Monthly Archives: June 2014


Rachel’s Vineyard – En español 2-4 octubre, 2015 – in English March 18-20, 2016

Rachel’s Vineyard

  • En español 2-4 octubre 2015
  • March 18-20, 2016 (English)
  • July 8-10, 2016 (English)
  • En español septiembre 30 a octubre 2, 2016

Project Rachel Contact Information
Paula Segno, Coordinator,
Office: (916) 733-0161
Fax: (916) 733-0195


Podcast – Bob Dunning Interviews Diocese of Sacramento, Project Rachel Coordinator, Paula Segno (January 15, 2015)

This story in a pamphlet.

Jesus, I Trust in You   

Don’t be afraid. Draw close to my heart. There you will find the peace and happiness you seek.

Jesus speaks these words to every human being in every generation. He knows well that each of us is broken by sin and burdened by selfishness and past hurts.

As St. Paul has written, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Yet we are saved “by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.”

You may be thinking, “I don’t deserve to be forgiven. My sins are too great!” Thankfully, God’s love is greater than all the sins of all time. Jesus offers his grace and forgiveness to every repentant heart. All we have to do is ask and begin to trust in his mercy.

As Pope John Paul II wrote: “No human sin can erase the mercy of God, or prevent him from unleashing all his triumphant power, if we only call upon him.”

“I can draw a line through the middle of my life. On one side, before Project Rachel. On the other side, after. I no longer carry that heavy burden of guilt. Not only has Project Rachel helped me but also my whole family.”

A great 20th-century apostle of Divine Mercy, St. Faustina, recorded in her Diary the consoling words of Jesus: I want “all souls to trust in the unfathomable abyss of My mercy, because I want to save them all.” And He assured her that “the greater the misery of a soul, the greater its right to My mercy.” Continue reading

More Stories

Marquee (hover cursor over to pause, Ctrl-R to Restart) (Right 2 Life)

After Hobby Lobby, Another Part of the Obamacare Mandate Could Fall

Elizabeth Slattery / @EHSlattery / June 30, 2014

The Acrobat FileSupreme Court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, which are for-profit companies, raises questions about the fate of the HHS mandate accommodation for which certain religious non-profit employers are eligible.

RFRAUnder the accommodation, non-profit employers self-certify to their insurance provider or third-party administrator that they have a religious objection to providing or paying for certain drugs and devices, and this initiates the process of the insurance company or third-party administrator providing the mandated coverage to employees. Just like the HHS mandate itself, this accommodation has been challenged by dozens of employers for violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which prohibits the government from substantially burdening free exercise unless it can show that the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.

In the Hobby Lobby ruling—which only deals with closely-held corporations—the existence of this accommodation was proof to a majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court that there are less restrictive means for the government to advance the compelling interest behind the HHS mandate. The Supreme Court did not reach whether the accommodation itself complies with RFRA, since it was not an issue addressed by the parties. Further, a hallmark of the Roberts Court is taking incremental steps toward an eventual goal (as it did in recent years with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act). Thus, in the long run, the Court may likewise rule that the accommodation violates the free exercise of non-profit groups.

It may not be long before the issue is before the Justices. Just hours after the Supreme Court’s decision was released, an Acrobat Fileappellate court cited the Hobby Lobby decision when it granted the Eternal World Television Network’s motion for an injunction pending appeal in its challenge to the accommodation. Continue reading

Justice Antonin Scalia’s minority opinion in McCullen v. Coakley: Discrimination against Pro-Lifers

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Scalia accuses fellow justices of discriminating against pro-lifers

While the McCullen v. Coakley ruling overturning buffer zones outside abortion clinics pleased pro-life activists, Justice Antonin Scalia thinks it didn’t go far enough.

The court unanimously agreed that the Massachusetts law, which barred protesters and counselors from being within 35 feet of abortion clinics, violated the First Amendment, but denied that it unfairly discriminated against abortion opponents.

St. Mary’s College of Madonna University,
Professor Monica Migliorino Miller
Interviewed by Al Kresta
on McCullen v. Coakley (2014)


“Today’s opinion carries forward this Court’s practice of giving abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes to suppressing the free-speech rights of their opponents,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, with whom Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas concurred. “There is an entirely separate, abridged edition of the First Amendment applicable to speech against abortion.”

The law’s opponents argued that the law was what is known as a “content-based” restriction of speech because “it creates speech exclusion zones only at abortion clinics and, as a practical matter, affects speech on only one controversial issue–abortion.” Because the law exempted clinic employees and volunteers from the buffer zone, they also argued that it privileged abortion supporters.

