Prez of Planned P’hood, Speaker Pelosi’s former staffer, attacks bishops

I picked up from the young Papist that Cecile Richards – President of Planned Parenthood, the eugenics inspired organization originally intended to kill off black people – said in pages of Hell’s Bible that the US bishops are ideologues because they voiced their concern about federal funding of abortion.

Here is part of the article in Hell’s Bible (aka The New York Times):

Beginning in late July, the bishops began issuing a series of increasingly stern letters to lawmakers making clear that they saw the abortion-financing issue as pre-eminent, a deal-breaker.

At the funeral of Senator Edward M. Kennedy in August, Cardinal Seán O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston, stole a private moment with Mr. Obama to deliver the same warning: The bishops very much wanted to support his health care overhaul but not if it provided for abortions. The president “listened intently,” the cardinal reported on his blog. [I wonder if the President understands that something very hard to control is waking up?]

Bishops implored their priests and parishioners to call lawmakers. Conservative Democrats negotiating over the issue with party leaders often expressed their desire to meet the bishops’ criteria, according to many people involved in the talks. On Oct. 8 three members of the bishops conference wrote on its behalf to lawmakers, “If the final legislation does not meet our principles, we will have no choice but to oppose the bill.”

On Sunday, some abortion rights advocates lashed out at the bishops. “It was an unconscionable power play,” ["power play"?  What a dopey thing to call it.] said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, accusing the bishops of “interceding to put their own ideology in the national health care plan.”


She is an ideologue who wants federal funding of abortions.  She earn her living from abortions.  No?  Isn’t President of Planned Parenthood a paid position?  The abortions the more they earn, right?

Did you know that Cecile Richards used to be Catholic Speaker Nancy "pro-abortion" Pelosi’s, deputy chief of staff?

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Emanations from Penumbras, The Drill and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. patrick_f says:

    “At the funeral of Senator Edward M. Kennedy in August, Cardinal Seán O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston, stole a private moment with Mr. Obama to deliver the same warning”

    This point here, makes me look at the funeral in a whole new light. Perhaps the good Cardinal was working the system (very Don Bosco Style?). At first I was angered the funeral took place under his auspices, but, now I wonder if it was all strategic? Perhaps Cardinal Sean knew he had the people who needed to hear the message in the same place at the same time?

    I was well aware of Ms. Richards. Its about as disappointing as Madame Speaker. Two people who claim catholic, yet, act anything but.

  2. TNCath says:

    Fr. Z wrote: “Did you know that Cecile Richards used to be Catholic Speaker Nancy “pro-abortion” Pelosi’s, deputy chief of staff?”

    Apparently, Speaker Pelosi doesn’t know the old adage: when you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas.

    Apparently, Ms. Richards, Speaker Pelosi’s former “Queen Flea,” is not capable of distinguishing between ideology and basic human rights.


  3. EXCHIEF says:

    And again I ask…Ms Pelosi has not been excommunicated because….?

  4. Father, don’t you mean Nancy “ardent, practicing Catholic” Pelosi? LOL

  5. ssoldie says:

    yes!, some of us anti- abortion people have known of the close relationship of Cecile Richards and her majesty N.P.(the one democratic catholics vote for)but then why would they listen to us, as we are not knownas pro-life, we are anti- abortion period. The Church does not give out official excommunication,(other then SSPX Catholics) any more then it does anathamas.

  6. onesheep says:

    “Beginning in late July, the bishops began issuing a series of increasingly stern letters to lawmakers making clear that they saw the abortion-financing issue as pre-eminent, a deal-breaker.”

    What exactly are to be the repercussions should lawmakers continue to support abortion? I appreciate that the Bishops are making it clear that abortion is a “deal-breaker” but what will they do about those who continue to support abortion? Part of the problem is that there are other Catholics who believe abortion is acceptable, and therefore will continue to vote for pro-abortion lawmakers. Pro-abortion politicans are visible and that’s the only difference between them and other Catholics who support it. How exactly can the Church deal with Catholics who support abortion?

  7. Mark01 says:

    “[I wonder if the President understands that something very hard to control is waking up?]

    Father, I have the same thought as onesheep. What exactly are they waking up, the Catholic Church? Plenty of Catholics think it’s OK to support pro-abortion politicians as long as they hold other good social justice positions, so do you really think the Democrats would be scared of Catholics changing their votes based on abortion being in the health care plan? I doubt it.

  8. irishgirl says:

    Hey TNCath-I’m with you on the ‘dogs and fleas’ analogy!

    Why don’t Catholics wake up and get rid of these politicians?

  9. chironomo says:

    …accusing the bishops of “interceding to put their own ideology in the national health care plan.”

    Excuse me??? Isn’t the whole Health Care overhaul an example of “ideology”? Isn’t Planned Parenthood (or Planned “NON-Parenthood” as it should be called)inserting THEIR ideology into the bill? Why is the Catholic “ideology” somehow offensive but the liberal-secular ideology is simply “the way it should be”? I know the answer to that question of course, but I’m just asking…

  10. “Planned Parenthood, the eugenics inspired organization originally intended to kill off black people…”

    And still doing a bang-up job of it.

