Thursday, June 7, 2012

Print All Articles

Daughter of #2 Democrat in House comes out, endorses marriage redefinition

by Ben Johnson Thu Jun 07 18:57 EST Comments (24)

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 7, 2012, ( –  The daughter of the number two Democrat in the House of Representatives has come out of the closet and endorsed same-sex “marriage.”

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer’s daughter Stafany Hoyer Hemmer told The Washington Blade she has been living with a woman for 18 months.

Although she spoke with her father before the announcement, it “was not his idea at all,” Hemmer told the homosexual newspaper.

The 43-year-old psychiatric nurse had been married to an electrician, Tim Hemmer. She has a daughter and grandchildren from that marriage, which ended when she was 23.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer changed his mind on same-sex “marriage” the day after Barack Obama made his own public endorsement

“I have believed that the phrase ‘civil union’ was an appropriate definition of a relationship that is both different and the same between two people of the same sex,” Congressman Hoyer said. “I believe that extending the definition of marriage to committed relationships between two people, irrespective of their sex, is the right thing to do.”

He added it would “extend the respect due to every one of our fellow citizens that we would want for ourselves and our children.”

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

His daughter credited that statement with her decision to announce her sexuality to the public – and to press Maryland voters to support a referendum redefining marriage on the November ballot.

“I think when my dad actually came out with a statement, it triggered a want in me to further the cause, and I think that he’s powerful enough, and I’m frankly, smart enough, to do it,” she said. “So, yeah, that was really the impetus.”

Governor Martin O’Malley signed the Civil Marriage Protection Act, legalizing same-sex nuptials earlier this year. Voters will decide this fall whether to overturn the law.

“I have been watching the momentum quickly build in recent weeks and want to do whatever I can to keep it going,” Hemmer stated.

Her father also supports the Maryland bill, saying he is “hopeful Maryland voters this fall will preserve the new rights and responsibilities of marriage that are on the books.”

Steny Hoyer is the second most powerful Democrat in the House, behind Nancy Pelosi.

Tags: maryland, same-sex 'marriage', stefany hoyer hemmer, steny hoyer

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

Video: Ted Turner, Reduce population by five billion people

by Ben Johnson Thu Jun 07 18:12 EST Comments (56)

ATLANTA, GEORGIA, June 7, 2012, ( – Media mogul and population control advocate Ted Turner recently told citizen journalists he would like to reduce the world’s population by five billion people, asking parents to be a “one child family…for 100 years.”

Turner had to answer for his history of provocative statements, and made a few new ones, when members of the website caught up with him on camera late last month.

One individual asked the CNN founder what his goal was for world population.

“I think two billion is about right,” Turner said as he walked briskly away. In October, the number of people in the world reached seven billion.

Before disappearing around the corner Turner said he hoped to eliminate five billion people through the “one child family.”

The interviewer responded, “One child policy.”

Turner answered, “For 100 years.”

In a subsequent interview, Turner was asked if he had said “a 95 percent decline from present [population] levels would be ideal” in the 1990s. Turner replied, “I might have said that, ‘96 was a long time ago.”

In a third confrontation, the amateur journalists asked Turner if he formulated his views during the Bilderberg conference.
Although it is not clear Turner was endorsing China’s one-child policy of forced abortion, he previously denied Beijing had taken “draconian steps” to control its birthrate during a 2009 interview on the Diane Rehm Show. Instead, he claimed China merely “encouraged” its citizens to have one baby, though he volunteered, “I’m not intimately familiar with everything.”

Experts and eyewitnesses were “shocked and appalled” by his comments.

John Smeaton, director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), said Turner was “denying the Holocaust.”

Reducing the world’s birthrate has long been a passion of Turner’s, “as long as it’s voluntary.” He noted people turn against the notion of population control, because “people don’t want to be controlled.” In 2010, Turner proposed allowing women to sell their fertility rights. Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, told at the time, “There is…something despicable about offering a poor, hungry woman food, money, or clothing in exchange for her surrendering her fertility.”

Such a plan was outlawed by the 1999 Tiahrt Amendment, Mosher noted. 

Turner forecast an environmental disaster of apocalyptic dimensions if measures are not taken immediately. “We’ll be eight degrees hotter in…30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow,” he said. “Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down.” 

The video team from asked the 73-year-old businessman if it were hypocritical to support a one-child family when he had five children and was one of the nation’s largest landholders.

