Cafeteria Catholics

No special effects: A straight shot of Catholicism

A Catholic Death Sentence

By Efrain Cortes

The inauguration of Barack Obama as 44th President of the United States of America is an historic event fellow Catholics.

The occasion’s historical nature, however, lies not with the media-claim that Barack Obama is America’s first black President, since the substantiation of such a claim would require the biological intermingling of both a black father and mother.

President Obama’s white side of the gene pool, therefore, invalidates the “first black president” media-chorus Americans now regurgitate as true historicity.

Yet on January 20 2009, history found itself undeniably etched in stone. For the 2009 presidential inauguration, marks the first time in American history that a staunch pro-abortion candidate, the caliber of Barack Obama has ever been sworn into presidential office.

On that day, with the majority of the Catholic vote on his side, Barack Obama placed his left hand on the Holy Bible, raised his right hand, and firmly swore to protect the people of this great nation.

Yet in the mind of President Barack Obama, as with certain presidential predecessors of long past, such protection does not extend to a particular class of people.

Under those who came before President Obama, that “class” to whom such protection did not extend comprised those of an unintended tinge – the Negro.

Under the current President, that “class” to whom such protection should not extend comprises those of an unintended result – the unborn.

Yet according to, Karna Swanson, of the Zenit Catholic news agency, Obama came away with “54% of the Catholic vote” in spite of the fact that Holy Mother Church calls her professed members to a firm commitment toward the dignity and reality of the human person.

Nevertheless, Catholics chose Obama because “…they echoed the concerns of the rest of the electorate in citing the economy as their top issue,” According to Swanson.

Now under ancient Roman law, in the infancy of the Catholic Church, fathers had the right of life or death over their newborn children. According to the late Fr. John A. Hardon, “The moment the child was born he could have it either killed or allow it to live.”

If unwanted, the method by which these infants were submitted to death came to be known as, “exposure.” For discarded newborns would simply be left by the side of the road to die. In other words, they were exposed to the elements.

In discussing this gruesome Roman practice, that great civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr., once said:

“The law further stated, anyone touching [the] child to give [it] aid would be put to death. The newborn child was to be left to die! The early church under the threat of death scooped those children up and raised them as their own.”

The words of the great civil rights leader attest to a time when the Catholic community risked their very lives in order to ensure the welfare of innocent human existence.

In today’s Catholic Church, however, there roosts those wayward members whose concern for economic welfare egregiously trumps concern for the welfare of defenseless human life.

Even so, what’s done is done, and in the end we will pay the very last penny (Matthew 5:26) for the choices we have made.

But since Catholics have in fact elected to place the economy of human existence second to the economy of monetary value, allow us to explore just how the killing of infants, a practice unconditionally upheld by President Barack Obama, has affected the monetary value of our precious economy thus far.

Now contrary to popular political rhetoric, economists generally agree that greater growth of people, an unattainable aim through abortion, makes for a more vigorous, stable economy.

This becomes quite clear, for instance, when one closely considers another hotly debated issue:

Illegal immigration.

Now, what exactly does illegal immigration have to do with the economic effect of abortion?

Well indulge us for a moment fellow Catholics, as we uncover a fascinating bit of inconsistency within certain liberal factions.

At present, even those who would oppose illegal immigration, such as economist Andrew Sum, Director of Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, agree that a greater supply of workers (more people) make for a strong economy.

In a 2006 CNN Money report for instance, sum was quoted as saying:

“Without the [illegal] immigrants, we would have a decline in the labor force of 3 to 4 percent…we couldn’t have grown nearly as much as we did in the 90s if we didn’t have [illegal] immigrants. And in the last few years our growth would have been slower.”

Now, here we have an opponent of illegal immigration who, according to CNN, “argues…the large supply of immigrants has displaced low-skilled U.S.-born workers, particularly the young and the poor from jobs,” agreeing that without the presence of illegal immigrants (more people) the American economy would suffer.

Yet, there is something far more succulent that lies beyond the surface fellow Catholics. Did we catch it, did we see it?

Well, it is simply this:

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Mr. Sum or his views on the illegal immigration issue is irrelevant.

