life Committee:

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) remains strongly opposed to the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590). A lawmaker who votes for this bill is voting to require federal agencies to subsidize and administer health plans that will pay for elective abortion, and voting to undermine longstanding pro-life policies in other ways as well. Pro-life citizens nationwide know that this is a pro-abortion bill. Pro-life citizens know, and they will be reminded again and again, which lawmakers deserve their gratitude for voting against this pro-abortion legislation.

The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says.

Planned Parenthood has now issued as statement: "We regret that a pro-choice president of a pro-choice nation was forced to sign an executive order that further codifies the proposed anti-choice language in the health care reform bill, originally proposed by Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. What the president’s executive order did not do is include the complete and total ban on private health insurance coverage for abortion that Congressman Bart Stupak (D–MI) had insisted upon. So while we regret that this proposed executive order has given the imprimatur of the president to Senator Nelson’s language, we are grateful that it does not include the Stupak abortion ban." Not thrilled but not threatened.

NARAL has now spoken:
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said it was "deeply disappointing that Bart Stupak and other anti-choice politicians would demand the restatement of the Hyde amendment, a discriminatory law that blocks low-income women from receiving full reproductive-health care." Disappointed but not determined to do anything.
The leader of the House pro-choice caucus Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo said she thinks current law and the language in the health care bill go too far in restricting access to abortion. But DeGette said she doesn't have a problem with the executive order because "it doesn't change anything."  Right. It doesn't change anything.

See the Slate Magazine musings on Stupak's motive for accepting the EO below.

ALSO IF THIS LANGUAGE ISN'T MEANINGLESS THEN ISN'T THE PRESIDENT ADMITTING THAT THERE WERE PROBLEMS WITH THE BILL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

The New Republic isn't sweating the Executive Order. At this point, with the exception of NOW politically liberal groups don't seem to think the Executive Order is a threat. NOW sees it as a threat because it was hoping Obama would get Congress to get rid of the Hyde Amendment altogether. So for them this means he's probably not as unsympathetic to Hyde Amendment as they thought.
The Hill is also reporting the comfort level of pro-abortion politicos: Pro-abortion-rights Democrats lined up behind the deal, signaling that healthcare reform's biggest and last hurdle had been overcome.
"It looks like it's a go," Rep. Jan Schakowsy (D-Ill.) said after exiting Pelosi's office. "Assuming that there's no final, final, final, final shenanigans that go on with the Stupak people, I think we're OK."

Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), the author of the abortion language initially approved in the House Energy and Commerce Committee that Stupak's November floor amendment replaced, was also satisfied.

"I'm pleased that we seem to be getting to the end," said Capps. "I'm thankful that we're to the point where now we can concentrate on healthcare reform and we're ready to take a vote."

Amy Sullivan at TIME sees the EO not as an Obama concession but a restatement of what had been agreed to last July. "After working out a 'deal' with the White House on abortion, Bart Stupak will be voting for health reform later this evening. I say "deal," because the executive order the White House announced it would issue to get Stupak's vote essentially promises that no federal funding will be used to subsidize abortion procedures--a promise easily enough given because that's exactly what Democratic leaders and the White House have said their version of health reform does all along. It's really hard to interpret this as anything other than Stupak caving in order to end up on the side of supporting health reform. There's nothing wrong with that--Stupak has long been a supporter of reforming the health care system--but it's difficult to see why he dragged this out for months if he was going to settle for the Senate language in the end. Stupak's health care dance may well have made it even harder for pro-life Democrats to have their concerns taken seriously going forward." (Emphasis mine).

Does it strike anyone else as strange that the President who reversed the Mexico City policy by executive order would somehow extend something like the Hyde Amendment by executive order????

Timothy Noah at Slate wonders why Stupak settled for a meaningless EO.

Timothy Noah over at Slate understands that "A lot of people are scratching their heads about the executive order Rep. Bart Stupak extracted from President Obama as a condition of supporting health care reform. "It's not clear the executive order changes anything," writes the New Republic's Jon Cohn. I'd have to agree. So why did Stupak hold out for it?

