Thursday, March 29, 2012

Print All Articles

EU illegally gave abortion providers $30 million, report says

by Ben Johnson Thu Mar 29 17:46 EST Comments (0)

European Dignity Watch logo
EDW uncovered shady financial practices at the EU.

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM, March 29, 2012, ( – The European Union is funding the world’s largest abortion providers and underwriting abortion in the Third World in an apparent violation of the law, according to a new report by a European pro-life organization.

An analysis released by European Dignity Watch found the EU subsidizes the world’s largest abortion providers under the guise of “sexual and reproductive health” (SRH).

“Two of the major beneficiaries [of] EU funds allocated to SRH [sexual and reproductive health] have been and continue to be International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and Marie Stopes International (MSI),” according to EDW, which took more than a year to produce the 40-page document.

Marie Stopes, which performs more abortions worldwide than IPPF, received a minimum of nine million euros ($12 million U.S.) in 2005 and 2009 alone, EDW discovered. This does not include funds the European Commission appropriated for MSI and “refused to disclose,” citing “commercial interests.” MSI declares it has received more than $30 million in all.

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

The EU did not disclose how much money it gave to the international arm of Planned Parenthood.

Sophia Kuby, executive director of European Dignity Watch, told via e-mail that since EU member nations disagree on abortion policy, the union is barred from using common funds for the practice. “This is clearly laid down in European law,” Kuby said.

“The EU definition of SRH explicitly excludes abortion and, moreover, prohibits not only the funding, but the promotion of incentives of abortion, sterilization, and improper testing of contraception methods in developing countries,” Kuby said. “There is a blatant conflict between the definition of the EU of SHR and the core strategies of IPPF and MSI that is to increase abortion worldwide.”

“The funding of Marie Stopes International and the International Planned Parenthood Foundation would appear to be in violation of prohibitions against funding the performance of abortion abroad,” Stephan Phelan, communications director at Human Life International, told

The grant recipients do not explicitly state they provide abortions with the funds, but IPPF admits to providing “emergency contraception” in Bolivia, Peru, and Guatemala. The catchall term often refers to abortion-inducing drugs.

MSI also hides behind the term “menstrual regulations,” which it performs in Bangladesh, a nation where abortion is illegal except to save the mother’s life. “This is the same process that is termed a ‘surgical abortion’ by the medical field” – including the Alan Guttmachiner Institutes – “except that a ‘menstrual regulation’ is performed on a woman who suspects rather than knows she is pregnant,” Kuby told LifeSiteNews. MSI personnel use a manual vacuum aspirator to empty the uterus without taking a pregnancy test; the evidence is then disposed of.

“This devastating EDW report appears to confirm something that HLI’s missionaries have long seen first hand: many proponents of abortion have absolutely no respect for law, just like they have no respect for the authentic well-being of women in the developing world,” Phelan told “Their drive to spread the practice of ‘menstrual regulation’ in countries that suffer from severe poverty risks creating scores of dangerous back alley abortionists, under the pretense of improving maternal health.”

“Are the EU’s budgets for Development Aid and Public Health used to finance abortions in developing countries?” asked Kuby. “Is this legal?”

EDW is asking the EU to investigate its funding, demanding Members of European Parliament (MEPs) press for full disclosure of this money.

European should contact “elected Member of European Parliament and ask them about this issue and what they intend to do to stop this misuse of EU funding,” said Kuby.

“For all non-Europeans,” Kuby continued, “spread the word, publish this information if you can and get involved with good organizations who are committed to the cause of life. ”


Tags: european dignity watch, marie stopes, planned parenthood

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

Confronting population control in ‘the Kingdom in the Sky’

by Brian Clowes Thu Mar 29 17:30 EST Comments (0)

Trust Condom ad sponsored by UNFPA and PSI.
A local newspaper ad for "safe abortion."
Free condom dispenser in public restroom.
Archbishop Lerotholi, Hon. Mpeo Mohase-Moiloa, and Emil Hagamu.

March 29, 2012 ( - Lesotho, a small African nation about the size of Maryland and completely surrounded by the country of South Africa, is known as “The Kingdom in the Sky” for its high elevation and mountainous terrain. Like its beautiful landscape, the population was at one time sky-high with Basotho (the plural name of Lesotho citizens) women having an average of 5.8 children in 1975. That birthrate has now dropped to 2.8, and is projected to drop below the replacement level of 2.1 within the next ten years thanks in large part to the efforts of international population control organizations doing their best to destroy traditional family values in Lesotho.

When I visited Lesotho in February, it was hard not to notice the ceaseless work of the huge “family planning” and population control groups operating there. At the main traffic circle at the center of the city of Maseru, right across from Our Lady of Victory Cathedral, is a pedestrian bridge sporting giant “Trust Condom” billboards on both sides. The billboards (and the condoms) are sponsored by Population Services International (PSI) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). In many of the restrooms around the city (and in the airport), there are machines that dispense free condoms.

Other population control groups operating in Lesotho include Family Health International (FHI), the Population Council, and, of course, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). These and other groups have spent a whopping $115 million on population control in Lesotho since 1990. To make matters worse, enforcement of Lesotho’s pro-life laws is almost nonexistent. In fact, the abortionists freely advertise in the newspapers, and “herbal doctors” can “help” a pregnant woman if she doesn’t want to go the surgical route.

Life expectancy in Lesotho is a dismal forty years, largely due to the high adult HIV infection rate of 24 percent, the third highest in the world, and the world’s fourth highest tuberculosis infection rate. Only about six percent of Basotho are above the age of 60, and there are 170,000 AIDS orphans. Virtually every family has been heavily impacted.

Bishop Augustinius Tumaole Bane, ordinary of the Leribe Diocese, whose brother and brother’s spouse both died of HIV leaving four orphans, says the huge rate of HIV infection is due to a drastic decline in morality, which is a direct result of the baleful influence of the West. He also says that, “Catholicism has always played a big role in the lives of the people, but most of the people are Catholics only on Sundays. During the week they are inclined to their own traditional way of living. So there is a separation between the faith and the day to day.”

The current monarch, King Letsie III, plays a unifying role amidst all the diverse political parties and religions. He is Catholic, and he recently declared that he would no longer continue the royal tradition of polygamy. Because of his example of monogamy (and perhaps also because a wife costs 25 head of cattle), polygamy is declining in Lesotho.

On the Ground

When I arrived in Lesotho, Father Lawrence Tanki Motsi, O.M.I., and Sister Sophia Mabote met me at Lesotho’s Moshoeshoe International Airport after the 16-hour flight from New York, and we drove the short distance to the Mazenod Retreat Center, our home base for the week. Here, every day began with 6:45a.m. Holy Mass prayed in the Basotho language. In my travels around the world, I am always struck by how, even if you can’t understand a word that is being said, you always know exactly what is going on during the Mass.

