Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Print All Articles

Kansas abortion rate drops by 1/3 amidst flurry of pro-life laws

by Ben Johnson Tue Apr 03 17:40 EST Comments (3)

 
Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue

WICHITA, KANSAS, April 3, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Abortion rates released by the Kansas state health department show that, amidst a flurry of new pro-life legislation and abortion clinic closures, the abortion rate has dropped by almost one-third in five years.

State figures show the number of abortions performed statewide has fallen 30 percent since 2006. Statewide 7,851 abortions were performed in 2011, down from 11,271 five years earlier.

While the lives saved are priceless, the gains have come with a steep financial price tag. The state’s taxpayers have paid just under $597,000 in legal fees since January to defend a series of pro-life laws from legal challenges made by pro-abortion organizations. Those laws include new health regulations for clinics, restricted elective abortion coverage by insurance, and the defunding of Planned Parenthood.

The state paid $392,250 in legal fees during the last six months of 2011.

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

Kathy Ostrowski of Kansans for Life told local media, “There may be a direct reason 600 fewer women even stepped inside Kansas abortion clinics – the existence of the best state ‘Woman’s Right to Know’ website in the nation.”

Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, told LifeSiteNews.com that he believes “the falling abortion numbers are a direct result of grass roots activism that marginalizes abortion and those who commit it.”

“Closed abortion mills translate into saved babies,” he said.

“Operation Rescue moved to Kansas in 2002 with the vision to see an abortion free state,” Newman recounted. Its activism has helped close three abortion clinics in short succession. “We then purchased an abortion business and evicted the tenants,” Newman said.

After George Tiller’s murder, “our work kept it from reopening with Leroy Carhart. Now we have three mills.”

Newman said while legislation is important, so far his state’s bills are caught in pending litigation, and their effect is primarily psychological.

Until the laws are active, he said, the pro-life movement should “vilify the abortion cartel. Catch them breaking the law. Then pass strict laws that close them down.”

 

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

Chinese women are killing themselves at astronomical rates: is the one-child policy to blame?

by Heidi Miller Tue Apr 03 17:15 EST Comments (41)

 
Stop for a minute and think about it: 500 female suicides per day in 2009. That’s 3,500 suicides per week.

April 3, 2012 (LiveActionNews.org) - The latest Human Rights Report on China (2010) from the Department of State links the One Child Policy with high female suicide rates in China:

A high female suicide rate continued to be a serious problem. According to the World Bank and the World Health Organization, there were approximately 500 female suicides per day in 2009. The Beijing Suicide Research and Prevention Center reported in 2009 that the suicide rate for females was three times higher than for males. Many observers believed that violence against women and girls, discrimination in education and employment, the traditional preference for male children, birth-limitation policies, and other societal factors contributed to the high female suicide rate. Women in rural areas, where the suicide rate for women was three to four times higher than for men, were especially vulnerable.

Stop for a minute and think about it: 500 female suicides per day in 2009. That’s 3,500 suicides per week. Fifteen thousand per month; 182,500 suicides per year. If the rate has remained constant throughout the years, we are looking at millions of females taking their own lives in a matter of decades.

The World Health organization put together a table to show the suicide rates per 100,000 by country and gender, using the most recent information available to them in 2011. There were only two other countries listed with higher female suicide rates than China: Korea and Sri Lanka. There were forty-seven countries listed with higher male suicide rates than China. Among these were many European countries, the United States, and Canada.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

There was only one other country listed (other than China, of course) that had a higher female suicide rate than male suicide rate. That country was Sao Tome and Principe. (If you have never heard of that country, don’t worry. I hadn’t either. It’s an island off the west coast of central Africa.) This country reported no male suicides and a very small amount of female suicides.

So what is it about China that makes it have 1) one of the highest female suicide rates in the world and 2) a female suicide rate that is higher than the male suicide rate?

The people of China have had a difficult modern history. There was the Cultural Revolution and the embracing of Communism. The Communist regime, while promising freedom and wealth to all, actually accomplished the opposite. But think about it: China isn’t the only country that has experienced a difficult past. Eastern Europe took a similar path to China’s and embraced Communism, causing a decline in its respective countries’ economies. There are many third-world countries that deal with poverty and need day in and day out. Plus, in recent years China has been opening up, becoming more modern, and even choosing to be more relaxed in its policies. You would think that these new trends would have the effect of bringing down the suicide rate.

What is one thing that differentiates China from the rest of the world? The One Child Policy. Imagine a woman aborting her child because that child is female, and then imagine that woman having to live with the guilt of her decision. Imagine a woman who desperately wants her daughter, but has that daughter forcibly stripped from her womb. Imagine a Chinese girl growing up knowing that her parents wished she were a boy, because then she would have a greater value. Imagine young girls being kidnapped and sold as brides. This does not sound like preservation of the value and dignity of a female life. This sounds like hopelessness and despair.  And China’s female suicide rate proves it.

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.org

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

UK government denies internet/phone surveillance proposal a return to ‘bad old days’ of Labour rule

by Hilary White, Rome Correspondent Tue Apr 03 16:45 EST Comments (1)

 
Home Secretary Theresa May

LONDON, April 3, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Pundits and party members alike are blasting UK government plans to institute total surveillance of all internet and telephone use in “real time,” in the name of fighting terrorism.

The Sunday Times reported this week, that under legislation to be announced in next month’s Queen’s Speech, internet companies will be instructed to install hardware allowing government security agencies to see “on demand” any phone call, text message and email sent, and any website viewed by users.
             
Home Secretary Theresa May defended the proposal, saying it does not mean the creation of a “big government database.”

“Currently online communication by criminals can’t always be tracked,” May said. “That’s why the Government is proposing to help the police stay one step ahead of the criminals.

“No one is going to be looking through ordinary people’s emails or Facebook posts. Only suspected terrorists, paedophiles or serious criminals will be investigated.”

A previous attempt to create such legislation was abandoned by the former Labour government after a massive public outcry. Despite this, and warnings by political commentators that it will be a vote killer in the upcoming election, David Cameron’s coalition government is defending the decision. Both Cameron’s Conservative Party and Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats opposed the Labour government’s plans at the time.