Content-based restrictions must pass strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review. Continue reading

Mary Mudd, Bishop’s Radio Hour

BobDunningInterviewsMaryMuddOnTheBishopsRadioHour-marqueeClick here to listen to the radio show:
Thursday, July 10, 2014

Coverage Needed Thursdays from 7:00 AM to 8:45 AM at the Abortion Business at Watt & Butano

Joannes Bucher, having a bad day sidewalk counseling in Vienna, goes to a park to relax, meets a lady pushing a baby stroller, they play Frisbee, she asks, “Don’t we know each other?”, she then remembers that Joannes convinced her to save her child, Oliver, her family were against her keeping the baby, he’s all she has, she then asks if Joannes would be Oliver’s Godfather?

•     2 Babies saved this month at Butano! – With joy we’re happy to announce that our peaceful, prayerful vigil saved 2 babies this month [July, 20124]!!! Although it’s estimated that 75% of women decide not to go through with an abortion when they see people praying in front of the mill, it’s a special gift that God gives us to know when one has been saved. BT and Mary Mudd were there to witness the life that was saved on July 3rd and Ed was able to persuade an expecting mother to choose life on July 17th. Ed even drove the mother to the pregnancy center. Go ED!!!!

•     Coverage is needed at Butano on Thursdays from 7:00 AM to 8:45 AM. Presentation Parish members are typically at Mass at 8:00 AM. They will arrive at 8:45. Coverage from 7:00 is needed, because many Mothers are arriving during that time.

To sign up for hours at Butano, please contact Mary via the form below:

Your Name (required)

Your Phone Number (required)

Your Email (required)

Subject (required)

Your Message (required)

Type the text

Friday, June 27, 2014

Joannes Bucher

Joannes Bucher, having a bad day sidewalk counseling in Vienna, goes to a park to relax, meets a lady pushing a baby stroller, they play Frisbee, she asks, “Don’t we know each other?”, she then remembers that Joannes convinced her to save her child, Oliver, her family were against her keeping the baby, he’s all she has, she then asks if Joannes would be Oliver’s Godfather?

77-Year-Old Grandmother’s Partial Supreme Court Victory for Pro-Life Free Speech
by Josh Shepherd | Washington, DC | | 6/27/2014

in a unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down a Massachusetts “buffer zone” law, sidewalk counselor Eleanor McCullen won the right to speak up freely to women entering abortion centers in Massachusetts.

The 77 year-old grandmother recently gave a revealing interview to NPR.

“I go where the Holy Spirit leads me,” she said. “It’s America and I should be able to walk and talk gently, lovingly, anywhere, with anybody.”

Outside the Supreme Court earlier this year – where Bound4LIFE gathers twice weekly to pray for the ending of abortion – McCullen shared words of truth with whomever would listen: “The poorest of the poor is the child in the womb […] Today the womb is the most unsafe place to be for a child.”

McCullen was represented by the nonprofit legal group Alliance Defending Freedom. Their lead counsel on this case Mark Rienzi noted, “Americans have the freedom to talk to whomever they please on public sidewalks. That includes peaceful pro-lifers like Eleanor McCullen, who just wants to offer information and help to women who would like it.”

The ruling in the case McCullen v. Coakley affirms that public sidewalks are a public forum for open discussion. Forcing sidewalk counselors to keep to a 35-foot “buffer zone” from the door of abortion centers is obstructing their free speech; thus, the Massachusetts law was struck down.

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, notes that buffer zones for election polling places (which restrict candidate signs or distribution of election materials) are Constitutional because “voter intimidation and election fraud [… ] are difficult to detect.” Even though the sidewalk counselors activity was viewed as different, the majority disputed that the law discriminated against pro-life views.

However, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, noting they saw “persuasive evidence that the [Massachusetts] law is content-based.” This opinion, along with a separate one from Justice Samuel Alito, contended that the law discriminated specifically against pro-life free speech. Continue reading

Abortion Feminists Battle Population Controllers

By Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.


NEW YORK, June 27, 2014 | (C-FAM) | A partnership among abortion backers is showing cracks as feminists in the Global South are pushing back against environmentalists promoting population control measures.

During the inaugural meeting of a new U.N. endeavor on the environment, one group took to social media to refute the “dubious linking” between population and climate change, arguing that “population control strategies inevitably lead to abuses, coercion, and the violation of women’s fundamental rights.”

