Friday, April 27, 2012

Print All Articles

VIDEO: HHS Secretary Sebelius squirms as pro-life lawmaker grills her on birth control mandate

by Patrick B. Craine Fri Apr 27 16:22 EST Comments (84)

 

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 27, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - As the battle continues against the Obama administration’s contraception mandate, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius visibly clashed in a hearing Thursday with pro-life House lawmakers, who compelled the secretary to admit she hadn’t reviewed case law on religious liberty before issuing the rule.

Sebelius appeared before the House Education and Workforce Committee where she was grilled by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina) on the mandate, which requires religious employers to cover contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs.

Rep. Gowdy quoted Sebelius’ previous remark that the mandate “strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.”

The Congressman, a former solicitor for South Carolina’s Seventh Judicial Court, said there are three legal tests used to balance competing issues, the third being “strict scrutiny” in the case of “fundamental rights” like religious liberty.

Asked which test she used, Sebelius said: “I’m not a lawyer and I don’t pretend to understand the nuances of the constitutional balancing tests. … I am not going to wade into constitutional law.”

The Congressman then asked: “Before this rule was promulgated, did you read any of the Supreme Court cases on religious liberty?”

“I did not,” she replied.

Rep. Gowdy cited a series of Supreme Court rulings in which the high court upheld religious liberty even where it involved cases of animal sacrifice and gender discrimination.

But Sec. Sebelius was unfamiliar with the cases and again referred the constitutional questions to her legal staff.

“Is there a legal memo that you relied on?” he asked regarding the mandate.

“I relied on discussions,” she said.

Thomas Peters of CatholicVote.org wrote on his blog that the exchange made two things “very evident very quickly.”

First, “[how] ignorant Sebelius actually is about the history of religious liberty in this country.” And second, “how uncaring she is about the whole concept of religious liberty to begin with.”

“A third thing becomes very apparent observing this exchange: hubris,” he added. “It’s not just that Sebelius clearly doesn’t know the first thing about religious liberty, and doesn’t care about preserving it — she also comes across as believing it is beneath her to know or care about it.”

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

Concerns grow that UK will force religious groups to participate in ‘gay marriage’

by Hilary White, Rome Correspondent Fri Apr 27 15:40 EST Comments (15)

LONDON, April 27, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Despite government assurances to the contrary, concerns continue to grow that religious institutions will be forced to participate in “gay marriages” in the UK under soon-to-be issued rules. Secularist campaigners are openly questioning the right of Christians to be involved in the debate, while one Catholic bishop warns that the pressure is growing to keep Christianity strictly a private matter.

This week, the Catholic Education Service (CES), was criticized when it contacted 385 Catholic secondary schools asking that a letter issued by the bishops encouraging opposition to the government’s same-sex “marriage” plans be read out in classes. The CES also asked for participation in the petition being circulated by the Coalition For Marriage. As of this week, over 470,000 people have signed the petition, which is asking the government to retain the legal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

Maeve McCormack, policy manger for the Catholic Education Service, told the Telegraph the bishops’ letter “was an explanation of marriage and a positive affirmation of marriage, celebrating the huge value that it brings to society – we are proud of the fact that these kinds of values are taught in our schools.”

But two secularist campaigners have responded with press releases questioning the legality of Christian educational bodies becoming involved in the debate. Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said in a media release, “This is a clear breach of the authority and privilege that the Catholic Education Service has been given in schools.” Richy Thompson of the British Humanist Association, said, “The Coalition For Marriage petition is very deliberately a political document and for this reason we question whether the CES has broken the law.”

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

In an impassioned keynote speech at a conference on religious freedom at Oxford University earlier this month, Bishop Philip Tartaglia of Paisley, Scotland, warned that the government’s push for “gay marriage” will herald genuine persecution of Christians dissenting from the zeitgeist.

Those Christians who refuse to “bend to become a religion of the state,” he said, will soon no longer be tolerated by the powerful of British society, politicians, judges and celebrities. 

Bishop Tartaglia did not hesitate to name the source of the current conflict between the Church and the state in Britain. Shortly after his elevation as bishop of Paisley in 2005, Bishop Tartaglia said that he quickly realized that “the advance of the homosexual agenda, in concert with equality legislation was beginning to have a problematic effect on the freedom of the Catholic Church to operate in the public sphere.”

The bishop said that several cases in which courts ruled against Christians in conflict with homosexuals demonstrated to him that “with the support of the courts… the power of the courts and of the political establishment, that religious freedom and freedom of conscience could be set aside in favour of the advance of the homosexual agenda.”

Bishop Tartaglia asked, “Will society continue to afford the Catholic Church and other religious bodies the oxygen and the vital space to be themselves and to express themselves in the public square, or will my Church be forced to conform to a publicly acceptable form of religiosity, a kind of patriotic Church?

“Or worse, will we be driven to the margins of society, and perhaps denied the legal right to carry out our mission and to express our faith in public?

Some are concerned, however, that the Catholic and Anglican churches and their educational bodies, may have impaired their ability to stand against that advance, including the change to the definition of marriage, after years of ambiguity towards the central issue in the debate: homosexuality itself. Critics have pointed out that statements and letters from Catholic bishops defending traditional marriage have painstakingly avoided talking about Christian teaching on human sexuality, shying deliberately away from bluntly stating that homosexual behaviour is sinful, as many of their Evangelical co-religionists do regularly.

Leslie Pilkington, a Christian psychotherapist who is facing professional discipline for helping homosexuals leave the gay lifestyle, told LifeSiteNews.com that the failure of the churches to clearly articulate the moral objections to homosexual behaviour has significantly contributed to the current situation.

Pro-family campaigners have questioned whether the focus exclusively on the goods of marriage from both the Anglican and Catholic Churches in Britain, and the refusal to address homosexuality directly, comes from the long history in both communions of tacit and even overt support for the homosexualist political agenda.

As early as 2005, the Anglican Church of England voted to allow homosexual clergy to “marry” members of the same sex and live together openly. This March, the current Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, announced he was retiring from the position, after a ten-year tenure plagued with arguments over the acceptance of homosexuality that have all but fractured the Worldwide Anglican Communion. 