In 2009 Cameron made a speech at Imperial College, London denouncing Labour for running a “surveillance state” and “pulling more and more people into the clutches of state data capture.”

At that time, the future prime minister said, “The action we take to rein in Labour’s control state and confront Labour’s surveillance state will help rebalance power in one direction by enhancing personal freedom and limiting the state’s power over us.”

But this week, Cameron defended the new plans, decrying the “misinformation” in the media. He denied that the proposal is a means to allow government to read people’s emails.

“Let’s be absolutely clear, this is not what the last government proposed and we opposed…This is not about extending the reach of the state into people’s data; it’s about trying to keep up with modern technology.

“But we should remember that this sort of data, used at the moment, through the proper processes, is absolutely vital in stopping serious crime and some of the most serious terrorist incidents that could kill people in our country, so it’s essential we get this right.

“Yes to keeping up with modern technology. No to a snoopers’ charter.”

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg told the BBC, “I’m absolutely clear… we will not return to the bad old days under the Labour Party.

“This will be an open, consultative and properly scrutinised process.” Clegg said the “highest possible safeguards” will be in place to ensure the privacy of citizens, but refused to say what, exactly, those would be.

Current legal powers may need to be updated, Clegg said, to “keep pace with the use of new technology.”

Under the current system, police can demand the release of records of phone calls made from any cell phone, including details of who has made a call, where and to whom it was made and the time the call was made. Clegg said that the law does not cover the use of new technologies that power services like Skype.

“We have to confront as a Government it is now possible to communicate with each other using different routes and we do need to update the means and powers that already exist on the statute books to reflect that change in technology,” Clegg said.

Labour leader Ed Miliband said the government had botched the announcement on this sensitive issue.

“It is unclear what they are proposing,” Miliband said. “It is unclear what it means for people. It is always going to lead to fears about general browsing of people’s emails unless they are clear about their proposals, clear about what they would mean, clear about how they are changing the law.”

Gerald Warner, a former senior policy advisor to the Conservative Party, told LifeSiteNews.com that the proposals are typical of a Conservative Party that has abandoned its small-c conservative principles and its base support.

Warner called it “the most Orwellian intrusion into citizens’ lives that could be imagined.”

“How, after this, can David Cameron’s government ever again condemn the Chinese authorities for media and internet snooping?”

“The hypocrisy is breathtaking,” Warner added. “Even by the weasel standards of politicians this reversal of policy is beneath contempt.”

Warner called the current government, and the Conservative Party leadership in general, a “clique of millionaires,” accusing them of contempt of “British tradition, culture and now liberties.”

Tags: freedom, uk

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

Porn studio donates to Planned Parenthood, Guttmacher Institute

by Ben Johnson Tue Apr 03 16:13 EST Comments (9)

 
Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, Concerned Women for America.

CHATSWORTH, CALIFORNIA, April 3, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – When a pornographer thinks of a worthy charity, his first thought is apparently the abortion industry. A California-based porn studio has announced it made a charitable donation to the Alan Guttmacher Institute “to counter the religio-conservatives.”

Girlfriends Films made the $1,000 gift on behalf of AVN Media Senior Editor and Chief Legal Analyst Mark Kernes. According to a press release at the Adult Video News service, Kernes put the donation “towards ensuring higher standards of sexual and reproductive health for all.”

Past recipients include Planned Parenthood, Lambda Legal (an LGBT legal activist organization), and National Public Radio.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, originally a division of Planned Parenthood, remains devoted to its parent organization’s goals.

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

“In a world where the mass media go out of their way to spread misinformation about sexuality – particularly women’s sexuality – there is one shining light consistently presenting the facts and statistics needed to counter the religio-conservatives: The Guttmacher Institute,” Kernes said. He claimed “as a journalist”  he could not recount “how many times I’ve been confronted with some right-wing politician or preacher spouting suspicious factoids about anything having to do with sex, where I’ve logged onto the Guttmacher website and found scientific data to debunk whatever myth they’re trying to create or spread this week.”

“The choice says a lot about the person who selected it,” said the studio’s vice president, who goes by the name “Moose.”

Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America said the donation says a lot about the industries’ shared values.

“Such coalitions for mutual support are not unusual because the ideology on which they are all based is the same, that women’s value stems from their commercial worth,” Crouse told LifeSiteNews.com.

Dr. Crouse, who is Senior Fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, said, “The pornography industry depends for its survival on the availability of abortion, the objectification of women, and the continuation of a promiscuous culture.”

“There is a seamless confluence between these organizations in their exploitation of innocence,” she said.

Patrick Trueman, president of Morality In Media, a pornography watchdog organization, told LifeSiteNews.com that he believes the pornography industry should use its record profits to help those its product victimizes. “Planned Parenthood is wealthy,” Trueman said in a statement e-mailed to LifeSiteNews.com. “The money should be more appropriately directed to former pornography star Shelley Lubben’s Pink Cross Foundation which is helping so many women abused by pornographers in porn films.”

Girlfriends Films, which claims it was “created to provide realistic lesbian-sex movies for discerning viewers,” selects a different nonprofit recipient each month, donating more than $20,000 in 2011.

The studios’ entry into a mainstream publicity parallels the industry’s explosive growth. AVN, or Adult Video News, which was founded by Paul Fishbein, Barry Rosenblatt, and Irv Slifkin as an eight-page rag in 1983, now spans more than 200 pages a month.

Dr. Crouse argues that the ubiquity of porn in our culture continues to threaten human value and dignity. “The idea of inherent, God-given worth is anathema to many on the Left,” she said.

“If girls continue to buy into the idea of sex as recreation and demand sex without consequences, the coalition of Planned Parenthood, Guttmacher, and the pornography industry will thrive.”