Over a week’s time, myself and Emil Hagamu, Human Life International’s (HLI) regional coordinator for English-speaking Africa, talked to nearly a thousand priests, religious sisters, Catholic high school principals, doctors and nurses. In these talks, I discussed the population control agenda, the threat of homosexuality, abortion myths and the ineffectiveness of condoms at halting HIV/AIDS (sadly, very relevant to the situation in Lesotho). Some of the people (especially the medical professionals) were obviously already conditioned to accept abortion because of the influence of the population controllers. But when Emil showed the pro-life movie “The Hard Truth,” which presents in graphic detail the truth about abortion, the horror on their faces was plainly evident, although some were so hard-hearted it did not seem to affect them.

Ignoring the Will of the People ― As Usual

The population controllers and pro-abortionists are endlessly deceptive and tricky. Instead of trying to pass a conventional abortion legalization bill, which would immediately attract the attention of parliamentarians and the people, they buried their language deep in the new Penal Code. Few of the lawmakers actually read this voluminous document, preferring to trust the experts, attorneys and consultants to do the job right. This, of course, is exactly what the pro-abortionists want.

Section 45 (1) of the Penal Code begins promisingly enough: “A person who does any act bringing about premature termination of pregnancy in a female person with the intention of procuring miscarriage, commits the offence of abortion.”

So far, so good, right?

But then, Section 45 (2) provides a long laundry list of exceptions, including for the life and health of the mother, fetal birth defects (eugenics), rape and incest.

Of course, the “mother’s health” exception is defined by the World Health Organization as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” So, while the population controllers claim that the Penal Code places strict limits on abortion, the reality is that it legalizes abortion for any reason whatsoever ― in other words, abortion-on-demand.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

Interestingly, the Lesotho National Federation of Organizations of the Disabled came out strongly against Section 45. One young blind man asked the very logical question, “If you could abort me for being blind before I was born, what is the difference between that and killing me now? It is all just discrimination based on handicap.”

Meeting with the Minister

Originally, Emil and I were slated to meet with the King and the Prime Minister of Lesotho, but, as it turned out, God directed us to a far more suitable person.

The Honorable Mpeo Mohase-Moiloa carries the intimidating title of “Minister of Justice, Human Rights and the Correctional Services and of Law and Constitutional Affairs.” She described herself as an ardent “gender feminist,” and supports the pernicious United Nations Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, or CEDAW. The CEDAW committee has, among other actions, ordered various nations to legalize abortion and prostitution, and has also said that the celebration of Mother’s Day demeans women.

As Archbishop Lerotholi presided, Emil and I spoke with the Minister and asked her some rather pointed questions. During the hour-long meeting, Emil made a point of outlining the future of Lesotho should abortion be legalized. It is essentially a “lethal injection” to the soul of any nation. After the meeting, the Archbishop told us that Emil’s words had “touched her heart,” and that he had never seen the minister so quiet or thoughtful. Additionally, she agreed to crack down on the illegal abortionists who freely advertise in the newspapers.

Will the Penal Code pass “as-is?” We simply do not know at this time, but the signs are encouraging.

“My Culture, My Religion and My Sincerely Held Beliefs”

It is really a little depressing to learn that even a tiny and remote country like Lesotho cannot be left in peace by the voracious anti-life mentality. But I always remember that the victory will be ours in the end, even if Our Lord does not return soon. And when this victory is achieved, much of the credit will be due to the good priests who have resolutely “held the line” for many years.

One evening at the Mazenod Retreat Center, Emil and I were sitting at the dinner table with some of the Oblate priests, and one of them declared that population control, homosexuality and abortion violate, “My culture, my religion and my sincerely held beliefs.” If the population controllers get their way in Lesotho, none of these will survive. Pro-lifers must continue to help Lesotho and the rest of Africa rid itself of the Western scourge of population control to protect not only the culture, but the very lives of the African people.

A version of this article appeared in the March 29, 2012 issue of The Wanderer. Dr. Brian Clowes if the director of education and research for Human Life International (HLI).

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

Obama endorses Planned Parenthood: ‘you’ll never stop fighting for choice and neither will I’

by Kathleen Gilbert Thu Mar 29 17:13 EST Comments (71)


WASHINGTON, March 29, 2012 ( - In an unusually candid video addressed to Planned Parenthood, President Obama assured the billion-dollar abortion organization of his continued support and touted his record blocking efforts to defund the group by pro-life “professional politicians.”

“For you and for most Americans, protecting women’s health is a mission that stands above politics,” said the president in a video posted to Youtube by the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. “Yet in the past year you’ve had politicians who want to deny millions of women the care they rely on, and inject themselves into decisions that are best made between a woman and her doctor.”

The affirmation comes amidst an onslaught of bad publicity for the abortion giant in recent months: The group is now under federal investigation after reports alleged that it has engaged in systematic Medicaid fraud, abused other federal funds, and routinely evaded state abortion laws.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

Planned Parenthood’s defensive posture became even clearer last December when prominent breast cancer charity Susan G. Komen for the Cure cut funding to the group because of the investigation, as well as the fact that Planned Parenthood clinics do not provide direct breast cancer services such as mammograms. After Planned Parenthood and its allies excoriated Komen for the decision, the charity was forced to apologize, but left it unclear whether the grants would resume.

Obama extolled Planned Parenthood’s “fight” for women in the video, suggesting that the group helped women receive “mammograms,” alongside praise for its efforts providing affordable contraception.

“So when some professional politicians casually say that they’ll ‘get rid of Planned Parenthood,’ don’t forget what they’re really talking about: eliminating the funding for preventive care that millions of women rely on and leaving them to fend for themselves,” said Obama.

Kristan Hawkins, head of Students for Life of America, called it “outrageous” that Obama would repeat the claim that Planned Parenthood performs mammograms, after extensive coverage pointing out that the abortion organization does not provide the service.

“Somehow the White House has missed the memo that PLANNED PARENTHOOD DOESN’T PROVIDE MAMMOGRAMS. How could they have missed that?” wrote Hawkins.

“And why is Planned Parenthood posting videos that say as much, when they have already been caught in the lie?”

The president also referred to last year’s budget negotiation stalemate, in which Obama and House GOP leader John Boehner came to personal loggerheads over the bill’s provision defunding Planned Parenthood - the final issue Obama cited in his refusal to sign the bill hours before government shutdown.

When “Republicans in Congress threatened to shut down the government” over the measure, “I had a simple answer: no,” Obama said in the video.

The president concluded: “I know that Planned Parenthood will continue providing care no matter what. I know you’ll never stop fighting to protect the health care and the choices that America’s women deserve.

“And as long as I have the privilege of being your president, neither will I.”

Tags: abortion, obama, planned parenthood

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

House committee approves bill strengthening parental involvement in minor abortions

by Christine Dhanagom Thu Mar 29 16:15 EST Comments (5)

House Judiciary Chair Lamar Smith

WASHINGTON, DC, March 29, 2012 ( – In an attempt to close a loophole in state laws requiring parental notification or consent for minor abortions, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill earlier this week which would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines in order to circumvent parental involvement laws in the minor’s home state.

The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act would also require that parents be notified any time an abortion is performed on an out-of-state minor, regardless of the parental notification laws in the minor’s home state. Additionally, it guarantees a parent’s right to civil action against violators of the law, unless the pregnancy is the result of an incestuous act on the part of the parent.