The Land Report magazine lists Turner as the nation’s second largest private landholder, behind his business partner, John Malone. Turner owns more than two million acres

The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that Turner’s critics “accuse him of trying to corner the land over the world’s largest underground water system, and of conspiring with the United Nations — to which he has donated millions of dollars through a nonprofit group he created — to build a huge federal wildlife refuge that would remove the land from Nebraska’s tax rolls.”

Turner, a dedicated globalist, donated $1 billion to the United Nations, much of which has been used for “projects dealing with women and population issues.” 

The outspoken atheist told a gathering of Society of Environmental Journalists in 1998 his views were incompatible with Christian doctrine or the Biblical admonition to “be fruitful and multiply.”   

Turner has mocked the late, Blessed Pope John Paul II for his Polish roots, said the Ten Commandments are “a little out of date,” and stated the pope needs to “get with it.” 

In 1998, he told a meeting of Zero Population Growth he and other population controllers fought against “the forces of darkness in general.” 

Attempts to contact the website were unsuccessful.

Tags: global warming, population control, ted turner,

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

Discuss ‘homosexuality, abortion, and masturbation’ in schools: Manitoba’s NDP party

by Peter Baklinski Thu Jun 07 17:51 EST Comments (4)


WINNIPEG, Manitoba, June 7, 2012 ( – The provincial NDP party of Manitoba passed a recommendation at their recent convention “urging the province to allow discussion in schools of issues relating to homosexuality, abortion, and masturbation without fear of repercussion,” according to the Winnipeg Free Press.

The three-day NDP annual convention, which took place over the weekend in Winnipeg, consisted of rank and file NDP party members who examined and passed motions to indicate to party leaders what policies they should pursue.

“It’s impossible to comprehend why the Manitoba NDP party passed this recommendation,” said Maria Slykerman, president of Campaign Life Coalition Manitoba to LifeSiteNews.

“It should be of grave concern to everyone that a government party has proposed that young children be taught at school how to think about the complex issues of homosexuality, abortion, and masturbation. Even worse than this is the proposal that parents and others should not be allowed to raise their voice in protest against this.”


“There will surely be repercussions about this from all parents who sincerely care about their children’s moral formation, especially when the government starts dictating sexual morality,” she said.

LifeSiteNews left phone messages and sent emails asking the NDP party to clarify what it meant by wanting to allow discussion in schools of issues relating to homosexuality, abortion, and masturbation “without fear of repercussion,” but received no reply.

The PC party of Manitoba also refused to comment about the NDP party recommendation.

Two weeks ago, in a move that auspiciously coincides with the NDP recommendation, the Manitoba’s Teacher’s Society (MTS) voted that parents do not have the right to pull their children out of the province’s sex-ed courses, and subsequently passed a resolution to lobby the provincial government to prevent parents from “opt[ing] their children out of any portions of the Manitoba curriculum.”

“While the original intent of the resolution was that parents not be allowed to opt students out of human sexuality instruction, delegates voted to make the policy more comprehensive as an apparent show of support for the full curriculum,” stated a MTS news release.

Just last weekend the Manitoba Teachers’ Association marched for its second time in the homosexual Pride Parade through downtown Winnipeg with a rainbow colored banner bearing the MTS logo. The MTS was also an official sponsor of the event.

While educators who supported the non opt-out proposal stated, with regards to the sex-ed portion of the curriculum, that they would leave “value judgements and context [with] parents to discuss with their children,” pro-family advocates have pointed out that Manitoba’s Health Education curriculum for sex-ed is not value-neutral.

“The province’s concept of ‘sexual health’ is synonymous with the toxic fallout of the sexual revolution, which includes the promotion of the anti-marital and anti-family practices of contraception and abortion, as well as the fluid concepts of gender and sexual orientation,” said Slykerman in a recent interview with LifeSiteNews.

“These immoral teachings, if forced on all of Manitoba’s children, will have serious repercussion for their physical, psychological, and spiritual well-being.”

