Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Print All Articles

UK man seeking to be killed by euthanasia can proceed with case, rules judge

by Hilary White, Rome Correspondent Tue Mar 13 17:49 EST Comments (6)

Tony Nicklinson

LONDON, March 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A London judge ruled on Monday that Tony Nicklinson, a 58-year-old man with a wife and two grown daughters, may go forward with a legal action that would allow doctors to directly euthanize him by lethal injection. Campaigners on both sides of the euthanasia debate believe that if he wins, the case could automatically overturn Britain’s criminal prohibitions against doctors killing patients.

Mr. Justice Charles said in his ruling that Nicklinson’s statements “describe in vivid and moving terms the predicaments of the claimant, his wife and two daughters.”

The law does not currently recognize “euthanasia” or “mercy killing” and any doctor who were to dispatch Mr. Nicklinson with a lethal injection would be liable for prosecution for murder.

The High Court judge ruled the case could proceed to a judicial review. The Ministry of Justice is arguing, however, that the matter should be left to Parliament.

Nicklinson described his life as “dull, miserable, demeaning, undignified and intolerable.”

During the hearing, Nicklinson’s wife Jane said, “The only way to relieve Tony’s suffering will be to kill him…Because he can’t do anything for himself he needs to be killed.”

Nicklinson suffered a stroke in 2005 and is described as suffering from “locked-in syndrome,” being paralysed from the neck down and dependent upon others for all his needs. Following the ruling, he said he was “delighted.”

“It’s no longer acceptable for 21st century medicine to be governed by 20th century attitudes to death.” He told the court in a prepared statement, “I need help in almost every aspect of my life.”

“I have no privacy or dignity left. I am washed, dressed and put to bed by carers who are, after all, still strangers…I am fed up with my life and don’t want to spend the next 20 years or so like this.”

David Perry QC, representing the Ministry of Justice, told the High Court that Mr. Nicklinson “is saying the court should positively authorise and permit as lawful the deliberate taking of his life.”

“That is not, and cannot be, the law of England and Wales unless Parliament were to say otherwise,” Perry said.

One high-ranking ethicist, however, argues that passive euthanasia is already effectively legal in Britain through the deliberate starving and dehydrating of patients. Julian Savulescu, Professor of Practical Ethics at Oxford University, editor of the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics, and one of the world’s most radically liberal ethicists, wrote today that, under the country’s current laws and medical guidelines, the provision of food and hydration is regarded as “medical treatment” that Mr. Nicklinson can opt to refuse.

“If doctors, courts and family members can make a decision that a person’s life is no longer worth living and feeding should be stopped, why can’t the person, like Tony Nicklinson, make that decision, and it be acted upon? Surely the person who has the most right to decide whether life is tolerable is the person who must live that life,” Savulescu wrote.

He says that guidelines already exist that would oblige doctors to accept his decision and provide him with palliative care to treat the unpleasant symptoms of dehydration until he died, a process which would take “a few weeks.”

In his article, Savulescu wrote that there is no effective moral difference between removing food and hydration and giving a lethal injection.

“But what, you might ask, is the difference between Tony Nicklinson dying by starvation, perhaps unconscious, over a period of weeks and him being given a lethal injection that would kill him in seconds, painlessly? In both cases, he will certainly die. Surely it is more humane, in these circumstances, to give him a lethal injection than to allow him to starve himself to death?

“This is the argument of course from suicide, to assisted suicide, to euthanasia. But if one has a right not to eat, then one has a right to euthanasia, at least in moral terms.”

“Practical Ethics” is the title of a landmark book by Australian bioethicist Peter Singer, who is notorious for his suggestions that parents should have the right to kill unwanted infants after birth, and as an advocate of eugenics. As head of Practical Ethics at Oxford, Savulescu has followed in Singer’s footsteps by arguing that parents have a responsibility to genetically select the “best” children using in vitro fertilisation techniques; that even if embryos are persons, killing them is justified if some of those killed would “benefit from the killing.” He has also supported the cloning and killing of unborn children to obtain their organs for transplant to adults.

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

Abort first, ask questions later: Britain’s problem with sex-selection abortion

by Colin Mason Tue Mar 13 17:31 EST Comments (7)

Dr Raj Mohan agreed not to put down that a woman's real reason for wanting an abortion was the sex of the child

March 13, 2012 (Pop.org) - Sex-selection abortions have been illegal in Great Britain since 1967. But that hasn’t been stopping British abortionists from performing them.

A far-reaching undercover investigation carried out by the London Telegraph found that doctors, counselors and medical staff across the country were not only perfectly willing to perform sex-selective abortions, but they were even willing to forge paperwork to cover up their crime.

According to The Telegraph, a counselor at a British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) clinic openly admitted to the undercover operative that she would lie on her official paperwork to make sure the abortion was performed:

When the woman said she wanted an abortion because “it’s a girl and I have a girl already, and I really want a boy,” the counselor told her that it was illegal to have a termination for that reason.

However, when the would-be patient asked if they had to mention the reason she had stated, the counsellor said: “I mean, if you want to tell me something different, another reason why you don’t want to continue with this pregnancy … I can put that.”

“Well just say that I didn’t plan it and I’m not prepared?” suggested the woman.

“Yeah, yeah, OK, that’s fine, so that’s what I will put down,” said the counsellor.

An abortion was then scheduled for the next week in another clinic. Fortunately (for BPAS), a manager discovered the situation before the woman left, and promptly canceled the abortion, saying “we’re not legally allowed to let you have an abortion for that reason so I can’t let you go ahead and have it … we’ll have to cancel your appointment”.

In another undercover video, this time taken at a BPAS clinic in Manchester, it’s clear that the question of sex-selection is a complete non-issue for those authorizing the abortion. In fact, the consultant is even willing to keep the matter from going through NHS (Britain’s National Health Service). The reason she gives? She openly states that the abortion-seeking woman “didn’t want questions asked,” admitting that she herself doesn’t ask them either. “If you want a termination,” she says simply, “you want a termination.”

But things were worse by far at a different clinic in Edgbaston. According to The Telegraph, this clinic was “exposed for illicitly completing abortion forms amid concerns that doctors are not properly consulting patients before agreeing to terminations.” According to the paper, Dr. Raj Mohan “was also secretly filmed offering to arrange an abortion for a woman who said she wanted to terminate her pregnancy because the baby was a girl.” The video can be seen on The Telegraph’s web site here.