Pro-abortion critics have dubbed it the “Arrest Grandma” act, since not even the minor’s family members would be exempt.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

In comments to LifeSiteNews, Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director of the National Right to Life Committee contended that a law conferring parental rights on grandparents “would be extraordinary.”

“Who favors a law that says their mother-in-law can authorize surgical procedures on their minor children without their knowledge or consent?” he asked.

Johnson added that the notification requirement would be dispensed with if the girl claims to be a victim of parental abuse. The abortion doctor, however, would be required to notify authorities of the situation. “If it’s a bona fide case of abuse, obviously the last thing you want to do is just give her the abortion and send her back to the abusive situation,” he said.

According to House Judiciary Chair Lamar Smith, the law is designed to protect teens in abusive situations.  Smith noted in his opening comments for the hearing that under the status quo, it was possible for “complete strangers” to assist minors in evading parental involvement laws.

“Teenage pregnancies often occur as a result of predatory practices of men who are usually much older than their minor victim. This results in the transportation of victims across state lines by an individual who has a great incentive to avoid criminal liability for this conduct,” he said. “Parental involvement laws ensure that parents have the opportunity to protect their daughters from those who would victimize them further.”

Smith added that parents who were unaware that their daughter had obtained an abortion would be unable to ensure that she had access to appropriate post-abortive care.

“The medical, emotional and psychological consequences of an abortion are dramatic and lasting,” he said.

The legislation has been approved by the House several times in the past but has never made it through the Senate.  According to Johnson, the battle in the Senate remains “up hill” this time around.

He noted, however, that the effort to get members of Congress “on the record” about the issue was worthwhile. “We are very serious about seeing it enacted into law eventually,” he said.


Tags: abortion

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

‘Licensing the government to pimp’: ex-prostitutes condemn Ontario’s brothel ruling

by Peter Baklinski Thu Mar 29 15:27 EST Comments (7)

Tania Fiolleau

ONTARIO, March 29, 2012 ( – A number of former prostitutes have vehemently denounced a decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal that determined that provisions in the law that had prohibited brothels are “unconstitutional.”

“In my opinion, this just gives the government a license to be a pimp, because now they can charge taxes to these women,” said Tania Fiolleau, a former prostitute and overseer of brothels who once employed hundreds of women.

Fiolleau told Brian Lilly on SunNews that if the ruling is not overturned it will only encourage more women to become unwittingly enslaved to prostitution simply because brothels are now legal.

Fiolleau argued that all the ruling really accomplishes is to give pimps a new title with a new kind of license.

“What it does is now it says ‘You know what? You’re not a pimp anymore, you are now a valid entrepreneur and we’re going to change your title from being a pimp to an entrepreneur/bodyguard/driver.’”

Ex-prostitutes from Montreal agreed with Fiolleau and slammed the argument that legalized brothels would help prostitutes protect themselves from exploitation and abuse when selling sex for profit.

“It’s hypocritical - it’s merely legitimizing pimps into businessmen,” said Marie (not her real name) to the National Post. “Legalizing bordellos is simply telling men it’s OK to go there.”

“When I heard [the ruling] my first thought was, ‘Those hypocrites, they are saying ‘put [prostitutes] somewhere where we can’t see them’ but are still admitting that prostitution is dangerous.”

Fiolleau told LifeSiteNews that prostitution is a physical and psychological destroyer of women. “As the years go on they develop drug habits. Every single time that you sleep with a John, it chips away at your soul. Eventually you are the walking dead and then you try to take your life. I see it over and over and over again.”

Another former prostitute named Julie told the National Post that prostitution does not suddenly become more safe if it is legally performed inside a brothel. “There’s no more security in doing this inside a bordello,” she said.

Marie agreed. “The violence against women is not on the street, it’s between four walls,” she said. “There are escort services, massage parlours, all operating now with organized crime and street gangs. Bordellos will be the same.”

Fiolleau pointed out that a majority of under-the-table brothels are already run by criminal organizations and that the ruling will only encourage these organizations — such as Hell’s Angels — to become more established in the business of selling woman’s flesh for profit.

Fiolleau flatly disagreed with the argument that the health department would be able to make the legalized brothels safer and cleaner for the women through regulations.

“It does not keep the women safe just because they’re getting tested for STDs. It keeps the Johns safe. The Johns are not the ones getting tested for STDs. What happens when a John goes and passes on an STD to these girls is that they get fired from working in the brothel because they are no longer clean and they end up on the street anyhow.”

The country’s leading champions for the dignity of women and the strengthening of marriages and families are demanding that the ruling be immediately appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada so that Parliament may have the ultimate say in social policies regarding prostitution.

For Fiolleau, who has seen all the horror that the trade in women’s bodies can produce, the answer is simple: make prostitution illegal.

“As a forward moving nation, we should make prostitution illegal, but we should not make the laws as tough for women caught prostituting as we should for the pimps, Johns and recruiters, since many of them did not choose this lifestyle nor can escape it,” wrote Fiolleau in a position paper on her website

“Where there is a demand, there will always be a supply. We need to have stiffer laws for the Johns, recruiters and the pimps in order to reduce the demand for the prostitutes.”

To contact the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
The Honourable Robert Douglas Nicholson
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8
Ph: (613) 957-4222

Tags: ontario, prostitution

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

911 call shows late-term abortionist Haskell laughing as patient suffers continuous seizure

by Kathleen Gilbert Thu Mar 29 13:53 EST Comments (48)

CINCINNATI, OHIO, March 29, 2012, ( - Operation Rescue has obtained a recording of a 911 call placed by the infamous late-term abortionist Martin Haskell after one of his patients suffered life-threatening seizures following an abortion.

The Cincinnati abortionist told an emergency dispatcher that the young woman, who was between 19 and 20 years old, was “in continuous seizures” since coming out of anesthesia. Haskell described the condition as “status epilepticus,” a life-threatening condition in which the brain is in a state of persistent seizure lasting more than five minutes.

The audio recording captures Haskell’s unhurried tone and laughter when the dispatcher offered additional emergency instructions. “We’ve been pushing IV Valium, so, and it’s just not controlling it. Alright?” he said.

Operation Rescue notes that Haskell has no hospital privileges, as required by the law, but operates under a variance from the Ohio Department of Health. That permits Haskell to practice as long as other physicians agree to cover his abortion complications once patients have been admitted. One of those physicians, William T. Bowers II, has been disciplined in two states and is under criminal investigation in another, the pro-life watchdog reports.

“Haskell is a danger to the public, plain and simple. We are urging the Ohio Department of Health to rescind Haskell’s variance and close his dangerous abortion clinic immediately in the interest of public safety,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation.