Contact information:

Greg Selinger, Premier of Manitoba
Ph: (204) 945-3714
204 Legislative Building
450 Broadway
Winnipeg, MB R3C 0V8

Nancy Allan, Minister of Education
Ph: (204) 945-3720
168 Legislative Building
450 Broadway
Winnipeg, MB R3C 0V8

PC Manitoba Headquarters
CEO: Jonathan Scarth
23 Kennedy Street
Winnipeg, MB R3C 1S5
Ph: (204) 942-8283
Toll Free: 1-800-663-8679

Tags: abortion, homosexuality, manitoba, ndp

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

Abortion becomes hot topic in New Brunswick Liberal leadership race

by Thaddeus Baklinski Thu Jun 07 17:40 EST Comments (5)

Mike Murphy had previously stated that "the unborn at any stage from conception on is human life," but now says he believes abortion is a "non-issue."

FREDERICTON, New Brunswick, June 7, 2012 ( - Social media is pushing the three candidates in the provincial Liberal leadership race to take a public stance on their views on abortion.

The issue surfaced when leadership candidate Michael Murphy said in response to a question on Twitter that he sees abortion as a “non-issue,” though he would allow a free vote if he became premier and his caucus wanted to reopen debate on the issue.

At the 2009 New Brunswick March for Life, Murphy, who was Minister of Health in the Liberal government of the time, told marchers at the legislature that he was “not entirely” comfortable with existing provincial policy for abortion funding, and that, “It is my personal belief that the unborn at any stage from conception on is human life, and I believe in human life.”

On May 29, however, he tweeted to an enquirer that “the law is there” and abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor.

The law states that the provincial government will pay for abortions only with the approval of two doctors, and only in designated hospitals. Provincial healthcare does not cover abortions carried out in private abortion clinics.

New Brunswick is the only province in Canada with a private abortion facility owned and operated by arch-abortionist Henry Morgentaler that is not publicly funded. Morgentaler sued the province in 2003 claiming the province’s restrictions were unconstitutional and violated the Canada Health Act because they denied women full access to abortion.

The suit has yet to be resolved, but Peter Ryan, the Executive Director of New Brunswick Right to Life, told LifeSteNews previously that there is little public or political support for a judicial decision to force public funding of Morgentaler’s abortuary.

Another candidate vying for the Liberal leadership, Nick Duivenvoorden, waded into the abortion discussion with a statement similar to Murphy’s, that human life starts at conception but the choice to kill is the mother’s. He added the proviso, however, that he would modify the existing policy that requires the approval of two doctors.

“I reserve the right to believe that life starts at conception, but ultimately the decision to have an abortion must be left to the patient and her doctor hopefully in consultation with her family to make sure all possible alternatives have been explored,” Duivenvoorden said on Twitter, adding, “Not sure of rationale for two docs. So, yes to your question. Hopefully, always the option of last resort.”

A third candidate, Brian Gallant, released a statement on June 4 where he stated “I am pro-choice” and expressed surprise that “other politicians felt compelled to comment on this highly charged and complex issue at this time using Twitter, which only allows 140 characters. However, since other candidates have posted their views on social media, I wanted to inform you of my position.”

Campaign Life Coalition’s national campaign organizer Mary Ellen Douglas said that the communiqué from Gallant is disingenuous.

“He is pro-abortion,” Douglas told LifeSiteNews, “because pro-choice only has one choice - the choice to kill an unborn child. He is hiding behind a euphemism.”

Douglas pointed out the error in Gallant’s statement, when he said, “the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensures that a woman has the right to reproductive choice.”

“What we have in Canada is not a right to abortion, but a state of lawlessness. We have no law whatsoever on abortion, one of the few countries in the world in this situation. We’ve never had a right to abortion,” Douglas countered.

In his statement Gallant notes that he wants to “work on reducing the abortion rates” and quotes a source that purports to show that countries with legal abortion have a much lower abortion rate than countries where abortion is outlawed.

“This is nonsense,” said Douglas. “I would really like to see those statistics. In Canada the rate has never gone down, it’s gone up constantly - every year the rate goes up.”

“To say you want to reduce the number of abortions is also nonsense,” Douglas remarked. “You can’t say you are going to open the floodgate of abortion, where all you have to do is ask for one and you get it, but ‘let’s taper off’ … how is he going to do that?”

“Where are you going to find women who will voluntarily say, ‘I want an abortion but I’ll give it up, so abortions can taper off?’”

Elizabeth Crouchman, President of the New Brunswick Right to Life Association, criticized Gallant for saying that politicians should be focusing on “fiscal, economic, and demographic challenges” rather than abortion, pointing out that abortion is directly tied to those issues.