 

Tags: janice shaw crouse, pornography

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

Catholic actor Martin Sheen: ‘the Church is not God’ on gay ‘marriage’ issue

by Kathleen Gilbert Tue Apr 03 16:12 EST Comments (106)

 
Actor Martin Sheen

LOS ANGELES, April 3, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Actor Martin Sheen has defended his position in favor of redefining marriage despite his Catholic faith, saying that “my religion’s highest standard is conscience.”

Sheen was asked about the apparent conflict between his Catholic identity and his stance on marriage by the Wilshire & Washington blog following his performance in a play that raised $2 million for a gay rights lobby group. Sheen played the role of one of the plaintiffs in the play “8,” a dramatic rendition of the Proposition 8 trials written by Dustin Lance Black, who also wrote the screenplay for the 2008 movie Milk.

“My religion’s highest standard is conscience. Nothing can get between your conscience and God, not even the Church, because for 2,000 years, my Church has been lifting up as exemplary various men and women in their lives who have served as inspiration to all of us over the centuries, and we call them saints,” Sheen said, as quoted by the blog.

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

The West Wing actor pointed out that “the Church has not condemned a single soul to hell because it does not have the authority” and that “the Church is not God.”

“The Church is a conduit, and it is a spiritual journey, but it is not the end of the journey,” said Sheen. “The church is an institution, primarily of men, at least they are the major authorities. And so they are flawed, obviously. And so they are not authorized from preventing any member from following their conscience no matter what that is. You can’t get between a person’s conscience and their God. Nobody can do that.”

Although known to support generally liberal views – he was a strong advocate for Barack Obama’s presidential run - the seasoned Hollywood actor has voiced opposition in the past to some leftist cultural positions, such as assisted suicide and abortion.

Last year, Sheen spoke of his opposition to abortion, revealing that his wife was nearly killed by abortion after she was conceived in rape and describing how he supported unplanned pregnancies in his own family.

Tags: gay marriage, martin sheen

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

Fatherhood: the other casualty in the abortion war

by Kristi Burton Brown Tue Apr 03 15:28 EST Comments (14)

 

April 3, 2012 (LiveActionNews.org) - In the national struggle over abortion rights, fatherhood has become an additional casualty. On the one hand, women cry for men to be fathers, to pay child support, to marry them, to share equally in the raising of children. But on the other hand, women call for the right to make their own decisions, to have the “freedom of choice,” to have an abortion with no roadblocks.

As a woman, I do not understand how we can demand that men be fathers and yet prevent them from being exactly what we ask. Of course, if a child is born, her father should share in the raising of that child. I completely agree with this. A father who is not married to his child’s mother should either spend equal time caring for the child or pay child support. Of course.

Equally, though, if a father is willing to pay for his child to be born, if he is willing to take the child and care for her, if he is willing to raise his child, he should be allowed to. After all, the child is his child, too. The child is not the mother’s body.

Women need to take responsibility. We cannot speak out of both sides of our mouths. We cannot demand that men be fathers only when we want them to, and then kick them to the curb when we want to abort their children. This is so unfair that “unfair” is not an adequate word to describe it. There are no words to describe the plight of a man who is forced to sit down and shut up while his child is murdered.

Since I’m a woman, why don’t you take the word of men? Plenty of fathers have spoken out about their struggle to save their children or their utter helplessness to do anything about the situation.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

I’ve already shared the story of the father I worked with who lost his baby to his wife’s “choice.” Shawn Carney of 40 Days for Life shares the story of “Bill,” whose wife made her own decision to kill their child, despite what Bill said. A 40 Days for Life coordinator spoke of Bill:

I can only imagine that path that Bill will travel now; asking for an answer to “Why did she do it?” when there is no answer. How does he deal with his wife’s actions, coupled with her regret, while processing his own grief and loss?

How does he deal with the fact that his wife’s family was counseling her to get the abortion against her husband’s wishes? How does he someday tell his beautiful daughter that she was going to have a little brother or sister, but her mommy decided to get an abortion and by law, he couldn’t stop her?

This father was forced by his wife to choose between saving one of their unborn triplets or saving none:

My wife?  Something snapped.  She insisted that we do a “selective reduction” from three to one, or else she would have a full abortion.  She was adamant.  She would not carry three.  She would not carry two.

I was presented with a Coventry-esque decision: save one, or save none.  I chose the former, though I tried on several occasions to convince her to at least keep twins.  I failed.

We were told, point-blank, by the doctor who would do the procedure that they would inject potassium chloride into the placenta to stop the hearts.  We were told, point-blank, that it was painless.  Even then, I knew I was being lied to, but given the choice presented, I agreed anyway.  My mantra became “Save one, or save none.”

He goes on to describe his deep-seated feelings of pain concerning the abortion. Forced to be silent to save one of his children, he wonders what he could have done differently and hopes for forgiveness:

My wife didn’t look, but I had to.  I had to know what would happen to my children.  I had to know how they would die.

Each retreated, pushing away, as the needle entered the amniotic sac.  They did not inject into the placenta, but directly into each child’s torso.  Each one crumpled as the needle pierced the body.  I saw the heart stop in the first, and mine almost did, too.  The other’s heart fought, but ten minutes later they looked again, and it too had ceased….

I know they felt pain.  I know they felt panic.  And I know this was murder.  I take cold comfort in knowing that as far as we can tell, the survivor is still fine, and in knowing that this decision did not come from me; I would have taken the chance on triplets, even with all the work and effort it would have required….

Every day, returning from work, I hear “Hi Daddy!” and know there are two voices and two giggles that I will never hear.  I play with and cuddle my child, looking forward to the same with the second…but I know there are two sets of hands that will never touch mine, two sets of toes that will never be counted, two hugs that will forever be absent from my arms.

On USlegal.com, you will find a heartbreaking question from a father: “How can I stop my girlfriend from having an abortion if I am willing to take care of the child?”

The reply?  The cold, hard facts:

Legally, your consent isn’t required.  Perhaps you can persuade her by having an attorney draw up papers agreeing that you will have all financial and other responsibility.

Actually, for fathers, that’s a very good idea. In this messed up system, I still believe that a father should try everything within his power to save his child and convince the mother not to have an abortion. I discussed this more in my earlier article.