Dr. Theodore Wymyslo, Ohio Department of Health
Phone: (614) 466-2253

Tags: botched abortion, martin haskell

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

Obama’s National Preparedness order creates a ‘martial law matrix,’ author says

by Ben Johnson Thu Mar 29 13:29 EST Comments (31)

President Barack Obama

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 28, 2012, ( – A little-noticed executive order issued earlier this month would allow the federal government to seize all national resources (including food), draft civilians into the military or forced “labor,” regulate all communications, and ration health care to “promote the national defense.” Congress may be briefed on the government’s actions but lacks any power to alter them. This completes a “martial law matrix” that hands all national resources to Washington, a prominent author told

Barack Obama issued the executive order, “National Defense Resources Preparedness,” on March 16.

Jim Garrison of The Huffington Post summarized its provisions:

• The Secretary of Defense has power over all water resources;
• The Secretary of Commerce has power over all material services and facilities, including construction materials;
• The Secretary of Transportation has power over all forms of civilian transportation;
• The Secretary of Agriculture has power over food resources and facilities, livestock plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment;
• The Secretary of Health and Human Services has power over all health resources;
• The Secretary of Energy has power over all forms of energy.

Each power includes all its component parts. For example, “Civil transportation includes movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation in interstate, intrastate, or foreign commerce within the United States, its territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia, and related public storage and warehousing, ports, services, equipment and facilities.” Similarly “Food resource” means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals.”

“These are entirely illegitimate powers from a Constitutional perspective,” author and editor William Norman Grigg told “There is not even a hint or a whisper or legitimacy here.”

“You’re dealing with someone who clearly doesn’t see the presidency as susceptible to any limits whatsoever, either legal or constitutional,” he said.

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

Grigg, who is managing editor of Republic Magazine, said, “What is especially troubling is that he shows no compunction at all about exercising all of the powers that have been claimed by his predecessors and adding to that corpus of extra-constitutional presidential powers.”

These sweeping new powers may be invoked “in peacetime and in times of national emergency,” whenever they are “deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense.” The president would determine when those circumstances apply.

Congress would be briefed on the agencies’ actions – annually – but could not alter policy.

The president’s defenders, including some Republicans, say the executive order only updates the Defense Production Act of 1950 and of Bill Clinton’s Executive Order 12919, written in 1994. The chief difference is the new order transfers functions from FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air wrote, “Barack Obama may be arrogant, and the timing of this release might have looked a little strange, but this is really nothing to worry about at all.”

But Grigg says the change from a wartime to peacetime emergency alone is troubling.“When you’re dealing with semantic engineering that is that finely tuned, that looks very much like evidence of bad intent,” he said. “They have dispensed with the idea that there needs to be a discrete event that would trigger a national emergency is significant.”

The reliance on previous executive orders also troubles Grigg. “Obama has…spoken about the supposed virtues of the domestic regimentation of the entire civilian population along military lines,” he said. “That goes right back to Bernard Baruch,” chairman of the National War Industries Board under President Woodrow Wilson during World War I. He wrote in 1918, “We are living today in a highly organized state of socialism. The state is all; the individual is of importance only as he contributes to the welfare of the state.”

“That is an aspiration that has been alive in the bosom of pretty much every collectivist since time immemorial,” Grigg told

Some who support the order are troubled by its reliance on a 62-year-old law. Doug Mataconis, who believes the executive order is nothing to worry about, wrote, “The fact that the President of the United States is still exercising authority granted during the Korean War and the height of the Cold War is yet another reflection of how power, once assumed by the Imperial Presidency, is never surrendered.”

The president’s defenders in both parties say the order is merely a worst case scenario in the event of a nuclear strike or catastrophic disaster that would disable the normal flow of daily life. This would let the federal government maintain order.

“There really is no strategic or tactical case to be made for executive dictatorship as an emergency management strategy,” Grigg said. “The problem here is the assumption that the best way to deal with that kind of tragedy is to centralize power and thereby give one convenient target to our enemies. In a strategic sense, that makes no sense.”

On the contrary, widely defusing and localizing power would make it more difficult for an enemy to completely disrupt national life.

“I think there really ought to be an element of humility being displayed by the same govt that conveyed the benefit of toxic FEMA trailers to the survivors of Hurricane Katrina,” he said.

However, the greatest loss is the loss of liberty, they say. Chuck Norris wrote, “enacting this martial law even during a time of peace is an unprecedented and out-of-control abuse of executive power…Our Founding Fathers never would have allowed it, and we shouldn’t, either.”

Some say that is doubly true under the current president. “By his actions he’s displayed a disposition that can be described as dictatorial,” Grigg told “It’s a case of the man and the moment having met. They created this institutional architecture of executive dictatorship. Now the dictator is taking residence therein.”


Tags: national defense resources preparedness, william norman grigg

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

The myth of ‘harm reduction’ strikes again

by Patrick B. Craine Thu Mar 29 13:28 EST Comments (3)


March 29, 2012 ( - After the Ontario Court of Appeal legalized brothels this week, the pictures that were broadcast throughout the land perhaps said it all.  There among the celebrants was “dominatrix” Terri-Jean Bedford with whip in hand, lining up with lawyers and other “sex trade” workers to welcome a new day of hedonism while ostensibly participating in a news conference.  If anyone saw the irony, or perhaps the perverse humour, in a whip-wielding advocate of prostitution emerging from a courtroom to proclaim the inherent “safety” of working in a bordello, it was surely lost on the approving media.

But by striking down section 210 of the Criminal Code of Canada and launching an open season for brothels and sex houses, the fallacy of “harm reduction” strikes again and the court is affirming the error and reinforcing the delusion that prostitution is made safe via the venue that
it is practiced in.  Let us be clear: prostitution is a social ill that is unsafe at any time or place.

The decision also amends Section 212 of the Criminal Code because it criminalizes “non-exploitive” relationships between a prostitute and another person.  For legal purposes, a pimp is defined as one who lives off the avails of prostitution “in circumstances of exploitation.”

So the court has described a pimp but just how is exploitation defined?  The definition of pimping has been broadened to such an extent that exploitation will have to be demonstrated to the extent that it satisfies a court of law. This is a relationship that could well prove difficult to verify and substantiate in that legal context.

But clearly the most dangerous leap of logic in this entire challenge to the existing prostitution laws is the concept of harm reduction. Legalized prostitution is about as safe as injecting heroin in a “safe” injection site – it’s not.  The argument – and erroneous reasoning – is the same.  Having sexual relations with multiple anonymous partners every day is about as safe as putting poison into your bloodstream – it can cause disease and kill you. Whether the act occurs in a four star hotel or a condemned flophouse, a pseudo-hospital room or a back alley, the act is inherently unsafe.

Instead of just asking how many prostitutes fall victim to violence each year, we should be asking how many are perishing as a result of choosing this inherently unsafe practice with its sexually transmitted diseases and the collateral damage caused by destructive lifestyles that are rarely far from drug addiction and despair.

What is the total cost of this – dare we say – sin upon our society?  How many lives are destroyed and how much hopelessness is created?  Hollywood has glamourized prostitution for decades with films like Pretty Woman, where the so-called “oldest profession” is presented as empowering when in reality it is impoverishing.  With the courts now essentially recognizing prostitution as a trade and workers within that trade as worthy of employee protection, the process of legitimization continues.  But this is no trade, no profession, no legitimate occupation of any kind – just a vile commodity that brings shame upon both buyer and seller.