The Telegraph reports Dr. Mohan casually commenting — on video — that what he was about to authorize was like “female infanticide isn’t it?”

In my years at PRI, I have witnessed and reported on many horrific abuses, but rarely have I been so thoroughly aghast at what I have read. Not only was this doctor willing to authorize an abortion whose sole purpose was to kill a little girl because she was a little girl. But he was also willing to do it illegally. He was even willing to admit that that’s precisely what he was doing. And, as if all that wasn’t bad enough, he was even perfectly at peace that what he was doing was no different from “female infanticide.”

This, it seems to me, is the most brazen kind of immorality: when someone completely understands the heinousness of what he is doing, but does it anyway.

According to The Telegraph, sex-selection abortion is becoming a big problem in Great Britain, especially among Indian and Pakistani immigrants. We at PRI understand the ethnic and cultural reasons for this practice, but what surprised us was the willingness of British doctors and nurses to collaborate with these customs. In other words, it doesn’t matter if your reasons for wanting an abortion are frivolous or even illegal. Abortion-on-demand means that everything goes.

Besides, it was supposedly to safeguard the rights of women that abortion was legalized in Britain in the first place. Yet sex-selective abortion is committed almost exclusively against female babies. Doesn’t that make it the greatest form of sexism the world has ever known?

Colin Mason is the Director of Media Production at Population Research Institute. This article reprinted with permission from pop.org

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

Congresswoman: ObamaCare could lead to limiting women to having two children

by Ben Johnson Tue Mar 13 17:14 EST Comments (33)

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, R-MN
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 13, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The founder of the House Tea Party Caucus is warning that the Obama administration’s pro-contraception stance and disregard for religious liberty could lead it to restrict the number of children American women are allowed have.

Last Tuesday, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, R-MN, told GBTV’s “Real News From The Blaze” program she disagreed with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ argument that paying for contraceptives saves money by reducing health care costs – and that her analysis sets a dangerous precedent.

“Going with that logic, it isn’t far fetched to think the president of the United States could say…we need to save health care expenses…[so] the federal government will only pay for one baby to be born in the hospital per family. Or two babies to be born per family. That could happen.”

“I’m not saying he is going to do it,” Bachmann clarified. “I’m saying he has the power and authority to do it.”

“Michele Bachmann is correct. There’s nothing that prohibits Congress and the federal bureaucracies from saying they will only pay for up to two births,” John Vinci a staff attorney for Americans for Limited Government, told LifeSiteNews.com. “Constitutionally, nothing prohibits the federal government from rationing the health care it subsidizes.”

“Certainly what Congresswoman Bachman claimed is not out of the realm of possibility given what we know about the extreme views of some members of the Obama administration, and the new powers they have assumed via Obamacare,” agreed Father Peter West, vice president for mission for Human Life International, in a statement e-mailed to LifeSiteNews.com.

Vinci, who edits the website ObamacareWatcher.org, said the economic principles of national health care make rationing inevitable. “Because of scarcity rationing must occur,” he told LifeSiteNews. “Under a healthy free market system, scarcity is regulated by price. With ObamaCare, we have rejected free market principles of price as the regulator of scarcity and have replaced it with bureaucrats.”

Mandating “free” contraception, and requiring employers to pay for a host of other services, will hasten the process, he said. “Since drug manufacturers no longer have to compete on price, what keeps them from raising their prices? And when the federal government figures out that health care costs are rising, nothing keeps them from limiting the benefits through rationing.”

Fr. West said moral principles also underlie such a decision. “In 1968’s Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI made four famous predictions, all of which have come true. The fourth had to do with the coercive use of contraception by governments, and we see this most clearly enforced in China with their abusive one-child policy.”

With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, he said, “we see the framework for tyranny even in the United States.”

“Obama’s science czar, John Holdren, has openly advocated for coercive government population control, including forced abortion. Vice President Joe Biden ‘understands’ China’s destructive one-child policy and couldn’t bring himself to condemn it once challenged on his statement.”

(Click “like” if you want to end abortion! )

In his 1977 book Ecoscience, co-authored with population control advocates Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Holdren wrote, “compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” Holdren also called for “a comprehensive Planetary Regime” to set appropriate population levels for every country in the world.

Vice President Biden told a Chinese audience he was “not second-guessing” the nation’s one-child policy during a visit last August.

“The more we find out about ObamaCare,” Fr. West told LifeSiteNews, “the more we learn that it is a blank check for the administration to do whatever it wants, unchecked by Congress, and in complete disregard for the Bill of Rights.”


Tags: gbtv, joe biden, john holdren, michele bachmann, population control

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

Raquel Welch: the ‘era of porn’ has ‘annihilated’ men

by Kathleen Gilbert Tue Mar 13 17:04 EST Comments (102)


March 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - As one of America’s most revered sex symbols, she might not be the first celebrity to jump to mind as a crusader against pornography. But Raquel Welch, who rose to icon status as the beauty in the leather bikini from the 1966 movie One Million Years BC, told Men’s Health Magazine in an interview posted online March 8 that today’s sex-saturated culture had sapped the meaning out of sex, and damaged countless men through the pornography industry, which she called “an exploitation of the poor male’s libidos.”

“It’s just dehumanizing. And I have to honestly say, I think this era of porn is at least partially responsible for it,” Welch said of rampant sexual addiction. “Where is the anticipation and the personalization? It’s all pre-fab now. You have these images coming at you unannounced and unsolicited. It just gets to be so plastic and phony to me.

“Maybe men respond to that. But is it really better than an experience with a real life girl that he cares about? It’s an exploitation of the poor male’s libidos. Poor babies, they can’t control themselves.”

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

Welch criticized men’s modern habit of “equat[ing] happiness in life with as many orgasms as you can possibly pack in,” and described the concomitant loss of real masculinity in vivid terms.

“I just imagine them sitting in front of their computers, completely annihilated. They haven’t done anything, they don’t have a job, they barely have ambition anymore,” said the 71-year-old actress. “And it makes for laziness and a not very good sex partner. Do they know how to negotiate something that isn’t pre-fab and injected directly into their brain?”

When Eric Spitznagel of Men’s Health interjected that Welch’s views could come across as “prudish,” the aging sex icon said she was “fine with that” and pined for the days when bedroom fantasy was a private matter.

