Life is worth saving

Life is worth saving


To the editor:

“Be engaged in Truth and though canst be false to any other man.”

And you would not kill in the womb for Life is the Foundation and Beginning of a just society … As in the Declaration of Independence: “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.”

Life and Marriage (one man/one woman) are under attack here in the USA. With forced insurance to kill in the womb and assisted suicide we now have socialized medicine for all while life is taken out of the Hand of our Creator and decided by man as in China.

Our Economy will continue to erode if the Economy of Life is not practiced.

Life is worth Saving. It is generational and millions of generations have been lost with 50 million abortions since 1973. Life begets life and same sex do not. Life feeds into Medicare as the young workers contribute. Does one wonder why the shortage in Medicare Funds? In going against nature, all humanity is affected. Habitat for Humanity begins in the womb.

Everyone knows how long the wait in hospital emergency rooms and the in-hospital care. When the medical team has to evacuate because forced to do “procedures” against their conscience, there may be an even greater shortage of employees as is now from those killed in abortions.

Are our government leaders defying the natural order of everything?

We are a government of the people, by the people for the people (little and big), let’s not override the Wisdom of our Forefathers. Their decisions were focused on the peril of a land that could lie ahead because of the nature of man (selfishness). What would our Forefathers think of us today? What would our Great, Great, Great, grandchildren think of us when they read about this American Holocaust in history … “People killed their young?”

“The Truth, nothing but the Truth, nothing but the whole truth.”

Betty Ann Cirillo
160 Franklin Court, Apt. 225


  1. Mrs. Cirillo makes it sound like the government has been going around literally forcing people to get abortions and have gay sex (and apparently assist in suicide as well). Mrs. Cirillo has a right to her views, and I respect her personal values, but it is not right to go encouraging legislators to impose your personal morals on others, which while not explicitly stated, I infer is the general underlying sentiment of her letter.

    Would it be right, for example, for a politician with a large Catholic constituency to try to pass state-wide or nation-wide legislature outlawing the consumption of meat on Fridays during Lent? While eating a cheeseburger is obviously not as significant of a lifestyle factor as the behaviors Mrs. Cirillo singles out in her letter, the basic principle of legislating upon it IS, in my opinion.

    A woman’s right to choose to have an abortion, or for gay people to marry, are not what’s resulted in a dumbed-down electorate, high unemployment and under-employment, rampant corporate graft, serious environmental woes, and a government with far too many crooked, disingenuous politicians (on both sides of the aisle). Let’s focus on legislating fixes for these problems, and leave people’s behavior in their personal/private lives up to themselves, their conscience, and their Creator.

  2. Eric, your divisive post totally misses the point of Ms. Cirillo’s well-thought-out letter. In the past few years, as you may have noticed, the life-issue has become front-and-center with the passage of ‘ObamaCare’ and has since advanced: instead of simply being for ‘life’ or ‘choice’, the nexus of social and fiscal conservatism have crossed with one question “WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR YOUR ABORTTION AND/OR CONTRACEPTION?!”

    As the heathcare mandate has forced employers to pay for said selective surgery, many Catholic and christian figureheads — such as Cardinal Dolan and Bishop Tobin — have also decried such government irresponsability.

    As for you second point, i’d advise you read up on the U.S. Constitution — especially the 10th Amendment. Under our Constitution, we are allowed to have state’s rights — meaning, like it or not, we are allowed to pass laws (or in the case of Gay Marriage NOT pass laws) that reflect the nature of local voters. That means that states like NY and MA will go for more socially liberal policies than TX.

    Finally, I do agree with a majority of your last paragraph, hence this is an economic year, but unless we on the federal level roll back the governmental monstrocity that is the “Affordable Healthcare Act” our fiscal health as well as a balanced social view policy, will both get worse.

  3. I would argue your apparently selective reading of my post is what is divisive, and not the sentiments I have expressed. If the contrary nature of the sentiments seemed hostile to Mrs. Cirillo, that was not my intent. Rather, I just strongly, strongly disagree with the implications of her letter. You can’t simply paint some of these issues in black or white, and in either failing to grasp or deliberately ignoring the nuances of these issues, people’s freedoms get stepped on. Although in some cases, I feel like it’s the freedoms themselves that are being deliberately ignored, rather than the nuances of the issues.

    Regarding religious organizations’ obligation to pay for health plans including contraceptive services under Obamacare, I don’t think I can put it in terms concise enough for the present forum to feel like I’ve made my point. In a nutshell, I can sympathize with the angst of the religious employing organization, but at the end of the day,the fact is the organization is not required to endorse abortion or contraception, merely to have health plans where the services are available to their employees, whom possibly do not subscribe to the same beliefs that the organization holds. We live in a secular society. I have mixed feelings, but at the end of the day, I think that is what wins out. I’m fairly confident, but admit that at this point I wouldn’t be shocked if someone convinced me to change my mind without changing 99 percent of my thoughts on the matter, if that makes sense.

    Regarding my second point, MY POINT STANDS, CLEARLY. I’m plenty knowledgeable on my U.S. Constitution, and don’t see how my point, which acknowledges the legislative process on the state and nation wide levels as being separate ,could possibly be construed as conveying disregard or ignorance of the 10th Amendment. “Like it or not, we are allowed to pass laws that reflect the nature of local voters.” —–Yes, that’s fine, obviously, unless they are laws superseded by powers Constitutionally delegated to the federal government, or forbidden to the individual states, per the 10th Amendment, or if they are laws which infringe upon a person’s individual rights and freedoms that are protected by federal law (whether through specific legislature or Supreme Court decisions). Like it or not, BGOP 😉

    Perhaps I should advise you to read up on the U.S. Constitution. The 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendments all contribute toward making the case individually, and without a doubt make the case when the three are examined collectively (especially when reviewing in conjunction w/relevant S.C. rulings), that the state or states will not abridge fundamental personal liberties, whether the motivation be religious or otherwise. And in addition to specific amendments, numerous Supreme Court rulings back this up, with the rulings from the Civil Rights era dealing with school integration probably being the most readily identifiable and clear-cut in somewhat modern times.

    There’s a difference between the degree to which a social policy is liberal or conservative, vs. whether it infringes upon fundamental personal liberties or not. Even if a majority within a certain constituency regrettably do not particularly care about the infringement taking place.

    And lastly, it’s nice that we agree (sorta) on my last paragraph, but whether you’re pro the AHA or not, the majority of the AHA has yet to be implemented (I’m not exactly thrilled with the implications of the individual mandate aspect myself). However, the AHA is not what got us into this mess. There are too many boogeymen on both sides of the aisle, seemingly increasingly so as you move away from the local level, that are willing to sacrifice their integrity and principles that as public servants they’ve sword to uphold, in exchange to score a cheap political point for the sake of it and to further their careers. I have plenty of conservative and liberal friends, and regardless of ideological bent, none of them feel good about the candidates they have to choose from.