If Canada liberalizes its prostitution laws, we will not be the first country to make sex for cash an activity of greater ease and accessibililty. But we will not be creating a business like any other business.  A similar approach to lawlessness has transformed many parts of Europe into one large brothel; these nations are now struggling with the consequences of their libertine legislation because prostitution has become even less safe as a result of complete legalization than it ever was.  According to the mayor of Amsterdam, legalized prostitution just brought in bigger criminals while the Netherlands has become a top destination for the victims of human trafficking.

During the waning years of the Paul Martin regime, a subcommittee of the House of Commons Justice Committee examined this issue, with a view to the complete legalization of prostitution.  Recently retired Calgary MP Art Hanger (who would eventually become the Chairman of the committee after Stephen Harper became Prime Minister) was a member of that subcommittee and one of the few voices of dissent at the time.

First, by releasing their travel agenda to the national media, he squashed an attempt by this inquisitive subcommittee crew to initiate a world cathouse tour that would have included trips to Reno, Amsterdam and Liverpool to “study” prostitution.  Then he stood up to the long line of committee witnesses and their parliamentary allies by refusing to treat prostitution like it was no less legitimate a business than real estate or haberdashery.  Hanger summed up the efforts of this sorry gang thusly: “Liberals want to make sin safe. They promote a culture of death when we should be promoting a culture of life.”

Just as they do by refusing to protect the rights of the unborn child, social liberals are still promoting a culture of death.

David Krayden is the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, an independent, not-for-profit institution dedicated to the advancement of freedom and prosperity through the development and promotion of good public policy.

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

Pro-life atheists invade the American Atheist Convention

by Kristine Kruszelnicki Thu Mar 29 13:20 EST Comments (93)

Kristine Kruszelnicki, Kelsey Hazzard, and Michael Crone at the 2012 convention.

March 29, 2012 ( - “The atheist community is a diverse community,” said a speaker at the American Atheist Convention in Washington, D.C., to a round of applause and cheers. “We’ve got people here from all genders, races, religious backgrounds, and sexual orientations.” 

But as Secular Pro-Life discovered after setting up an information table at the convention and mingling among the 25,000 participants of the Reason Rally the day before, for many atheists, the enthusiasm for diversity ends where the philosophical line on issues like abortion begins. 

“There’s a war on the womb” said Elizabeth Cornwell, executive director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation. “A war based on dogma, a war based on ignorance, a war based on lust for power. The religious radicals want to enshroud women in an invisible burqa. They want to take away a woman’s right to control her own body.This is not about declaring a blastocyst as a human being. No…This is about eradicating a woman’s right to take her full place in society!”

As a secular pro-lifer I believe my case is scientifically and philosophically sound. Science concedes that human life begins at fertilization, so it follows that abortion is ageism and discrimination against a member of our own species, based on characteristics outside of their control. As I listened to another speaker denounce all pro-lifers as “religious bigots who seek to enslave women and occupy vaginas,” it bothered me to see the pro-life position dismissed in its entirety alongside other dogmas of religion. 

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

“I don’t understand how women could be so hateful to other women,” said one participant who approached the Secular Pro-life table. Her comment comes in the wake of a Pennsylvania representative who recently dismissed pro-life women like as us as “men with breasts.”

Secular Pro-Life president Kelsey Hazzard does not hate women. Kelsey is part of a team that is launching - a site that will expose the number of medical malpractice suits in the so-called ‘safe and legal’ abortion industry, and help women make an informed choice. Nonetheless, it is intellectually dishonest to argue “enslavement” without addressing the matter of competing human rights interlaced with one’s obligation to a dependent offspring.

Our time at the Atheist Convention was not the least bit in vain. A number of pro-life atheists approached us, ecstatic that we were there, and said, “Thank you! I thought I was the only one!” Many others spent hours engaging us in meaningful and reasoned debate, granting a number of our premises and inviting further dialogue on the matter. “I disagree with you but I’m impressed with you,” said one young man after a lengthy discussion. “This is the first time I’ve ever heard someone defend [the pro-life] view with reason and rational arguments.”

The young man’s words resonate the need for pro-lifers to use secular arguments when appealing to a secular audience.  Indeed, atheists are not the only ones to be exclusive within their ranks. I have been told by fellow pro-lifers on more than one occasion that I have no business being at a pro-life event if I am not a Catholic. I know of several pro-life friends, including pro-life gays and lesbians, who feel too ostracized from the movement to be able to engage in meaningful activism with the rest of us. I’ve even been told that if non-Catholics want pro-life events with a non-Catholic approach “we should hold our own events.” The pro-life movement cannot afford to be exclusive, especially given the audience it primarily seeks to reach, and its own minority status.

My pro-life atheist friends and I are a minority within the pro-life movement, and a minority among atheists. Both movements could do with a little more open-mindedness. After all, whether there is a God or there is no God, we all have to find social solutions that allow us to live together on this planet.

You can read a more detailed summary of Secular Pro-Life’s experiences and exchanges at the American Atheist Convention on its blog. Read their account of Day 1, and Day 2.


Tags: american atheists, secular pro-life

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

Ontario’s NDP hope to force Catholic schools into naming clubs ‘gay-straight alliance’

by Thaddeus Baklinski Thu Mar 29 13:11 EST Comments (14)

New Democrat MPP Peter Tabuns at the Toronto Gay Pride parade in 2009.

TORONTO, March 29, 2012 ( – As parents battle the McGuinty Liberal government’s effort to impose homosexual “anti-bullying” clubs on Ontario’s schools, Ontario’s New Democratic Party is taking it a step further by announcing plans to introduce an amendment that would force schools to let the clubs be called “gay-straight alliances.”

Currently McGuinty’s controversial Bill 13 says the clubs can be called “gay-straight alliance or another name,” which has allowed the Catholic schools to instead set up a network of clubs under the name “Respecting Differences”.

But New Democrat MPP and education critic Peter Tabuns (Danforth-Greenwood) has revealed that his party is planning to introduce an amendment that would force Catholic schools to allow students to use the name “gay-straight alliance” if they choose.

The amendment “will allow students to determine the name of the group,” Tabuns told Xtra. “We also think [Education Minister Laurel Broten] should closely monitor the implementation of the bill in schools.”

Bill 13 was introduced on November 30th and received second reading at Queen’s Park on March 26. It comes as part of McGuinty’s stated effort to reform the “attitudes” of the province’s children on homosexuality.

“Allowing students in schools to set up support networks gives them the security of being together and reduces the isolation that we all know can be, literally, deadly,” Tabuns remarked.

Ontario’s Catholic bishops have opposed GSAs, saying they encourage early self-identification as homosexual.

And pro-family advocates have charged that the groups encourage the normalization and affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle, and promote homosexual activism by tying youth into a cross-continent network of activists.

Progressive Conservative MPP Randy Hillier has said that McGuinty’s bill, which has been criticized by religious groups for its strong emphasis on sexual orientation, “reaches the zenith of downright stupidity” and manipulates recent suicides by homosexual teens for “political gain.”