What must be placed under the microscope here, is the fact that the secular mainstream media cites Mr. Sum in an attempt to validate the premise that more people (illegal immigrants), not less, make for a stronger economy.

Therefore, it isn’t merely economists, such as Mr. Sum, who agree that a greater presence of people (the complete opposite of the abortion outcome) better serves the economic health of the country, but the pro-choice-leaning secular media, who some would argue, aided in electing the current President, is also of the same mind.

Surprisingly, the liberal news network is not alone in their proposition. For extremist organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which in 1973 submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of the abortion position, also concur.

In a 2002 report on illegal immigration the radical organization stated:

“They [illegal immigrants]…spending their incomes on American goods and services, paying taxes and raising the productivity of U.S. businesses…are good for the economy.”

Thus, we have another committed arm of the liberal establishment admitting that more people (illegal immigrants) earning, spending, paying taxes and raising American production levels amount to a “good” for the economy.

As evidence for their claim the ACLU cites a virtual array of economic experts.

Now, in 2003, according to, Southwest Economy, published six times annually by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, “The population of undocumented immigrants from Mexico [was an] estimated 4.8 million.”

As the publication further accounts, the economic contributions of these additional people to the American economy “were enormous.” In fact, in an October 2005 study conducted by The Urban Institute and the Migration Policy Institute, illegal immigrants paid “$6-7 billion in Social Security taxes…” alone each year.

Three years prior, a U.S. Department of Labor study prepared by the former Bush administration discovered that “illegal immigrants [paid] more than $90 billion in taxes every year...”

Moreover, in their 2006 report, CNN announced a “$1 billion loss” in the lettuce crop industry in 2004. The devastating loss, according to the secular media-outlet, was due to an illegal immigration crackdown which took place that year.

In other words, the elimination of a certain portion of the illegal immigrant population through deportation resulted in an adverse financial effect on the United States economy.

CNN further reported that a cut in immigrants (more people) would have an even greater adverse impact in the home building sector of the economy, since “25 to 30 percent of those working in resident construction [were] immigrants…” In reference to the data, CNN cites Jerry Howard, CEO of the National Association of Home Builders, as saying:

“You take 30 percent of the labor force out of any sector and you’re going to have [a] serious impact.”

Truer words could not have been spoken Mr. Howard.

Now, for those so-called “Catholics” who placed the economy of human existence second to the economy of monetary value, we have a question:

If the additional presence of a mere 4.8 million illegal immigrants (more people) earning, spending, paying taxes and raising American production levels is considered a “good” for the American economy, then does it not stand to reason, that the absence of 50 million people (through abortion since 1973) NOT spending, paying taxes, and raising American production levels would amount to an economic disaster?

The answer to this question my dear “Catholic” Obama-voter is:


Allow us to put it into perspective.

According to Physicians for Life, since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, “50 million potential [people] have been aborted” in the United States.

Assuming all of these people would have lived, “their [positive] economic impact in the year 2008 would have been roughly $2,162,842,500,000.” As a side note, this figure is arrived at when using the dollar value for the year 1984.

Using that same dollar value, Physicians for Life project that if “approximately 20% of [that] income [were] absorbed by Federal taxes of one sort or another, these [absentee] taxpayers would have generated $116 billion in [the] year 2010 alone.”

Physicians for Life further deduced:

“Of this $2.16 trillion in additional national income, hundreds of billions would have gone to the Federal Treasury that year [2010].”

Perhaps this is why USA Today speculates, “If only one third of those who have been aborted were available to start working on their 18th birthday, the demise of Social Security would be put off for decades.”

Laura Antkowiak, National Right to Life Research Assistant detailed abortion’s economic deficit thusly:

“In 1998 alone, the victims of Roe v. Wade would have contributed approximately $1.7 billion to Medicare and $7.4 billion to Social Security. These contributions could provide the average monthly benefit to over 785,000 retired workers for the entire year.”

Antkowiak further elucidated:

“Given the reduction in the work force...brought on largely because of abortion, our predicament is this: unless we raise taxes, cut benefits, or overhaul the entire system, Medicare will be bankrupt in the 2020s and Social Security in the 2030s.”