“Can you imagine? My fantasies were all made up on my own,” she said. “They’re ruining us with all the explanations and the graphicness. Nobody remembers what it’s like to be left to form your own ideas about what’s erotic and sexual. We’re not allowed any individuality. I thought that was the fun of the whole thing. It’s my fantasy. I didn’t pick it off the Internet somewhere.”

This isn’t the first time Welch has been critical of the culture that helped fuel her lengthy career: in a 2010 column for CNN, she lamented the effects of contraception on society, particularly its enervating effect on marriage, the “cornerstone of civilization.”

“Seriously, folks, if an aging sex symbol like me starts waving the red flag of caution over how low moral standards have plummeted, you know it’s gotta be pretty bad,” she wrote.

Tags: pornography, raquel welch

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

The U.S. billionaires funding the push for abortion in Ireland

by Niamh Ui Bhriain Tue Mar 13 16:31 EST Comments (54)

Chuck Feeney
George Soros

March 13, 2012 (Thelifeinstitute.net) - Ireland’s experience in banning abortion is hugely important for the global pro-life community. That’s because our record proves that we best serve mothers and babies when our laws protect unborn human life. Ireland is the example pro-life activists the world over can point to, because the Irish experience shows that abortion is never necessary.

The abortion industry is, of course, particularly discomfited by the fact that, according to the United Nations, Ireland, without recourse to abortion, is the safest place in the world for a mother to have a baby. And Irish medical experts have testified that their experience shows abortion is not needed to preserve the lives of mothers - whatever conditions arise during pregnancy.

Little wonder, then, that enormous global pressure is being brought to bear on Ireland right now. However, most people would be surprised to hear that the push to legalise abortion in Ireland is being funded by wealthy Americans: with funding coming from billionaires George Soros and Chuck Feeney, and from multinationals like Microsoft and Goldman Sachs through donations to legal centres supporting Planned Parenthood.

The most recent legal attack on Ireland’s pro-life laws was a court case - the ABC case - taken to the European Court of Human Rights. The court case was sponsored by the Irish Family Planning Association, the Irish affiliate to International Planned Parenthood. The lead attorney in the case, Julie Kay, has worked for both Planned Parenthood and the Legal Momentum Fund - which works to make abortion legal.

The US based Legal Momentum Fund enjoys massive funding, with multinationals like JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer and others helping them to raise almost €8 million in 2008 alone. Their Annual Report for that year describes Kay as a Senior Staff Attorney and reveals its involvement in planning the ABC case. Also supporting Kay with the ABC case was the US Centre for Reproductive Rights - a legal centre headquartered on Wall Street. Their 2010 Annual Report shows income for that year at $18 million with donations from the Ford Foundation, Google, Microsoft and others. The Centre boasts in the same report of their involvement in ‘fighting’ Ireland’s pro-life laws.

It is difficult for local pro-life advocates to match such lavish funding, especially when additional resources for abortion campaigns also comes from wealthy individuals, such as Chuck Feeney, the American billionaire. Feeney made the headlines in Ireland recently when it was announced that he had given €1,500,000 to ensure a ‘Yes’ vote to a forthcoming referendum on children’s rights. But the billionaire has given millions to organisations pushing for social change in Ireland for a decade or more. For example, according to the website of his foundation Atlantic Philantrophies, he has funded the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) to the tune of some $7.7 million.

The ICCL has long been an advocate of legalising abortion in Ireland, but recently it caused major controversy when it claimed it had the support of major Catholic charities for a report it put together to submit to the United Nations which contained a strong call for abortion legislation.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

The report, entitled ‘Rights Now’, cost a whopping $190,000 to produce and was funded entirely by Feeney’s foundation. It said that “By restricting abortion, the [Irish] State disproportionately interferes with women’s rights to health, privacy, life, freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment and non-discrimination”. The ICCL claimed that major Catholic organisations such as the development aid charity Trócaire supported the contentious report, but in a major embarrassment for the Feeney-sponsored lobbyists, Trócaire and other charities withdrew support when the Life Institute raised a controversy regarding the call for abortion.

However, the ICCL report encouraged other countries to attack Ireland’s ban on abortion at the subsequent UN hearing in Geneva. What’s also interesting is that, without Feeney’s support, the ICCL would hardly exist since it receives almost no support from the members of the public. For example, in 2009 the organisation only managed to raise €8,822 in donations from the Irish people, but received more than €2 million from Feeney’s foundation the following year.

Feeney has also given more than $1,000,000 to the National Women’s Council of Ireland, who last month launched a drive to lobby politicians in support of abortion legislation.

As if that wasn’t enough, there are also other massively wealthy figures funding the push for abortion in Ireland. George Soros, the New York based investor billionaire, gave €100 million to the self-styled rights organisation, Human Rights Watch (HRW) , in 2010 - the same year that the outfit visited Ireland to attack that country’s ban on abortion. HRW slammed the Irish government in a document provocatively titled “A State of Isolation: Access to Abortion for Women in Ireland,” and demanded that “immediate steps” be taken “toward decriminalizing all abortion for women living in Ireland”. The document even suggested that the authorities do more to shift public opinion towards abortion.

The funding being lavished on abortion campaigners amounts to unwarranted and unwanted interference in Ireland’s affairs in a bid to smash the pro-life ethos that protects both mothers and babies. Two decades of persistent public engagement and education has maintained Ireland’s pro-life majority, and, in that time, abortion campaigners have failed to win the necessary public support to build momentum for abortion legislation. But they are now openly availing of the massive global funding being made available to efforts to overturn Ireland’s pro-life laws. As in many other jurisdictions, since they cannot get the people to agree with abortion, they want to use the courts and the massive wealth and power of a tiny elite minority to foist abortion on the nation.

Contact information for the organizations involved:



Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

New York Times ad calls Catholic Church ‘autocratic, woman-hating, sex-perverting’ Old Boys Club

by Ben Johnson Tue Mar 13 16:31 EST Comments (90)


NEW YORK, NEW YORK, March 13, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Catholics and non-Catholics alike have reacted to a viciously anti-Catholic full-page advertisement in Friday’s New York Times.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s ad, which takes the form of a letter to a “liberal Catholic,”  asks “Cafeteria” Catholics, “Why are you propping up the pillars of a tyrannical and autocratic, woman-hating, sex-perverting, antediluvian Old Boys Club?”