“Bill 13 is little more than a poorly disguised pacifier intended to create a perception that not only is the government acting, but is also compassionate and sympathetic toward children who are bullied,” wrote Hillier (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington) in a strongly worded op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen in January.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) has pointed out that the bill would actually increase the isolation bullied children might feel.

“Rather than permitting students to learn about their differences and recognize their commonalities in equity clubs, this Bill specifically sets out to isolate students into issue-specific groups,” the EFC argued.

“Attempting to address an issue as complex as bullying by legislative force is debatable,” the EFC said, adding that the “approach adopted by Bill 13 lacks sensitivity, flexibility, and a full consideration of proper application of the Constitution Act, 1867, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code.”

David McNorgan, president of the Catholic School Chaplains of Ontario, says the name of the clubs should not be the focus of debate.

“The naming of the club is not crucial,” he told the Catholic Register. “I think everybody is going to be able to live without calling them GSAs. But as far as practical pastoral care for our kids, we’re going to be able to do it under different banners.”

Tabuns told LifeSiteNews that he will reveal the exact wording of his amendment when the bill reaches committee stage.

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

Why opposing the gay lobby is not anti-gay

by Jennifer Roback Morse Thu Mar 29 12:09 EST Comments (31)

Jennifer Robock Morse

March 29, 2012 ( - Earlier this month the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation’s (GLAAD) “Commentator Accountability Project” included me on their list of people who deserve special scrutiny before they can be engaged as commentators on the marriage debate. But it is organizations like GLAAD that need to be held accountable for the impact of their rhetoric on the public debate.

According to the GLAAD website, I have held myself out as someone who purports to be an “expert on the lives of LGBT people.” Evidently (and unbeknownst to me) I have devoted my career “making life more difficult for LGBT people.” Although these extreme statements have since been scrubbed from the site, the organization continues to claim that “Bias is Not Balance.” The undeniable implication is that my views are baseless. GLAAD’s systematic policy of slapping negative labels on their opponents without actually engaging them in debate reduces the quality of discourse in the public square.

Out of the hundreds of thousands of words I have spoken or written, GLAAD found a grand total of four quotes as evidence of my supposed “extreme animus towards the entire LGBT community.”  One of these is that I say redefining marriage will marginalize fathers from the family, because fathers will be considered inessential. GLAAD acts as if this were self-evident evidence of anti-gay bias.

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

This is very peculiar, as the claim that redefining marriage will marginalize fathers from the family is not a statement about the behavior, character or motives of same sex attracted people, male or female.  It is simply my forecast of one consequence of redefining marriage. I believe it with all my heart, and have said so on numerous occasions, citing a variety of reasons and evidence. I am not the slightest bit ashamed of this forecast.

My training is in economics. Economists examine how changes in public policies alter people’s incentives, and hence their behavior. So it is natural for me to ask, What will happen if we remove the gender requirement from marriage? I wonder what society will look like after 30 years of agents of the state making statements like this one from the Iowa Supreme Court: “The traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.”

You may disagree with me about how likely it is that making marriage a genderless social institution will marginalize fathers from the family. Or you may disagree with my assessment of the harm it would do. But you cannot deny that this is a serious question about the possible impact of changing the law and culture of marriage.

Evidently GLAAD believes that raising legitimate questions about the group’s preferred policies automatically makes a person “anti-gay.”  But surely one can disagree with policies advocated by the National Education Association without hating every teacher in America, just as one can surely oppose policies advocated by the NAACP without being a racist.

Redefining marriage raises questions that deserve to be fully aired. Trying to discredit skeptics changes the subject. Equating all disagreement with evidence of bias lowers the intellectual level of the discussion. These rhetorical tactics do not do the gay lobby any credit. In fact, responsible people of all parties should shun these strategies and make room for honest debate on this momentous question of changing the fundamental structure of our most important social institution.

This article first appeared on The Blaze and is reprinted with permission of the author.

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

Spain’s main conservative and socialist parties join in rejecting euthanasia bill

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Thu Mar 29 10:48 EST Comments (0)

March 29, 2012 ( - Spain’s two major parties, the conservative People’s Party (PP), and the Spanish Socialist Worker’s Party (PSOE), have joined their votes to thwart the introduction of legislation that would permit euthanasia and assisted suicide. 

Under the slogan “life is a right, not an obligation,” the Plural Left, a coalition of three small socialist parties, offered a bill yesterday to eliminate criminal penalties to one who by “necessary actions or active cooperation, permits, brings about, or facilitates death with dignity and without pain of another person, with express, free, and unequivocal permission of the same, when they suffer from a serious illness that would have definitely caused his death.”

The legislation also would have given individuals the right to “understand at least the purpose and nature of each intervention and treatment, as well as the risks and consequences,” and to “refuse to consent to a treatment” if they so wished.

The proposal was roundly rejected by Spain’s two biggest parties, which are normally at loggerheads over human life and family issues.

Maria Torrado of the PP said that her party supports the extension of palliative care, which “helps to improve quality of life and to ensure that the patient is without pain,” and that “it is unnecessary to open a debate about euthanasia and its penal deregulation” which “adds no value to care beyond a clear ideological intention.”

Julio Villarrubia of the PSOE enunciated a similar position, in favor of ensuring that the end of life occurs “without pain” but “without speaking of euthanasia.”  Although he agreed with some provisions of the bill, he noted that what the Plural Left is proposing is a crime under Spanish law.

Tags: assisted suicide, euthanasia, spain

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

D&P must be ‘less political and more Catholic’: Catholic Register

by Patrick B. Craine Thu Mar 29 10:32 EST Comments (1)

This image appears in the English version of Where Women Have No Doctor, disseminated by APROSIFA in Haitian Creole.

TORONTO, Ontario, March 29, 2012 ( – As Canada’s bishops call on Catholics to increase support to the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development & Peace in the wake of massive funding cuts from the Canadian government, Canada’s largest Catholic newspaper says the beleaguered development arm is going to need to improve its Catholic identity.

“If  D&P is to improve its popularity (i.e. donations) among lay Catholics, it needs to become less political and more Catholic,” the Catholic Register writes in a March 27th editorial.

D&P is facing a funding crisis, with plans for layoffs and reductions in their third world partnerships, after they learned last month that the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) cut D&P’s funding by 65%. While the organization had requested $49.2 million over the next five years, they will only receive $14.9 million. They had received $44.6 million from 2006-2011.

“In light of [the funding crisis], lay Catholics should be assessing how they feel about D&P,” write the Register’s editors. “The agency has been widely (and justly) criticized in recent years for aligning with a few organizations that operate afoul of Church teachings on life issues. Unfortunately, those disputes tend to overshadow D&Ps considerable good work on behalf of the Canadian Church.”

“For years Catholics have counted on generous government grants to bolster D&P’s efforts,” they continue. “But that well is running dry. If Catholics still believe in D&P, they’ll have to prove it — with their wallets.”