The Malaysia-based group ARROW advocates for feminist policies at the U.N., including access to abortion. They are skeptical of wealthy Northern countries’ efforts to reduce the fertility of women in poor countries in the name of stopping climate change.


ARROW tweeted an infograph showing countries with the highest rates of population growth are also those with the lowest rates of energy consumption. Strategies to address climate change “should not displace responsibility for carbon emissions upon those least responsible for them.”
FeminineMystiqueZero Population Growth’s Lawrence Lader persuaded Betty Friedan that the newly formed National Organization for Women should endorse legal abortion, which NOW did in 1967.…While legal abortion now “virtually defines the women’s movement”, in her 1963 classic work The Feminine Mystique Friedan does not even mention abortion. …Friedan’s decision committing NOW to abortion advocacy provoked considerable conflict within NOW and did not necessarily represent a majority position.…”There was no networking [about the decision]. There were phone calls for those that could afford them, but no regular communication”. When NOW endorsed legal abortion, many delegates resigned. Even later, some chapters tried to remove abortion from NOW’s “Bill of Rights for Women” because it made their work on other issues in their own communities more difficult.…In 1972 two former members of NOW, one expelled because she objected to including legal abortion in NOW’s bill of rights, founded Feminists for Life of America (FFL). — James R. Kelly, Seeking a Sociologically Correct Name For Abortion OpponentsZ.P.G. (1972)

Although feminists and population control groups are the leading international proponents of abortion, their divergent motives have historically set them at odds with each other. The two camps forged an uneasy partnership at the 1994 U.N. Cairo conference, which upheld the right of women to determine the number and spacing of their children.

Now, as the global community works to set new objectives for development and environmental policy, the cracks in the “reproductive health” lobby are beginning to show again.

At last year’s Women Deliver conference in Kuala Lumpur, controversial ethics professor Peter Singer posited that women’s desire to have children could be forcibly overridden to address environmental problems.

Singer received a strong reaction from Dr. Babatunde Osotimehin, head of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), who objected to “limiting the rights of people in this way.” He pointed out rapid decreases in population is leaving countries with “more 65 year-olds than 5 year-olds.”

Osotimehin said consumption of resources, not just population growth, impacts environmental sustainability: “A homeless person in Denmark actually consumes more than a family of six in Tanzania.”

ARROW’s social media campaign wade into this debate as the new United Nations Environmental Assembly is meeting this week in Kenya to address the “sustainability” component of the forthcoming Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These will replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which expire in 2015.

Economist Jeffrey Sachs, the architect of the MDGs and a key contributor to the SDG process, recently touted Malthus’ theory that excessive population growth frustrates economic development. He proposed the U.N. aim for “rapid voluntary reduction of fertility” to achieve sustainable development.

In contrast, ARROW says linking population and climate change means “developed countries may be content with funding family planning in developing countries as climate change strategy,” sacrificing poor women’s fertility to protect their own high levels of consumption.

While feminists are uneasy with the goal of population reduction, they continue to be outspoken in favor of legalizing abortion. But some environmentalist groups favoring a smaller human population are backing away from the controversy surrounding abortion.

“The issue of abortion colors the family planning debate more than it should,” said Andrew Foster, director of the Population Studies and Training Center at Brown University. “[It] gets in the way of a more proper discussion about family planning.”

GallopingGertieSee Also: ‘Unmet [contraception] need’: a shaky bridge between Malthusians and feminists

To feminist groups, particularly those in the Global South, there remains some skepticism toward population groups’ exuberant interest in giving women what they want. Simply, the people having the most children are not the ones consuming the most resources. When North American and European elites encourage women in developing countries to have fewer children – and generously provide them with the means to reduce their fertility – in the name of catastrophic climate change, it’s hard not to be a bit cynical.

Read More…

WHY AREN’T WOMEN BEING TOLD? Abortion is the Most Preventable Cause of Breast Cancer

Breast cancer is the leading cancer in women with an estimated 203,500 American women being diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and 39,600 women dying from breast disease in 2002, yet women are not being told of the connection between abortion and breast cancer.

Not all women who have breast cancer have had an abortion, but it has been determined to be the most preventable cause of breast cancer. Many of the risk factors can be controlled by the choices women make. Choosing between abortion or childbirth can influence breast cancer risk. An abortion during high levels of estrogen starting in early pregnancy can predispose a woman to getting breast cancer. Prolonged use of contraceptives/abortifacients, especially before a full term pregnancy, can also increase the risk.