Here's my best guess: Stupak was holding out not for language that merely reaffirmed what the Senate bill already says, but for language that de-linked the fate of health reform's abortion ban from the fate of the Hyde amendment. As I've explained before, the Hyde amendment is not a permanent ban on government (actually, just Health and Human Services) funding of abortions. It's a ban that gets attached to appropriations bills, and therefore must be renewed year after year. In the Senate bill, the ban on government funding of abortions through the new health insurance exchanges is dependent on the Hyde amendment's renewal. The word "abortion" is defined "based on the law [governing HHS appropriations] as in effect as of the date that is six months before the beginning of the plan year involved." (This is on Page 119.) If Congress fails to renew the Hyde amendment in any given year, the abortion ban in the health care reform bill will vanish.

Earlier today Kathryn Jean Lopez reported on National Review Online that she'd been leaked a draft of the executive order as of last night. She scorned it as "meaningless," but it contained some important language that didn't make it into the final version. The draft said: "The Executive Order directs that the Hyde language [italics mine] found in sections 507 and 508 of the Labor HHH Appropriations Bill shall apply to the HR 3590. The final version said: "The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions [italics mine] governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges." What's the difference between language and current restrictions? Language denotes the wording as distinct from the conditions under which that wording is applied. Current restrictions, on the other hand, refers to the conditions. The first renders the Hyde amendment immortal (at least until a followup executive order undoes it). The second leaves it conditioned on renewal in the HHS appropriation. Once the Hyde amendment restrictions were no longer current, the insurance exchanges would be free to use federal funds to pay for abortions.

Here's what I suspect. As of yesterday, the White House was willing to promise Stupak an open-ended ban on abortion funding in the exchanges. But today, either because of blowback from pro-choicers in Congress or because Stupak lost some leverage as the healh reform bill acquired more votes, it was not. So a basically meaningless executive order was issued to help Stupak save face.

Just a guess, but I bet I'm right."

Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2248490/


Copyright 2010 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC

NOW incensed with Obama; pro-choice caucus leader unfazed

President Obama Breaks Faith with Women

Statement of NOW President Terry O’Neill

"The National Organization for Women is incensed that President Barack Obama agreed today to issue an executive order designed to appease a handful of anti-choice Democrats who have held up health care reform in an effort to restrict women’s access to abortion. Through this order, the president has announced he will lend the weight of his office and the entire executive branch to the anti-abortion measures included in the Senate bill, which the House is now prepared to pass.

President Obama campaigned as a pro-choice president, but his actions today suggest that his commitment to reproductive health care is shaky at best. Contrary to language in the draft of the executive order and repeated assertions in the news, the Hyde Amendment is not settled law — it is an illegitimate tack-on to an annual must-pass appropriations bill. NOW has a longstanding objection to Hyde and, in fact, was looking forward to working with this president and Congress to bring an end to these restrictions. We see now that we have our work cut out for us far beyond what we ever anticipated. The message we have received today is that it is acceptable to negotiate health care on the backs of women, and we couldn’t disagree more."

NARAL HAS STILL NOT POSTED ON THIS. NOR HAS PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Is that because they haven't gotten around to it yet or because they know it is no serious threat or because the Obama administration hasn't sent them the language?

Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette agreed to support the executive order on behalf of the pro-choice caucus because it is simply a ratification of what they already agreed to last July. She doesn't like it then and doesn't like it now but thinks it isn't especially burdensome given the importance of health care reform. Speaker Pelosi has said she's open to an executive order.

Boehner rejects notion of Executive Order

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement on a potential Executive Order from the White House on abortion:

“The law of the land trumps any Executive Order, which can be reversed or altered at the stroke of a pen by this or any subsequent President without any congressional approval or notice. Moreover, while an Executive Order can direct members of the executive branch, it cannot direct the private sector.

“Because of Roe v. Wade, courts have interpreted the decision as a statutory mandate that the government must provide federal funding for elective abortion in through federal programs. In other words, no Executive Order or regulation can override a statutory mandate unless Congress passes a law that prohibits federal funding from being used in this manner. Legal experts at the US Catholic Conference of Bishops, National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life, and Family Research Council have confirmed this view that if the Senate bill is signed into law, it is a statutory mandate for the new health plans to include federal funding of elective abortion. The need for an Executive Order is evidence that this is true, and Congressional Democrats know it. Make no mistake, a ‘yes’ vote on the Democrats’ health care bill is a vote for taxpayer-funded abortions.”

