Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Print All Articles

New archbishop of Denver: There’s ‘tremendous joy when you know you’ve saved an unborn child’

by Ben Johnson Tue May 29 17:42 EST Comments (10)

 

DENVER, COLORADO, May 29, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The archbishop-designate of Denver, the Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila, has heartened the pro-life community with his long history of pro-life activism.

Pope Benedict XVI selected the 61-year-old native Californian, who lived in Colorado for 25 years, as Denver’s fifth archbishop. He will follow Archbishop Charles Chaput, who will lead the archdiocese of Philadelphia.   

After serving as founding rector of St. John Vianney Seminary, he moved to Fargo, North Dakota, for 11 years, just over ten of those as its bishop. He briefly oversaw the diocese of Sioux Falls in 2005.

Upon learning of his elevation, he told the Catholic News Agency society must “get back to the basic dignity of the human person.”

The next shepherd of the 1.5-million member archdiocese has strongly supported the 40 Days for Life campaign, encouraging all priests to spend an hour in front of an abortion facility. In 2007, he said, “As your bishop, I ask you to sign up for an hour of prayerful vigil, as well. Tell your parishioners when that hour will be and challenge them to meet or exceed your example.” 

He taught by his actions, leading a Eucharistic procession to Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo and holding a prayer service in front of the abortion facility in 2009.

Reflecting on that history after his selection, Bishop Aquila said, “there’s always the tremendous joy when you know you’ve saved an unborn child.”

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

His words and actions have drawn a bright line separating Roman Catholic doctrine from participation in the inherent evil of abortion.

Last Ash Wednesday, he and fellow North Dakota bishop Paul Zipfel instructed the faithful not to give their Lenten alms to “support or endorse individuals and organizations that provide, promote, or advocate for abortion, contraception, reproductive rights/‘family planning,’ or embryonic stem cell research” – including the March of Dimes and the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation. 

However, he has been perhaps most outspoken in the need to enforce Church discipline against Catholic lawmakers who support abortion.

Bishop Aquila proposed a simple solution for politicians who support abortion and refuse to hear the voice of the Church: “Expel him.” Allowing such people to receive the Eucharist would only “leave them in their sins and confuse the faithful,” he said.
 
In 2004, when Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said he personally opposed abortion but voted to keep it legal, Bp. Aquila gave a Sunday homily on the topic, saying, “Catholics who separate their faith life from their professional and social activities are putting the salvation of their souls in jeopardy. They risk the possibility of Hell.”

Four years later he said, “Some believe that it is possible to be a faithful Catholic and be pro-choice. This is impossible. Abortion is an intrinsic evil.” 

The Obama administration has presented fresh difficulties for the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

The bishop opposed the president’s signature accomplishment, national health care reform, or any system that includes “provisions for actions which deny the dignity of human life, especially abortion, euthanasia, whether passive or active, and embryonic stem cell research.”

He forcefully rejected the notion that the reform had to be handled at the federal level. “There is a danger in being persuaded to think that the national government is the sole instrument of the common good,” he said. “Rather, according to the classic principle of subsidiarity in Catholic social thought, many different communities within society share this responsibility.”

When Notre Dame invited President Obama to give its 2009 commencement address, he wrote to the university’s president, “‘you are not on the side of God, but of men’ (Mt 16:23).”

The bishop has defended marriage as strongly as he has innocent life. “The Church has been clear that marriage can only be between a man and a woman,” he has said, “and we need to continue to speak clearly to society on the truth, dignity, and meaning of marriage.” 

Treading into such contentious but non-negotiable issues, Bishop Aquila has embraced Caritas in Veritate, speaking the truth in love.  During the keynote address to the 10th Annual Symposium on the Spirituality and Identity of the Diocesan Priest in Philadelphia last year, he said, “Correction can be difficult and painful, as parents know, yet as a shepherd I am willing to suffer the rejection and anger of another when I speak the truth for the good of the person and the Bride of Christ. To correct and/or to punish someone who has gravely sinned against real love is an act of servant love and is found in the truth!” 

In its media coverage, the Associated Press referred to His Grace as “Monsignor Samuel Aquila.”

The archbishop-designate said his other priorities include priestly formation and youth and women’s ministries.

Tags: samuel aquila

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

Toronto Cardinal warns Ontario Liberal gov’t may force gay agenda into Catholic schools

by John-Henry Westen Tue May 29 17:19 EST Comments (21)

 
Cardinal Thomas Collins

TORONTO, May 28, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a public statement yesterday on behalf of the Bishops of Ontario, Toronto Cardinal Thomas Collins has warned that religious freedom is under threat in the province. The statement came in response to what the National Post reported as the Ontario government having “ignored months of behind-the-scenes negotiations” by announcing Friday that Bill 13 would require its mandated homosexual anti-bullying clubs for all schools be called ‘gay straight alliance clubs’ if students so desire, including in Catholic schools.

The cardinal called not only on Catholics, but also non-Catholics to “please consider the implications for all when legislation is enacted that overrides the deeply held beliefs of any faith community in our province, and intrudes on its freedom to act in a way that is in accord with its principles of conscience.”  He warned, “If it happens to us, it can happen to you, on this and other issues. When religious freedom becomes a second class right, you also will eventually be affected.”

Campaign Life Coalition, one of the principal advocacy groups fighting the legislation, praised the Ontario bishops’ stand. “We stand behind the Catholic Bishops and Cardinal Collins, in the principled stand which he has taken to protect Catholic doctrine and Catholic Schools,” said Mary Ellen Douglas, CLC National Organizer and a former separate school trustee.  “Catholics and people of all faiths must stand up now and oppose the heavy-handed machinations of this dictatorial government.”

Campaign Life Coalition has called upon every parent to lobby, write, and visit their MPP, urging them to vote against Bill 13.

In the statement, Cardinal Collins indicated that GSAs are closely related to the gay activist movement and as such could, while addressing bullying, promote values counter to Catholic teaching.  “I question, however, why provincial legislation should make this particular method normative in a Catholic school, which has its own different but effective methods of attaining the goal of addressing bullying and providing personal support for all students, ones which, unlike GSAs, arise out of its own fundamental principles and are in harmony with them,” he said.

Cardinal Collins openly questioned the motives of the Liberal Government saying: “If the point is that there is something unacceptable about those Catholic principles, then I find that troubling.”

Catholic parent groups and advocacy groups have long accused the McGuinty Government of aiming to curtail Catholic teaching on the subject of homosexuality with Bill 13. 