Its authors accuse “the conscienceless Catholic Church” of “launching a vengeful modern-day Inquisition” by opposing the HHS mandate that religious employers provide contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs in their health insurance coverage. “No politician should jeopardize electability for failure to genuflect before the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

They tell those who do not believe in the Magisterium of the Church, “Your continuing Catholic membership, as a ‘liberal,’ casts a veneer of respectability upon an irrational sect determined to blow out the Enlightenment and threaten liberty for women worldwide. You are an enabler. And it’s got to stop.”

“If you’re part of the Catholic Church, you’re part of the problem,” they state.

The authors welcome Catholics to “a more welcoming home…free of incense-fogged ritual, free of what freethinker Bertrand Russell called ‘ideas uttered long ago by ignorant men.’”

The Freedom from Religious Foundation is led by Annie Laurie Gaylor and her husband, Dan Barker. Gaylor is author of the book, Abortion Is a Blessing.

(Click “like” if you want to end abortion! )

“Never has there been a more vicious anti-Catholic advertisement in a prominent American newspaper,” said Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. Donahue said the ad uses the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops’ opposition to the HHS mandate as a “pretext…Its real agenda is to smear Catholicism.”

“Not a single Catholic who reads this ad will be impelled to leave the Church. That is not the issue,” Donahue said. “The issue is the increase in hate speech directed at Catholics.”

“Nothing will stop Catholics from demanding that the Obama administration respect their First Amendment rights…Why the Times allowed this ad is another issue altogether.”

John Leo of the Manhattan Institute agreed the newspaper exercised poor judgment in running the ad. “Why is it OK for the Times to push this stuff? Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. should apologize immediately, or else explain that, out of basic fairness, he is equally willing to run a similar ad savaging Muslims, Jews, or Protestants. The Times may be slipping, but it doesn’t want to morph into a gutter rag, does it?”

“The issue is that the Times has handed [FRFF] a microphone,” wrote an author at The No Left-Turns blog, operated by the Ashbrook Center. “Try to imagine a similar ad aimed at Muslims - or attacking atheists - and imagine the reaction of the New York Times - and the liberal disciples of tolerance who are suspiciously quiet in the wake of this obvious expression of hate and intolerance.” 

In 2009, the New York Times rejected an op-ed piece written by Archbishop Timothy Dolan, saying much of the newspaper’s coverage amounted to “anti-Catholicism.”

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., New York Times chairman and publisher, Tags: annie laurie gaylor, bill donahue, dan barker, freedom from religion foundation, new york times

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

Israeli court recognizes biological motherhood of two lesbians for one child

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Tue Mar 13 14:24 EST Comments (3)

March 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An Israeli court has ruled that two lesbians who created a child through in-vitro fertilization are both biological mothers of the child, according to reports in the Israeli media.

The couple, which is not named, reportedly conceived the child in-vitro with the egg of one partner and the sperm of a male donor in 2006. The embryo was then implanted in the womb of the other lesbian partner. 

When Israel’s Interior Ministry decided that the birth mother was the only mother, and that the other partner would have to adopt to obtain parental rights, the couple sued, claiming sex discrimination on the grounds that a man who contributed his sperm would likely win in a similar paternity suit, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Although the court agreed in this case to grant maternal status to both women, the ruling is not likely to have immediate implications for Israeli society, according to the couple’s attorney, Na’ama Tzoref-Halevy who told the Post that the Health Ministry ceased permitting such surrogacy arrangements between lesbian couples in 2011.

Tzoref-Halevy called the Health Ministry’s policy “discrimination against same-sex partners.”  The Health Ministry has responded that the existing law only allows surrogacy for fertility problems, the Post reports.

Rabbi Yehuda Levin, a pro-life and pro-family activist who sometimes acts as a spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance of America and the Union of Orthodox Rabbis, told LifeSiteNews that the Health Ministry’s decision was likely to be the result of Orthodox Jews who are fighting against sexual immorality and abortion in Israel.

“To use such technology, even if you want to go on the side that facilitates a husband and wife building a family, that certain procedures may be used, even if you take that position, certainly its a corruption of making a family to have this with two same-gender people, so this would be absolutely prohibited religiously, morally, ethically to do this kind of a thing not in the confines of a traditional marriage,” he said, calling it “immoral craziness.”

Levin blamed the previous policy on government officials who “ape everything, every cultural downtrend.”

“We dare not turn a blind eye to that,” he told LifeSiteNews. “Our love of the Holy Land, and respect for Jewish tradition, which was holiness and morality, should not lead us to blindly accept the craziness that goes on there, whether its several tens of thousands of abortions a year, whether it is homosexual parades in various locations, including the holy city of Jerusalem, whether it’s this kind of craziness with lesbians being implanted with in-vitro fertilized eggs,” said Levin.

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

Pennsylvania bishops call for Lenten prayer, fasting to defend religious liberty against Obama admin

by Kathleen Gilbert Tue Mar 13 14:14 EST Comments (30)


PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, March 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The bishops of Pennsylvania have asked the state’s 3 million Catholics to offer their Lenten fasts and prayer for protection against the Obama administration’s attacks on religious liberty by forcing religious employers to pay for abortifacient drugs, sterilizations, and birth control.

In a strongly-worded letter dated March 7, the ten bishops, led by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Philadelphia, also ask for an extra day of fasting on Friday, March 30, in response to the U.S. Health and Human Services mandate as “an unprecedented and gross infringement” against the religious liberty normally enjoyed by religious institutions in America.

“Make no mistake about it – this government mandate is a step which will inevitably lead to other mandates that continue to strike at the heart of our Faith and the constitutional liberties we have been guaranteed,” write the bishops. “The mandate cannot stand – it must not stand!”

Chaput and the other bishops called for members of their flocks to set aside March 30 - the last Lenten Friday before Good Friday - as a day of fasting with the intention “that the Church may be granted the basic right to practice what she preaches, and for our political leaders, that their eyes may be opened to the rights of all Americans, including those of faith.”

The prelates also encourage Catholic to contact their legislators through the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference’s website.

(Click “like” if you want to end abortion! )

“The mandate must be rescinded. Our freedom and liberty must be preserved. And in this effort, we must remain steadfast,” they write.

The clarion call is one of several voiced by Catholic bishops in America once it became clear last month that President Obama wouldn’t back down on the new mandate, which is set for implementation by August 2013. Cardinal George of Chicago warned in a February 26 column that Catholic hospitals would be forced to close under the rule he likened to religious restrictions under the Soviet Union.