Stupak tells Robert Costa NRO he's not worried

Rep. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.) tells National Review Online that the executive order will stand, despite pro-life groups' concerns. Couldn't it be changed or dropped in the future? "The sky could also fall," he tells us. "I hope they (pro-life groups) see it the way it is . . . It's not about pro-life or pro-choice, it's about most Americans agreeing that we should not publicly fund abortions."

USCCB legal advisors earlier rejected the Executive Order notion

According to the USCCB: "We’ve consulted with legal experts on the specific idea of resolving the abortion funding problems in the Senate bill through executive order. We know Members have been looking into this in good faith, in the hope of limiting the damage done by abortion provisions in the bill. We believe, however, that it would not be fair to withhold what our conclusion was, as it may help members in assessing the options before them:



Richard Doerflinger from the USCCB secretariat for life has released the following. 
Bold emphasis is mine.

“One proposal to address the serious problem in the Senate health care bill on abortion funding, specifically the direct appropriating of new funds that bypass the Hyde amendment, is to have the President issue an executive order against using these funds for abortion. Unfortunately, this proposal does not begin to address the problem, which arises from decades of federal appellate rulings that apply the principles of Roe v. Wade to federal health legislation. According to these rulings, such health legislation creates a statutory requirement for abortion funding, unless Congress clearly forbids such funding. That is why the Hyde amendment was needed in 1976, to stop Medicaid from funding 300,000 abortions a year. The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation. This is the unamimous view of our legal advisors and of the experts we have consulted on abortion jurisprudence. Only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation.”

ABC claims Anti-Abortion Democrats Strike Deal with Obama, House Leadership

ABC is reporting

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement.

The president's order is to ensure that current law that restricts federal funding from going toward abortion, known as the Hyde amendment, is maintained. It will extend those restrictions to the new health insurance exchanges, a marketplace in which people would be able shop for and compare insurance plans.

"It is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that federal funds are not used for abortion services," the executive order states.

The president has been saying this all along. This Executive Order seems to be another piece of paper that creates the illusion that something has changed. A problem of the magnitude of health care funding isn't handled by an Executive Order. It will require some legislative solution. This health care reform will involve many different administrations. Any president can rescind a predecessor's Executive Order. I think this is betrayal.

Stupak announces deal on Health Care

The Weekly Standard is reporting that the leader of pro-life democrats, Bart Stupak, opposed to the present Health Care plan, seem to have found a way of accepting it: an Executive Order forbidding the use of federal funds for abortion. I have read the EO and am in no way persuaded that this helps the unborn simply because the director of HHS is asked to administer the provision. My guess is that she already thinks the present bill doesn't provide for abortion funding and this is what she will report back to the president. But I am way ahead of myself here and I shouldn't be so disrespectful of Stupak's own political smarts. I just decided to post this for its timeliness rather than its analysis. Which translated means, forgive any stupid thing I say.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/stupak-announces-deal-health-care

Today on Kresta - March 18, 2010

Talking about the Things That Matter Most on Mar. 18
LIVE FROM AVE MARIA UNIVERSITY IN AVE MARIA, FL

4:00 – “Vianney” – The Drama
Pope Benedict XVI opened the “Year for Priests” last June, with the theme “Faithfulness of Christ, faithfulness of priests.” The year also marks the 150th anniversary of the death of St. John Vianney, known as the “Curé of Ars.” The prefect for the Congregation for the Clergy, Cardinal Claudio Hummes, is encouraging local dioceses and parishes to plan events that will “celebrate and show appreciation for priests.” As a key contribution to the celebration, a new theatrical drama “Vianney” has launched a worldwide tour. The play focuses on the question, “What is a priest?” and tells the story of St. John Vianney, whose exemplary life was so remarkable that the Pope has named him the patron of this jubilee year, and will, at the close of the year, declare him the patron of all the priests of the world. The drama, starring actor and film director Leonardo Defilippis, is playing for packed houses around the country and will be touring SE MI next week. We talk with Leonardo.

