The first birth-control pill meant to put a stop to women’s monthly periods indefinitely won federal approval Tuesday. Called Lybrel, it’s the first such pill to receive Food and Drug Administration approval for continuous use. When taken daily, the pill can halt women’s menstrual periods indefinitely and prevent pregnancies.

My position on such a drug would come as no surprise to my regular readers.  But even those who see nothing wrong with artificial contraception surely can look at this and see the folly in so totally short-circuiting the natural process inside the body.  Think about it – the uterine lining would just keep building up and building up.  Surely that can’t be a good thing as it must eventually come out.  Well, I don’t like to get too detailed on such things here on my blog, so why don’t you just read the full story for information on the great side-effects.

This is interesting.  Folks in the Chinese hinterlands are lashing out against the methods being used to force them to avoid having children:

The violence appeared to stem from a two-month-long crackdown in Guangxi to punish people who violated the country’s birth control policy. The policy limits the number of children families can have legally.

–

To limit the growth of its population of 1.3 billion, many parts of China rely more on financial penalties and incentives than on coercive measures, including forced abortions and sterilizations, that were common in the 1980s, when the so-called one-child policy was first strictly enforced.

It’s actually good to hear that they’re doing less abortions and sterilizations.  Still, of course, we must remember that there but for the grace of God go we in the US…when we have stories about how having kids is criminal, I fear we may someday have a vocal minority here in our own country suggesting fines for those who dare to litter the planet with little ones.

Full story 

H/T to Gerald. David Howard (of the ETS) wrote in Opinion Journal today on Frank Beckwith’s return to Rome. His closing paragraph:

A common element among these converts is a strong commitment to the Catechism and papal encyclicals. These Catholics are not generally in sympathy with the theologically liberal wing of the American Catholic Church but are enthusiastic supporters of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI’s emphasis on orthodox teaching and practice. In short, they have more in common theologically with evangelicals than with liberal Catholics, and evangelicals themselves, in many respects, have more in common with traditional Catholics than with mainline Protestants. Especially on social and political issues, there is much room for common cause.

The whole thing is worth reading.

Gerald has a follow-up to the story of the presumptuous politicians who repudiated the Pope.

Hitting the Drudge this evening is a story out of Middletown, NY, St. Joseph’s Parish. A woman sitting in Eucharistic Adoration at midnight is attacked and sexually assaulted. She stabs at him with the pen she was using to take notes, he flees. The entire incident was caught on tape, resulting in some good images of the assailant.

Good for the victim for fighting back.

Couple of questions in my mind, though. First, I thought the rule was that 2 people must always be present during adoration. Thus people sign up for the middle of the night shifts so that the organizers will know the hours are covered. I doubt this assailant would bother to sign up…to me that says someone who was supposed to be there wasn’t. Second, when my local parish hold adoration (first Friday of each month) they have a rent-a-cop there for the overnight. Perhaps if it’s perpetual adoration they don’t do that, I guess it could get expensive.

Photos of the assailant are all over, and he’ll be caught soon. Unless, of course, he receives some sort of divine justice. After all, he did it right in front of Jesus…and that ain’t too smart!

Full story.

Over at Society and Politics, I post on a statement by a bunch of Catholic pro-aborts who are “repudiating” the Pope’s comments on excommunication last week.

While you’re there, read some other posts and help propel that blog to number 1 at StBlogs!

Check out TMZ’s mocking of Jerry Falwell’s death.  You know, when left wingers die, the media and the public remember them in a pleasant way…all the dead deserve a modicum of respect.  When Paul Wellstone died, I recall reasonable responses from all side (till the funeral, when a few politicians got hold of the mic and got the crowd chanting “we will win…” and they didn’t!) But let a more conservative person die, and out come all sorts of hateful comments…as you can see at the link above.  Heck – Elizabeth Edwards and Tony Snow both announce that they have cancer during the same week.  With Edwards, all sides are charitable (conservative commentors on blogs, online, on TV all wished her well.)  With Snow, all the left wingnuts drop comments like “getting what he deserves” and such.  Meh!

In a speech to Latin American and Caribbean bishops at the end of a visit to Brazil, the Pope said the Church had not imposed itself on the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

They had welcomed the arrival of European priests at the time of the conquest as they were “silently longing” for Christianity, he said.

“The state used the Church to do the dirty work in colonizing the Indians but they already asked forgiveness for that … so is the Pope taking back the Church’s word?” said Dionito Jose de Souza a leader of the Makuxi tribe in northern Roraima state.

Pope John Paul spoke in 1992 of mistakes in the evangelization of native peoples of the Americas.

I’m not sure what to make of it.  I know that priests were always along for the ride during the colonization of South America, but I also know that the Church reprimanded the soldiers who were running things in a barbaric way…still, it might have been wise to stay off the topic altogether.

Full story

Apparently the Pope has a couple of spin doctors who have “clarified” what the Pontiff had to say about pro-abort politicians.

When reporters pressed the pope on whether he supported the excommunication of the Mexican deputies, he answered: “Yes, this excommunication was not something arbitrary, but is foreseen by the Code (of Canon Law). It is simply part of church law that the killing of an innocent baby is incompatible with being in communion with the body of Christ.”

On May 10, the Vatican press office released the official transcript of the pope’s 25-minute session with reporters. The pope’s opening “yes” to the direct question about excommunication had disappeared, and so had the references to Mexican bishops.

The tweaked version of the pope’s remarks began: “Excommunication is not something arbitrary, but is foreseen by the Code (of Canon Law.) Therefore, it is simply part of church law that the killing of an innocent baby is incompatible with going to Communion, in which one receives the body of Christ.”

Asked about the changes, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, told reporters May 10 that it was routine for the Vatican Secretariat of State to review the pope’s extemporaneous remarks and clean them up a little for publication.

That the pope’s comments had potential for controversy was apparent immediately after he made them. Father Lombardi quickly circulated among reporters on the plane and told them that the pope was not announcing a new policy on Catholic politicians.

Later May 9, after consulting with the pope, Father Lombardi said the pontiff was only reiterating the teaching that Catholic legislators who promote initiatives like the legalization of abortion exclude themselves from the conditions needed to participate fully in the Eucharist.

(paraphrased)

So apparently, the Bishops in Mexico hadn’t excommunicated anyone (i.e., formally stated that anyone had excommunicated themselves) and the Pope was simply speaking on existing Catholic teaching. Methinks it’s possible the good Pope was perhaps speaking in the way he hoped that his Bishops would, since they hadn’t already.

Full story 

Here’s an interesting article on Montessori education.