The following comes from a May 3 posting on TurtleBayandBeyond.org.
The Mexican Supreme Court yesterday upheld two state constitutional amendments from Oaxaca and Guanajuato that had protected life from “conception,” rejecting an attempt by two pro-abortion justices to reopen an issue that many had hoped was closed by a 2011 Supreme Court decision. Earlier in the week the Supreme Court also struck down another amendment but on narrow, procedural grounds, leaving the door open for the state of Queretaro to correct the defect and again pass its amendment protecting unborn life.
Pro-lifers were worried when the two stalwart justices of the Mexican Supreme Court stepped down last year, fearing that the hard-won battle to preserve state personhood amendments might one day be undone.
Last week, their concerns were heightened when two pro-abortion justices of the Supreme Court, Arturo Zaldivar and Fernando Franco González Salas, unexpectedly pushed not only to reopen the issue with regard to the amendments of three states, Queretaro, Guanajuato, and Oaxaca, but also sought to use judicial review as a vehicle to impose abortion upon the entire nation. Both justices put forward proposals that, if adopted, would have amounted to the Roe v. Wade of Mexico. Pro-lifers presumed that Zaldivar and Franco knew how to count votes, and that they were confident that they would win, especially when only three justices went on record as saying that there was no basis for the court to consider these suits.
The plan of Zaldivar and Franco ran into its first hurdle when the Court voted on the Queretaro amendment. Though the Court ruled 8-3 to strike it down, it did so on narrow procedural grounds, as the State had not received approval from the requisite number of municipalities before it adopted the amendment, thereby rebuffing Zaldivar and Franco. Several justices commented that the State was free to revisit the issue and follow the proper procedure in passing the amendment.
Concerning Oaxaca and Guanajuato, resistance to the pro-abortion maneuver unexpectedly came from two justices who had previously voted in favor of abortion, Sergio Valls Hernandez and Jose Ramon Cossio Diaz. Though they affirmed support for “reproductive rights” in the abstract, they challenged the assertion that municipalities could challenge an amendment made at the State level, given that the power of municipalities derive from the State, which under Mexico’s federalist constitutional structure is a sovereign entity. They also noted that the procedural vehicle by which the cases were brought to the court was as a “constitutional controversy, not an “action for a declaration of unconstitutionality,” and hence any gambit to use the present cases to impose abortion upon the entire nation was beyond the authority of the Court.
Though Valls Hernandez and one other justice refrained from voting in the final 5-4 tally, Cossio joined federalist stalwarts Margarita Beatriz Luna Ramos and Jorge Mario Pardo Rebolledo in upholding the amendments, as did newcomers Alberto Perez Dayan and Alfredo Gutierrez Ortiz Mena. Two judges, including the chief justice, voted with Zaldivar and Franco.
In sum, a majority of justices ruled as judges should, upholding the law and respecting the principles of legislative deference and federalism. The activists were thwarted in their effort to impose their will on the entire nation.
To read the original story, click here.
STORY ABOUT THE CLEVELAND KIDNAPPING VICTIMS: “Police say the women were subjected to repeated beatings, starvation and sexual assault, as well as multiple forced miscarriages. McGinty said the aggravated murder charges could be filed in relation to the forcefully terminated pregnancies.”
This is horrible, those young women being abused and those babies killed by this creep.
However, if the babies have the “right to life” in this case, why not always? If the child is a human being, the child is a human being, and no one has the right to take that child’s life: not the doctor, not the mother, not the ‘father’ (as in this case), no one.
How can our country say abortion is okay, then prosecute this man for murder? It’s too schizo for words.
There’re words for it, Michael. For example, Pope Francis told the bishops to “practice what they preach” so as to step away from their entrenched hypocrisy … what the bishops do, society does. See?
The word is that the kidnapper may face murder charges for the abortions.
Pope Francis: Pro-Abortion Politicians Ineligible for Communion
by Steven Ertelt | The Vatican | LifeNews.com | 5/7/13 4:42 PM
A letter Pope Francis sent to the bishops of Argentina in late March is getting note from a pro-life Catholic group that says it is encouraging for pro-life advocates because it says pro-abortion politicians should not be eligible for communion in the Catholic Church.