To justify the imposition of the clubs, Education Minister Laurel Broten quoted a survey from EGALE, the country’s leading homosexual activist group, identifying homosexuality as the main cause of bullying in schools. However the Toronto District School Board found in their 2006 study that body image, grades or language are the leading causes of bullying.

“It appears that the Minister of Education is an apologist for the homosexual activists and their drive to insert their agenda into all schools,” said Jim Hughes, CLC National President. “Under the guise of preventing bullying based on orientation they propose to open the doors to an agenda opposed to Catholic teaching. We remind the Government that schools and hospitals in Ontario were primarily established by the Catholic Church at the time of the BNA Act, which guarantees their denominational rights,” he continued.

The bishops urged Catholics to “reflect on the implications for Catholic education” of the legislation, noting that “Catholic educators should be free to make sure that Catholic schools are loving learning environments in which every person is treated with love and respect, and to do so in a way that arises out of our faith tradition and is in harmony with it.”

In media interviews following the issuing of the statement Cardinal Collins was asked if he thought the new announcement by the Liberal Government was an attack on religious freedom. “Well, I think it is in a very real sense,” Collins told the Sun’s Christina Blizzard.

However, the cardinal said it’s “very premature” to talk about a court challenge prior to viewing the final legislation.

Contact information for provincial members of parliament are available here.

Tags: homosexuality, thomas collins

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

Parents who would have aborted their children can still sue, Israeli Supreme Court rules

by Ben Johnson Tue May 29 16:50 EST Comments (4)

TEL AVIV, ISRAEL, May 29, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Israelis born with birth defects can no longer sue their doctors because they were not aborted; now their parents have to wish their disabled children had never been born instead. That’s the ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court, which voted to end the filing of “wrongful life” lawsuits but allow limited “wrongful birth” lawsuits.

Monday’s decision comes in the face skyrocketing “wrongful life” lawsuits, which have quadrupled in the last ten years, with 186 suits filed last year alone. An increasing number of Israelis have sued, saying had their disabilities been detected during prenatal screening, they would have been aborted – a fate they would have preferred.

“The justices determined that suing for ‘wrongful life’ doesn’t merely pose legal difficulties, but ethical difficulties as well,” the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reports. “Defining life as ‘damaged,’ even if it is lived with disabilities, and finding that it would be better for a person never to have been born at all, undermines the value of life, they said.”

The ruling overturned 25 years of legal precedent, which allowed children to file suit for “wrongful life” until age 25.

However, the justices allowed parents to file “wrongful birth” lawsuits that seek damages after the failure to detect a birth defect did not give them the opportunity to abort their child.

The ruling limits parents to seeking damages to compensate for the extra cost of raising children with birth defects if a “causal relationship” can be established – that is, if a mother would have chosen to abort her child and if one of the Jewish nation’s abortion committees would have approved her petition for abortion.

Months before the decision, retired Supreme Court Justice Eliahu Mazza wrote that, compared to Western nations, “the pregnancy termination policy in Israel is far more liberal, especially with regard to late-term abortion, when the fetus is already viable.”

Israel will allow a woman to abort if her child has a birth defect, if the pregnancy occurred out of wedlock, if the mother is younger than 17 or older than 40, or is the pregnancy would harm the mother physically or mentally. In 2004, only one percent of requests for abortions were denied, and 17 percent of requests involved fetal birth defects.

In late 2007 the Chief Rabbinate of Israel ruled abortion immoral except to save the life of the mother.

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

“Israel lags behind in its attitude towards the disabled,” Mazza testified before a public committee formed to discuss wrongful life lawsuits, stating such an outlook lacked “respect, a view that regards the person who is different as a source of variety.”

Medical ethicist Carmel Shalev of the University of Haifa, said in Israel, “There is an entire system fueled by money and the quest for the perfect baby. Everyone buys into it – parents, doctors, and labs,” according to New Scientist.

The nation’s high rate of consanguineous marriages leads to more birth defects, especially Tay-Sachs Disease.

Mazza suggested society provide a public fund for such children’s physical rehabilitation. The Supreme Court recommended the nation adopt his proposal.

The issue of “wrongful birth” lawsuits is not confined to Israel. In March, an Oregon jury awarded Ariel and Deborah Levy $2.9 million after doctors said their daughter, Kalanit, now 4, did not have Down’s Syndrome. They told the jury they would have aborted her had they known. Last September, a Florida jury awarded a West Palm Beach couple $4.5 million after they said they would have aborted their son if they knew he had no arms and only one leg.

Some 28 states recognize wrongful birth lawsuits, according to Christopher Mellino, a Cleveland-based malpractice attorney. 

Wendy Hensel, an assistant professor at Georgia State University College of Law and an opponent of “prohibiting eugenic abortion,” wrote in the Harvard Law Review that such lawsuits “serve as a tool of injustice under the guise of benevolent intervention on behalf of individuals with disabilities.”

Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Missouri, Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Utah have banned “wrongful life” or “wrongful birth” lawsuits.

Arizona became the most recent last month. Deborah Sheasby, legal counsel at the Center for Arizona Policy, said, “Wrongful cause-of-life actions send a terrible message, saying that children with birth defects aren’t as valuable as others.”

 

Tags: eliahu mazza, israel, wrongful birth, wrongful life

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

McGuinty’s ‘sexual political agenda’ is ‘using our children as pawns’ warns Sun News host

by Peter Baklinski Tue May 29 16:48 EST Comments (8)

 

OTTAWA, Ontario, May 29, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A conservative culture critic pulled the lamb’s fleece off McGuinty’s anti-bullying legislation last week, arguing the Bill’s “sexual political agenda” aims to take down “Ontario’s Catholic School system by forcing them to accept secular doctrine that goes against their religion.”

Brian Lilley, host of Byline on Sun News Network, told viewers of last week’s show that McGuinty’s Bill 13 would “force every school to set up and let students run clubs on their own – meaning without the teachers – and the purpose of these clubs, even if it is not in the name is to have gay straight alliances.”

Lilley said that while just about anybody is against bullying, “homosexuality is not the main cause of bullying in schools, not by a long shot – that would be body image.”

Researchers in Toronto found that the most common type of bullying was based on body image, followed by school grades, with bullying based on sexual orientation coming a distant fifth after cultural background and language.

Don Hutchinson, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada vice-president said recently that media coverage leads the unsuspecting viewer to erroneously conclude that children are most often bullied for reasons relating to sexual orientation or gender identity.

“[S]tudents 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,” he said.

During his show, Lilley highlighted the testimony of psychiatrist Dr. Tim Lau, who critiqued Bill 13 for promoting student led Gay Straight Alliance clubs that are purposefully devoid of teacher or parental guidance.