The last three Catholic Archbishops of Westminster, Cardinals Basil Hume, Cormac Murphy O’Connor and the incumbent, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, have actively endorsed significant points of the homosexualist program, including allowing the continuation of “gay Masses” in London that have been the subject of criticism from faithful Catholics around the world.

Last year, while expressing opposition to gay “marriage,” Nichols told media at a press conference, “We would want to emphasize that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision.”

“As a Church we are very committed to the notion of equality so that people are treated the same across all the activities of life,” Nichols said. “The Church holds great store by the value of commitment in relationships and undertakings that people give. Stability in society depends upon the reliability of commitments that people give. That might be in offering to do a job but especially in their relationships with one another. Equality and commitment are both very important and we fully support them.”

Last year, Archbishop Nichols told an interviewer at the Tablet magazine that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in England and Wales had no problems with homosexual civil unions, a stance that the pope has been specifically mandated against by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

At the same time, evidence continues to mount that the government, despite its assurances to religious leaders, will not fight the pressure of lobbyists to force churches and other religious bodies to participate in “gay marriage.”

Prime Minister Cameron did not reprimand one of his Conservative Party MPs who urged the government to force Christian churches to conduct homosexual “wedding” ceremonies. Cameron accepted without comment a letter last August by Mike Weatherley, the Conservative MP for Hove and Portslade, that said, “As long as religious groups can refuse to preside over ceremonies for same-sex couples, there will be inequality.”

Tags: gay marriage, homosexuality, uk

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

IVF and the ‘right’ to be a parent: the child as an expensive lifestyle accessory

by Hilary White, Rome Correspondent Fri Apr 27 15:16 EST Comments (0)

 

ROME, April 26, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – One thing has become abundantly clear since the development of a global, multi-billion dollar artificial procreation industry: children are now regarded as luxury commodities, very expensive ones, and they had better measure up to the expectations of customers. This assumption was bolstered the other day with the announcement in the UK from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) that the numbers of single women and lesbians receiving IVF treatment has tripled in the last five years.

Some years ago, I was launched into the pro-life movement when I took an interest in the ethics and debates surrounding what were then still called the New Reproductive Technologies, in vitro fertilisation, artificial insemination etc. At the time, 2002 or so, the Canadian government was considering legislation to regulate the activities already ongoing in labs across the country, and I was put in charge of organising the fight at Campaign Life Coalition against that insidious bill.

I won’t go into the details of that long battle, but suffice to say that we lost, resoundingly. All the efforts of the national pro-life lobby could not crack the determination of the very powerful and wealthy industry, and, as usual, their helpers in the media, to ensure that the billion dollar artificial procreation business was well protected in Canadian law. That the precise same pieces of legislation were being produced in nearly every other country in the west at the time, with precisely the same wording, was not lost on us. IVF and related activities are a gigantic global industry based on one mistaken, and deadly, philosophical assumption: that there is such a thing as a “right” to be a parent.

The failure to mitigate the damage of that bill was a disaster for Canadian society because it contributed mightily to a terrifying shift in the basic understanding of one of the foundational institutions of any human society: the relationship between parents and children. During that period, a massive paradigm change was undertaken in Canadian society, indeed, in nearly every society in the western world, from the presumption that the child is a gift, given into the care of a family, to the concept that the child is an object upon which individuals exercise their “right to parenthood”.

Click ‘like’ if you are PRO-LIFE!

With the advent of human control over fertility, first with the Pill and legalised abortion, and now with IVF clinics serving as expensive baby boutiques, we have changed that basic paradigm to focus solely on the desires of the parents. All our notions of sex, parenthood and family are now permanently wedded to our personal physical and emotional self-gratification. In other words, we now have both child-proof sex and manufactured children in order to satisfy our various desires for personal fulfillment. It is the final achievement of the sexual revolutionaries: the reduction of persons to the status of things.

Since the global legalisation of artificial procreation techniques, this terrifying shift has become manifest again and again in laws and regulations around the world. The news from the HFEA is only the latest demonstration.

The Christian Institute recalls that in 2008, this government regulator changed the rules on IVF, removing the requirement for clinics to “consider the child’s need for a father” before granting access to IVF, focusing instead on the need to show the availability of “supportive parenting”. 

The article http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/bioethics/big-increase-in-single-and-lesbian-women-receiving-ivf goes on to note some of the voluminous research showing that children really do need both parents, a mother and a father, to thrive and succeed in life. A 2011 report from the Centre for Social Justice concluded that a child growing up without both parents was “75% more likely to fail at school, 70% more likely to become a drug addict, 50% more likely to have an alcohol problem and 35% more likely to be unemployed as an adult”.

Andrea Minichiello Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, an Evangelical lobby group, said, “All of the evidence shows that children prosper the most when they have a married mother and a father. Government policy needs to recognise the importance of the role of fathers and of stable marriages.”

But what we have to understand as pro-life and pro-family people, is that these studies are meaningless under the new paradigm. The priority is not the needs of children. Our society has definitively accepted (in Canada, explicitly in the law) that children are, essentially, not persons. Traditionally, in law a person is something that is protected for his own sake, who has rights of his own and who cannot be bought or sold or killed; as opposed to a thing that is protected only for the sake of others and that can be killed on a whim.

With the advent of legalised abortion, a child can be killed at the whim of the mother, reducing him to the legal status of a chattel object; at best, a lower ranking person, whose needs are always superseded by the needs, rights and even desires of adults. The acceptance and legalisation of artificial procreation simply takes the logic to its next step, saying that a thing that can be destroyed at will can now also be manufactured at will.

This is why it is irrelevant to the HFEA that children genuinely need two parents to thrive. Single women and lesbians, they believe, have a “right to be parents” and this right takes precedent over any other consideration. That this change has dramatically increased the customer base for the IVF industry seems to have gone unnoticed, or at least unmentioned, by the people making the laws.

While we were fighting the Canadian legislation, the main gist of the pro-life argument was that it would tend to create precisely this new outlook toward children. We treat commodities completely differently from the way we treat a dependent person for whom we have responsibility. A luxury good exists for the customer. It must meet the customer’s specifications and if it does not, it can, and ought to be discarded and exchanged for another. This is certainly reflected in IVF, including the creation and selection of many embryos, the concept of “selective reduction” in which “extra” children are aborted and many other common practices of the trade.