However, sometimes the things my fellow women do make me ashamed and incredibly sad. How dare we demand that men be fathers when we strip fatherhood from them at our will? Women, this must end. Our children need fathers. And men who want to love and care for their children should be allowed to do so.

Kristi Burton Brown is a pro-life activist in her home state of Colorado, a pro-bono attorney for Life Legal Defense Fund, and a stay-at-home mom. She is married to the amazing David Brown, and together, they have the cutest baby girl in the world! Kristi loves her Savior, Jesus Christ, speaking out for the truth, reading historical fiction, scrapbooking, politics, and cooking. She also has her own blog at: www.thelostgenerations.wordpress.com. This article reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.org.

Tags: 40 days for life, abortion

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

Ontario faces ‘years of litigation’ if McGuinty’s anti-bullying bill passes: Evangelicals

by Peter Baklinski Tue Apr 03 14:09 EST Comments (7)

 

OTTAWA, Ontario, April 3, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – If Premier Dalton McGuinty pushes forward his controversial anti-bullying bill, known as Bill 13, without amendments to respect the “religious and conscience rights of many parents” Ontario will face years of expensive lawsuits, warn the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada in a new open letter to McGuinty.

“Should your government fail to make the necessary amendments to Bill 13 to ensure its constitutionality, we share the opinion of several Canadian constitutional law lawyers that Bill 13 will be setting up the province of Ontario to likely face years of expensive, taxpayer funded litigation,” they write.

Critics say that Bill 13 threatens to undermine religious and parental freedom by bowing to the pressure of homosexual activists. A crowd of concerned parents estimated at 2,000 from a wide range of ethnic and faith backgrounds rallied last week outside Ontario’s legislature to protest the proposed bill.

While the EFC believes that “no child should be bullied, marginalized or suffer discrimination for any reason,” they argue that Bill 13 falls short in many ways.

They take issue with the bill’s definition of bullying, which they say includes ambiguous concepts such as “ought to know”, “likely to cause”,  and “real or perceived power imbalance”. (Find the text of the bill.)

The EFC says it is “troubling” to state that “the pupil ought to know” something, since every child “varies greatly in his or her level of development, understanding and maturity.” They wonder who will determine what a child ought to have known.

Likewise they see the term “likely to cause” as “vague language [that] is troubling” since “children develop at different rates and parents can attest to the fact that children, depending on their age, may differ greatly in their ability to foresee the consequences of certain words or actions.”

The EFC is also concerned with the term “a real or perceived power imbalance”, wondering who perceives the power imbalance and from whose perspective. They wonder if power imbalances are consistent, and if they do change from day to day, who accounts for the change.

“Parents of a faith background are concerned that certain religious beliefs or religious texts on sexuality and marriage may be captured by the vague language ‘likely to cause’”, wrote the EFC.

“Does Bill 13 take into consideration freedoms of religion and expression? This concern is heightened, firstly, given the special consideration that Bill 13 places on ‘incidents based on homophobia’ without defining the term ‘homophobia’”.

The EFC is recommending that Bill 13 be “amended to remove the ambiguous language that may capture behaviours that are not bullying behaviours or are expression protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Prior to writing the open letter, the EFC had compiled a review of recent statistics on bullying in Canadian schools. In By the Numbers: Rates and Risk Factors for Bullying: A Brief Examination of Canadian Bullying Statistics, the EFC provided an up-to-date overview of bullying trends, the existing data on the frequency of bullying incidents, and an analysis of risk factors for bullying.

The review uncovered that a number of factors increase a student’s risk of being bullied, including “appearance, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, grades, and socioeconomic status.”

“While some have asserted that the primary reason for bullying may be a child’s gender identity or sexual orientation, the data demonstrates that bullying behaviours target a number of distinctive factors among children,” the authors of the review point out.

According to one study in Toronto which surveyed 105,000 students, the most common kind of bullying identified was based on body image. The second most common kind was based on grades or marks.

“While we might think from the media coverage that children are most often bullied for reasons relating to sexual orientation or gender identity, students are actually most frequently bullied, both in traditional forms of aggression as well as through cyber-bullying, for three primary reasons: body image or appearance; school grades or marks; and cultural background and race,” said Don Hutchinson, EFC Vice-President and General Legal Counsel, in a press release yesterday.

“One survey showed that body image alone accounted for 38% of cases of bullying, grades or marks accounted for 17% and cultural background for 11%,” he said.

In reference to the proposed content of Bill 13, the EFC suggested in the review that “while all children are equally deserving of dignity and respect, the special focus on LGBTQ students may artificially skew the statistical reality that this demographic makes up only a small portion of all bullied children and may unintentionally serve to minimize the suffering of victims of other forms of bullying.”

Hutchinson pointed out that any initiative that seeks to reduce bully needs to be based on good data.

“We believe that no child should be bullied, marginalized or suffer discrimination for any reason,” he said. “And we believe that if we’re going to reduce bullying in Canada, we need to make good decisions based on good data. Any measure should be inclusive and considerate of every child, bullied for any reason.”

Read full text of By the Numbers: Rates and Risk Factors for Bullying: A Brief Examination of Canadian Bullying Statistics.

Read full text of the EFC’s open letter to Dalton McGuinty.

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

Sponsors list surges as prep for National March for Life kicks into high gear

by Thaddeus Baklinski Tue Apr 03 13:51 EST Comments (2)

 
A shot of the 15,000+ crowd at the 2011 March for Life.

OTTAWA, April 3, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - As preparations kick into high gear for Canada’s 2012 National March For Life, set to take place on Thursday, May 10 on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, the event’s list of sponsors is surging as more and more organizations are supporting the largest annual pro-life event in Canada.

The theme of this year’s National March For Life is “Abortion Hurts Everyone.”

Platinum sponsors so far are the Knights of Columbus (KoC) and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, both organizations offering strong and continual support for the National March For Life. Notably, the KoC contributed $25,000 to the event, well in excess of the $5,000 threshold for Platinum-level sponsors.