Dr. Lau referred to a website created by Canada’s most influential homosexual lobby group Egale, a group devoted to the promotion of GSAs, to point out the kind of material that school children in unsupervised GSA clubs will be exposed to. On MyGSA.ca, schoolaged youths are invited to a support group of “gay, bi and queer young men ages 18-29 who use drugs and alcohol.”

“We support guys who use drugs to use in safer ways. No one will be told they have to quit. We talk open and honestly about drugs and alcohol free of judgment. We are sex-positive. We talk about sex from an encouraging point of view. We talk about the kinds of sex we want to have, the sex we have when we’re sober and the sex we have when we’re high or drunk.”

“That’s not a student support group, that’s a hook-up service for stoners,” said Lilley. “Will this sort of thing be supervised properly in these clubs? I doubt it.”

Lilley also pointed out that Bill 13 violates the rights of denominational schools as guaranteed by the Constitution. Section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867 states that “In an for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education” provided that “Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province…”.

“Catholic schools are being told they have to accept that which goes against their faith in order to stop discrimination even though that itself is a form of discrimination,” said Lilley.

“McGuinty’s move here is not about stopping bullying. There are five previous laws passed to stop bullying and more laws won’t stop kids from being mean to each other. … This bill is about pushing a sexual political agenda and smashing any opposition in the way using the courts and legislature and overturning the constitution if they have to. Right now the main opposition is the Catholic school system and that makes them the target.”

“Whether you are Catholic or not, support those schools or not, this story should bother you. It is agenda politics at its worst and it’s using our children as pawns.”

Tags: bill 13, bullying, dalton mcguinty, sexual orientation

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

Doctors must refer for abortion, perform ‘gender reassignment surgery’: UK draft guidelines

by Thaddeus Baklinski Tue May 29 16:25 EST Comments (7)

LONDON, May 29, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A draft of new guidelines titled “Personal beliefs and medical practice” issued by the UK’s General Medical Council warns doctors that exercising their conscience rights to not prescribe contraceptives, including the abortifacient morning after pill, as well as not referring for abortion or performing “gender reassignment surgery,” could endanger their license to practice.

“Serious or persistent failure to follow this guidance will put your registration at risk,” the document forewarns.

Under the guidelines, some circumstances allow a doctor “to opt out of providing a particular procedure because of your personal beliefs and values.” However, this provision is set aside in the case of gender reassignment surgery because, say the guidelines, refusal would amount to discrimination against an identifiable group of patients.

“The exception to this [opt out] is gender reassignment since this procedure is only sought by a particular group of patients and cannot therefore be subject to a conscientious objection. This position is supported by the Equality Act 2010 which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment,” the draft states.

While physicians can refuse to participate in abortions under Section 4(1) of the Abortion Act 1967, the new guidelines state patients seeking “a procedure you have a conscientious objection to” must be referred to another doctor who will carry out the procedure.

The draft guidelines also state that doctors “may have a conscientious objection to providing contraception.” However, they “cannot be willing to provide married women with contraception but unwilling to prescribe it for unmarried women. This would be a breach of our guidance as you would be refusing to treat a particular group of patients.”

Paragraph 54 of the guidelines sums up the restrictions on doctors acting on their personal beliefs with the statement, “You must not express your personal beliefs (including political, religious and moral beliefs) to patients in ways that exploit their vulnerability or that are likely to cause them distress.”

Chief Executive of the General Medical Council, Niall Dickson, said in a statement, “We know that personal beliefs are central to the lives of many doctors and patients.

“Our draft guidance seeks to balance doctors desire to practise medicine in line with their own personal beliefs, whilst ensuring that they are providing patients access to appropriate medical treatment and services.

“We do want to hear what doctors and patients think about the draft guidance and we hope as many people as possible will respond to our consultation by 13 June.”

Bishop Tom Williams, Chairman of the Bishops’ Conference Healthcare Reference Group, criticized the draft guidelines and urged Catholic healthcare professionals to respond to the General Medical Council consultation.

Bishop Williams said in a statement that the GMC guidance “does not have a balanced or positive appreciation of the value of religion,” and that, “Both religion and conscientious objection seem to be treated as problems to be minimised and circumscribed as much as possible.”

He said the guidelines fall far short of achieving their stated purpose and instead have the possibility of creating “an atmosphere of fear in which doctors are prohibited from ever expressing their own religion,” with the result that they “would directly discriminate against certain categories of doctor and indirectly discriminate against patients who may be deprived of a healthcare professional from their community who understands their concerns.”

“It is important that the voice of Catholic doctors and patients is heard in this consultation, which ends in mid June,” Bishop Williams concluded.

Dr David Albert Jones of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre, a Roman Catholic academic institute that engages with the moral questions arising in clinical practice and biomedical research, has produced a document outlining key issues of concern in the GMC’s Personal Beliefs guidelines in order to assist healthcare professionals and patients to understand the issues and to respond to the General Medical Council consultation.

“The Anscombe Bioethics Centre echoes this encouragement [of Bishop Tom Williams] to respond to the GMC consultation, as the Personal Beliefs document will be of great and lasting significance for doctors and for patients. The more people who are able to respond, the more evidence this will provide to the GMC of the serious concerns of doctors and patients on these issues,” Dr Jones said.

The Anscombe Bioethics Centre’s “Notes and Key Points on Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice” is available here.

The link to the General Medical Council (GMC) Consultation on Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice explanation page is available here.

The link to take part in the Consultation is available here.

The General Medical Council’s document titled “Personal beliefs and medical practice” is available here.

Tags: abortion, conscience rights, contraception

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

Ontario Govt blocked access to abortion data because it is ‘highly sensitive’

by Peter Baklinski Tue May 29 16:11 EST Comments (5)

OTTAWA, Ontario, May 29, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – After pro-life activists discovered that the Ontario government had quietly passed a bill blocking access to the province’s abortion data even with a Freedom of Information request, the Ministry of Health and Long-term Care has defended that exemption in a statement emailed to LifeSiteNews.

“In January, Ontario hospitals became subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. At that time the government made several amendments to FIPPA in order to address unique records managed within the health care sector.”

“There are various reasons for wanting to exempt a certain type of record from FIPPA. Records relating to abortion services are highly sensitive and that is why a decision was made to exempt these records,” the statement continued.

“The collection of data relating to abortion services in Ontario has not changed, and the amendments to FIPPA introduced in January do not affect how abortion statistics are reported.”