Many physicians are not aware of the connection between abortion and breast cancer or do not acknowledge the preponderance of evidence. However, you are responsible for your own health care. It is important for you to fully disclose your own health history and to discuss the connection between abortion and breast cancer with your doctor.

“Since 1998, cases have been commenced which have also claimed the additional failure to warn of an increased risk of breast cancer caused by abortion. Recently one of those cases has been settled for an undisclosed amount. This is believed to be the first case of its kind in the world. Although the woman had not developed breast cancer, she nevertheless received a significant sum.” Attorney Charles Francis, QC, Melbourne, Australia

The Estrogen Factor
Why induced abortions raise breast cancer risk

Most of the known risk factors for breast cancer involve some form of over-exposure to the female sex hormone, estrogen. Estrogen is known to be a growth promoter of both normal and abnormal breast tissue and is, therefore, known as a secondary carcinogen or a tumor promoter. Continue reading


Building a Civilization of Truth and Love—Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone’s Address to the March for Marriage, Washington DC, June 19, 2014


RNS-MARRIAGE-RALLYIn our Catholic faith tradition, young people around the age of junior high school or high school receive the sacrament of Confirmation, normally administered by the bishop.  At a Confirmation ceremony I celebrated recently in a large, Hispanic parish, two of the young people shared some reflections on what their Confirmation meant to them.  They said that their Confirmation gave them the grace to go forth and “build a civilization of truth and love.”  I could not have said it better myself!  And that, my friends, is why we are here.  Both are necessary, both, together, if we wish to have a flourishing society: truth and love.

This is the legacy we have received from our ancestors in faith.  To my fellow believers in Jesus Christ I would call our attention to those first generations of Christians in the city of Rome, who were so often scapegoated by the powerful pagan Roman government.  But when a plague would strike the city and the well-to-do fled to the hills for safety until the plague subsided, it was the Christians who stayed behind to care for the sick, at great risk to their own health and very lives.  And not just the Christian sick: all the sick, regardless of religion, of how they lived their lives, or even what they thought of the Christians themselves.  The historian Eusebius noted about the Christians of his time, “All day long some of them tended to the dying and to their burial, countless numbers with no one to care for them.  Others gathered together from all parts of the city a multitude of those withered from famine and distributed bread to them all.”  Likewise, the Emperor Julian complained to one of his pagan priests, “[They] support not only their poor, but ours as well.”

Saint Jeanne Jugan Sister Mary of the Cross (1792 – 1879)

Saint Jeanne Jugan
Sister Mary of the Cross
(1792 – 1879)

It is this kind of love and compassion in the service of truth, especially the truth of the human person, that has marked the lives of the holy ones of our own faith tradition and others as well: hospitals, orphanages, schools, outreach to the poor and destitute – giving without concern for getting anything in return, seeing in each human being, especially in the poor and destitute, a priceless child beloved by God, whom God calls to turn away from sin and toward Him, so that they might be saved.  In1839 Jeanne Jugan met one such priceless child of God, a blind old crippled woman whom nobody cared for.  That night, Jeanne carried the woman home to her apartment, and put her to sleep in her own bed.  From this profound encounter was born the Little Sisters of the Poor, who even today are loving, caring for and providing homes for thousands of elderly who deserve dignity as well as care.  These are the very nuns who now face the possibility of being shut out of spreading the love of Jesus to the needy because of their refusal to comply with a healthcare mandate that violates their moral convictions, convictions which stand on the truth of basic human dignity.

Every child comes from a man and a woman, and has a right, a natural human right, to know and be known by, to love and be loved by, their own mother and father.Let us, then, take our cue from the best our predecessors in faith have inspired, and not humanity’s frequent failings and sins.  Like them, we now in our own time need to proclaim and live the truth with charity and compassion as it applies to us today: the truth of a united family based on the union of the children’s father and mother in marriage as the foundational good of society.  Every child comes from a man and a woman, and has a right, a natural human right, to know and be known by, to love and be loved by, their own mother and father.  This is the great public good that marriage is oriented towards and protects.  The question is then: does society need an institution that unites children to the mothers and fathers who bring them into the world, or doesn’t it?  If it does, that institution is marriage – nothing else provides this basic good to children.