“New Brunswick needs people,” Crouchman said. “If we continue to abort our babies (1000 + per year) then our population will continue to shrink. You will lose taxpayers and voters. Last year there were almost an equal number of deaths and births in our province. (Births: 7,371, Deaths: 6,846) Is that what you support in the way of growth for New Brunswick?”

Crouchman further noted that the rampant spread of sexually transmitted diseases among the province’s teens, and the negative physical and mental health consequences of abortion on women.

“We have a 1 in 5 statistic regarding teen sexually transmitted diseases and infections. Why? Because no one is talking about the effects of casual sex and how as teachers/parents we think condoms are the answer. In fact condoms fail. Now we have seen a startling increase in Gonorrhoea and Syphilis. And we thought those two diseases were gone. More sex, more partners, more diseases. It is that simple,” Crouchman said.

“Yes Mr. Gallant,” Crouchman concluded, “abortion is a divisive issue. And yes we must focus on it. It is a huge social issue. Women, young uninformed women, are suffering from the effects of abortion. Our young people need and deserve the truth.”

“We need courageous men and women who are willing to expose the lies. Will you be one of those?”

Tags: abortion, new brunswick

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

Photographers guilty of ‘discrimination’ for refusing to shoot same-sex ‘wedding’: New Mexico court

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Thu Jun 07 16:42 EST Comments (67)

Elaine Huguenin, co-owner of Elane photography, who informed the plaintiffs that she could not shoot their same-sex "commitment" ceremony.

June 7, 2012 ( - A New Mexico appeals court has upheld a lower court verdict that a photography studio that refused to shoot a same-sex “wedding” on religious grounds is guilty of “sexual orientation discrimination” under state law.

According to the court’s verdict, the trouble began for Elane Photography when the company was contacted by lesbian Vanessa Willock asking if they could photograph a “commitment ceremony” for Willock and her “partner.” The company, owned by Christian couple Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, responded stating that they only shoot traditional weddings, and do not do “same-sex weddings,” but thanked Willock for her interest.

The following day, Willock’s anonymous “partner” sent an email to Elane Photography stating that she was going to “marry,” without stating that the “marriage” would be between herself and a woman.  She asked if the company could travel to the location of the event, and was told that it could. 

The two emails would be used as proof that the Huguenins were discriminating against Willock in her suit against the company, and resulted in a judgment of $6,637.94 against the defendant.

Although the government of New Mexico does not recognize same-sex “marriage,” civil unions, or domestic partnerships for homosexuals, the court ruled that Elane Photography had engaged in illegal discrimination based on sexual preference under the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA).

The court brushed aside the claim that photography is a form of “speech” protected under state and federal law, ruling, “The NMHRA does not force Elane Photography to endorse any message or modify its own speech in any way. Rather, the NMHRA requires Elane Photography merely to offer its photography services without discrimination against any member of a protected class.”

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

It also dismissed the argument that compelling the owners of the company to photograph such weddings would constitute a violation of freedom of religion, stating, “the burden on freedom of religion experienced by Elane Photography is unclear.”

The Alliance Defense Fund, which was representing the couple, has decided to appeal the case to a higher court.

“Americans in the marketplace should not be subjected to legal attacks for simply abiding by their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “Should the government force a videographer who is an animal rights activist to create a video promoting hunting and taxidermy?

“Of course not, and neither should the government force this photographer to promote a message that violates her conscience. Because the U.S. Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling artists to promote a message they disagree with, we will certainly appeal this decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court.”

Law professor and legal commentator Eugene Volokh denounced the decision as an attack on freedom of speech protections.

“It seems to me that the right to be free from compelled speech includes the right not to create First-Amendment-protected expression — photographs, paintings, songs, press releases, or what have you — that you disagree with, even if no-one would perceive you as endorsing that expression,” he wrote in his blog, the Volokh Conspiracy.

Volokh cites the U.S. Supreme Court case of Wooley v. Maynard (1978), in which a state license plate containing a motto that drivers disagreed with was seen as violating the first amendment, even though no reasonable person would be believe that the bearers of the plate were in agreement with the motto.

“It follows even more strongly, I think, that people should have a First Amendment right not to create expression that they don’t wish to create, regardless of whether outsiders would perceive such creation as an endorsement of the message,” said Volokh.