An amendment to the province’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) was silently slipped into a larger bill titled “An Act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector.” Part VIII of the 2010 Bill 122 amended FIPPA so that the act “does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services”. The Bill received Royal Assent in December 2010 and came into effect at the beginning of this year.

Numerous transcripts from the Legislative Assembly of Ontario record no debate on the issue of restricting access to abortion data in the province.

Pro-life blogger Patricia Maloney broke the story earlier this month after the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term denied her access to abortion statistics under the newly amended FIPPA provisions.

“It all happened under the radar,” wrote Maloney in her blog earlier this month, calling the government’s strategy to exemption abortion data from FIPPA a form of “despotic secrecy,” comparing it to something from the “world of Orwell.”

Dr. Margaret Somerville, professor of law and director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, slammed the Ontario government for making secret “the facts on abortion” in an op-ed piece that appeared last week in the Calgary Herald.

“The government … just want[s] the issue of abortion to go away and hope[s] that secrecy of information will help to achieve that outcome,” she said.

Click ‘like’ if you want to END ABORTION!


Contact information:

Dalton McGuinty, Premier and leader of Liberal Party of Ontario
Room 281, Main Legislative Building, Queen’s Park
Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A1
Ph: (416) 325-1941
E-Mail: dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

Tim Hudak, Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario
4961 King St. E, Unit M1
Beamsville, ON L0R 1B0
Ph: (800) 665-3697
E-Mail: tim.hudakco@pc.ola.org

Contact list for all Ontario MPPs here (http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/members/members_current.do?locale=en&list_type=all_mpps&go=go).

Tags: abortion, ontario

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

Children no longer allowed to sue for ‘wrongful birth,’ only parents: Israel Supreme Court

by Katie Craine Tue May 29 15:45 EST Comments (2)

 
Israel's Supreme Court

JERUSALEM, Israel, May 29, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A panel of seven justices at the Israel Supreme Court ruled Monday that ‘wrongful birth’ lawsuits can now only be filed by parents of a disabled child. Previously, until the age of 25 children born with birth defects that could have been diagnosed prenatally were able to sue doctors for their own ‘wrongful birth.’

The first ‘wrongful birth’ case was filed in Israel in 1987, and since then there has been an estimated 600 similar cases, according to New Scientist, with the numbers of such cases rising significantly in recent years.

Monday’s ruling says that only parents can file wrongful life cases to receive compensation for the costs of raising a child with disabilities who they would otherwise have aborted, had they been told about the disability.

According to Haaretz, the justices of the Supreme Court decided to make this restriction to the law saying that there are ethical problems with ‘wrongful birth’ cases, which they said damage the value of life by telling a disabled person that they are better off not being born.

Parents wishing to receive compensation for their disabled child will now have to prove that the birth defect caused the disabilities their child suffers from. They must also be able to prove that had they known about the defect, they would have applied to the abortion committee at the hospital to abort their child.

Click ‘like’ if you want to END ABORTION!

Tags: abortion, israel, wrongful birth

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

Google opposes legislation requiring ISPs to filter porn

by Katie Craine Tue May 29 15:00 EST Comments (12)

 

HERTFORDSHIRE, United Kingdom, May 28, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Google says it opposes an idea proposed by the UK government whereby Internet service providers (ISPs) would be tasked with creating filters to protect children from viewing pornography online.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron has expressed interest in passing legislation that would require ISPs to provide such filters, which would prevent access to pornographic sites unless the Internet user opts-in to access such sites.

ExtremeTech, a popular technology magazine, estimates that 30% of web traffic is from pornographic websites, and studies have shown that children are increasingly exposed to explicit material at an early age.

However, a representative of Google said at Google’s Big Tent event recently that the search giant doesn’t support Cameron’s idea, saying that the onus should fall on parents to monitor what their children are viewing.

“We believe that children shouldn’t be seeing pornography online. We disagree on the mechanisms. It’s not that easy,” said Sarah Hunter, Google’s Head of UK Public Policy, according to BBC.

“There is a problem about the extent to which we deskill parents by giving them simple solutions.

“We should be making more effort than we’ve done in the past to make sure parents really do know the risks children face online.”

However, one ISP, TalkTalk, already has a plan to allow parents to choose to block pornographic content at the ISP level, even as it opposes legislation mandating the filters. Andrew Heaney of TalkTalk said, “It’s a great way of managing what children can see. We don’t see that as censorship, it’s about choice.”

One problem with this idea that has been discussed is who will decide what should be blocked and what shouldn’t. Open Rights Group has warned that the blocks will affect more than just children, and will also block more sites than are necessary.

Hunter also pointed out that filters have been mistaken before and porn sites have been allowed, while other harmless sites have been banned.

Tags: pornography, uk

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

Canada’s historic pro-life motion to face vote June 13th

by Patrick B. Craine Tue May 29 14:05 EST Comments (17)

 

OTTAWA, Ontario, May 29, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Conservative MP Steve Woodworth’s historic motion (M-312) to debate the personhood of unborn Canadians in Parliament is set for June 13th, the MP revealed Tuesday.

The motion was debated April 26th and is set for a second hour of debate on June 7th at 5:30 p.m.

“It is more important than ever that we continue with the momentum generated so far and re-double our efforts,” said Woodworth in an e-mail Tuesday. “Any assistance you can provide in encouraging Canadians to contact their respective MPs and urge their support would be a tremendous help.”

“I am greatly impressed by the efforts I have seen so far and I hope I can count upon your continued assistance during this crucial time,” he added.

The motion seeks a re-examination of section 223 of the Criminal Code, which states that a child only becomes a “human being” once he or she has fully proceeded from the womb.

If passed, Parliament would set up a special committee to consider the medical evidence relating to the humanity of the unborn.

“If there’s justification for a law which defines anyone as less than a human when that person is clearly a human being, let Canadians hear it,” says Woodworth. “If there’s a principled reason why Parliament has no duty to update this 400 year old law which has such important consequences, let’s hear it.”

The full text of Mr. Woodworth’s motion (M-312) is available here.

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

Planned Parenthood fires employee, but admits it won’t refuse sex-selection abortions

by Kathleen Gilbert Tue May 29 13:39 EST Comments (11)

 

May 29, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Planned Parenthood worker caught counseling a woman how to obtain a sex-selection abortion in the latest Live Action undercover video has been fired for not following an undisclosed protocol, said the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. At the same time, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood told The Huffington Post that the abortion organization provides “confidential, nonjudgmental care” and would not deny a woman a sex-selection abortion, except in states where it is explicitly illegal.