Yes, this is a foundational truth, and one to which we must witness by lives lived in conformity to it, and which we must proclaim with love.  Love for those millions of loving single mothers and fathers who struggle to pick up the pieces of their lives and succeed in creating loving homes for their children – they need and deserve our love, affirmation and support.  Love for the husband struggling with fidelity, for the woman who feels abandoned and pressured into abortion, for the teenager struggling to believe in the heroic vision of love that makes sense of chastity, for the single person who cannot find a mate, for the childless couple trying to cope with infertility, for the wife who finds herself nursing a sick husband in her marriage bed, for the young person trying to navigate through sexual identity issues and may feel alienated from the Church because of it, maybe even because of the sort of treatment received from those who profess to be believers.  To all of you, I say: know that you are a child of God, that you are called to heroic love and that with God’s help you can do it, that we love you and want to support you in living your God-given call.

Our Master command us … “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).And let us not forget: we must also proclaim this truth especially with love for those who disagree with us on this issue, and most of all, for those who are hostile toward us.  We must be careful, though, not to paint our opponents on this issue with broad strokes.  There is a tendency in our culture to do this to groups of people the powerful don’t know and think they don’t like.  We must not do that.  We must recognize that there are people on the other side of this debate who are of good will and are sincerely trying to promote what they think is right and fair.  It is misdirected good will.  But even those from whom we suffer retribution – and I know some of you have suffered in very serious ways because of your stand for marriage – still, we must love them.  That is what our ancestors in faith did, and we must, too.  Yes, it is easy to become resentful when you are relentlessly and unfairly painted as a bigot and are punished for publicly standing by the basic truth of marriage as a foundational societal good; it is tempting to respond in kind.  Don’t.  For those of us who are Catholic, we just heard our Master command us in the gospel proclaimed at Mass the day before yesterday: “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt 5:44).  We must not allow the angry rhetoric to co-opt us into a culture of hate.

Yes, we must show love toward all of these and more.  Love is the answer.  But love in the truth.  The truth is that every child comes from a mother and a father, and to deliberately deprive a child of knowing and being loved by his or her mother and father is an outright injustice.  That is our very nature, and no law can change it.  Those with temporal power over us might choose to change the definition of marriage in the law even against all that we have accomplished through very generous participation in the democratic process, but our nature does not change.  If the law does not correspond to our nature, such that there is a conflict between the law and nature, guess which will prevail?  And people will figure it out.

We can take heart from what we see happening now in the pro-life movement.  Back in the early 1970’s, just before the Court issued its infamous Roe vs. Wade ruling, public support for abortion was growing rapidly.  And as with marriage redefinition today, a generation gap opened up in the polls, leading many to predict that opposition to abortion would literally die off.  That was the future; before long, it would not even be an issue.  Instead, something unexpected happened.  A relatively small band of faithful believers held the line on the sanctity of human life in the womb, and today, two generations later, the pro-life movement is flourishing like never before.  We now have the most pro-life generation of young adults since the infamous Roe decision.  People have figured out that it is a human life that is within the mother’s womb, and that abortion, yes, really does harm women; they’ve figured out that it’s good to cherish that human life and surround the mother with love and support so a truly happy choice can be made, the choice for life.

No justice, no peace, no end to poverty, without a strong culture of marriage and the family.People, too, will figure out that a child comes from a father and a mother, and it’s good for the child to be connected to his or her father and mother.  These truths may seem obvious to us, but they aren’t to everyone while in the heat of controversy.  They will figure out this truth about marriage, though, because it, too, is in our nature, and it is a key to individual and societal flourishing.  All we have to do is look around and see that our society is broken and hurting in so many ways; there is so much work to do to fix it and bring healing.  Yes, it is very complex, and many different things need to be done: we need to fix our economy; we especially need to pay a living wage to working class families; we need to fix our broken immigration system; we need to improve our schools, especially those that are failing children from poorer families.  Yes, we need to do all this and more.  But none of these solutions will have a lasting effect if we do not rebuild a marriage culture, a culture which recognizes and supports the good of intact families, built on the marriage between a man and a woman committed to loving faithfulness to each other and to their children.  No justice, no peace, no end to poverty, without a strong culture of marriage and the family.  This noble cause is a call to love we cannot abandon, that we will not give up on, and that in the end we know will triumph.

So take heart: the truth spoken in love has a power over the human heart.  We are here today to March for Marriage, to pick up the torch, and pass on to a new generation the truth about marriage, not just the abstract truth, but the lived reality that makes a difference in children’s lives.  So, my friends, we must not give up: the truth will not go away, and we will not go away.  Let us take heart from the legacy we have received, let us place our trust in God, and let us go forth to build a civilization of truth and love.

Millions in France March
in Support of Authentic Marriage