In his initial response to the mandate last month, Archbishop Chaput, who has authored a book on the intersection of Catholic faith and American politics, emphasized that the Obama administration knew what it was doing to the Church when it issued the mandate.

“The current administration prides itself on being measured and deliberate. The current HHS mandate needs to be understood as exactly that,” he wrote. “Commentators are using words like ‘gaffe,’ ’ ill conceived,’ and ‘mistake’ to describe the mandate. They’re wrong. It’s impossible to see this regulation as some happenstance policy. It has been too long in the making.”


Tags: charles chaput, hhs, pennsylvania

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

Christians have no right to wear cross at work: UK government

by Hilary White, Rome Correspondent Tue Mar 13 14:14 EST Comments (30)

LONDON, March 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Critics are saying that for the first time, the British government has openly opposed the freedom of Christians to express their beliefs in public. In a case that has gone to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the government, led by the Conservative Party under David Cameron, will argue that Christians have no protected right to wear a cross or crucifix at work because it is not a “necessary” aspect of their religion.

The Sunday Telegraph revealed that ministers of the Foreign Office have issued a response to the case that says employers may fire employees who refuse to remove crosses.

Two British women, Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, have taken a complaint to the ECHR and are fighting to establish the right of Christians to wear the cross at work without threat of disciplinary action. They argue that their rights to religious expression and freedom under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights have been violated. Article 9 says that a person has a right “in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

In its response, the government called the two women’s argument “manifestly ill-founded”.

“The Government submit that… the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not a manifestation of their religion or belief within the meaning of Article 9, and…the restriction on the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not an ‘interference’ with their rights protected by Article 9.”

“In neither case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was a generally recognised form of practising the Christian faith, still less one that is regarded (including by the applicants themselves) as a requirement of the faith.”

Eweida’s case has made headlines in the UK since 2006 when the British Airways employee was told to remove the small cross she wore around her neck. She refused and was placed on unpaid leave. Her complaint of religious discrimination failed at the Court of Appeals, where Justice Stephen Sedley accused Eweida of having a “sectarian agenda”.

The uproar that resulted from the British Airways decision, however, caused the company to back down and change uniform rules to allow the wearing of crosses. Nevertheless, the lower court ruled in 2008 that British Airways had not acted in an unlawfully discriminatory fashion. The ruling also said that the symbols of other religions are unable to be concealed and are therefore acceptable.

Shirley Chaplin was a nurse of 31 years experience who was told by the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust that she must remove the one-inch long crucifix she habitually wore at work. In April 2010, the Employment Tribunal made the same argument as the Foreign Office, telling Chaplain that she had no right to wear the cross to work because it was not a “requirement” of her faith. Mrs. Chaplin said that she was a victim of “politically correct” persecution, and pointed out that Muslims were allowed to wear headscarves without threat of the sack.

The case comes at a time of heightened tensions between Christians and the state, where equality legislation is being increasingly cited in cases against Christians, and highly placed religious leaders, as well as some parliamentarians, are warning of a growing bias against Christianity in public life.

The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord George Carey, has blasted the decision of the government as another example of what he has called Christianity being formally “marginalised”.

Lord Carey said, “The reasoning is based on a wholly inappropriate judgment of matters of theology and worship about which they can claim no expertise.

“The irony is that when governments and courts dictate to Christians that the cross is a matter of insignificance, it becomes an even more important symbol and expression of our faith.”

Even Tory Party luminary and Mayor of London, the outspoken Boris Johnson wrote in the Daily Telegraph this week that the government is backing the wrong side.

“Someone needs to march into their room, grab them by the lapels, and tell them not to be such confounded idiots,” he said.

Johnson said that he met with Eweida and “I can confirm that she is neither a religious nutter nor driven by vindictiveness.”

“She just wants the airline to accept that it was unfair and wrong, and the irony is that she has now been driven to take her case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. And the further irony is that the British Government — a British Government whose individual members, if asked, would almost certainly agree that BA was loony in its decision — is now apparently backing that decision and opposing Mrs. Eweida.”

Referring to the Appeals Court ruling on Eweida’s complaint, Johnson called Sedley, “the most Left-wing judge of the past 50 years.”

“You should read his judgment, as a perfect example of how a brilliant mind, in the grip of strong ideological prejudice, can depart completely from common sense.”

A parliamentary group released a report last month that said there is a grave lack of “religious literacy” among Britain’s judges, politicians and officials. After a study of 33 cases in which Christians have come into conflict with the law or with employers, the report stated that Equality legislation, passed under the Labour government, had set the rights of different groups, notably Christians and homosexuals, in competition. In every case, the rights of homosexuals have taken precedence over those of Christians.

The report, titled Clearing the Ground, said that there is an “urgent” need for legislators and public officials to acquaint themselves with the realities of genuine Christian belief.

“Critically, early indications from court judgments are that sexual orientation takes precedence and religious belief is required to adapt in the light of this. We see this as an unacceptable and unsustainable situation…

“We have found that many of the issues raised in the inquiry stem from a deep-seated and widespread lack of understanding about the nature and outworking of religious belief.

“This ignorance works itself out in the way that laws are drafted, the judgments courts issue and the policies adopted by government departments and local authorities.”

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

Polish mom saves two of three triplets after 75 days spent in labor…nearly upside-down

by Thaddeus Baklinski Tue Mar 13 14:00 EST Comments (28)

Joanna Krrzsztonek with her two surviving triplets.

WROCLAW, Poland, March 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Polish woman endured 75 days of labor lying in a nearly upside down position to save the lives of her two premature babies after the first of three triplets was born prematurely and died.

Joanna Krzysztonek was pregnant with triplets when she went into labour at 21 weeks. Her first baby was born prematurely and did not survive.

Dr. Mariusz Zimmer, head of the Wroclaw obstetrics and neo-natal clinic where Krzysztonek gave birth, intervened with medication to stop contractions and told the expectant mother that the babies might be saved if she stayed in bed with her legs tilted up at 30 degrees to give the two remaining children a chance to grow.

Krzysztonek said she was happy to follow the doctors’ instructions, and the idea of lying in the awkward position for so long didn’t trouble her.

“I sighed with relief that there was a chance to keep the pregnancy and to give the babies a chance to be born successfully,” Joanna said according to Reuters.

Joanna gave birth to a girl, Iga, and a boy, Ignacy, 2-1/2 months later on February 15. Each weighed just under 4 lb after 32 weeks gestation.