Planned Parenthood quickly issued a statement Tuesday morning against the “hoax campaign” after the undercover pro-life group released its latest video showing a Texas clinic counselor helping a woman obtain an abortion based on the baby’s female sex. The counselor gave advice on aborting a child old enough for its sex to have been determined, and abusing Medicaid funds to pay for an ultrasound as if the mother were bringing the child to term.

In its response, the abortion group claimed the counselor, described as holding an entry-level position, did not follow protocol for providing “information and guidance” in the face of “a highly unusual patient scenario.” They said the counselor was fired and the staff at the Texas clinic scheduled for “retraining in managing unusual patient encounters.”

“Recently, opponents of Planned Parenthood conducted hoax patient visits with hidden video cameras and are now using edited videotapes to promote false claims about our organization and patient services,” stated the group.

CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!

The group condemned “gender bias” as “contrary to everything our organization works for,” but stopped short of endorsing measures to outlaw such abortions, stating: “Planned Parenthood condemns sex selection motivated by gender bias, and urges leaders to challenge the underlying conditions that lead to these beliefs and practices.”

The abortion chain used the same four-sentence statement on gender bias last month when it tipped off media to its suspicion of Live Action’s investigation. In a column on RH Reality Check, two Planned Parenthood leaders called sex-selection “deeply unsettling,” but did not indicate the existence of a policy of opposing gender-biased abortions.

In the video released early Tuesday morning, the counselor can be seen telling an undercover investigator posing as a pregnant mom not to let her OB/GYN know about the sex-selection abortion, which would take place after about 5 months’ gestation, because “a lot of doctors will place judgment because the brain is already developed, a lot. Pretty much everything’s already developed.”

“I’m just trying to, you know, help you as much as possible with this,” says the counselor towards the end of the visit.

In its latest statement, Planned Parenthood pointed out that “leading women’s health and rights organizations” oppose limiting abortion-on-demand, saying that limiting abortion for any reason is not a “legitimate means” of addressing sex selection.

“Planned Parenthood works to ensure women and their families have access to high-quality nonjudgmental health services free of coercion, supported by information and counseling,” it said.

Tags: abortion, live action, planned parenthood

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

Democratic candidate, Planned Parenthood employee cited for DUI after striking 7-year-old girl

by Ben Johnson Tue May 29 13:13 EST Comments (28)

 
Carmen Toft, 32, Planned Parenthood employe and Democratic p
Carmen Toft, 32, Planned Parenthood employe and Democratic political hopeful.

SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA, May 29, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – A PR hand for Planned Parenthood, who is running as a Democratic candidate for state legislature, has been cited for DUI and Careless Driving after police say she collided with a seven-year-old girl who was riding her bike through a crosswalk.

Carmen Toft, 32, is the South Dakota Public Affairs Manager at Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNNDSD). She is also running for the Democratic nomination in the state House of Representatives in District 10.

The accident occurred last Tuesday at the corner of Eighth Street and North Chicago Avenue in Sioux Falls.

Sioux Falls Police spokesman Sam Clemens said Toft refused to take a breathalyzer test on the spot, telling police the girl “came out of nowhere.” However, officers administered a blood test, as required by state law.

The girl was transported for possible internal injuries, but her current condition is unknown.

Toft has actively campaigned against state pro-life measures since at least 2006, according to local media. On her Twitter feed, she also endorsed “marriage equality.”

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

Sioux Falls police are handling the collision as a routine traffic accident. 

 

 

Tags: carmen toft, planned parenthood, south dakota

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

Pro-lifers swamp Vancouver with bloody abortion pics as they launch New Abortion Caravan

by Patrick B. Craine Tue May 29 12:11 EST Comments (6)

 

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, May 29, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Dozens of young people are set to launch the “New Abortion Caravan” at the Vancouver Art Gallery Tuesday as an anti-abortion version of the 1970 pro-abortion campaign that sought to repeal Canada’s abortion laws.

The young people with the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform are bringing with them large, bloody abortion images as hand-held signs as well as 7-ft tall and 20-ft long posters plastered on trucks.

Celebrity Mark Donnelly will be singing O Canada, and will be followed by speakers such as Dr. Alexander Moens, professor of political science at Simon Fraser University, Mike Schouten of the political group We Need A Law, as well as Ruth Lobo Shaw and Stephanie Gray of the CCBR.

“Just as the original Abortion Caravan sought to expose what they perceived as an injustice,” said CCBR’s executive director Stephanie Gray, “we will do the same, but this time focus on the shattered bodies of the pre-born victims that everyone ignores. The victims of abortion will be on handheld signs, on postcards dropped into mailboxes, on posters hung around the city, and on the sides of box-bodied trucks.”

Vancouver abortion advocates have taken notice of this initiative already, and nearly 100 of them have signed up for a Facebook event “Counter Protesting the ‘New’ Abortion Caravan”. One of the organizers stated on the page that, “These folks are co-opting a successful tactic from the ‘70’s—the Abortion Caravan.” They plan to be present to chant and oppose the message of the anti-abortion activists.

Stephanie Gray said she welcomes debate: “The reason Canada has had this bloody status quo for so long is because people have refused to discuss the issue, and refused to confront the victims. We welcome dialogue, because science, embryology and a philosophically consistent view of human rights lie on the pro-life side.”

The group is also hosting a presentation at 7:30pm that same day at St. Francis Xavier Parish Gym (428 Great Northern Way, Vancouver).

The upcoming Caravan events and locations can be found at the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform’s website.

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

Thank goodness I can still cringe

by Dave Andrusko Tue May 29 11:57 EST Comments (48)

 

CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!

May 29, 2012 (NRLC) - When speaking to the broader public—as opposed to what they tell each other—pro-abortionists will often feign an attitude that they, too, understand that abortion is serious business and not to be trivialized. They don’t mean it for a half-second, of course, but for public consumption it helps take the edge off their fanaticism.

I thought of that when a colleague at NRLC passed along a post from the webpage of the DC Abortion Fund. (The DCAF describes itself as an organization “ that makes grants and no-interest loans to DC area women and girls who cannot afford the full cost of an abortion.”)

DCAF tells us that they sent one of their activists to last week’s hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee on H.R. 3803, the “District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.”  The bill would ban abortions on pain-capable unborn children, beginning at 20 weeks fertilization age (22 weeks LMP) in the District of Columbia.

The musings on that post were not for the wider public—just fellow pro-abortionists—so they could mischaracterize and misrepresent and cavalierly trivialize to their heart’s delight.

But before I tell you what the DCAF “activist” wrote, let me set the stage for what really happened.

Years ago Anthony Levatino, M.D. performed abortions before he became pro-life. In his testimony last week before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee, Dr. Levatino went into considerable detail in describing a “D&E” abortion–an abortion technique that dismembers the baby.