The KoC have also sponsored buses for the past several years from numerous towns and cities. The initiative came as part of a 2009 resolution by the Ontario KoC in which they declared: “We must spill over into the streets of Ottawa with not 8,000 but 80,000.”

Ontario dioceses, including the Archdioceses of Ottawa and Toronto, have become Gold sponsors, while some individual bishops, including Bishop Frederick Colli of Thunder Bay and Bishop Richard Gagnon of Victoria, British Columbia, have become Bronze sponsors.

Silver sponsors this year include the Companions of the Cross, a Roman Catholic community of priests and seminarians based in Ottawa; the priests of the Madonna House Apostolate, which is a Catholic community of lay men, women, and priests based in Combermere, Ontario; and the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association, an association that represents teachers in publicly funded English Catholic schools in Ontario.

Numerous media organizations, including the Catholic Register, CHRI Family Radio, ChristianWeek, and LifeSiteNews.com are also sponsoring the 2012 National March for Life.

Chris Murawsky of Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), which organizes the yearly National March for Life in Ottawa, told LifeSiteNews that sponsorships of the event are very important to the continuing success of pro-life work in Canada and a statement by the contributors of support for the right to life of all people from conception to natural death.

“We appreciate and thank the sponsors who have committed themselves thus far, and look forward to participating in the March with them,” Murawsky said.

For more information visit the National March for Life website.

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

The children that only a mother can kill

by Kristi Burton Brown Tue Apr 03 13:40 EST Comments (16)

 
Mothers should be thought of as ones who love, not ones who kill...

April 3, 2012 (LiveActionNews.org) - Not so long ago, people would exclaim in jest that certain children were ones that “only a mother could love.” Today, many of those same children – and, in fact, all children – are lives that “only a mother could kill.” If you think I’m joking, let’s examine a federal law together. It’s called the federal “Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” also known as “Laci and Connor’s Law.”

This law – unbeknownst to many – equates an unborn child in the womb with other human beings. It allows the same penalty that would have befallen an attacker had he killed the mother to befall him if he kills her unborn baby. In simpler words, if federal law allows you to be imprisoned for life for the second-degree murder of a woman, if you kill her unborn child, you can receive the same penalty.

The one exception for equal penalties is the death penalty. No one can be put to death for killing an unborn child under this federal law. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act defines an unborn child:

As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

Ah, strange. Though federal law (through Roe v. Wade) allows abortion for these same human beings, we also have a federal law in place that prosecutes their killers. Well, some of their killers. In all honesty, this law prosecutes only the least common killers of unborn babies. The most frequent killers are let off scot-free by a provision in the law (emphasis mine):

Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—

(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

Let those exceptions sink in for a little bit…specifically number three. “Any woman” can freely kill her unborn child without fear of prosecution. Doctors, nurses, and illegal abortionists – anyone the mother gives consent to, in fact – are also set free to kill unborn children by this law. Even after agreeing that unborn children are equal human beings, this federal law gives its hearty consent to mothers who wish to kill.

Lest you think I am cold-hearted to call mothers who have abortions “killers,” please realize that this federal law calls everyone else who kills unborn children exactly that: killers. But not the mothers. Unborn children have truly become the ones that “only a mother could kill.”

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

Mothers who kill have historically been thought of as society’s ultimate betrayers. But through the actions, mindsets, and laws of many, we have made our society into a society of ultimate betrayers.

Women who fight for the right to abortion are increasingly heard making statements like “I love abortion” or “I was fighting to reclaim abortion as a mother’s act.” Indeed, it seems that because of the hypocritical state of the laws in America today, killing children can be only a “mother’s act.”

Sadly, every baby in America today is that which “only a mother can kill.” Let us hope and pray that mothers everywhere reject the cruel and bloody power that has been wrongly given to them by the law.

Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.org

Tags: abortion

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

Photo of baby aborted in China at 9 months in forced abortion circulates on Internet, sparks outrage

by Kathleen Gilbert Tue Apr 03 12:53 EST Comments (288)

 

LINYI CITY, Shandong Province, China, April 3, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A chilling photograph circulating in China shows the body of a 9-months-gestation baby submerged in a bucket of water, apparently a victim of the country’s one-child policy.

Digital Journal reports that the photograph, in which the head and arm of a child can be seen underwater in a large red bucket on the floor, was posted to the Chinese web services company Baidu before it was circulated on Weibo, the country’s version of Twitter, last week.

The abortion appears to have taken place on March 26 after Chinese family planning police in the town of Moshan hunted down the family because the couple already had one child.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

According to English reports regarding the original post, the pregnant mother was forcibly held down as she was given an injection to induce labor, after which the baby “even gave a cry when it came out,” but was left in a bucket to drown.

In response to the photo, Reggie Littlejohn of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, which opposes China’s one-child policy, confirmed that late-term abortions and infanticide are common means of enforcing China’s one-child population rule.

“These violent procedures can happen up to the ninth month of pregnancy,” Littlejohn told LifeSiteNews.com. “Sometimes the women themselves die along with their full term babies. Forced abortion is China’s war against women.  It is official government rape.”

“Late term babies are injected with poison in their skulls or drowned in buckets,” she continued. “If the Chinese Communist Party wants to be a respected member of the international community, it must stop forced abortion and infanticide.”

The image and story has reportedly drawn intense outrage across China through Weibo, which has some 260 million users, since the photo began circulating on Thursday.

One commentator cited by Beijing Shots and hailing from Linyi City claimed to have witnessed such measures carried out against unborn children himself, and confirmed that Chinese officials “pounce on mothers-to-be like vampires who see blood.”

“In the hospital, a pregnant woman was dragged by several ruggedly muscular men into the operation room and did not relax their vigilance until she was injected with the drug. They said, ‘Another one accomplished.’ But that pregnant woman was near term! And her family did not even know she was kidnapped here. I later learned that she was captured when she was at a fair,” wrote the commentator.

Littlejohn pointed out that the abortion allegedly took place in Linyi, the same city where forced-abortion opponent and human rights activist Chen Guangcheng still languishes under house arrest.