Tags: elane photography, new mexico

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

Denmark forces churches to perform same-sex ‘marriages’

by Ben Johnson Thu Jun 07 15:24 EST Comments (117)


COPENHAGEN, DENMARK, June 7, 2012, ( –  The nation of Denmark has voted to force churches in the established Evangelical Lutheran Church to perform same-sex “marriage” ceremonies inside their sanctuaries, although one-third of all the denomination’s priests say they will not participate in such rituals.

Danish parliament voted by an overwhelming 85-24 margin to compel churches to carry out unions for same-sex couples that are identical to heterosexual marriage celebrations.

The law takes effect June 15.

Since 1997, homosexuals have been able to get “married” in a blessing ceremony after the normal church service.

Under the new law, priests may opt out of performing the “wedding” service for theological reasons.  However, a bishop must arrange for a replacement.

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

The bill’s prime sponsor – Denmark’s church minister Manu Sareen, who is an agnostic – called the vote “historic.”

“I think it’s very important to give all members of the church the possibility to get married,” he said.

The Danish People’s Party opposed the legislation. “Marriage is as old as man himself, and you can’t change something as fundamental,” said Christian Langballe, the party’s church spokesperson.

Former politician Stig Elling said it was “positive” that “there are so many priests and bishops who are in favour of it.”

“We have moved forward,” he said. “It’s 2012.” 

The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark has been Denmark’s official state church since 1849.

The passage of the Danish bill comes as pro-family activists the world over are warning that the homosexualist agenda is threatening the basic freedoms of religious believers all across the West.

Although the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from dictating church doctrine, religious institutions have already been subjected to government censure or private lawsuits if they refuse to allow homosexual couples to rent their facilities for a ceremony that deeply offends the church’s core doctrines of marriage and family.

The city of Hutchinson, Kansas, recently adopted a non-discrimination statute that would require houses of worship that rent their facilities to the public to allow same-sex “marriages” on the premises.

“If a church has a parish hall that they rent out to the general public, they could not discriminate against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party” such as a same-sex ceremony or reception, according to a city FAQ about the ordinance.

Jacksonville, Florida, is currently considering a similar ordinance.

In January, Judge Solomon Metzger ruled a New Jersey Christian retreat house affiliated with the United Methodist Church could not refuse to rent its premises out for a homosexual “wedding.” 


Tags: denmark, same-sex 'marriage'

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

Screwtape’s formula: boys, video games & porn

by John Stonestreet Thu Jun 07 15:23 EST Comments (13)

John Stonestreet

June 7, 2012 ( - A generation of young men is choosing fantasy over reality. At least that’s what Dr. Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University and psychologist Nikita Duncan argue in their new book, The Demise of Guys: Why Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It.

The message of the book is simple: Research is demonstrating that young men are becoming addicted to video games and online pornography on a scale unparalleled by any addiction that we’ve ever seen in history.

But unlike with drugs, alcohol or gambling, these addictions aren’t for ever-increasing quantity. Instead, they drive boys and young men to seek novelty — the next big thrill.

According to Zimbardo and Duncan, it’s the same phenomenon observed in laboratory rats which, when given the opportunity, abandoned food in order to electrically stimulate the part of the brain responsible for pleasure. In effect, the rats gladly “short-circuit” their natural means of enjoyment to get a thrill that felt new every time.

“Young men…who play video games and use porn the most,” say the authors, “are being digitally rewired in a totally new way that demands constant stimulation.”

Not only does this kind of addiction rob guys of the time, money and health they need to do other things, but it also diminishes their ability to enjoy real life, which can never offer stimulation as frequently, easily or in as much variety. As a result, say Zimbardo and Duncan, young men addicted to digital sex and digital soldiering are less able or willing to participate in those acts for real.

A recent study in “Psychology Today,” which I talked about last year on “The Point,” reinforces this prognosis. The study found that men who regularly viewed internet pornography actually lost their ability to perform in real-life sexual relationships.

As a consequence of this over-stimulation, boys are now growing up with “new brains.” Not only are they poorly wired for traditional learning, they lack the capacity for strong romantic relationships. Why? Because they tend to be largely unable to delay gratification or set long-term goals.  They have to live for now.

And as any junkie knows, this ultimately makes us miserable. A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveal that “regular porn users,” despite constant stimulation and excitement, are more likely to report depression…poor physical health,” and “isolation.” And we all probably know young men who could use a little more playtime with real people and a lot less PlayStation.