He asked the subcommittee members to “Imagine, if you can, that you are a pro-choice obstetrician/gynecologist like I once was. Your patient today is 24 weeks pregnant (LMP).”

He went on:

“Picture yourself reaching in with the Sopher clamp [an instrument for grasping and crushing tissue] grasping anything you can. At twenty-four weeks gestation, the uterus is thin and soft so be careful not to perforate or puncture the walls.  Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard – really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about six inches long.  Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.”

As difficult as this is to read, it is twenty times more difficult to watch the video of Dr. Levatino’s oral testimony.

When I saw that Sopher clamp, I swallowed hard. And then, holding the Sopher Clamp as he spoke, Dr. Levatino concluded his testimony with:

“you know you did it right if you crush down, a white material runs out of the cervix. That was the baby’s brains. Then you can pull out skull pieces. Many times a little face will come back and stare back at you…And if you think that doesn’t hurt, if you believe that isn’t an agony for the baby, please think again.”

I wasn’t there but I was told that some of the subcommittee members were visibly moved. Those that weren’t were no doubt soul mates of the lady from DCAF.

After completely misrepresenting what Dr. Levatino said about why abortionists shifted to the dismemberment “D&E” abortion technique (ah, the beauty of paraphrasing—you can attribute whatever you want to the speaker), she offers this oh so revealing passage.

“Levatino said he performed abortions earlier in his career, and he described the procedure and his eventual dislike of it in explicit detail. Any medical procedure or routine trip to the doctor can sound positively gruesome when described with the proper adjectives (try detailing your last dental cleaning with the help of thesaurus.com). Anti-choice activists like Levatino are most successful when they have us all cringing instead of thinking rationally. But H.R. 3803 doesn’t allow for much science and reason.”

Ripping off arms and legs—and brains spilling out as a baby’s head is crushed—is just like “your last dental cleaning.” Only an “anti-choice activist” could not see the similarity.

This ability to be bored and annoyed in the presence of soul-sucking brutality is, I gather, the product of what she sees as a commitment to “science and reason.”

Thank goodness I can still cringe. I would hate to think what it would say about me if I couldn’t.

CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!

Reprinted with permission from nationalrighttolifenews.org

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

An unknown unknown for gay marriage supporters

by Michael Cook Tue May 29 11:02 EST Comments (6)

 

May 29, 2012 (Mercatornet) - If we are in the middle of a culture war over gay marriage, why not take advice from someone who knows about combat, former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld? Long after he left the scene, people are still quoting his description of the fog of war: “[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know.”

Since gay marriage has existed only since 2001, when it was legalised in the Netherlands, the dangerous known knowns are still meagre and the dangerous known unknowns vast. As for the dangerous unknown unknowns: well, is anyone so rash as to say that they don’t exist?

How children fare probably fits into the known unknown category. Supporters of gay marriage insist that children can flourish with two parents of the same sex. There are even claims, based on tiny studies of lesbian parents, that gay parenting is superior to having a married Mom and Dad. Opponents have much more data backing up their case. A group called the American College of Pediatricians summed up the evidence recently:

“Over thirty years of research confirms that children fare best when reared by their two biological parents in a loving low conflict marriage. Children navigate developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better academically, have fewer emotional disorders, and become better functioning adults when reared within their natural family.”

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

However, in the unknown unknown category is where the children of homosexual men will come from. Once same-sex unions have been sanctified with the word “marriage”, some gay couples will have children. It’s understandable – marriage has always been about children.

But where from? If lesbian couples want children, all they need is a sperm donor and possibly the services of an IVF clinic – if they do not already have children from a failed relationship.

But it is vastly more complicated for gay couples. They may have children from a previous heterosexual relationship. They can foster or adopt. But some will want a child who is genetically related to them. They can provide half of what is needed, but they still need a womb – a surrogate mother.

No one has any idea how big the demand for gay surrogacy market. There are good reasons for that. Commercial surrogacy is illegal in many countries and where it is legal, it can be shameful. But we do have some idea of the supply of gay surrogacy. Thanks to the internet, surrogacy brokers are springing up all over the world – wherever there is poverty and sympathetic government regulation.

The United States has a number of surrogacy agencies, but the growth market seems to in the developing world where it is far cheaper. Click on the site AffordableSurrogates.com. It markets surrogates in Greece, Panama, and India. Click on surrogatemothers.biz for surrogate mothers from the Ukraine.

Through sites like these, babies are effectively being sold as a product. “Did you know that thousands of people are saving money by going to foreign countries to have a child through hassle-free surrogacy?” Affordable Surrogates asks its gay clients. Another site specialising in gay clients, Advocates for Surrogacy, advertises Guatemalan women who cost 70 percent less than their US counterparts.

The best-known destination for people seeking surrogate mothers is India. Light regulation there allows IVF clinics to have herds of surrogate mothers available for their overseas clients, including gay couples. It is there that the dark side of gay parenting is most evident. Exploitation of surrogate mothers in India is not an unknown unknown. It is a known known.

This was exposed in the death of a 30-year-old Indian woman with two children of her own, Premila Vaghela, earlier this month. She died in the eighth month of her pregnancy of unexplained complications after collapsing in her IVF clinic, Pulse Women’s Hospital, in Ahmedabad, in the state of Gujarat. The doctors at Pulse quickly did an emergency caesarean. The child was given to the American woman who commissioned it.

In the quaint lingo of the Indian media, it was noted that “Premila paid the price of offering herself as surrogate with her life.” She was to have been paid about US$4,500, although the clinic generously gave her family US$18,000.

The fate of Mrs Vaghela is a stark reminder that death is one of the hazards of being a surrogate mother. Not that it seems to bother IVF doctors there much. The hard-boiled woman boss of an unrelated clinic, Dr Nayana Patel, commented:

“the contracts signed between the surrogate mother and the couple (whose baby she is carrying) does not talk of any compensation in case of death of the surrogate mother. Those who agree to become surrogates are told well in advance about the complications involved in pregnancy.”

It’s unlikely that the clients of the surrogate mothers ever read the contract to which these women – who may be illiterate – put their signature or mark. They are incredibly exploitative. The pro-forma contract displayed by the Pulse Hospital on its website is loaded in favour of the genetic parents and the hospital against the surrogate mother.

The woman has to agree to the most intrusive limitation of her lifestyle and even to accept foetal reduction (see Pulse’s video) if necessary. Since up to three embyros are transferred at a time—not international best practice—this is quite possible.