Although China “has tried to convince the world that it has softened the one-child policy,” said Littlejohn, “this incident demonstrates that this is pure propaganda.”

Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute told LSN that similar tragedies occur in China on “a daily basis,” especially in Linyi City, and that the Chinese government privately congratulates officials who commit infanticide to maintain the one-child policy.

“The Shangdong edition of the People’s Daily Online even published a story congratulating Linyi on its ‘achievements’ in family planning enforcement,” said Mosher, who has documented China’s forced abortions in on-the-ground investigations. “That’s like congratulating the People’s Liberation Army for the Tiananmen Massacre. It shows you how the brutal thugs who run China really think.”

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

Post-abortive actress finds healing while filming October Baby

by Jael Zeballos Tue Apr 03 12:15 EST Comments (9)

 
Actress Shari Rigby

April 3, 2012 (Bound4Life.com) - October Baby, a moving film with a message of life at the center of its story, surprised many in the media during its opening weekend by doing very well at the box office despite many odds.

What resonated with viewers? I suspect that in addition the film’s genuine and heartfelt approach to the issue of abortion, authenticity was key in the performances by actors. During the end credits, viewers got a glimpse of how true one particular performance was when the filmmakers decided to include an interview clip of Shari Rigby, the actress who plays a post-abortive mother, which you can view by clicking here.

Rigby shares how her role in the film mirrored her own life, to the surprise of the filmmakers who did not know that she had undergone an abortion in real life when they offered her the part of the mother. For Rigby, the role offered a chance to disclose a long-held secret, to find healing, and give voice to the story of so many women who have undergone abortions.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

“It was easier to get rid of the child, to not be questioned again, rather than to have a child and be looked up at the time like another failure,” Rigby says of the circumstances surrounding her abortion, breaking down in tears. “So many times, especially as young women, we carry that burden that we’re going look like a failure, that it’s shameful. And you can hide a secret for a long time, of abortion, unless you really speak about it.

In one of the most gripping scenes towards the end of the movie, Rigby’s character and Rigby herself, found healing in the forgiveness of God. On filming that scene:

“We went into it and I remember the cameras rolling and I just, right as I walked into the room, I just knew that the Lord was with me and it was just complete healing…that wasn’t acting, that was my moment with God and Him with me, saying ‘it’s okay, it’s over, and you’ve been forgiven.’

Reprinted with permission from Bound4Life.com

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

Abortion doesn’t cure cancer: science again confirms what we already know

by Niamh Ui Bhriain Tue Apr 03 11:46 EST Comments (5)

 
New studies suggest chemotherapy on pregnant women with breast cancer is safe for the baby.

April 3, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Last month brought great news for women who are battling cancer during pregnancy. A collection of studies published in the prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, showed that abortion is not required to treat pregnant women with breast cancer - because there “there is no evidence termination improves outcomes for the mother.”

Then there was further good news for women who become pregnant having completed treatment for cancer. Researchers found that they could safely have babies without increasing the risk of their breast cancer returning.

But while decent folk everywhere were cheering at this welcome news, abortion cheerleaders must have been seething. Science is confirming what best medical practise in Ireland has already shown - abortion is never medically necessary.

The fact remains that abortion is never needed to save women’s lives, and Irish doctors treat pregnant women with cancer on a daily basis without recourse to abortion. LifeSiteNews.com recently reported that one of Ireland’s leading oncologists, Dr. John Crowne, who said on Twitter that while he had faced some “hard decisions re: chemotherapy in pregnancy,” he had never had “a case where abortion was necessary to save mom.”

That doesn’t stop abortion campaigners from telling bare-faced lies, however, and the media is always on hand to amplify their scaremongering; making the entirely false claim that women need abortion to preserve their lives.

Cancer experts agree: chemotherapy does not harm the baby

The collection of research studies published in a special edition of the Lancet found that chemotherapy treatment after the first trimester does not harm the unborn child. Researchers said the evidence showed that women who developed cancer when pregnant did not need to abort their baby, delay their own treatment or give birth prematurely.

In a comment article on the findings, researchers with the Department of Gynaecologic Surgery at the French Institute Gustave Roussy, wrote that recommendations to abort could be an “unacceptable error.”

“Treatment of malignancy in pregnancy is still associated with unacceptable errors: eg, the sometimes unjustified termination of pregnancies or the choice of an inadequate strategy for treatment of a tumour with the risk of compromised survival,” they wrote.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

The Telegraph quoted the lead author on two of the studies, Dr. Frédéric Amant, at the Leuven Cancer Institute, in Belgium, as saying: “The patient and her partner should be informed about the different treatment options and the physician should explain that termination of pregnancy does not seem to improve maternal outcome”.

In an interview in the Lancet Dr. Amant said: “Fear of chemotherapy should not be a reason to terminate pregnancy,” adding that “there is no evidence termination improves outcomes for the mother.”

The series of studies published in The Lancet and Lancet Oncology showed that children born to women who were given chemotherapy while pregnant developed as well as children in the general population.

In just one study, researchers in Belgium followed 70 such children and found they had normal development, IQ, hearing, heart function and general health.

Babies who were born prematurely had lower IQ scores, which is thought to be connected to the early birth rather than the drugs as this is seen in babies not exposed to chemotherapy, the researchers said.

What was most remarkable was that the studies showing abortion is not required for pregnant women with breast cancer were followed weeks later by the findings of another study, presented March 21st this year at the European Breast Cancer Conference in Vienna (EBCC-8), that also overturned previous advice to women. In cases where a woman who had been successfully treated for breast cancer became pregnant, women had often been advised to have an abortion. But this new research found that there was no difference in the survival rates of women who became pregnant after having breast cancer and those who did not.

The findings were presented at EBCC-8 by lead researcher Dr. Hatem Azim, a medical oncologist at the Jules Bordet Institute in Brussels.

Dr. Azim said, “Frequently, when women with history of breast cancer become pregnant, some physicians advise them to have an abortion for fear that completing the pregnancy could have a detrimental effect on the outcome of their disease.