Dr. Zimmer said that he considered the labor to have begun from the birth of the first child, so Joanna’s labor lasted for 75 days - possibly the longest labor on record.

“This procedure - I mean giving birth - has a beginning and an ending. If the first baby was born that means the birth had started,” Zimmer said.

Joanna reported she had some problems maintaining her balance when walking after so much time in bed. “But my children are healthy - I am strong and so are they, and they are so beautiful,” she said.

“We are pleased with this success,” said Dr. Zimmer in a Super Express Daily report. “Joanna took a risk, and following great dedication gave birth to two wonderful children.”

“It was only three months,” the happy mother quipped.

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

Obama health care rule final: $1 abortion surcharge from premium payers

by Kathleen Gilbert Tue Mar 13 13:52 EST Comments (51)

President Obama signs the the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

WASHINGTON, March 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The final rule for the health care exchanges set for implementation under the federal health care law has maintained an original accounting arrangement allowing taxpayer funding of abortion, despite the Hyde amendment.

The Department of Health and Human Services this month issued a final rule regarding the exchanges required under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The rule provides for taxpayer funding of insurance coverage that includes elective abortion through a direct abortion subsidy. 

To comply with the accounting requirement, plans will collect a separate $1 abortion surcharge from each premium payer. As described in the rule, the surcharge can only be disclosed to the enrollee at the time of enrollment, and insurance plans may only advertise the total cost of the premiums without disclosing the abortion surcharge.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

PPACA allows for one insurance plan in each exchange to refuse to cover abortion, while the rest are permitted to cover the procedure.

The final rule also mentions that several commenters had expressed concerns about further abortion coverage in federally-administered “multi-state” plans, but says only that the standards for those plans will be described later. No part of PPACA prevents such plans from covering abortions.

The law mandates that the new exchanges be operational by January 1, 2014. The final rule notes that the federal government will force implementation of an exchange in any state that refuses to create one.

The abortion surcharge was one of several points of contention named by pro-life advocates when battling the health care law before its passage two years ago, in March 2010. Pro-life leaders argued that the abortion surcharge amounted to a meaningless accounting gimmick designed to skirt accusations that federal premium subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure in abortion-covering plans.

Susan Muskett, senior legislative counsel at National Right to Life, told LifeSiteNews.com that the final rule “reinforces the serious pro-abortion effects that Obamacare will have on America.” She said the abortion subsidy setup flouted the intention of the Hyde amendment, which specifically bars federal dollars from funding health insurance plans that cover abortion, except for in cases of rape or incest.

“Under Obamacare, there’s going to be hundreds of billions of dollars that’s going to be paying for federal premium subsidies,” said Muskett. For many in America, she said, being forced to pay for abortion-subsidizing plans is “just as bad” as directly paying for the abortions themselves.

The accounting trick is not unlike the “accommodation” President Obama announced last month regarding the HHS mandate forcing religious employers to cover abortifacient drugs and sterilizations, also authorized under PPACA. Obama attempted to sidestep the controversy by claiming that insurance companies would simply offer free birth control to women covered by their religious employers - a fix that left the original mandate unchanged.

In terms of how to respond to the final rule, Muskett said that “we don’t even have all the pieces of the puzzle yet,” such as the details on abortion in multi-state plans, but that NRLC will continue to support efforts to repeal the health care law.

Tags: abortion, health care, obama, obamacare

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

Russian Orthodox Church calls for nationwide ban on homosexualist propaganda aimed at minors

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Tue Mar 13 13:18 EST Comments (10)

March 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Officials of the Russian Orthodox Church are hailing a new law signed recently by St. Petersburg governor Georgy Poltavchenko, which prohibits homosexualist propaganda targeting minors, and asking that it be extended to the whole country.

“The law passed in St. Petersburg will help protect children from information manipulations by minorities promoting sodomy,” said Dimitri Pershin, a Russian Orthodox priest and expert with the State Duma Committee on Family, Women, and Children, in an interview with the Russian news agency Interfax.

“The persistence of sexual minorities and their intention to rally near children’s establishments indicate that this regional law is highly needed and should be urgently given federal status,” Pershin said, referring to homosexualist activist Nikolay Alexeyev’s stated intention to organize rallies near children’s establishments to protest the new law.

Vsevolod Chaplin, a spokesman for Moscow’s Orthodox leadership, said that while the Orthodox Church hadn’t initiated the legislation, “many believers” were eager to see its passage.

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

Homosexual propaganda, “should not take place where minors can feel its influence; the same is true about heterosexual lechery…. Public manifestations of this way of life are unacceptable for the majority of society. It is our duty to secure our children against it. They have no right to promote their way of life,” he said, as reported by the Christian Science Monitor.

St. Petersburg, Russia’s second largest city, now fines individuals up to $170 and companies up to $17,000 for “public actions aimed at promoting sodomy, lesbianism, bisexuality and transgenderism among minors.” The measure is similar to others that have been passed in the Astrakhan, Ryazan, and Kostroma regions, according to RIA Novosti. The same agency reports that an overwhelming majority of Russians, 74 percent, regard homosexuals as “amoral” and “mentally defective,” according to a 2010 poll by an independent agency

The success of the legislation reflects a growing desire in Russia and other Slavic countries to buck the international political and cultural establishment and resist the homosexual political agenda.

The government of Moscow is continuing to prohibit “gay pride” parades after years of pressure, despite a ruling against the city by the European Court of Human Rights.

Tags: homosexuality, russia

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

Is fertility the next Down syndrome?

by Denise J. Hunnell, MD Tue Mar 13 12:07 EST Comments (36)


March 13, 2012 (HLIAmerica.org) - There is little doubt the HHS mandate that requires all insurance polices to provide hormonal contraception, sterilization and abortion-causing drugs with no co-pay is an assault on religious liberty. Along with a diverse array of Catholic leaders and writers, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is more united in forcefully addressing this unjust regulation than they have been on any other issue in recent memory. Cardinal Dolan, president of the USCCB, has declared that the Catholic Church will not back down in the fight for religious liberty.

Yet lost in this critical fight to safeguard our freedom of religion is the assault on womanhood that is intrinsic to this mandate. By accepting the seriously flawed recommendation of the Institute of Medicine that contraception, sterilization and abortion-causing drugs are preventive care, our federal government has essentially declared that a woman’s fertility is an unnatural condition, and a disease to be eradicated

Where will such thinking lead? Perhaps it is instructive to look at another modern case in which the modern medical community, rather than addressing the root problem, has sadly come to accept an assault on life – the abortion of children with Down syndrome.