The contract also states that “the Surrogate and her Husband agree to assume all medical, financial, and psychological risks and to release, the Genetic Parents, their attorney(s), the Treating Doctor, other professionals contemplated herein and/or involved in any aspect of the surrogacy arrangement, and each said person’s agents and employees from any legal liability except professional malpractice (malfeasance or negligence).”

In short, a surviving spouse can only seek compensation if he can prove negligence on the doctor’s part. His chances of success will be vanishingly small.

In a chilling section of the contract headed “life support”, the surrogate and her husband agree that “if she is seriously injured or suffers a life‐threatening instance during her third trimester of pregnancy”, then she “will be sustained with life support equipment to protect the fetus’ viability and insure [sic] a healthy birth on the Genetic Parents’ behalf”.

Forget about altruism. Indian surrogate mothers endure these insults to their dignity for the cash. “Surrogacy has picked up majorly all over Gujarat,” notes the Times of India. “The decent money offered by couples, majority of who are NRGs [Non Resident Gujarati]and foreigners, attracts many women from poor socio-economic backgrounds.”

The local government benefits from the exploitation of these women as well. Ironically, the government English-language magazine promoting Gujarat, “The Gujarat”, currently features a promotional article on the booming surrogacy business in Anand: “Where the storks dare to fly… Bringing smiles to couples across the world via Reproductive Tourism”.

“The state has set a precedent in embracing humanist ideas by facilitating reproductive tourism which has proved to be immensely valuable. Apart from empowering the surrogates, it is bringing in a lot of revenue for the state itself, furthering its development,” writes the author.

Conditions for surrogate mothers in Guatemala or Panama or the Ukraine are unlikely to be any better.

Supporters of same-sex marriage have to face the stark fact that legalisation will mean misery for women in developing countries. Perhaps death will be rare. But it will certainly happen. Are gay couples ready to force women to have selective abortions? Are they ready to accept that some women will die bearing a child they paid for? Are they ready to accept the degradation and exploitation that are inherent in their dream of being married?

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet. This article is reprinted under a Creative Commons license.

Tags: gay marriage, surrogacy

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

The seduction of pornography

by Albert Mohler Tue May 29 10:40 EST Comments (3)

 

May 29, 2012 (AlbertMohler.com) - The intersection of pornography and marriage is one of the most problematic issues among many couples today–including Christian couples. The pervasive plague of pornography represents one of the greatest moral challenges faced by the Christian church in the postmodern age. With eroticism woven into the very heart of the culture, celebrated in its entertainment, and advertised as a commodity, it is virtually impossible to escape the pervasive influence of pornography in our culture and in our lives.

At the same time, the problem of human sinfulness is fundamentally unchanged from the time of the Fall until the present. There is no theological basis for assuming that human beings are more lustful, more defenseless before sexual temptation, or more susceptible to the corruption of sexual desire than was the case in any previous generation.

Two distinctions mark the present age from previous eras. First, pornography has been so mainstreamed through advertising, commercial images, entertainment, and everyday life, that what would have been illegal just a few decades ago is now taken as common dress, common entertainment, and unremarkable sensuality. Second, explicit eroticism–complete with pornographic images, narrative, and symbolism–is now celebrated as a cultural good in some sectors of the society. Pornography, now reported to be the seventh-largest business in America, claims its own icons and public figures. Hugh Hefner, founder of Playboy, is considered by many Americans to be a model of entrepreneurial success, sexual pleasure, and a liberated lifestyle. The use of Hugh Hefner as a spokesman by a family-based hamburger chain in California indicates something of how pornography itself has been mainstreamed in the culture.

Growing out of those two developments is a third reality–namely, that increased exposure to erotic stimulation creates the need for ever-increased stimulation in order to demand notice, arouse sexual interest, and retain attention. In an odd twist, hyper-exposure to pornography leads to a lower net return on investment–which is to say that the more pornography one sees the more explicit the images must be in order to excite interest. As the postmodernist would explain, in order to “transgress,” pornographers must continue to press the envelope.

One further qualification must be added to this picture. Pornography is mainly, though not exclusively, a male phenomenon. That is to say, the users and consumers of pornography are overwhelmingly male–boys and men. In the name of women’s liberation, some pornography directed towards a female market has emerged in recent years. Nevertheless, this is decidedly a “niche” market in the larger pornographic economy. The fact remains that many men pay a great deal of money and spend a great deal of time looking at and looking for pornographic images in order to arouse themselves sexually.

Why is pornography such a big business? The answer to that question lies in two fundamental realities. First, the most fundamental answer to the question must be rooted in a biblical understanding of human beings as sinners. We must take into full account the fact that sin has corrupted every good thing in creation, and the effects of sin extend to every dimension of life. The sex drive, which should point toward covenant fidelity in marriage and all the goods associated with that most basic institution, has instead been corrupted to devastating effects. Rather than directed toward fidelity, covenantal commitment, procreation, and the wonder of a one-flesh relationship, the sex drive has been degraded into a passion that robs God of His glory, celebrating the sensual at the expense of the spiritual, and setting what God had intended for good on a path that leads to destruction in the name of personal fulfillment. The most important answer we can give to pornography’s rise in popularity is rooted in the Christian doctrine of sin. As sinners, we corrupt what God has perfectly designed for the good of His creatures and we have turned sex into a carnival of orgiastic pleasures. Not only have we severed sex from marriage, but as a society, we now look at marriage as an imposition, chastity as an embarrassment, and sexual restraint as a psychological hang-up. The doctrine of sin explains why we have exchanged the glory of God for Sigmund Freud’s concept of polymorphous perversity.

In addition to this, we must recognize that a capitalist free-market economy rewards those who produce a product that is both attractive and appetitive. The purveyors of pornography know that they succeed by directing their product to the lowest common denominator of humanity–a depraved sexual mind. Without the legal restraints common in previous generations, pornographers are now free to sell their goods virtually without restriction. Beyond this, they base their marketing plan on the assumption that an individual can be seduced into the use of pornography and then will be “hooked” into a pattern of dependence upon pornographic images and the need for ever-more explicit sexual material as a means towards sexual arousal.

The bottom line is that, in our sinfulness, men are drawn toward pornography and a frighteningly large percentage of men develop a dependence upon pornographic images for their own sexual arousal and for their concept of the good life, sexual fulfillment, and even meaning in life. Medical research can document the increased flow of endorphins, hormones that create pleasure in the brain, when sexual images are viewed. Given the law of reduced effect, greater stimulation is needed to keep a constant flow of endorphins to the brain’s pleasure centers. Without conscious awareness of what is happening, men are drawn into a pattern of deeper and deeper sin, more and more explicit pornography, and never-ending rationalizing, and all this started when the eye first began its perusal of the pornographic image and sexual arousal was its product.