  11. Margaret says:

    I’m confused. If I’m following Ms. Richards’ logic correctly, then she did not activate the PP donor/volunteer base to oppose the Stupak amendment, and encouraged them all to just shut up and mind their own business, right? Right? Because it would be wrong for an ideologically-driven group of people to try and sway lawmakers one way or the other? Right?? /cue crickets chirping

  12. mfg says:

    The Bishops will believe anything as long as it keeps them in the party of their ancestors. They do not mind that this health care bill will bankrupt this country, that it will put the debt squarely on the backs of our children and grandchildren because they don’t have any (children). They have been hoodwinked by a sleight of hand which will in the end include abortion funding if not on paper for sure in practice. After all, Obama is president and his agenmda showcases abortion. Cardinal George told the Bishops as much after he met with the dear leader following the Notre Dame debacle. This health care monstrosity, if it passes the Senate will not include conscience protection for doctors, nurses and technicians, and will provide death panels Pelosi’s ‘temporary anything to get the bill passed no funding for abortion compromise’ has now conveniently given the Bishops a fig leaf to hide behind so they can comfortably remain in the party that met Great Grandpa Mike or Great Grandpa Hans on the dock at Ellis Island and gave him a job. My Dad was right: it is genetic and it takes a hundred years to bree4d it out.

  13. ndmom says:

    I was more troubled by the statement by the bishops’ conference that Catholics should lend their “full-throated support” to the Democratic bill.
    If I’m not mistaken, isn’t this the sort of decision that the Catholic Church leaves to the prudential judgment of the faithful? That the abortion provision was added at the eleventh hour does not make the bill “unambiguously pro-life,” as the bishops claimed, does it?
    Am I missing something here?

  14. wmeyer says:

    Do any rational people still read the NYT? Really?

    I wonder if Ms. Richards can understand that as Catholic doctrine forbids facilitating abortion, funding of an abortion would certainly fit that prohibition.

    Why do I suspect that she would have no similar complaint if the U.S. Imams declared to the president that the bill is impossible for Muslims to support, for the same reason? Or indeed, were it any faith but Catholic?

  15. Navarricano says:

    I say we count our blessings, be as cunning as serpents (and as gentle as lambs) and keep the pressure on!

    The addition of the Stupak Amendment to the bill may be dissatisfactory to many because they see it as a slight and only temporary victory for pro-life forces, but if we don’t capitalize on this small victory and keep the pressure on, the pro-life language of the Stupak Amendment might be dropped from the version of the bill that goes to the Senate. Then what would happen?

    If a Senate version of the bill passes without the Stupak Amendment, the two conflicting pieces of leglislation wil have to be reconciled. And in a Congress dominated by Democrats, we know how that will turn out. You’d get a Democratic committee that would gut the restrictions imposed by the Stupak Amendment, and Obamacare would pass with flying colors.

    As long as the pro-life language remains in that bill, Planned Parenthood and all the other radical pro-abortion groups are not going to support it, especially if it goes back up for a vote in the House. We could get what we want if we keep our heads about us and keep the pressure on.

  16. Kerry says:

    Hmm. “Ardent” practicing Catholic. Is “ardent” one of those words the meaning of which people do not understand, sorta like “ineffable”?

  17. MikeM says:

    Funny that Cecile Richards suddenly objects to “power plays.”

  18. Dove says:

    I think it’s time to start referring to ex-Catholic Nancy Pelosi.

  19. catholicmidwest says:

    Pelosi’s not Catholic. I don’t know what she (it) is, but she’s not Catholic.

  20. Supertradmom says:

    By the way, the NYT has had some interesting articles very critical of Obama and Pelosi of late. Check it out. Also, one of the most distressing things about watching Saturday’s debate were the two Dem reps who claimed to be Catholic and then condemned the Stupak Amendment. When will the bishops do what the Bishop in Providence is doing to Patrick Kennedy and completely condemned their stand as outside Catholic teaching? If Pelosi’s bishop did the following, what a difference this would make:Dear Congressman Kennedy:
    “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” (Congressman Patrick Kennedy)
    Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.

    For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?

    “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.

    For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)

    The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)

    Or consider this statement of the Church: “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2002)

    There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”

    But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?

    Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.

    Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?

    In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?

    Your letter also says that your faith “acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Absolutely true. But in confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.

    Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.

    Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic “profile in courage,” especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so.

    Sincerely yours,

    Thomas J. Tobin

    Bishop of Providence

  21. irishgirl says:

    Supertradmom-the Bishop of Providence has got it right!

    ’bout time more Bishops ‘bished’ and ‘did a Becket’ on these pseudo-‘Catholic’ politicians!

  22. Rouxfus says:

    How about a simple, good old-fashioned Act of Faith?

    O MY GOD, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in Three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I believe that Thy Divine Son became Man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.

    Not much wiggle room in there for selective faith-building. The Catechism isn’t made of LEGO bricks!

    In my Baronius Roman Missal (1962) the traditional Acts of Faith, Hope and Charity are included in the chapter entitled “Most Neccessary Prayers”, and are recited as part of the Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer sections – twice per day. Why are these simple assertions of what our faith means not more often recommended? If they were, perhaps we would have fewer Catholics who confidently believe that one may pick and choose which teachings of the Church will be adhered to and which will be ignored.

Comments are closed.