“We found that this was not true and the outcome was similar, irrespective of whether the pregnancy was completed or not.”

The cancer expert said that the findings meant that “abortion should not be promoted for therapeutic reasons” for pregnant women with a history of breast cancer.

Meanwhile, Irish abortion industry lobbyists continue to push for “medically necessary” abortion to “save women’s lives”.

The debate on abortion is currently raging in Ireland and it was quite remarkable that these findings went almost unreported by the Irish media. It is crucially important then that the pro-life movement ensures that the public are informed as to what science, rather than the abortion industry, has to say.

The Lancet interview also revealed that for Dr. Amant an early experience of caring for a pregnant woman with cervical cancer was pivotal in shaping the course of his career.

“She told me her early diagnosis was thanks to the pregnancy. So she wanted to give her baby the chance he had given her.”

This is what medicine should strive for - treating mother and baby, and doing best for both. These studies add to the evidence recorded by the Irish experience which proves doctors don’t need abortion to save women’s lives. It’s time for the scaremongering to stop.


Read more here:

Lancet Article #1
Lancet Article #2
European Cancer Organization article

Tags: abortion, breast cancer, chemotherapy, ireland

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

Obama fires warning shot towards Supreme Court as it weighs health care law

by Kathleen Gilbert Tue Apr 03 11:09 EST Comments (64)

 

WASHINGTON, April 2, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - President Obama on Monday took a shot at the Supreme Court as it considers whether to strike down the president’s health law, saying that he was confident that the “unelected” body would not move against the 2,700-page health care overhaul. The health law has been strenuously opposed by pro-life advocates for its inclusion of abortion funding, and, more recently, the contentious mandate that religious employers pay for abortifacient birth control and other birth control drugs.

“Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” said Obama, who also took a sly swipe at “conservative commentators” who oppose judicial activism, but who support the end of the law.

“And I’d just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, this is a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

The Supreme Court heard three days of oral arguments on the health care bill last week, during which all five of the bench’s conservative justices expressed marked skepticism about the bill’s attempt to mandate every U.S. citizen purchase health insurance, something opponents have said is unconstitutional.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of three swing votes proponents hope to win over, said during the arguments that the mandate “threatens to change the relationship between the government and the individual in a profound way.”

Justice John Roberts also expressed skepticism that the broad power assumed by the government had any clear terminus, and compared the insurance mandate to a rule forcing Americans to buy cell phones in order to respond to emergency situations.

“You don’t know when you’re going to need [emergency services]; you’re not sure that you will. But the same is true for health care,” said Roberts. “So there is a market there. To—in some extent, we all participate in it. So can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services?”

Justice Antonin Scalia also appeared critical of the administration’s arguments, shooting down Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s argument that the mandate was equivalent to previous laws regulating commerce that were unprecedented at the time.

“Oh no, it’s not,” Scalia interjected. “They all involved commerce. There was no doubt that was what regulated was commerce. And here you’re regulating somebody who isn’t covered.”

Georgetown University law professor Louis Michael Seidman told Reuters that it’s “not that common for presidents to get into direct verbal confrontations with the Supreme Court,” but conceded that the court normally doesn’t weigh the future of one of the president’s top legislative prizes.

This isn’t the first time Obama has stepped over conventional boundaries to challenge the third branch of government: In January 2010, Obama turned heads during a State of the Union Address by issuing a direct criticism of the high court’s revision of campaign finance law.

“The Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections ... and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong,” said the president, eliciting visible discontent from the justices sitting in the front row.

Tags: abortion, health care, obama, obamacare

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

Pro-abortion forces disappointed as legalization bill stalls in Uruguay

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Tue Apr 03 10:43 EST Comments (1)

April 3, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An attempt by Uruguay’s ruling coalition of socialist parties to legalize abortion on demand during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy has stalled in the nation’s Chamber of Deputies, after passing a Senate vote in late December.

Although a vote on the measure was projected to take place sometime in March, no such vote has taken place.  According to Soledad González, spokeswoman for the Legal Abortion Coordinator, there isn’t sufficient support in the lower legislative house to pass it.

“In reality, it’s all about pressuring the deputies, because the citizens, in reality, according to the polls that have been done for the last 15 years, are in favor of legal abortion, and of a change in the current laws,” she told the Spanish news service EFE in a recent interview.

González says that her group is pressuring legislators to support the measure, through public demonstrations and lobbying within the Parliament, in an attempt to convince lawmakers that they aren’t being “representative” if they don’t vote in favor.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

While pro-abortion forces are trying to jump-start their legalization initiative, pro-lifers are expressing their opposition in unique ways.

On March 10, during the annual Patria Gaucha celebration, which pays tribute to the “Gaucho” or rancher culture of Uruguay and neighboring countries, a parade of 4,000 horses with 2,400 riders marched by Uruguay’s president José Mujica, under the slogan “Yes to Life,” EWTN Noticias reported.

Marchers also did not adorn an image of the Virgin Mary that is carried in the parade, in protest against the pro-abortion legislation under consideration.

At the end of the parade, a letter expressing the pro-life position was delivered to Mujica, who has promised to sign the abortion bill if it is passed by the Parliament.

Pro-abortion legislation was passed by both houses of the Uruguayan Congress in 2008, but vetoed by then-president Tabaré Vazquez, whose pro-life position was in opposition to the position of the Broad Front coalition, of which he was a member.

Tags: abortion, uruguay

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

Final count: 63,000 in 145 cities joined rallies against HHS mandate across U.S.

by Kathleen Gilbert Tue Apr 03 09:38 EST Comments (8)

 

CHICAGO, April 3, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The leaders of a nationwide protest against the HHS mandate forcing religious employers to cover abortifacient drugs and other forms of birth control have said that the demonstrations drew about 63,000 people in 145 cities across America last month.

The March 23 Stand Up for Religious Freedom rallies sprang up across the country as part of a grassroots-driven protest that saw hundreds and even thousands in each city standing, some in pouring rain, in opposition to the rule they say represents an unprecedented attack on religious freedom.