The postmodern age has brought many wonders as well as incredible moral challenges. Often, technological achievement and moral complexity come hand in hand. This is most explicitly the case with the development of the Internet. For the first time in human history, a teenager in his bedroom has access to an innumerable array of pornographic websites, catering to every imaginable sexual passion, perversion, and pleasure. Today’s teenager, if not stranded on some desert island, is likely to know more about sex and its complexities than his father knew when he got married. Furthermore, what most generations have known only in the imagination–if at all–is now there for the viewing on websites, both commercial and free. The Internet has brought an interstate highway of pornography into every community, with exit ramps at every terminal or personal computer.

Pornography represents one of the most insidious attacks upon the sanctity of marriage and the goodness of sex within the one-flesh relationship. The celebration of debauchery rather than purity, the elevation of genital pleasure over all other considerations, and the corruption of sexual energy through an inversion of the self, corrupts the idea of marriage, leads to incalculable harm, and subverts marriage and the marital bond.

Next, Part Two: The Meaning of Sex in Marriage

Reprinted with permission from AlbertMohler.com

Tags: marriage, pornography

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

Drowning out the heartbeat

by Eric Metaxas Tue May 29 10:21 EST Comments (0)

 

May 29, 2012 (Breakpoint.org) - Have you heard those stories about German churches that sang their hymns louder and louder so as to drown out the screams of the Jews being transported to the death camps on a nearby railway? Well, something horribly similar is happening again today, this time in the state of Texas.

Pro-abortion forces are not happy that a state law now requires abortion clinics to have patients watch a sonogram of their unborn baby, receive a medically-accurate explanation of what they are seeing, and listen to the baby’s heartbeat.

This last part was too much truth for pro-choice blogger Denise Paolucci. She came up with the idea of raising money in order to purchase iPods for abortion clinics. Her idea was to offer them to patients to allow them to drown out the sound of the baby’s heartbeat.  After raising a thousand dollars, Paolucci made the iPod offer to several Planned Parenthood clinics, some of which enthusiastically took her up on this offer.

Now, you have to wonder why anyone would want to help women drown out the truth about abortion. After all, how much choice does a woman really have if she’s kept in the dark about what she’s doing? And you have to wonder what’s next? Eye patches to prevent women from seeing their babies kick and hiccup on the sonogram? Yikes!

CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!

The hypocrisy of abortion advocates becomes even more evident when you recall their attacks on pro-life crisis pregnancy centers. Abortion proponents demanded that signs be placed outside crisis pregnancy centers informing women that abortions are not offered there. Why? Because as Nancy Keenan, a spokeswoman for NARAL put it, “We should all agree that a woman should not be misled or manipulated when she’s facing an unintended pregnancy… Being honest to a woman facing an unintended pregnancy should not be too much to ask for.”

Well, unless, it seems, the “honesty” leads a woman to decide to carry her baby to term.

Sadly, a refusal to tell women the truth about abortion goes back to the very beginning of legalized abortion.

In the interest of making money, abortionists told women their unborn babies were simply blobs of tissue. But eventually — when it was too late — women learned the truth. They realized that they had been lied to, and that realization, that TRUTH, traumatized many of them. And that’s why we have so many groups like Project Rachel, an organization that helps women deal with post-abortion trauma. My wife works at a pregnancy care center, and she meets far too many of these poor women.

It all comes down to worldview. Those who run abortion mills believe that inconvenient babies are disposable, and that it’s perfectly acceptable to deceive vulnerable women in the interest of making money. But Christianity teaches that all women should be treated with respect and dignity, and that all babies, born and unborn, have great value because they are made in the image of God.

It’s natural for women to want to protect their unborn babies. And this is why abortionists try to prevent women from learning the truth about fetal pain and fetal development. Because once they do, women are far less likely to abort their babies.

You and I should ensure that the women in our lives understand the reality of abortion. We never know who among us — even daughters raised in the church — might one day face an unplanned pregnancy. They deserve nothing less than the truth.

Reprinted with permission from Breakpoint.org

Tags: abortion, heartbeat, planned parenthood, texas

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

Undercover video: Planned Parenthood coaches on sex-selection abortion of baby girl

by Kathleen Gilbert Tue May 29 08:15 EST Comments (23)

 

May 29, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a new undercover video, a Texas Planned Parenthood counselor is seen counselling a young mother on how to abuse Medicaid to obtain an ultrasound to determine the baby’s sex, and then abort if it’s a girl before the legal cutoff at five months’ gestation.

“I see that you say that you want to terminate if it’s a girl, so are you just wanting to continue the pregnancy in the meantime, or what?” Planned Parenthood counselor Rebecca casually asks the Live Action undercover investigator in the video released Tuesday morning.

The counselor is seen discussing the difficulty of obtaining an abortion after the baby is old enough to determine its gender by ultrasound, and confirms the investigator’s stated fears of encountering bias against her sex-selective abortion.

“A lot of doctors will place judgment because the brain is already developed, a lot. Pretty much everything’s already developed,” she says.

“Just keep it quiet and then come here?” the woman asks.  “Yeah, I would,” Rebecca replies.

Rebecca, who says she has had two abortions herself, describes how she successfully applied for Medicaid “as if I was gonna continue my pregnancy, went through the OB/GYN, and then me and my husband decided we were gonna go ahead and terminate. We terminated, and I still stayed on Medicaid and just got on birth control.”

Live Action in a press release this morning said Planned Parenthood “betrays its own supposedly feminist ideology” by supporting the selected abortion of girls, a practice as many as 77 percent of Americans oppose.

“Planned Parenthood claims to oppose ‘gendercide.’ So, why was Planned Parenthood staff so focused on aborting a baby girl, just because she was a girl?” said the group.

Last month, Planned Parenthood told the Huffington Post that it suspected another Live Action sting, and pre-emptively announced that they condemned “sex selection motivated by gender bias” and found sex-selective abortion “deeply unsettling,” but did not say the group refused to perform such abortions.

Live Action’s previous undercover sting operations against Planned Parenthood have gained national attention for revealing several embarrassing details of the abortion group’s treatment of potential patients, including non-reporting of child rape, coaching young patients to cross state lines to avoid parental notification laws, and helping sex traffickers looking for abortions for their underage prostitutes.


The latest video, and links Live Action’s previous projects, are available at ProtectOurGirls.com.

Tags: live action, planned parenthood, sex-selection abortion

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

back to top