Some years before the legislation passed, CBC taped a program on IVF highlighting the campaign of a group of would-be parents to get the national health service to pay for their IVF treatments. During that interview one of the campaigners said, “We have a right to be parents”. It was the first time this was publicly articulated so bluntly, but the CBC interviewer did not make the next point, that if there is such a things as a right be a parent, there must, by definition, be a right to have a child. Not the right, mind you, to do the things that people have always done that may result in a child, but a right to the child himself, to acquire him.

It only stands to reason therefore, that it would be a short jump to making sure the child is the right sort in terms of sex and in good condition in terms of freedom from disease or deformity. If you are going to spend $10,000 a pop on buying this very expensive commodity, to which you have this putative “right,” you also have a right to get a good one. One that is not defective, and will fulfill the purpose of the transaction.

People can be confused by the objection of pro-life movement, and the Catholic Church, to IVF. Isn’t the whole point that we want people to have babies?

Actually no. What we want is for the laws to treat babies like people. IVF is merely the next step in a long progression of massive societal changes, fundamental changes in our outlook, that reduce babies, and by extension all people, to the status of things.

When we made these arguments in Parliament, perhaps due to the massive change in outlook that had already occurred 30 years before with legalised abortion, we were shouted down. The idea that children could be “commodified” was absurd, ridiculous.

We were told that we were standing in the way of progress, that IVF would be the solution to the terrible suffering of infertility. It was even suggested that IVF could solve the looming population crisis. The Church leaders, even those who were with us in principle, mostly shrugged, saying that the practises were ongoing already and at least the legislation would “regulate” them. And besides, we were assured, once the law is in place, it can be amended, improved, as the situation and the science advances.

Now, ten years on, we have selective reduction, “wrongful birth” lawsuits, sex-selection, and eugenic screening of “designer babies”. The concept of the child as an expensive lifestyle accessory is cemented in the global consciousness in the west. And sometimes I regret being Cassandra.

Tags: abortion, ivf

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

The REAL ‘War Against Women’: forced abortion and gendercide in China

by Reggie Littlejohn, Women Without Frontiers Fri Apr 27 13:47 EST Comments (8)

 
Reggie Littlejohn

Note: Reggie Littlejohn is the president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, and human rights group that focuses on ending the abuses of China’s One-Child Policy.

April 27, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The real war against women has nothing to do with the morning-after pill or insurance coverage.  This war transcends the debate between pro-life and pro-choice.  It is not even being waged on U.S. soil. 

The real war against women is forced abortion and gendercide in China.

As the U.S. debates Obamacare and the contraceptive mandate, Chinese women are being dragged out of their homes, strapped down to tables and forced to abort babies that they want, up to the ninth month of pregnancy.  Sometimes the women themselves die, along with their full term babies. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, no one supports forced abortion, because it’s not a choice. Watch this 4-minute video to learn the brutal truth about forced abortion in China. 

Equally appalling, baby girls are being selected for termination.  According to one UN estimate, up to 200 million women are missing in the world today due to gendercide, the sex-selective abortion of baby girls, mostly in China and India.  Anyone who cares about women’s rights must be heartbroken and incensed by this massive attack against females. 

China’s One Child Policy causes more violence against women and girls than any other official policy on earth.  It is systematic, institutionalized violence against women:

· Forced abortion is violent.  It is official government rape.

· Forced sterilization is often done without anesthesia and may cause infection, which can ruin a woman’s reproductive and general health.

· Infanticide – the killing of newborns – is a human rights atrocity.  Read “Best Practices – Infanticide” here.

· Because of gendercide, there are now approximately 37 million more males living in China than women.

· This gender imbalance is driving sexual slavery not only within China, but from the surrounding countries as well.

· China has the highest female suicide rate of any nation in the world.  An estimated 500 women a day end their lives in China.

The women of China cannot fight this war, or they risk being imprisoned, tortured and denied medical treatment, like blind forced abortion opponent, Chen Guangcheng.

Martin Luther King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”  Stand with our sisters in China.  Sign a petition to end forced abortion in China.

Help free Chen Guangcheng.

Tags: abortion, obama

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

Obama admin says discrimination against transgender people is sexual discrimination

by Christine Dhanagom Fri Apr 27 12:41 EST Comments (14)

 

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 27, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an unprecedented ruling last week, the Obama administration stated a federal law banning gender discrimination in the workplace also prohibits discrimination against a “transgender” person on the grounds of gender identity.

The decision by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was prompted by a complaint from a transgender man, Mia Macy, who says he was denied employment with the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) because he was transitioning from his biological sex as a male to a woman at the time he applied.

Macy, a former police officer who is married to a female Army veteran, says that he was promised a job as a ballistics technician with the ATF and had already begun the hiring process when he informed the agency that he was in the process of becoming a female. He subsequently received notice that the position was no longer available due to budget cuts, but says he later discovered that someone else had been hired in his place.

In a controversial move, the EEOC ruled that officials at the ATF had violated the prohibition against gender-based discrimination in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by not hiring Macy.

Citing a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that held that sex discrimination includes “discrimination based on a failure ‘to conform to socially constructed gender expectations,’” the Commission held that transgender females were “anatomical males whose outward behavior and inward identity [do] not meet social definitions of masculinity,” and that discrimination against them is therefore legally “actionable.”

The decision compares workplace discrimination against transgender people to an employer who finds out that a Christian employee has Muslim parents and fires the employee for not identifying with the same religion as his parents.

According to Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, the ruling was an intrusion on Congressional authority “to define what’s covered in the Civil Rights Act.”

“There have been literally dozens of attempts to amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to include transgender discrimination and each of those has failed uniformly,” he told LifeSiteNews. “It’s really an extraordinary power grab.”

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

The decision builds on a handful of previous court decisions that applied a similar interpretation of Title VII, but the EEOC’s decision has now made this into a “broad policy,” Schowengerdt said. He added that there is reason to be concerned that the implications of this ruling could be far-reaching, affecting issues such as bathroom use and workplace dress code.

Reactions from the gay and lesbian community seem to lend more credence to these concerns. Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the ruling “very strong protection” for transgenders in comments to the homosexual publication Metro Weekly.