I’m reminded of a chapter from C. S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters, in which the distinguished old devil, Screwtape, tells his apprentice nephew how to destroy humans with pleasure: “…we always try to work away from the natural condition of any pleasure,” he writes, “to that in which it is least natural, least redolent of its Maker, and least pleasurable. An ever increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure is the formula.”

But simply cursing the darkness here won’t solve anything. We need to recognize that, as Screwtape himself admits, all pleasures — even destructive ones — are originally based on God’s good design.

Young men are supposed to desire sex — within marriage. And, while all right in moderation, video games aren’t the true outlet for the male desire to be heroic and to fight for worthy causes.

We need to learn how to replace counterfeit pleasure with legitimate pleasure, encouraging young men to set aside cheap imitations and prepare themselves spiritually, morally, and emotionally to pursue the real thing.

This is a place where the church can lead culture — by leading the rescue effort for this generation of young men.


Reprinted with permission from

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

Miss Pennsylvania resigns from Miss USA pageant over allowing transgender man to compete

by Katie Craine Thu Jun 07 14:32 EST Comments (153)

The Donald threatens legal action over Monnin's allegations.
Sheena Monnin

NEW YORK, NEW YORK, June 7, 2012 ( – Miss Pennsylvania USA, Sheena Monnin has resigned from her title this week stating she doesn’t agree that men who have undergone “gender reassignment” surgery should be able to compete in the Miss Universe competitions.

Miss Universe Organization, the umbrella organization for Miss USA contests, changed its policies in April to allow Jenna Talackova, who underwent “gender reassignment” surgery at 19 years old, to compete for Miss Universe Canada.

In an e-mail to the Miss Universe Organization Monnin says that she can’t be “part of a pageant system that has so far and so completely removed itself from its foundational principles as to allow and support natural born males to compete in it.”

Monnin resigned saying that she fully revokes her support from the organization. Transgender males in this competition “goes against ever[y] moral fiber of my being,” she said. “I believe in integrity, high moral character, and fair play, none of which are part of this system any longer.”

Monnin also said she was resigning because she had reason to believe that the competition was rigged. Miss Universe Organization denies Monnin’s claim saying that the contestant Monnin says saw a list of the top five contestants before the competition denied that she saw it.

On ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Donald Trump told George Stephanopoulos, “We’re going to be suing her.”

Judges reacted with pleasure when the eventual winner, Miss Rhode Island Olivia Culpo, said she supported the inclusion of transgender men in the pageant. “I do accept that because I believe it’s a free country,” she said.

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

Tags: donald trump, miss usa pageant, transgender

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

160 cities across U.S. gear up for rallies protesting Obama mandate Friday

by Calvin Freiburger Thu Jun 07 13:45 EST Comments (11)


June 7, 2012 ( - On Friday, tens of thousands of pro-life Americans in 160 cities across the United States will rally against the Obama Administration’s abortifacient birth control mandate.

Organized by Pro-Life Action League’s Eric Scheidler and Citizens for a Pro-Life Society’s Monica Miller, the national Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally has chosen Friday, June 8—the 223rd anniversary of James Madison’s introduction of the Bill of Rights to the first Congress—to protest the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s policy forcing religious employers to provide contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.

Almost 100 pro-life and religious liberty organizations, including Human Life International, Live Action, Operation Rescue, Catholic Vote, the Alliance Defense Fund, and many others have joined the coalition supporting the rallies.

The group argues that the HHS mandate, part of Obama’s health care reform law, violates the conscience rights and religious liberties of private healthcare providers.

The rallies come just weeks before the highly anticipated ruling on Obama’s health care law from the U.S. Supreme Court.

“If Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional, we must ensure that religious freedom will be protected in subsequent health care legislation,” said co-director of the rallies, Monica Miller. “But if Obamacare is not struck down, we’ll be sending the federal authorities a clear message that the faith based institutions and private businesses affected by the HHS Mandate simply will not comply with it.”

“The federal government has no business defining the scope of religious ministry,” said Miller, referring to a “religious exemption” in the HHS Mandate drawn so narrowly that it excludes such religious institutions as Catholic schools and hospitals.

After an initial flurry of protests, HHS did issue an “accommodation” to alleviate concerns, but critics dismissed the change as an “accounting trick.”