The rallies were supported by dozens of Catholic bishops, including Cardinal Dolan of New York, the president of the U.S. Bishops’ Conference, who thanked the crowds for their public witness and commended their participation in a letter.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

“Since January 20, when the final HHS Mandate was announced, two things have been abundantly clear: religious freedom is under attack, and we will not cease our struggle to protect it,” he wrote.

The Stand Up for Religious Freedom Coalition reported that, in addition to Cardinal Dolan, 11 other bishops provided statements that were read at one or more rallies, and at least 24 bishops spoke in person at a rally (a list is available here).

Eric Scheidler, a co-director of the Coalition, said on the event’s website that he and his colleague Monica Miller had thought in the beginning that the idea would catch on in 50, maybe 100 cities.

“How little did I know what God had in store for this historic day!” he wrote.

Tags: birth control mandate, religious freedom, timothy dolan

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

The pain of an abortion ‘can be erased,’ Mormon leader says

by Ben Johnson Tue Apr 03 09:06 EST Comments (4)

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, April 2, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The pain of an abortion can be erased; “no other pattern” can replace the natural family; and married couples have a privilege and “responsibility” to raise children.

These were the sentiments voiced at the 182 General Assembly of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Salt Lake City this weekend.

In an address entitled ”And a Little Child Shall Lead Them,” Mormon leader Boyd K. Packer called on church members to dedicate themselves to the nuclear family: marriage, parenthood, and spending “sacred time” together.

Packer, president of the LDS church’s second highest governing body, related the story of a woman who told him she regretted her abortion. “Tearfully,” he recalled, she “told me that as a college student she had made a serious mistake with her boyfriend. He had arranged for an abortion.”

“In due time they graduated and were married and had several other children,” he said. “She told me how tormented she now was to look at her family, her beautiful children, and see in her mind the empty place where that one child was missing. If this couple understands and applies the Atonement, they will know that those experiences and the pain connected with them can be erased. No pain will last forever…Repentance and the lasting hope that forgiveness brings will always be worth the effort.”

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

Quoting Psalm 127:3-5, he said, “Children are an heritage of the Lord: and…happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them.” He noted both in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon Third Book of Nephi record that Jesus blessed the little children.

“The creation of life is a great responsibility for a married couple,” he told attendees. “When we were first married, my wife and I agreed to accept the children that would be born to us.”

 

(Boyd Parker’s pro-life remarks begin at approximately 6:35 into video and continue into the second video, below).

When another young couple “tearfully” told him they were unable to have children of their own, he said, “their state was infinitely better than other couples who are capable of being parents but who rejected and selfishly avoided that responsibility.”

Despite attempts to remold the family, he said “neither man nor woman can bear children alone. It was meant that children have two parents — both a father and a mother. No other pattern or process can replace this one.”

Parenthood matures and refines the character, leading to “one of the greatest discoveries of parenthood”: “that we learn far more about what really matters from our children than we ever did from our parents.”

Packer, born 10th in a family of 11, said, “The ultimate end of all activity in the church is to see a husband and his wife and their children happy at home, protected by the principles and laws of the Gospel…Husbands and wives should understand that their first calling, from which they will never be released, is to one another and then to their children.”

He urged church leaders to make sure they did not overburden parents with church activities at the expense of their home lives. He said, “Family time is sacred time and should be protected and respected.”

The church’s website states the Mormon faith allows abortion “when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.”

The Mormon church’s pro-family leadership on behalf of California’s Proposition 8 led it to endure threats, vicious stereotypes, and the possibility of an IRS investigation

The conference concluded on Sunday.

Tags: boyd parker, mormon church

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

Video: Ontario Bill 13 rally outrage

by Steve Jalsevac Mon Apr 02 20:47 EST Comments (10)

 

TORONTO, April 2, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Last Thursday’s high-charged rally against the Ontario government’s Bill 13, imposing the province’s Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy (EIE) on all public and private schools, revealed many parents are dismayed over this attempt to remove parental rights. Video footage of the rally clearly reflects the intensity of the opposition to the bill from representatives of a wide variety of ethnic and faith communities. See video  (see also last Friday’s report)

Note:
previous versions of this video did not play properly within this story. If you had difficulty viewing the video just restart your browser and it should now play smoothly.

Phil Lees, leader of the Family Coalition Party, received perhaps the strongest reaction from rally participants while describing (not in LSN video) the bill’s intent to deprive parents of even the right to be advised about what takes place in their children’s classrooms on matters related to Bill 13. Lees emphasized, the EIE document says, “No teacher, you’re not going to tell parents.” 

Lees related a call received the previous week from a distraught parent. A mother said that her 8-year- old son came home and told his mother that “he married his best friend James.”  Lees continued, “when asked, how did this happen”, he was told the child responded, “today at school we were told about what it means to love. We talked about same-sex marriage and the teacher had us all decide who we would like to marry in the classroom of our friends and we had a mass same-sex wedding ceremony in the Grade 3 class.” At this point the rally crowd roared dismay and anger.

The FCP leader also charged that Bill 13 will “impose a yet to be developed provincial code of ethics” that will require everyone currently renting school and any other government facilities to agree to that provincial code of ethics. “Guess who’s developing that provincial code of ethics?”, shouted Lees, “the Ontario Human Rights Commission!”

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has been frequently criticized for its strong pro-homosexual, anti-Christian bias and for having imposed severe penalties on individuals who, because of their religious or moral conscience beliefs, “discriminated” against homosexuals .

Lees warned that Bill 13 will require the hundreds of churches that are renting space from schools to sign an agreement to adhere to the new provincial code of ethics, the implication being that they could all lose access to these much needed reasonable rent facilities.

Although pastors from several religious denominations spoke at the rally, some participants expressed concern that no Catholic clergy spoke. Rally organizer Kim Galvao told LifeSiteNews that she did extend a personal invitation to Toronto’s Cardinal Thomas Collins by email but was advised in a response from the Cardinal’s secretary that he was unable to attend. No other representative from the diocese was sent to speak at the event.

Tags: bill 13, education, homosexuality, religious freedom

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

back to top