‘‘Title VII is a very protective statute, and transgender people being able to rely on that statute now is transformative,” Minter said.

Tags: civil rights, equal employment opportunity commission eeoc, obama administration, transgender

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

Property destruction: the new ‘free speech’?

by Ben Johnson Fri Apr 27 12:27 EST Comments (23)

 
The Left exercising “free speech.”
The Left exercising “free speech.”

April 27, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-life advocates, pro-family organizations, and traditional Christians do not expect to get a fair shake in the media, but the dogged, seasoned journalists of the prestige publications have overlooked a disturbing new trend: an increasing number of left-wing activists claim that destroying or defacing other people’s property is part of their First Amendment “free speech” rights.

At LifeSiteNews.com, I have reported on the desecration of a pro-life display at Western Kentucky University. After a campus pro-life group got university permission to set up 3,700 crosses to represent the number of children aborted every day, a student named Elaina Smith placed condoms over each one. When a pro-life student confronted her, Smith complained, “I think it’s kinda weird that you’re allowed to express yourself, and I’m not.” Her art instructor, Kristina Arnold, gave her permission to deface the crosses as an “art project,” defended her actions, and may give her college credit for her act of vandalism.

Earlier this month at Northern Kentucky University, pro-life students hung up baby clothes and marked every fourth one with an “X” – symbolizing that one of every four babies is aborted – only to have their work destroyed. One of the left-wing students who dismantled it, Kyle Pickett, told the Kentucky Post, “Tearing it down was expressing our right to free speech.”

The actions follow another incident at NKU in 2006, when women’s studies professor Sally Jacobsen was fired after she incited her students to tear down a pro-life display of crosses. In an Orwellian turn-of-phrase she admitted, “I did…invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to.” Her behavior was doubly acceptable, Jacobsen claimed, because her feelings were hurt. “Any violence perpetrated against that silly display was minor compared to how I felt when I saw it,” she whined. “Some of my students felt the same way, just outraged.”

Click ‘like’ if you are PRO-LIFE!

What Jacobsen, et. al, describe is not the exercise but the extinguishing of free speech. The notion that if someone objects to a message, he may prevent others from expressing it is formally known as a Heckler’s Veto and is a violation of the First Amendment.

And of course, vandalism is not “speech” at all. Destroying other people’s property is not a missive; it’s a misdemeanor. It is also thuggish, imperious, and fascistic.

One can hardly be surprised when such notions of entitlement to the use of force bleed over into, well, the use of force. On Tuesday, a group calling itself the “Angry Queers” threw rocks through 100-year-old stained glass windows at Mars Hill Church in Portland. Its crime? The pastor of another church, with which it happens to be affiliated, said homosexuality is a sin. The local pastor, Tim Smith, agrees but has reached out to the local homosexual community to find common ground.

The possibility of human harmony and reconciliation was more than the liberal activists could bear.

In the wee hours, masked protesters threw baseball-sized rocks through nine church windows, causing thousands of dollars in property damage. “We hope this small act of vengeance will strike some fear into the hearts of all of Mars Hill’s pastors,” they wrote in an e-mail to a Portland TV station. Although there are apparently two versions of their statement, both included the line, “The only dialog we need with scum like Mars Hill is hammers through their windows.”

No media source reported the homosexual activists’ intent to terrorize their political opponents, nor that they committed themselves to violence in perpetuity. In effect, Big Journalism’s gatekeepers collaborated with the extremists to make them look more mainstream.

Can one believe for a moment if a pro-life organization – “The Fetus Fanatics,” let’s say – had thrown bricks through an abortion mill’s windows, dropped the f-bomb on any Christian who talked to the other side, then incited further violence, the media would be so docile?

Reporters in the liberal media have detected 50 of the last zero acts of “pro-life terrorism,” and zero of the last four anti-Christian hate crimes. After a certain critical mass, one has to assume the oversight is intentional. 

As these rage- and bigotry-fueled acts go unreported, and unpunished, one has to wonder: What will their perpetrators do next?

It’s All Been Done Before

The other side believes it has the inalienable right to silence speech of which it disapproves and to destroy property used in the commission of thoughtcrime. What is the next step – breaking up pro-life meetings like the brown-shirts of old, so the other side cannot express itself in the first place?

Sadly, that has already been done. Extremists have been invading and shutting down Right to Life meetings all year. Occupy Wall Street interrupted the March for Life Youth Rally in Washington, D.C., and threw condoms at Catholic school girls at a pro-life event at the Rhode Island statehouse. The campaign of intimidation is well underway.

If we are already to that point, what will come next? The right to batter, maim, or kill someone whose speech might offend you? As remote as it seems, recent history teaches us the rationale for war creeps inexorably from defense toward preemption. If social mores allow you to attack someone after an offense, why wait until it is inflicted?

That, too, is already a reality.

The right to preemptively kill another person, not only for inflicting harm but who may potentially inconvenience you in any way, is already legal. It’s called abortion.

The self-centered disdain for others is the logic that ties the action and its advocacy into one seamless, violent continuum.

As this month’s entitled acts of desecration prove, their disrespect for others and pursuit of autonomy at any price does not end at birth.

This article originally appeared on TheRightsWriter.com and is reprinted with permission.

Tags: constitution, hate crimes, media bias, violence

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

Birth not a moment of ‘magical transformation’: MP slams anti-science views in rare abortion debate

by Patrick B. Craine Fri Apr 27 12:16 EST Comments (53)

 
MP Stephen Woodworth speaking at the National March for Life on Parliament Hill in 2011.

OTTAWA, Ontario, April 27, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Canadian MP called on his fellow parliamentarians to “courageously follow the facts” Thursday and to support his motion to examine the humanity of children in the womb.

Speaking in the House of Commons’ first hour of debate on Motion 312, Tory MP Stephen Woodworth said: “Canadians expect parliamentarians to embody that courage, that strength, that principled quest for the truth. Will we be seen as bold for the sake of truth, or as fearful? We can trust Canadians to embrace the truth with us.”

The Kitchener MP has called on Parliament to establish a special committee to re-examine section 223 of the Criminal Code, a 400-year-old provision inherited from British common law that states a child only becomes a “human being” once he or she has fully proceeded from the womb.