With the discovery that this genetic condition is caused by an additional 21st chromosome, it became possible to screen prenatally for Down syndrome. The availability of such testing has led to a situation in which at least 90% of children with Down syndrome are aborted today. The option to abort has become an expectation to abort. In a March 2005 study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, mothers reported that upon receiving the diagnosis of Down syndrome in their unborn child, they were put under extreme pressure by their medical providers to terminate their pregnancy. They received little positive information about Down syndrome and were offered little support.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

Those who choose to continue their pregnancies face overt disapproval from our culture, and are sometimes labeled as selfish and irresponsible for bringing the burden of a child with Down syndrome into society. Elizabeth Schiltz, a law professor at The University of St. Thomas and a mother of a child with Down syndrome wrote:

From time to time, we are all confronted with the disconnect between how we see ourselves and how others see us. I’ve always seen myself as a responsible, law-abiding citizen. I recycle, I vote, I don’t drive a Hummer. But I’ve come to realize that many in the scientific and medical community view me as grossly irresponsible. Indeed, in the words of Bob Edwards, the scientist who facilitated the birth of England’s first test-tube baby, I am a “sinner.” A recent book even branded me a “genetic outlaw.” My transgression? I am one of the dwindling number of women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome and choose not to terminate our pregnancies.

This ideology has expanded from individuals and professional societies to governments. The Danish government vowed to eliminate Down syndrome in Denmark by 2030. This goal is not based on medicine or science; rather it is based on a more rigorous prenatal screening program that will abort all infants diagnosed with the condition. Medical ethicists Giubilini and Minerva recently argued that those infants with Down syndrome who were not diagnosed until after birth could be ethically killed at that time.

It is completely reasonable to expect that once fertility is enshrined in law as an abnormality to be corrected, a similar disdain for women who choose to bear children will become mainstream. Indeed, such thinking has already been accepted in the political arena. In the Washington Post’s “On Faith” section, senior Newsweek editor Lisa Miller criticized the Republican presidential candidates for showing off their families with “smug fecundity”:

Especially worrisome is the inevitable corollary to that belief: Women should put their natural fertility first — before their brains, before their ability to earn a living, before their independence — because that’s what God wants.

So much for respecting others’ reproductive choices. Just as women who bear a child with Down syndrome are now often asked, “Didn’t you get tested?” pregnant women in a post-HHS-mandate world will soon be asked, ”Why didn’t you make use of your insurance?” The standard for women who want to enter the professional world will be for them to be childless. After all, if they were serious about their careers they would correct their “disability” of fertility. Just as Elizabeth Schiltz found herself branded a “genetic outlaw” for bearing a child with Down syndrome, women who embrace their total femininity will be scorned as “fertility outlaws”.

As Gloria Purvis so eloquently argues, contraception, sterilization and abortifacients are not necessary for the health and success of women. To suggest otherwise is demeaning to women. True femininity welcomes all the gifts of womanhood, including the ability to bear children. In fact, scientific prowess, business acumen, creativity and all other talents are enhanced by the maternal nature of women. As Pope John Paul II said in Mulieris Dignitatem:

A woman is strong because of her awareness of this entrusting, strong because of the fact that God “entrusts the human being to her”, always and in every way, even in the situations of social discrimination in which she may find herself. This awareness and this fundamental vocation speak to women of the dignity which they receive from God himself, and this makes them “strong” and strengthens their vocation. (emphasis in original)

Catholic women must courageously – and without apology – defend both religious freedom and the dignity of authentic womanhood.  Fertility is not a disorder to be conquered, but rather a gift to be cherished.

Denise Hunnell, MD, is a Fellow of HLI America, an educational initiative of Human Life International. She writes for HLI America’s Truth and Charity Forum, where this article first appeared.

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

Pro-life conference teaches Kenyan students to combat anti-life agenda

by Fr. Raphael Wanjohi Tue Mar 13 11:32 EST Comments (2)


March 13, 2012 (HLIWorldWatch.org) - It was only 19 months ago that Kenya was changed forever by a new constitution allowing for the destruction of unborn life. Many Kenyans, and many Americans, still do not understand what has happened to our country. But pro-life organizations, including Human Life International (HLI) Kenya, are doing our best to educate and empower people to make a difference in the fight for life.

The twelfth annual Universities and Colleges Pro-Life Conference took place at St. Mary’s Pastoral Centre in Nakuru, Kenya February 24-26, 2012. Attracting 44 young pro-lifers from colleges and universities across Kenya, the conference focused on strengthening moral values and fortifying the pro-life movement in our country.

The students who attended the conference work to promote life on their campuses. Each group represented was granted an opportunity to present a report to the rest of the attendees. The reports highlighted the major activities conducted during the year, challenges faced and mitigation strategies employed. Many shared that pro-life clubs continue to attract more students. But it was also observed that much still has to be done in our universities and colleges as pro-abortion groups are now taking advantage of the laws that fail to protect the unborn to advance their anti-life agenda.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

A number of inspirational and informational presentations were given by several of Kenya’s pro-life leaders.

One presenter spoke about Faithful House, a family life educational program in the Catholic Archdiocese of Nairobi. Today, many families in Kenya are facing a myriad of social and economic challenges which continue to weaken the family as an institution. Media reports tell a story of deplorable conditions and insurmountable odds for Kenyan families. Family break-ups are rampant – fueled by moral decadence, continued attacks on the family institution and the abandonment of African moral values.

Faithful House teaches that marriage must be built on a foundation rooted in our Christian faith, and founded on God. Families must share in true sacrificial love, be faithful and open to life, learn to respect and treat each other with dignity and establish effective communication. This presentation also highlighted the impact of HIV/AIDS in the society and how it affects marriages.

The Faithful House presentation was complemented by a session on Natural Family Planning (NFP). The Kenyan government, through the Ministry of Planning and Development, has embarked on an elaborate and comprehensive plan of promoting artificial and modern means of family planning, including widespread contraceptive use, to slow population growth in the country. A 2009 National Housing & Population Census report from the Kenyan government claims that current population growth rates are unhealthy, especially in supporting the realization of the Vision 2030, a government program designed to produce what it calls “a globally competitive and prosperous Kenya.”

“Currently, Kenya is adding one million people yearly to its already high population,” the census report stated. “This high rate of population growth has adverse effects on spending in infrastructure, health, education, environment, water and other social and economic sectors.”