4:20 – Scripture and the Mystery of Israel

4:40 – Gray Land: Soldiers on War
No one indicts war more powerfully than experienced professional soldiers, and no one enumerates more eloquently the reasons for serving. Gray Land is a collection of photographic portraits of veterans accompanied by excerpts from candid, unsupervised interviews and images documenting the realities of life in a war zone. The nobility and wisdom of these men and women will change the way we see war. Given extraordinary access by the U.S. Army, Barry Goldstein spent two years photographing and interviewing more than fifty actively serving members of a veteran battalion, including two month-long trips during which he lived and patrolled with the unit. He joins us to share his experiences.

5:00 – St. Augustine and the “City of God”
The City of God is a book written by St. Augustine in the early 5th century, dealing with issues concerning God, martyrdom, Jews, and other aspects of Christian philosophy. Augustine wrote the treatise to explain Christianity's relationship with competing religions and philosophies, and to the Roman government with which it was increasingly intertwined. It was written soon after Rome was sacked by the Visigoths in 410. This event left Romans in a deep state of shock, and many saw it as punishment for abandoning their Roma religion. It was in this atmosphere that Augustine set out to provide a consolation of Christianity, writing that, even if the earthly rule of the empire was imperilled, it was the City of God that would ultimately triumph — symbolically, Augustine's eyes were fixed on heaven, a theme repeated in many Christian works of Late Antiquity. We talk with Augustinian philosopher Dr. Barry David about The City of God.

5:40 – Ave Maria University Update – Academics, Infrastructure, Pro-Life Activities, and Athletics
As we broadcast this week from the town of Ave Maria and the campus of Ave Maria University, we sit down with Chancellor Thomas Monaghan and hear about the progress of the school. We talk about the new dorms, a new fieldhouse, a new football program, and the many many ways the University is becoming a hotbed for the pro-life movement.

Andrew Breitbart's Greatest Outbursts

Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength. Example below.

Vatican confirms Pope Benedict XVI has set up an international commission on Medjugorje

Outrageous Statement of the Day

Monday night it was the Republican Party that was caught in the crosshairs of Chris Matthews, which he accused of being too "narrow." Well on Tuesday's Hardball, the MSNBC host turned his sights on Fox News and charged that on their airwaves "there's absolutely no debate" for the past year on  Fox about the health care bills. Surely you jest. I am no great defender of Fox, but that statement is patently ridiculous. Has Chris Matthews watched Countdown with Keith Olbermann. THAT'S a show that refuses debate. He just refuses to engage the other side. No Republicans, no conservatives, no debates between guests. NEVER. EVER. Let the network with no sin cast the first stone...

Cartoon of the Day - Health Care Sundae

Today on Kresta - March 17, 2010

Talking about the Things That Matter Most on Mar. 17
LIVE FROM AVE MARIA UNIVERSITY IN AVE MARIA, FL

4:00 – The Irish American Chronicle
The phrase Irish-American brings scores of images to mind: the color green, a Saint Patrick's Day parade, Notre Dame, potatoes, a fisherman's sweater, a boisterous drunk, the Catholic Church, and names that start with "O" or "Mc.” Probably farther down the list would be James Hoban, the man who designed the White House, President Andrew Jackson, Henry Ford, William Randolph Hearst, Henry James, Davy Crockett, Princess Grace, Georgia O'Keeffe, Sam Snead, Bill Bradley, and labor leaders like Mother Jones and George Meany, who championed the rights of working men and women. On this St. Patrick’s Day, Thomas Fleming is here to look at the Irish American experience.

4:20 – St. Patrick of Ireland: A Biography
Ireland's patron saint has long been shrouded in legend: he drove the snakes out of Ireland; he triumphed over Druids and their supernatural powers; he used a shamrock to explain the Christian mystery of the Trinity. But his true story is more fascinating than the myths. We have no surviving image of Patrick, but we do have two remarkable letters that he wrote about himself and his beliefs -- letters that tell us more about the heart and soul of this man than we know about almost any of his contemporaries. Philip Freeman is here to tell the story of the historic Patrick and his world.