“How many Canadians believe that birth is a moment of magical transformation that changes a child from a non-human to a human being?” he asked in the House Thursday. “Perhaps that ancient definition made sense when leeches and bloodletting were standard medical practices, but does it make medical sense in the 21st century?”

Click ‘like’ if you are PRO-LIFE!

Woodworth’s motion has been strongly opposed by all of the major political parties, but none are saying that they will whip their caucus to vote against it. Tory Prime Minister Stephen Harper pledged Thursday before the debate that he would vote against it and called it “unfortunate” that it was even deemed votable.

The Opposition New Democrats, who are officially pro-abortion, say they are unanimously opposed, so have no need to whip the vote.

In the debate Thursday, Tory whip Gordon O’Connor (Carleton-Mississippi Mills) insisted that the “ultimate intention of this motion is to restrict abortions in Canada at some fetal development stage,” and re-iterated the government’s stance that they will not support any effort to “regulate abortion.”

“I cannot understand why those who are adamantly opposed to abortion want to impose their beliefs on others by way of the Criminal Code,” he said. “There is no law that says that a woman must have an abortion. No one is forcing those who oppose abortion to have one.”

New Democrat Status of Women critic Niki Ashton (Churchill) accused the Conservative government of having “rolled back the clock on gender equality” during its 6 years in office, doing so most pointedly “in the area of reproductive rights.” Opposition to abortion is the Tories’ “Trojan horse agenda,” she said.

“The reality is that the issue of abortion was settled in 1988” when the Supreme Court struck down the existing abortion law, she said.

That law, passed by Pierre Trudeau’s Liberals in 1969 as part of an Omnibus Bill, allowed the deadly procedure if approved by a committee of doctors. That law, with its loopholes and weak safeguards, soon led to a practical abortion-on-demand situation across the country.

“A woman’s right to reproductive choice is a human right. In Canada, in 2012, a woman’s right to choose is not up for negotiation,” said Ashton. “As ugly as it may seem, women must not be forced to return to those ugly circumstances of using coat hangers, vacuum cleaners or putting themselves in the hands of quacks.”

Liberal MP Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre) said the Liberals will oppose the motion, and accused the Tories of violating Harper’s election promise to “not reopen the debate on abortion.”

“The government” is being “disingenuous” and treating Canadians as “simpletons” by pretending that a motion to examine the personhood of the unborn does not open up the abortion issue, she continued. “The Prime Minister should not have given the member the back door and the opportunity to waste the time of the House to use Motion No. 312 as a back door to recriminalize abortion.”

She said it would be “ludicrous” to grant protections for the unborn from 20 weeks gestation, around the point of viability, as some have suggested. “After 20 weeks, are the government and the state going to put a woman in jail if she does not wish to maintain that pregnancy within her person? Are they going to put her in jail and force her to keep this child until term?”

New Democrat Françoise Boivin (Gatineau) said it’s “infinitely unfortunate” that the legislature is debating abortion in 2012, arguing that the issue was settled long ago.

She accused Woodworth of ignoring “women’s rights” and instead trying to push a “conversation on the fetus.” “Wow. When I was elected in 2011, if someone had told me that I would be here on April 26, 2012, having a ‘conversation on the fetus’, I would have asked what planet this was,” she said.

Canadian case law is clear that “when a woman is pregnant, her fetus is a part of her body” so the current definition “makes sense” in stipulating that “a fetus is not a human being,” she added.

Liberal MP Denis Coderre (Bourassa) said the legislature should leave the issue alone to “respect the social harmony” of Canada and to “respect women’s rights … and the right to be pro-choice.” [He] said Woodworth is being dishonest because “in reality, what [he] wants to do is re-criminalize abortion.”

Though Woodworth was the only pro-life member to speak on behalf of the motion, Tory MP Harold Albrecht (Kitchener-Conestoga) rose at one point to correct Boivin when she claimed that there were no female MPs in the House at the time of the debate to support Woodworth.

In his remarks in the debate, Woodworth highlighted a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics in February by ethicists from Italy and Australia that called for “after-birth abortion,” otherwise known as infanticide. The authors argued, in their words, that “killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.”

“If we accept their premise that it is acceptable to decree that some human beings are not human persons, their logic follows, inevitably,” Woodworth argued.

He then pointed out that this line of thinking has practical consequences even today. “In Canada every year, the deaths of 40 to 50 infants who are born alive and later die are classified as ‘termination of pregnancy’,” he explained.

“If basic rights can be denied to even one vulnerable person, they can be denied to anyone,” he said. “If we accept a law that decrees some human beings are not human, the question that must be asked is: Who is next?”

The motion has now dropped to the bottom of the House of Commons’ order paper and is expected to receive a second hour of debate in June or September, followed by a vote.

If it passes, the special committee will be appointed and will then have ten months to prepare a final report detailing the medical evidence on the unborn’s humanity, whether or not the Criminal Code is consistent with the evidence as currently written, and possible legislative options for Parliament to affirm or amend the Criminal Code.

Find the full Hansard transcript of the debate.

Get contact information for Members of Parliament.

Tags: abortion, march for life, stephen woodworth

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

Gibbons trial to continue on May 4 after legal arguments

by Tony Gosgnach Fri Apr 27 11:24 EST Comments (32)

Toronto, Ontario, April 27, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The conclusion of Linda Gibbons’s trial on a charge of disobeying a court order was put off to at least May 4 when her defence counsel raised two legal arguments on her behalf as her trial began in a downtown Toronto courtroom Thursday morning.

Gibbons was arrested, and has been held in prison since, last December 16, when she appeared on the sidewalk outside the Morgentaler “Clinic” abortion site on Hillsdale Avenue in Toronto. Although bail was offered, she refused it on the grounds that it included a provision to stay away from abortion sites and so she has remained behind bars at the Vanier Centre for Women in Milton.

As a group of supporters watched from the public gallery, counsel Daniel Santoro entered a plea of not guilty on Gibbons’s behalf after she was arraigned in court. Crown attorney Andrew Cappell then called his only witness, Sheriff Peter Krause, to the witness stand to give his account of events after he was called to the scene on December 16.