More and more women in marriages and young ladies of reproductive age continue to report cases of medical complications as a result of using contraceptives and other artificial means of family planning. Through God’s grace, HLI Kenya was recently able to open an NFP clinic in Nyeri to help these women.

Despite efforts by various pro-life and religious groups to keep abortion out of Kenya, infiltration of the anti-life culture eventually did succeed in legally permitting the practice. And yet just last week, Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga told the people, “[A]bortion was not permitted under the new Constitution.” We know that his claim is false, however, since activists are already exploiting the new constitution to expand legal access to abortion.

The debate around this topic is still very emotionally charged in the country, thus, it is paramount to continue creating awareness among the members of the community on new developments on issues around the abortion debate. The ambiguity with which the constitution was drafted and passed continues to create more loopholes and complicates the situation, which will further liberalize the practice of abortion.

U.S. Representative Chris Smith explained the situation this way during a presentation in Washington, D.C. in January:

The Kenyan constitution was rewritten, and sadly and regrettably because of the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton they now have abortion for ‘health’ written right into their constitution. How did that happen? Eighty-three nongovernmental organizations getting $61.5 million totally non-transparently [from the United States]. … We now know that the NGOs were the ones who suggested to the makers of the constitution, a non-legislative special committee that was formed, that they should not allow the unborn child to enjoy personhood. … We lost Kenya here in Washington.

I agree with Rep. Smith, and have expressed in the past that the Obama administration greatly influenced passage of the constitution.

Our conference presentation on the new constitution highlighted important clauses that affect the right to life for the students in attendance. We also discussed how the anti-life groups have succeeded in conquering the legal arm in the country, and may now have their agenda passed with ease. Questions on moral ground have arisen over some of the new members of the Kenya Judicial Service Commission, and evidence indicates leniency towards the pro-abortion position, and association of some members with anti-life groups, including support for gay and lesbian rights.

In addition, legal regulations of the medical profession also provide freedom to the practitioners to pass judgment on the state of health of the mother and prescribe abortion.

Now that we are aware that abortion is legal in Kenya, we must continue advocating for practices and courses which will facilitate a reversal of the attack on life, and influence champions behind implementing this process. It is especially important that we continue to educate and train young people about the anti-life agenda, and to embrace the moral teachings of God. We must dedicate ourselves to living out and spreading the Gospel of Life in order to overcome the destructive laws and culture threatening our future.

Father Raphael Wanjohi is the country director in Kenya for Human Life International. This article first appeared at HLIWorldWatch.org and is reprinted with permission.

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

Two Planned Parenthood clinics close after 40 Days for Life campaigns

by Shawn Carney, 40 Days for Life Campaign Director Tue Mar 13 09:52 EST Comments (7)



We start the second half of this 40 Days for Life campaign with huge news — and amazing proof that God is at work through your efforts!

This short video documents the historic closure of a Planned Parenthood center on the very day it went out of business following the first — and ONLY — local 40 Days for Life campaign held outside its doors.

It gets better — this local 40 Days for Life campaign was led by the woman who managed that Planned Parenthood center for more than 17 years!

You will hear from her in this short video. You’ll also learn about ANOTHER Planned Parenthood facility that closed the same day — following a local 40 Days for Life campaign in the public right-of-way outside.


Marie in Stafford says the 40 Days for Life vigil there takes place outside a small Planned Parenthood office.

“We have no opportunity to interact with clients unless they come up to us, which never happens,” she said. “I’m sure some of our volunteers wonder if we are making a difference.”

But Marie knows that isn’t the case at all. A woman — she thinks it was the center’s director — came out at the end of the day. As she drove past the volunteers who were praying, she rolled down her car window and called out, “GO HOME!”

“Thank you, Lord, for the evidence that we are making an impact,” Marie said. “They do feel our presence inside that clinic!”


As Beth and James were ending their prayer time at the 40 Days for Life vigil in Tempe, a young woman drove up and spoke with them.

“Thank you for what you are doing,” she said. “The mother of my baby was a victim of incest.”

There were tears in her eyes, and her voice was shaking. “If she had listened to people,” she said, “I would not have my beautiful son. To think that his life and the lives of other babies are not of value — that’s just wrong.”

“She thanked us again,” Beth said, and they prayed for God’s blessings for the woman and her son.

Here’s the link to today’s devotional.

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

Five more Texas abortionists scheduled for hearings on abortion abuses

by John Jalsevac Tue Mar 13 09:40 EST Comments (2)

Abortionists Kini and Randall are among the Texas Ten.

Austin, TX, March 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Texas Medical Board (TMB) has scheduled five more abortionists to appear at Informal Show Compliance and Settlement Conferences, based on complaints of abortion abuses made by the pro-life organization Operation Rescue. The complaints were the result of a three-month undercover investigation conducted by Operation Rescue with the assistance of The Survivors.

Robert L. Prince, Margaret Kouril Kini, Pedro J. Kowalyszyn, H. Brook Randal, and Sherwood C. Lynn are scheduled to appear before the TMB on July 25, 2012, beginning at 11:00 AM. Operation Rescue’s complaints included evidence of numerous violations, including the illegal dumping of private patient medical records, violations of the informed consent laws, and failure to report suspected child sex abuse.

In all ten abortionists, known as the “Texas Ten”, have been summoned for hearings by the TMB.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

Last month, the TMB disciplined two abortionists from the troubled Whole Women’s Heath abortion chain, Alan H. Molson and Robert E. Hanson. Molson, 60, and Hanson, 72, both admitted before the Board to conduct that constituted violations of the standards of patient care. Each were fined $3,000 and ordered to take continuing medical education classes in risk management.

Also as a result of Operation Rescue complaints, Whole Women’s Health in Austin and McAllen, along with the waste disposal company Stericycle, were fined $83,000 for the illegal dumping of identifiable remains of aborted babies.

“During our undercover investigation of abortion clinics in Texas, we did not find a single abortion clinic that complied with the law,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation. “There is now an official record that Whole Women’s Health and other abortion businesses in Texas have broken the law. But our investigation revealed just the tip of the iceberg. This problem of abortion clinics violating health codes, standards of patient care, and even criminal statutes is prevalent at abortion clinics in every state.”

Abortionists Franz Theard and Douglas A. Karpen are also facing Board discipline. Their hearings have been set for May 16, 2012.

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com