Beginning in March 2009, LifeSiteNews and Catholic bloggers began documenting the pro-abortion advocacy of D&P partners hailing from at least 13 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Just this month, LifeSiteNews reported that D&P is funding a Haitian woman’s group, APROSIFA, that openly hands out free contraceptives and has produced literature on how to obtain abortions.

In the wake of the abortion scandal, the Catholic Register has been a strong proponent of reforms at D&P, taking the lead of prelates such as Cardinal Thomas Collins of Toronto and Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa.

Last spring, after Archbishop Prendergast was forced to cancel a talk hosted by D&P because he discovered the speaker advocates abortion “rights”, the Catholic Register issued a blunt appraisal of the situation: “Someone is guilty of either appallingly poor judgment or blatant incompetence,” they wrote on April 6, 2011. “Either way, it begs the question: how many questionable agencies are still endorsed by D&P?”

At the time, the editors warned that Catholics’ “generosity will dry up unless D&P can provide rock-solid assurance that donations only support groups in harmony with Church teaching.”

In their editorial this week, the Register flagged D&P’s continued lack of transparency, saying that it “needs to be more accountable and transparent regarding operating procedures and partners.”

Despite the controversy over their funding practices, 2012 was the second year in a row that D&P carried out its Share Lent campaign while failing to release a full list of its current partners.

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

Like traditional marriage? Then dump Starbucks, says National Organization for Marriage

by Kathleen Gilbert Thu Mar 29 10:22 EST Comments (74)


WASHINGTON, March 28, 2012 ( - Your morning cup of coffee isn’t the only heated thing Starbucks is brewing.

Because of the coffee giant’s aggressive activism in support of the controversial issue of same-sex “marriage,” pro-family advocates have launched a boycott to send a message that Starbucks should keep coffee out of the marriage debate.

The DumpStarbucks campaign was launched by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) after Kalen Holmes, Starbucks executive vice president, told U.S. partners in January that the Seattle-based company backed Washington state’s same-sex “marriage” legislation as “core to who we are and what we value as a company.”

The coffee company has publicly supported the gay rights agenda since at least 2005, and has joined an amicus brief against the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

At a board meeting on March 21, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz confirmed Holmes’ statement as the position adopted by the board and “not something that was a difficult decision for us.”

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

NOM chair Maggie Gallagher questioned the decision of the company to back efforts to unravel the legal definition of marriage.

“Millions of good, honorable, decent and loving people believe that marriage is the union of husband and wife for a reason—these unions make new life and connect children to a mom and a dad,” said Gallagher, who was present at the Starbucks board meeting. “Of all the sustainable ecosystems Starbucks might want to support, surely this one is worthy of a company that bills itself as a company with a conscience?”

The DumpStarbucks campaign is asking marriage defenders to let both their local Starbucks and company HQ know their reasons for forgoing their frappucinos. The campaign, which includes a petition to Starbucks CEO Schultz, has already reached over 23,000 pledges, and is expected to reach as far as China and the Middle East.

Joe Solmonese, head of the leading gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, dismissed the boycott as a “temper-tantrum” and defended Starbucks as “a vocal supporter of marriage equality.”

When it comes to boycotts, however, the tables are usually turned the other way: the gay rights movement has frequently used corporate pressure to punish companies or individuals for supporting traditional marriage, or for maintaining links to Christian pro-family groups.

Recently, a petition on the liberal site targeted the fast food chain Chick-Fil-A for its Christian affiliations, and demanded that the popular chain be removed from college campuses. Similar pressure has been directed at major companies for even giving an equal platform to pro-family views, such as Apple, which ultimately removed a Manhattan Declaration app and other conservative apps at the behest of gay rights protesters. Paypal also acceded to demands by the gay rights group All Out to “end the online hate trade” by cutting off pro-family groups from using their service.

Gallagher said that she doesn’t “generally support boycotts.” “But Starbucks has voluntarily decided—as a corporation—to associate its brand with a major political issue,” she said, noting that the decision would seem to contradict the company’s promises in some parts of the world, particularly in the Middle East, not to subsidize political causes.

NOM Cultural Director Thomas Peters told that the boycott is only in its first stage. “People don’t want their coffee company taking sides in a culture war,” said Peters.

For more information, click here.

Tags: marriage, nom, starbucks

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

The Perils of the Quebec Euthanasia Report

by Alex Schadenberg Thu Mar 29 09:00 EST Comments (1)

Alex Schadenbert

(Note that this article was published in the National Post, March 28, 2012. Re-published here with the permission of the author)

LONDON, Ontario, March 28, 2012 ( – On March 22, the Quebec government’s Dying with Dignity Commission released its recommendations concerning euthanasia and palliative care. The media reported that the commission recommended the legalization of assisted suicide in exceptional cases.

In fact, the commission recommends that euthanasia be legalized - but not assisted suicide - in Quebec. The commission’s recommendations are similar to Belgian-style euthanasia, which is not limited to exceptional cases.

The first half of the report contains recommendations for improving palliative care, including the need for greater public awareness of the full range of palliative care options available today. We at the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) support these recommendations. EPC believes that improvements to pain and symptom management must be systematically implemented before the issue of euthanasia can be fairly addressed.

However, EPC vigorously opposes the second half of the report which recommends legalizing Belgium-style euthanasia.

Euthanasia is when one person, often a physician, directly and intentionally causes the death of another person by lethal injection for reasons of mercy. Euthanasia is prosecuted as a homicide in Canada and in nearly every jurisdiction in the world. Legalizing euthanasia requires an amendment to the homicide statute in the Criminal Code giving one person the right to cause the death of another person in certain situations. Such an action would cause a profound shift in the relationship that people share with medical professionals and with each other within society.

The Quebec report states that a person should be eligible for euthanasia if the person:

- is a resident of Quebec;
- is an adult and able to consent to treatment;
- makes a free and informed decision;
- has a serious and incurable disease;
- has no prospect for improvement; and
- is experiencing physical or psychological suffering.

It is important to note that the commission’s report does not limit euthanasia to terminally ill people. A person who is living with an incurable condition and chronic psychological suffering, such as someone with chronic depression or another chronic mental condition, could be euthanized.

A study from the Netherlands that was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (September 2005) found that people with a depressed mood were 4.1 times more likely to request euthanasia. The study concluded that a depressed mood is a primary indicator for requests for euthanasia.

The commission recommends that euthanasia deaths be reported, after the death, to monitor and evaluate whether the law is being abused. But the reporting procedure does not protect people. If (and when) a report is analyzed, and if an abuse has occurred, the person is already dead; so no effective redress is possible.

In Belgium, studies indicate that the law has been abused. A study published in the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association (May 2010) found that 32% of euthanasia deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium occurred without request or consent, while a study that was published in the British Medical Journal (Oct. 2010) found that 47% of euthanasia deaths in the same region of Belgium were not reported.

Currently, the law clearly states that no one can kill another person. If euthanasia becomes legal, killing another person becomes acceptable under certain conditions - conditions that are changeable and dependent on the ethics of others. It would be very difficult to protect a vulnerable person under these circumstances.