Basing figures on yearly GDP per capita, Demographic Researcher and investigative reporter, Dennis Howard, according to, News Weekly, places America’s total economic deficit due to surgical abortions at a staggering $35 trillion. Howard’s figure, however, extends beyond the Roe decision to the year 1970.

Even so, Howard’s astronomical tally is a conservative computation by EPA standards. Which according to, places a $7.8 million value on every human life.

Using such a standard, Howard’s calculations would stretch far beyond $35 trillion and surpass the “$390 trillion” mark, according to News Weekly.

This is the ruinous economic impact of abortion fellow Catholics.

Yet, as this is being written, President Barack Obama, on his third day as Chief Executive, and just one day after the Washington March for Life, issued an executive order rescinding the Mexico City Policy.

Put in place by former President Ronald Reagan, the policy banned federal taxpayer money from organizations that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries.

Upon signing the order, Obama stated in part:

“It is right for us to rescind this policy…and promote global economic development.”

(emphasis added).

Yet as we have seen from a wide assortment of sources, the notion that fewer people (the end result of abortion) makes for “economic development,” is quite simply erroneous.

Nonetheless, the candidate so-called “Catholics” voted into presidential office, due to a concern for matters economic, has long championed the economically destructive practice.

In upholding the economically corrosive policy, according to, On the Issues, Obama voted against bill “SB 230 which proposed a ban on partial birth abortion in 1997.”

Continuing his economically reckless path, as Senator, President Obama opposed a bill that banned “state funding for partial birth abortion in 2000.”

In 2006 President Obama voted NO “on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.”

In 2008 President Obama voted NO “on prohibiting minors [from] crossing state lines for abortions.”

Moreover in 2002, as an Illinois legislator, according to Amanda B. Carpenter of, HUMANEVENTS.COM, President Obama “voted against the Illinois Induced Liability Act, and the federally proposed, Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” Both the state and federal laws were designed to allow medical care for infants who survived botched abortions.

According to, Carpenter, “Twice the Induced Liability Act came up in the judiciary committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted ‘present.’ At the second he voted [NO].”

The bill was afterward “referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services committee, which President Obama chaired…in 2003. As chairman he never called the bill up for a vote,” according to Carpenter.

As a point of fact, according to, independent journalist, Kyle Anne Shiver, “Obama opposed [the] “Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2001, 2002, and 2003.”

Moreover, Jill Stanek an Illinois registered delivery-ward nurse, testified before President Obama twice as an Illinois senator “after she witnessed aborted babies being born alive and left to die [as in ancient Roman days].” In the end, even photographic evidence of the atrocity failed to sway our now current President.

Instead, during his 2007 presidential campaign Presidential hopeful Barack Obama made a promise to Planned Parenthood, the nations largest abortion provider, that as President he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act, a piece of legislation, which according to LifeSiteNews, “Obama co-sponsored” as Illinois Senator.

Perhaps the most radical pro-abortion legislation ever penned, the act, according to LIFENEWS, “…would overturn hundreds of state laws that have put limits on abortions.” Under the act, not even Catholic hospitals would be allowed to refuse an abortion to a patient.

In other words, the extent to which the act would make abortion accessible in the U.S., would serve as a long-term financial blow from which our American economy may never be able to recover.

Most reprehensible of all, the vote of so-called “Catholics” for the most pro-death politician in our country’s history, will have become nothing more than a Catholic death sentence upon innocent human existence.

Is this truly “change” we can believe in?

True Catholics don’t think so.

God bless fellow Catholics.

Please pray for our President, our Church, and those Catholics who have put him into office.

"There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know."
(President Barack Obama, National Prayer Breakfast, February 5 2009).

“Because [illegal] immigrants…have higher fertility rates, [illegal] immigration decelerates the aging of the population.”
(Southwest Economy, November/December 2003).

“By the year 2030, the elderly (65+) will comprise over 44% of the civilian labor force. Therefore, from an economic perspective, abortion will prove to be a very costly decision for the state of Alabama.”
(Dr. Robert Brooks, Associate Professor of Finance of University of Alabama).

“The time has come…to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea…the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”
(President Barack Obama, presidential inauguration speech, January 20 2009).