In the letter, Pope Francis directed the Argentinean bishops to govern the Church there following the Aparecida Document.
The text states, in part, “[people] cannot receive Holy Communion and at the same time act with deeds or words against the commandments, particularly when abortion, euthanasia, and other grave crimes against life and family are encouraged. This responsibility weighs particularly over legislators, heads of governments, and health professionals.”
“These are the guidelines we need for this time in history,” the pope wrote to the bishops.
Judie Brown, president of American Life League, a U.S.-based pro-life group, and Michael Hichborn, director of Defend the Faith for American Life League, sent a letter to all U.S. Catholic bishops alerting them to what Pope Francis wrote.
“We are renewed in our joy over the election of Pope Francis. One of the reasons for our happiness is the Holy Father’s reiteration of Catholic teaching as enunciated in canon 915,” the letter reads.
“We pray that these words will be an encouragement to you as well because, like Argentina, the United States has her share of Catholics in public life who persist in their support of abortion while, at the same time, receiving Christ in the sacrament of Holy Eucharist,” it continues. “We write to ask you, in view of this recent news report, to act on Pope Francis’ call and deny the sacrament of Christ’s real presence-body, blood, soul, and divinity-to every pro-abortion Catholic in public life who has not repented of his support for the heinous crime of abortion.”
The communion issue was exacerbated when, despite their pro-abortion views, Vice President Joe Biden and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi both received communion at the Mass to celebrate Pope Francis’ inauguration. Biden’s office confirmed to the Washington Times that he had received communion and reporters in the White House presidential reporting pool confirmed in an email to LifeNews that Pelosi had received it as well. Pope Francis did not administer the sacrament.
Father Frank Pavone told the LifeNews he opposed the two pro-abortion politicos receiving communion since their pro-abortion views are outside the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Hopefully, Pope Francis forbids Holy Communion to the many bishops who defy God through their complicity in sodomy, abortion, contraception, greed, etc.
BTW, an email was passed around of an old photo showing Nancy Pelosi posing in a bathing suit as Miss Oil Rack of 1955. At least former Gov Sarah Palin made it to beauty queen … ol’ Nancy only got as far as Miss Oil Rack.
Why didn’t he start by denying them Communion at his Inaugural Mass?
Actions do speak louder than words. Biden, Pelosi, etc. etc. ad nauseam made a complete mockery of the Church’s teachings at his Inaugural Mass!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Did you see the article about why the Pope does not distribute communion? I found the link on Spirit Daily. Go to the archive for May 11.
Since the Pope is not from the USA we can not expect him to know all US heretics and schismatics, especially when many of our own US Cardinals and Bishops do not adhere to Canon 915 – and do not advertise it to any Office at the Vatican.
I watched Pope Francis’ inaugural Mass. He did not personally give Communion to any politicians from any Country. Those Priests who gave out Holy Communion probably had no clue about the sins propagated by Pelosi and Biden in the USA.
The pope knows exactly who Biden and Pelosi are.
According to his own statement, he does not use the sacraments as weapons, but he also refuses to allow politicians to use him as a photo-op. That’s why he stepped back and let someone else distribute communion.
Francis, Sacraments are a not a “right” as you liberals define them. All pro-abortion so called Catholic politicians should be denied it when they present themselves for communion. Unfortunately we have Church filled with feckless little men who are more concerned with being “pastoral”than enforcing canon law. BTW he told Argentinian Bishops to deny communion to pro abortion politicians, perhaps he knows more than you do….
Francis – no offense but you clearly by your writings do not know Pope Francis or many Church teachings.
Excommunication is never used as a weapon but to CORRECT and TEACH (if possible) those obstinate in SIN, and to correct SCANDAL. Also to stop SACRILEGE against the Body and Blood of Our Lord.
Our Pope is not ignorant – he knows Church teachings. How do you know that the Pope personally knows the sins (albeit even though public) – of every politician on Earth. Sometimes people incorrectly think the entire world revolves around the USA.