Alex Schadenberg is executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Tags: euthanasia

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

Parents to rally against McGuinty bullying bill today from 2-3 pm

by Patrick B. Craine Thu Mar 29 08:09 EST Comments (2)

Kim Galvao speaks at Queen's Park on Wednesday with Lou Iacobelli (r) and Jack Fonseca of Campaign Life Coalition (l).

TORONTO, Ontario, March 29, 2012 ( - Parents are set to protest outside Queen’s Park today (Thursday) against the McGuinty government’s Bill 13, the anti-bullying bill that they say threatens to undermine religious and parental freedom. It takes place from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Organizer Kim Galvao, chair of Concerned Catholic Parents of Ontario, delivered the following statement at a press conference at Queen’s Park on Wednesday afternoon:

Concerned Catholic Parents of Ontario is a group of parents and other Catholics who believe that the State is increasingly trespassing on parental rights and pushing programs in our schools which undermine the Christian values parents instill in their kids at home.

Dalton McGuinty’s Bill 13 purports to be about punishing bullies and reducing bullying in schools. We agree completely with those “apparent” goals. The most common reason kids are bullied is because of their physical appearance, for example being too fat, too skinny, or wearing glasses. Kids may be bullied for many other reasons such as being shy or having same-sex attraction. Bullying is always wrong, no matter what the reason.

However, Bill 13 has been criticized by parents, religious leaders and family values groups across Ontario over the controversial, Sex Ed component of the proposed legislation.

As a mom of three children in elementary school, I am very alarmed to see a sexual agenda being imposed on our schools through Dalton McGuinty’s Bill 13. As a mom, I do not want my young children taught that there are seven different genders. As a mom, I do not want my young children taught the disputed theory that a person’s gender is not connected to their physical anatomy.  As a faithful Catholic, I strongly object that our religious schools are being forced to permit clubs that contradict its Christian mission.  Bill 13 does all these things. It violates parental rights and attacks the freedom of religion.

This government may not share the values of traditional principled families. However, it must nonetheless respect the right of parents to teach their children about human sexuality according to their faith convictions, without being undermined by the State.  The bottom line is that it is too much information.  This type of education does not benefit the child, but rather hurts the child, by causing confusion, and worry, pitting the school against the parents.

As Parents we’re called to be wise, prudent and vigilant.  We are called to protect our children when we sense danger.  It is for this reason, I’m here today to announce a Protest Rally against Bill 13 that will take place at Queens Park Thursday March 29, 2012, starting at 2:00 pm.  Concerned parents, Grandparents, and Youth from across Ontario, from many different faiths, will face this legislature tomorrow and demand that bill 13 be voted down, unless the offensive clauses are removed. Parents like me have not been heard by Premier McGuinty. Tomorrow we hope he will hear us at this protest rally.

Find the flyer to promote the rally here.

Two Facebook pages have been set up: The official Stop Bill 13 Facebook fan page is available here. The official Stop Bill 13 Facebook Event page is available here.

Find contact info for Members of Provincial Parliament.

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

We reached our goal - Thank You!

by Steve Jalsevac Wed Mar 28 19:04 EST Comments (5)

Steve Jalsevac, Managing Director for LifeSiteNews

We KNEW you could do it! 

With your generous support and with an incredible $12,000 gift this morning, we reached our goal of $100,000 for the campaign.

As always, we are simply overwhelmed by the outpouring of support from so many individual donors. 

We needed you, and you responded to our call!

As we had mentioned, the goal we set for this campaign was very conservative in relation to our actual greater need, so it was concerning that we might not even reach that minimal level. But you came through!

On behalf of all the staff at LifeSiteNews - THANK YOU!

Steve Jalsevac
Managing Director

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

Young Australian LifeSiteNews correspondent: I was a pro-choice agnostic

by Jason Rushton, Australia correspondent Wed Mar 28 19:02 EST Comments (19)

Jason Rushton

Editor’s Note: Jason Rushton is the newest addition to the LifeSiteNews team. A recent journalism graduate, he offered to become the Australian correspondent for LifeSiteNews which, considering the high quality of the work he submitted, we gladly accepted.

SYDNEY, March 28, 2012 ( - Throughout the course of my journalism degree, which I completed last November, I battled a nagging cynicism about the very place of journalism in modern society.

Nobody can afford to do investigative journalism anymore; prominent newspapers make basic spelling mistakes on a daily basis; and most information we can find out from social media or other online sources anyway, so why do we need journalists to act as middle-men? 

At the same time, I was also surprised to experience from the university establishment a constant assumption against Christianity, realist philosophy, and the dignity of human life.

At the start of my university career I was a pro-choice agnostic. I would say that half of what got me to where I am today - an unashamedly pro-life Catholic - was a reaction against the boredom, emptiness and stuffiness of this worldview which is so propagandised in Australian universities.

It was depressing for me to realise that Australian media shared much of this same bias. Prima facie, it is a good thing that our media exposes the mistreatment of cattle in neighbouring countries. However, if it simultaneously remains totally silent about the far worse treatment of our unborn children in the very middle of our cities and suburbs, around the places where we go to school and go to work - something is seriously wrong. The media is simply not doing its job.

It was against this background that I finished university thinking that I would probably never work in journalism: the role of journalism is redundant in the modern world of social-media, and anyway, if partial-birth abortion doesn’t rate a mention as a newsworthy issue, why would I want to be a part of this industry?

That’s when I suddenly realised I might be able to write for rather than just read it.

Hand on my heart, I personally believe that purely in terms of journalistic standards, must be one of the best news websites in the entire world today. It is certainly one of the few that actually inspires me. Nobody else breaks the stories they do; not only that, but with such factual accuracy and clear expression. But when you combine that theoretical factor with the moral factor of their abiding, persistent convictions about the most precious treasures and grave threats of the modern world: why would a young journo knock back a job offer?

I became aware of LSN midway through my journalism degree, about the same time I was learning about what the adjective ‘pro-choice’ really meant. 

The headlines I read on this website knocked me for six! (That’s a cricket reference - it means I was totally blown away.)
Newborn Saved from Dumpster by Man who Later Finds Out He’s the Father
Dutch journalist threatened with torture, death following letter condemning abortion?
No jail time for woman who strangled newborn because Canada accepts abortion, says judge?
Performing abortions is ‘extremely gratifying’ - leading UK abortionist?
Are you serious? Do these things actually happen? Yet all of the above questions are actually headlines from LSN.

I was also heart-struck by some of the inspiring stories by modern day heroes who live the Gospel of Life at great personal cost to themselves. “Young mother with cancer sacrifices life for unborn child”, or “Friend of jailed pro-life heroine Linda Gibbons asks supporters to send her Christmas cards.” I was really unaware that there were people who spent great stretches of time in jail because of their opposition to abortion.

Compared to their heroism, writing articles from the safety of home is really nothing to boast about.

Nonetheless, it is truly one of the great honours of my life to have been counted as a contributor to a website that our grandchildren will remember as not only an oasis of life in a culture of death, but an oasis of journalism in a culture of relativism.

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

back to top