Pro-Life or Not?

In my view, President Trump is not pro-life for the following reasons:

He frequently talks about immigrants from Mexico and Latin America invading our country.

These immigrants are not invading our country; they are seeking refuge and safety from violence, including rape and murder in their home countries.

 We need to remember that our Jesus, Mary and Joseph were refugees to Egypt as Herod was trying kill them.

President Trump, by his administration policies and actions, has been anti-life.

Putting immigrant children in cages and cutting back on food stamps for the poor is not being pro-life.

The president is in violation of Catholic social-justice principles, including respecting the dignity of the human person and the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable.

I would encourage you: Think about these points and support those leaders and politicians who are truly pro-life.

Thank you.

Joseph Petrini

Hamden, Connecticut

 

Creighton’s Value

Regarding “NFP Enters the Mainstream” (Nation, Aug. 4 issue), specifically with regard to natural methods of family planning highlighting, to some extent at least, the Creighton Model System:

This study that you were relying upon looked at 53 studies in natural methods and categorized them as either high quality, moderate quality or low quality.

None of the 53 studies was ranked as high-quality studies.

Keep in mind that this article was written by people who are predominantly contraceptively oriented, and one of the authors was associated with the Guttmacher Institute, which is a viciously pro-contraceptive and pro-abortion institute that was, for many, many years, the research arm of Planned Parenthood and received funding from Planned Parenthood during that period.

It remains a resource for the contraceptive and abortion movement. 

In the process of this, the Creighton Model studies were ranked as “low quality,” and the reason that they were ranked “low quality” was because they were judged based upon their view of the measurement of effectiveness as a contraceptive.

But in the Creighton Model especially, it can be used to both achieve (in couples with normal fertility) and avoid pregnancy.

It can also be used in women with infertility problems to help them achieve pregnancy, and then it can be used to better understand a whole variety of women’s reproductive health issues.

We’ve written an entire textbook on this called The Medical & Surgical Practice of NaPro Technology.

And, in fact, if it were not for the Crieghton Model System, there would be no NaPro technology.

This is the first women’s health science which is completely consistent with Catholic teaching.

A letter to the editor doesn’t allow me to go into the details of this.

I am intrigued, however, by one of the people that you interviewed who had commentary on this presuming to be an expert in natural methods.

However, it’s of note that the FEMM system was not included in this study.

The reason for that is that they’ve never done an effectiveness study of their own system; and yet, by their own admission, they’ve distributed 400,000 of their “fertility” apps.

The Creighton Model is a very unique approach to natural methods because of this ability to use it to achieve pregnancy, not just in women with infertility, but also in couples of normal fertility.

 It’s a very special moment when a couple can unite and conceive a child knowing that that particular act of intercourse may result in that conception — a very special moment indeed.

Thomas Hilgers, M.D.

senior medical consultant

Pope Paul VI Institute for the

Study of Human Reproduction

Omaha, Nebraska