Francis is referring to a quote from the book “From Heaven and Earth” originally published in 2010 by then-Cardinal Bergoglio with Rabbi Abraham Skorka.
You quote a “right” to communion in “quotes,” but I never stated such a thing. All I’ve done is quote the pope’s own words. Which, you may notice, appear again as I stated them, in a more recent CCD post.
MAC – no offense but you clearly by your writings you haven’t read much of Pope Francis’ writings nor his homilies. I refer you to the book Anonymous kindly pointed out above, which I just assumed all people who would comment here had already seen because it’s been quoted so often.
Our Pope is not ignorant – nor as unimaginative as you seem to think he is. Why would you think that the first Jesuit Pope has to personally know the sins of every politician on Earth to be aware of the political schtick played by the VPOTUS and the former House Speaker? Sometimes people incorrectly think the rest of the world knows as little about us as most Amerians know about them.
But I did see a picture of Pope Francis shaking Biden’s hands.
MAC you are right…good comments!
Does anyone know how hospitals in these Mexican states handle ectopic pregnancies? If the fetus has full personhood, even if it is doomed in an ectopic pregnancy, how can a surgeon save the mother’s life? How they are able to justify terminating that pregnancy would be extremely instructive to us. The motivation to “save the life of the mother” is the main reason we never had absolute abortion prohibitions in the US even before 1973.
You are, in fact, correct, Francis. However, the Church has always taught that the life of the mother is to be sacrificed if only one life can be saved. In the case of ectopic pregnancies, the fallopian tube will explode early on in the pregnancy’s term, making it impossible for either the mother’s or the child’s life to be saved.
I am not sure what the Church teaches in this case, but I grew up under the impression that this was God’s will, and that both should be allowed to die, according to the ways the nuns taught us in Catholic school. Now that I realize that even our dear nuns could be in error, I question what I was taught and would appreciate clarification from someone who truly knows whereof he or she speaks.
I’m already very familiar with Church teaching (save the mother’s life by removing part of the swelling fallopian tube, but don’t directly kill the baby.)
What I’m asking is how Church teaching can be implemented if the law takes an even stricter position, giving the baby and the mother equal personhood. Do the Mexican laws have an exemption to save the mother’s life? Or is Latin American jurisprudence less exacting than in the U.S.?
I want to know if there will be tragedies like what happened in Ireland to Savita Halappanavar.
You will have to check out Mexican (or other Countries) civil laws yourself. Catholic Church teachings are the same world-wide.
In the US, Church law isn’t relevant to the question of anticipating how a proposed civil law might actually be implemented.
What I’m asking is if any of the readers who have relatives in Mexico or other contacts might know how this works out. I am concerned that the “personhood” approach could have unintended consequences that would not be in keeping with Church teaching.
Francis – why are you making an issue when there is none?
Personhood must be granted to all human beings at the time of conception. These babies are not puppies or kittens.
MaryAnne – Francis is correct on church teaching in his post of May 10, at 2:41 pm. For exact teaching of the Church on this topic – on the net ssearch: “What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE”.
Then see the answer to question # 15. What does the Church teach about abortion? What if the mother’s life depends upon it?
The site provides official links to the answers.
A Cathlic hospital saved my mother’s life when they performed emergency salpingectomy to terminate her ectopic pregnancy. My sibling was not one of your damn “puppies or kittens” and the hospital did the right thing per Church teaching by saving my mother’s life. Yet you, all-knowing MAC, don’t think it’s an issue that a broadly written personhood law might prevent treatment of a mother’s life-threatening condition. Good luck explaining that attitude on Judgement Day.
thank you MAC you are right, he is making an issue where there is no issue…God bless you for identifying his error!
Viva Christo Rey! Might it be that our neighbor Mexico has more common sense than we do in America? Surely God will bless those who bless Him.
“I hear Satan grinding his teeth. He cannot stand God’s mercy.” Saint Faustina Kowalska.
Praise God! God bless them for being faithful. I am grateful to hear this news. : )