4:40 – Literary Traditions of the 20th Century

5:00 – Mission Work in Ethiopia
Marcie Erickson was born and raised in Naples, Fl. In her senior year of high school she was discerning a call to religious life as a sister and instead heard God calling her to the missions. She has now been in Ethiopia for more than 5 years and has adopted 4 Ethiopian children. She has forrmed a project called Grace Center for Children and Families, which now serves 850 women and children and provides jobs for 70 Ethiopian employees. This program is “GRACE,” an integrated, holistic approach to meeting the needs of a broad range of very underprivileged children. The Centre, like the whole program, is non-discriminatory. Children of all ethnic and religious backgrounds are accepted, based only upon the recognized need of the family. She is with us in studio to discuss her work in Ethiopia.

5:20 – Supreme Court to decide military funeral protest case
The Supreme Court has agreed to decide on the outer limits of free-speech protection for public protests and to rule on whether the family of a dead Maryland Marine can sue fringe religious protesters who picketed near his funeral with signs that said, "Thank God for dead soldiers." The court's action is the latest twist in a long legal battle that arose out of a funeral for a soldier. The case triggered a multimillion-dollar damage award and attracted national media attention. The Supreme Court will now hear the case and rule on whether the right to free speech includes the right to intrude on a solemn ceremony. The justices will hear arguments in the fall. Pat Gillen of Ave Maria Law School joins us.

5:40 – The Crusades
Dr. Jeff Hass teaches the history of the Crusades at Ave Maria University - a comprehensive history that ranges from the preaching of the First Crusade in 1095 to the legacy of crusading ideals and imagery that continues today. We look at the ideas of apologists, propagandists, and poets about the Crusades, as well as the perceptions and motives of the crusaders themselves and the means by which they joined the movement.

Ave Maria Radio and Ave Maria University at the Naples St. Patrick's Day Parade

Ed Peters synthesizes resources on denial of Communion

In the Code of Canon Law, Canon #915 sets out the circumstances under which Catholics "are not to be admitted" to receive Communion. In light of the frequent debates about the reception of Communion by public figures who oppose Church teachings on key moral issues, our friend and nationally-known Canon Lawyer Edward Peters has put together a site offering resources to help the public understand the legislation and the circumstances when it should be applied. It is well-worth bookmarking in your favorites and passing along to fellow Catholics. Great work as usual Ed! Check it out here.

Vatican inquiry into Legionaries concluded

A team of 5 bishops has completed an 8-month probe into the affairs of the Legionaries of Christ.

Although the Vatican has not released any comment on the inquiry, informed officials have speculated that the Holy See might appoint a new head for the troubled religious order. Vatican journalist Sandro Magister of L'Espresso predicts flatly: "A commissioner appointed by the Vatican will take command of the Legionaries of Christ, orphans of their founder Marcial Maciel, disgraced by scandals." More drastic alternatives could include dissolving or "re-founding" the order.

Speculation about the future of the Legionaries has been rife since last year, when leaders of the order admitted that the late Father Maciel had apparently led a double life. One key question-- presumably addressed in the apostolic visitation-- was whether current leaders of the Legionaries had been aware of the founder's misconduct.

Five prelates were named to conduct the probe of the Legion: Archbishops Charles Chaput of Denver and Ricardo Ezzato Andrello of Concepcion, Chile; and Bishops Ricardo Blazquez Perez of Valladolid, Spain; Giuseppe Versaldi of Alessandria, Italy; and Ricardo Watty Urquidi of Tepic, Mexico. They have now completed their work.

Outrageous Statement of the Day

CNN's documentary "Her Name Was Steven" sympathetically followed the "gender reassignment" of former Largo, Florida city manager Steven Stanton. CNN, which boldly advertised the documentary as being about "one person's struggle to live an authentic life," gave a grand total of 47 seconds to those opposed to sex change. It depicts Sex Change as a "Medical Necessity ... Done to Preserve Life" - Outrageous.

Cartoon of the Day - Mission Impossible