Krause said he observed Gibbons with pamphlets in hand walking silently on the sidewalk about five metres from the abortion site doorway. He told her she was in contravention of a court injunction and had to remove herself 150 metres from the site, but there was no response. He repeated the request several times and then read the text of the injunction from about a metre away.

There again being no response, Krause said he called on attending Toronto police service personnel to arrest her and remove her from the site. His testimony concluded the Crown’s case.

Santoro then stood and told Justice William R. Wolski that he would be seeking a directed verdict of not guilty as Gibbons was not named in the text of the injunction. The order made it clear that it was in effect only on the consent of the affected parties, but Gibbons never gave such consent, he said. The injunction, he argued, could not be made binding on every person in the world.

In response, Cappell said the text of the injunction stipulated that it is applicable to “Jane Doe” and persons unknown.

Secondly, Santoro argued the text of the injunction prohibits causing a nuisance within a 150-metre zone, but Gibbons’s conduct of simply walking back and forth with pamphlets in hand could in no way be construed as such. The measure’s prohibition against watching, besetting or secondary picketing also did not apply, he said, as she was only communicating information via the pamphlets.

“The order does not capture peaceful, silent standing in front of a clinic with anti-abortion literature in hand,” he said. Santoro referred to case law that demonstrates how leafleting is not illegal and cannot be considered the equivalent of picketing in every case.

Wolski put off a decision on the directed verdict motion to May 4 to give the Crown time to research and prepare its counter-arguments. He added that if the motion is not granted to the defence, the trial will then continue on June 14.

The May 4 hearing is slated to take place beginning at 10 a.m. in Room 504 of the College Park provincial court at Yonge and College Streets in downtown Toronto, but may be traversed to another room depending on where Wolski is assigned to preside that day.

Tags: abortion, linda gibbons

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

‘Angry Queers’: Christians are ‘scum,’ deserve ‘hammers through their windows’

by Ben Johnson Fri Apr 27 10:01 EST Comments (166)

 

Warning: This story includes vulgar language as quoted in an e-mail from an extremist homosexual rights group.

PORTLAND, OREGON, April 27, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The group that allegedly smashed up a Portland church hopes its “small act of vengeance will strike fear into the hearts of” Christian leaders who teach traditional sexual morality, according to an e-mail message the group released to the public.

A group calling itself “Angry Queers” has claimed responsibility for throwing baseball-sized rocks through nine church windows in Portland’s Mars Hill Church, including two 100-year-old stained glass panes.

Two versions of the e-mail have been sent to the media, one longer and slightly more incendiary than the other, but both apparently originating from the same group. In the longer version, the LGBT activists state they destroyed church property in the names of several local transgender people who have died, and “all other trans women” whose deaths they blame on “this cissexist, femmephobic, racist, and transmisogynistic society.”

“Churches are a major contributor to the culture that deems trans women of color to be disposable, as not worth keeping alive,” the statement read.

The “brand of Christianity” taught by Mark Driscoll, pastor of the largest Mars Hill Church in Seattle, “crusades against the ‘feminization’ of Jesus,” the e-mail stated. “We angry queers are not fans of Jesus, but we have a problem with anyone who has a problem with femmes.”

The e-mail, which is peppered with foul language, berates the Q Center, a local LGBT activist organization, for engaging in a dialogue with the Mars Hill’s leadership. “What we have to say to the Q Center is this: F—K YOU, you don’t represent us. You are disgusting traitors who prioritize social peace and the bourgeois aspirations of rich white cis gay people over the more pressing survival needs of more marginalized queers.”

“F—k dialog with people who want us dead,” the e-mail read. “The only dialog we need with scum like Mars Hill is hammers through their windows.”

“We hope this small act of vengeance will strike some fear into the hearts of all of Mars Hill’s pastors, and warm the hearts of our friends and comrades (known or unknown). It may not get better, but we can certainly get even,” it concludes.

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

The local Fox affiliate, KPTV, sent a local homosexual media outlet a copy of the e-mail they received, which is missing several of the communication’s most risible phrases.

However, a reporter at competing KOIN also received a copy of the e-mail. KOIN’s coverage quotes words found only in the longer e-mail.

The longer version names several dead transgender people by first and last name, then references them by first name later. The shorter version only includes the reference to their first names, which may authenticate the longer and more inflammatory version sent to KOIN.

The homosexual media outlet that obtained the KPTV version of the e-mail stated officials at the Fox station said the shorter version is the one they received. The blogger believes “the email’s author(s) submitted a somewhat different version to different outlets.”

Neither media outlet reported the message’s invocations of violence against traditional Christians, which appeared in both versions.

The long form of the e-mail has also appeared on several left-wing websites in the area.

Even before the text of the e-mail had become public, Chuck Currie, a minister in the United Church of Christ (UCC), wrote, “I call on the Portland Police to treat this as a hate crime against all people of faith, regardless of religious tradition or belief.”

However, a commenter calling himself “Angry Queer” on a local homosexual website incited further vandalism, writing: “I hope some sexy, angry queers (like myself) smashed this s**t up and will continue to until Mars Hill cannot exist peacefully in Portland. There is no peace for queers — we are murdered, bashed and ridiculed every f**king day. To have some windows of a huge INSTITUTION THAT PERPETUATES AND BREEDS THE HELL WE LIVE IN EVERY DAY smashed is a small victory and a boost in morale.”

Below the video is the full text of the e-mail as it appears on several left-wing activist websites. The portions that differ from the KPTV version are in italics.

 

Early in the morning of April 24th a group of angry queers smashed out the windows of Mars Hill Church in Southeast Portland. Mars Hill is notoriously anti-gay and anti-woman. Mark Driscoll, Mars Hill’s head pastor, has said that women need to be subservient to their husbands and that gay people are a cancer. His personal brand of Christianity crusades against the “feminization” of Jesus - we angry queers are not fans of Jesus, but we have a problem with anyone who has a problem with femmes.

This action was taken in memory of Mark Aguhar, a fierce queer/trans femme of color and artist from Chicago who killed herself a little over a month ago. We also hold in our hearts Paige Clay, a trans woman of color who was found murdered in Chicago on April 16th; Duanna Johnson, a black trans woman who was in all likelihood murdered by the police in 2008; Agnes Torres Sulca, Deoni Jones, and all other trans women who have been murdered by this cissexist, femmephobic, racist, and transmisogynistic society.

Churches are a major contributor to the culture that deems trans women of color to be disposable, as not worth keeping alive. Children who are forced to attend Mars Hill are indoctrinated in hateful dogma that teaches them their natural desires are an abomination that will damn them to hell. Dan Savage’s “It Gets Better” campaign does nothing in the here and now for queer kids trapped in abusive home or religious settings. And it never got better for Mark, Duanna, Paige, Agnes, Deoni, or the countless other trans women (especially brown trans women) who are regularly murdered.

When Mars Hill moved to town, so-called “representatives” of the queer “community” from the Q Center met with officials from the church in order to have dialog. What we have to say to the Q Center is this: FUCK YOU, you don’t represent us. You are disgusting traitors who prioritize social peace and the bourgeois aspirations of rich white cis gay people over the more pressing survival needs of more marginalized queers. Fuck dialog with people who want us dead, the only dialog we need with scum like Mars Hill is hammers through their windows.

We smashed Mars Hill because they make our lives miserable. We hope this small act of vengeance will strike some fear into the hearts of all of Mars Hill’s pastors, and warm the hearts of our friends and comrades (known or unknown). It may not get better, but we can certainly get even.

 

Tags: angry queers, hate crimes, mars hill church, oregon

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

Chen Guangcheng has escaped house arrest, may be safe at embassy: reports

by Kathleen Gilbert Fri Apr 27 09:18 EST Comments (6)

 

SHADONG, CHINA, April 27, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Blind forced abortion opponent Chen Guangcheng has “disappeared” from his lengthy house arrest under the Chinese government, according to a source who contacted human rights group Women’s Rights Without Frontiers. Another Chinese human rights group reported Friday that Chen is “100% safe” and has possibly found refuge in the U.S. Embassy.

Yaxue Cao, a key Chinese human rights activist who has been advocating on behalf of Guangcheng, told WRWF that she spoke with Chen’s nephew, Chen Kegui. Kegui’s mother overheard guards saying that Chen Guangcheng had “disappeared” from his home, where he had been under strict house arrest Neither villagers nor family members know where he is. Yaxue Cao posted the recording of her conversation with Chen Kegui here.

He Peirong just told WRWF that she helped Chen escape to an undisclosed location outside of Shandong. She said that his health is stable, but she fears he is in danger. She also stated that the fate of Chen’s wife, mother, daughter and son may be in jeopardy. Eyewitnesses reported Guangcheng and his family looked seriously ill in February.

“We are grateful that Chen is no longer under house arrest, but we are concerned about his safety and that of his family,” said Reggie Littlejohn, president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, who called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to raise Chen’s case during her upcoming visit to Beijing in May.

Click ‘like’ if you are PRO-LIFE!

However, ChinaAid founder and president Bob Fu announced Friday that he has been in touch with Chen’s friends and family, and was told by a source who brought Chen to Beijing that he is not in any danger and is “100% safe.” There is speculation that Chen is in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing.

The New York Times reported Friday that American officials would not confirm reports that Mr. Chen had entered the American Embassy, and said a source in the Chinese Ministry of State Security backed up a report from the previous day that Chen was thought to be there. 

ChinaAid said it was asked on Friday to convey to the outside world Chen’s intention to “fight to the end for the freedom of my family inside China. I want to live a normal life as a Chinese citizen with my family.”

Fu says that Chen does not plan to flee the country.

Meanwhile, Fu said police have arrested one of the friends who helped drive Chen on April 22 from his home. He Peirong was in communication with ChinaAid when she was arrested at her home in Nanjing, coastal Jiangsu province, on Friday at 11:11 a.m. She has not responded to later efforts to reach her.

Both Fu and Littlejohn report that police have also taken into custody Chen’s older brother and his nephew, Chen Guangfu and Chen Kegui, respectively. The father and son were taken from their home early Friday morning. After government officials broke into his home early in the morning by climbing over the back wall, Chen Kegui reportedly thought they were burglars and stabbed them.

The U.S. State Department urged Guangcheng’s release in 2006. He and his family had reportedly been “beaten senseless” last February after secretly releasing a videotaped message.

Batman star Christian Bale drew international attention to the case when he was videotaped being roughed up as he attempted to visit Guangcheng last year.

“We must report the true fact of this case and not let the Chinese propaganda machine spin this story as they see fit,” said Fu. “We will stand with Chen and work with the international community and world media to fight for his freedom.”

You can view a video and sign a petition to free Chen Guangcheng at www.WomensRightsWithoutFrontiers.org.

Tags: abortion, chen guangcheng, one-child policy

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

‘Angry Queers’ smash church windows in Portland

by Ben Johnson Thu Apr 26 21:20 EST Comments (69)

 

PORTLAND, OREGON, April 26, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – A homosexual activist group calling itself “Angry Queers” claimed responsibility for smashing nine windows in a church known for teaching traditional sexual morality early Tuesday morning. 

“Upon arriving at the church, we discovered nine separate windows had been smashed in with rocks, including two beautiful 100-year-old stained glass windows,” wrote Tim Smith, pastor of the Portland campus of Mars Hill Church. “We estimate the damage to be several thousand dollars.”

The vandals sent an e-mail to local television station KOIN-TV stating they took the action, because “Mars Hill is notoriously anti-gay and anti-woman.”

Church members say they hold to “traditional Bible-based views on homosexuality.”

Eyewitnesses told police they saw six young men wearing “dark, mask-like partial face coverings” flee the scene around 2:30 a.m.

“This certainly saddens us greatly as our pastors in Portland have made many efforts to build relationships with the homosexual community in Portland,” Smith said. “Even though they chose to destroy our property and scare away people trying to worship Jesus, we wish them no harm.”

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

The Oregonian reported “black-clad demonstrators…some of whom wore kerchiefs to cover their faces, shouted profanities at adults and children” last October, when the new campus of the Seattle-based church opened. About 20 protesters blocked the entrance and screamed, “Shame on you homophobes. You’re not welcome here. You’re going to burn in Hell.”

The Portland location of Mars Hill Church opened last September, one of 14 nationwide satellites under nationally known pastor Mark Driscoll of Seattle. The church postponed its opening last September after learning LGBT activists planned a “kiss-in” at their first ceremony.

Police believe the same activists who smashed the windows also struck a nearby U.S. Bank branch Tuesday morning. The bank had been vandalized in February just before the Occupy Portland protest.

The latest series of attacks comes just days after the Obama administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that historic Civil Rights provisions allow transgender employees to sue over alleged discrimination, a new interpretation of the law. The shift follows months of transsexual advocacy by this administration, including hosting the first-ever White House transgender summit.

President Obama had a transsexual nanny as a boy in Indonesia.

Liberal Christians have generally condemned the church desecration – and the church. Christian Piatt at the Sojourners website wrote the Angry Queers had “righteous anger,” but “such a response actually serves an opposite purpose from what I believe was intended.”

Chuck Currie, a local minister in the liberal United Church of Christ (UCC), wrote, “If Mars Hills Church represents the worst of Christianity, and I believe it sadly does, those responsible for this attack represent the worst of Portland.”

Lavinia Marks, who lives next door to the church, said, “Part of being liberal is being tolerant of everybody.”

But not everyone opposes the vandalism. “We support the action and stand in total solidarity!” said members of local LGBT activist groups Blow Pony and Homocult. “Mars Hill has not been trying to build relations with our community. Comparing homosexuality to cancer is not building relations!”

The church has refused to respond in kind or allow the violence to dampen their enthusiasm.

“A few piles of broken glass doesn’t change anything for us,” Pastor Smith wrote on his congregation’s FaceBook page. “Be encouraged, stay on the message, keep on the mission and I’ll see you this Sunday.”

 

Tags: angry queers, hate crimes, mars hill church, oregon

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

Critical organ donation warnings and guidance in new pamphlet: “Do not do an Apnea test!”

by Steve Jalsevac Thu Apr 26 20:36 EST Comments (9)

 

April 26, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Dr. Paul Byrne has been on a personal mission for many years to warn the public about the alarming facts and dangers of the $20 billion dollar-a-year organ transplant industry.  At the International Conference for Life in Vatican City February 25, Byrne and other distinguished speakers, including Cardinal Raymond Burke, addressed serious concerns regarding so-called “brain death”, the apnea test and organ transplantation. Dr. Bryne also introduced a new 29-page booklet produced by his Life Guardian Foundation containing crucial information to assist the public in making informed decisions about organ donation.

The new Life Guardian booklet which Dr. Byrne briefly describes in a LifeSiteNews video interview recorded in Rome, is divided into six main sections:

  • Facts About Being an Organ Donor - What you don’t know can kill you
  • Do Your Organs Belong to the Government?
  • Are You Thinking About Organ Transplantation? Making an Informed Decision
  • Manipulation of Beginning and End of Human Life
  • Catholic Teaching on Death and Organ Transplantation

The last part of the booklet contains tear-out forms, with instructions, intended to protect its readers from premature declarations of death that can result in imposed death, followed by subsequent unethical removal of their organs.

Dr. Byrne believes such forms are necessary due to increasingly hurried and flawed death declarations and the very aggressive tactics of the organ transplant industry.

The first form, a basic, Power of Attorney for Health Care, is followed by three complimentary, additional forms:

  1. Directions to Protect and Preserve Life for Power of Attorney for Health Care
  2. Directions to Protect and Protect and Preserve Life and Health Care Representative Serving as an Agent for Dependent Person who is a Minor or Mentally incapacitated person
  3. Directions to Protect and Preserve Life to be carried at all times in case of sudden accident or serious illness

Each of he last three forms includes the strict, bolded direction, “Do not hasten death. Do not shorten death. Do not do an apnea test. Do not take any organ for transplantation or any other purpose.”

The reference to the apnea test reflects grave concerns by Dr. Bryne and other medical professionals that this deadly procedure frequently hastens the death of those being “tested,” some of whom might yet recover, since they are deprived of ventilation for the dangerously long period of time set to determine if they can breathe on their own.

Byrne writes, “Knowing full well how critical the ventilator is, to withdraw it when it is needed most is absurd! Yet, it is planned for the patient to be taken off for up to 10 minutes - the patient can only get worse! This test is sometimes lethal. Make sure to instruct all medical staff: “Do not do an Apnea test!”

Dr. Byrne contacted LifeSiteNews to add, “carbon dioxide normally remains below 45 in us and when a patient is on a ventilator, the goal is to keep the carbon dioxide below 45. When doing an apnea test (the test for sleep apnea is not an apnea test), the respiration supporting ventilator is taken from the patient causing the carbon dioxide to increase to at least 60, and sometimes higher. When the carbon dioxide goes to these levels, swelling in the brain occurs or gets worse if it is already present. This is tantamount to suffocation.”

“The ventilator can be effective only in someone living” emphasizes Byrne. “The ventilator pushes air into the lungs; the air goes out (exhaled) only when and because the living body pushes it out. This does not occur in a cadaver/corpse/dead body.”

Although parts of the Life Guardian Pamphlet are directed to Catholics who are considering becoming organ donors, there is also much medical/ethical information applicable to a more general audience.

The medical credentials of Dr. Byrne have given considerable weight to the credibility of his presentations on the controversial topics which he has traveled to numerous countries to speak about. The new booklet describes Byrnes credentials as follows:

Dr. Paul Byrne, a Neonatologist is Director of Neonatology and Director of Pediatrics at St. Charles Mercy Hospital in Oregon, Ohio; Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, University of Toledo College of Medicine; Board Certified in Pediatrics and Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine: Member of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars; past-President of the Catholic Medical Association (USA); and author of numerous articles on “brain death” and organ transplantation in medical and law journals and lay press. He is the producer of the film Continuum of Life and the author of Life, Life Support and Death, Beyond Brain Death, and Brain Death is Not Death. Dr. Byrne has presented testimony on life-death issues to nine state legislatures beginning in 1967, He opposed Dr. Jack Kevorkian on Cross-Fire, and has appeared on Good Morning America, the BBC documentary, “Are the donors really dead?” and public television in Japan.

See yesterday’s related LifeSiteNews report with many other related links, Dad rescues ‘brain dead’ son from doctors wishing to harvest his organs - boy recovers completely

Tags: apnea test, brain death, dr. paul byrne, organ donation

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

back to top