“In the so-called accommodation, insurance companies—not the religious employers themselves—would be forced to pay for the abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception,” organizers of the rallies observe. “However, since any funds the insurance companies would use to make such payments ultimately come from the premiums paid by employers, Obama’s ‘accommodation’ is nothing more than a kind of economic shell-game.”

The first Stand Up Rally, which took place on March 23, attracted over 63,000 participants in 145 cities. Organizers say they expect higher numbers on Friday.

Most rallies begin at noon local time Friday. Location and contact information for all events can be found on the Stand Up Rally’s website.

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

Canadian ‘transsexual’ bill passes second reading 150 to 132

by Peter Baklinski Thu Jun 07 12:55 EST Comments (38)

MP Randall Garrison

OTTAWA, Ontario, June 7, 2012 ( – A private members bill that aims at giving what its sponsor calls “specific protections” to “transsexual and transgendered Canadians” passed its second reading in parliamentary vote late last night.

Bill C-279, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression) passed with the help of Conservatives 150 to 132. The bill has now been referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights before returning to the house for a third vote, which if successful, would land the bill in the Senate.

The bill, sponsored by NDP MP Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC), proposes to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to include “gender identity” and “gender expression” as prohibited grounds of discrimination.

“I firmly believe that the bill would help complete what we might call Canada’s human rights project,” said Garrison, NDP’s LGBTT Critic (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Transexual) during debate of the bill on April 5th.

Jack Fonseca, Project Manager with Campaign Life Coalition, has called the bill “lunacy,” pointing out that one bizarre effect of the bill would be to create a legal right for a man who calls himself transgendered to use a public bathroom intended for women. Critics of the controversial private members bill have dubbed it the “bathroom bill” for this very reason.

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

“This legal right will arise because the right to ‘gender expression’ will be interpreted by the courts as giving men the right to ‘express their gender’ by using a girl’s washroom, change room or shower,” said Fonseca in a recent interview with LifeSiteNews.

“It threatens the lives of girls and women by putting them at greater risk from male sexual predators. It will give men a legal alibi for getting caught in the girls bathroom or change room, thereby freeing them to offend another day. Men who plan to assault women in the bathroom, or even a common ‘peeping tom’ hoping to watch girls undress or videotape them, could escape prosecution by pretending to be a cross-dresser.”

Numerous religious and pro-family organizations oppose the bill, including the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Catholic Organization for Life and Family, Campaign Life Coalition, REAL Women of Canada, and the Canada Family Action Coalition.

Critics warn that the bill furthers the sexual revolution’s ideology that gender is a purely fluid social construct that can be completely separated from one’s biological birth sex.

On June 1 Garrison announced his intention to support amendments removing “gender expression” from the bill and adding a definition for “gender identity” so that the bill will have a greater chance of becoming law, according to Xtra.

“We are going to write a definition for gender identity that I hope will include the ‘expression’ phrase,” he said. “Once gender identity is in the Human Rights Code, the courts and human rights commissions will interpret what that means.”

Find contact information for every Member of Parliament here.

Tags: transgender, transsexual

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

The party line: ‘no such thing as ex-gay’

by Eric Metaxas Thu Jun 07 12:45 EST Comments (23)

Eric Metaxas

June 7, 2012 ( - Two weeks ago I attended the memorial service for Chuck Colson at the National Cathedral. After the service, I spoke with Patty Colson, Chuck’s wife of 48 years, and I asked her if she had any advice for me for doing BreakPoint. She said, “Do what Chuck did — read the New York Times.”

Of course I do read the New York Times because it is a great resource for teaching worldview — because most of the time it perfectly illustrates the opposite of the Christian worldview.

For instance, the Times recently ran a fawning article about a psychiatrist named Robert Spitzer. Spitzer played a big role in the American Psychiatric Association’s politically charged decision in the early 1970s to drop homosexuality from its manual of mental disorders. Spitzer became a hero in the gay community.

In 2003, however, Spitzer decided to investigate the claims of people who had gone through some form of reparative therapy. The results were explosive. As Spitzer recalled, “The majority of participants gave reports of change from predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusive heterosexual orientation in the past year.”

Predictably, the gay lobby got very upset. They attacked the study’s methodology, how the results were interpreted by others, and the morality of doing such a study in the first place.

But now, as told in the Times article, Spitzer is backing down. He says that when a journalist told him he had undergone reparative therapy at the urging of his parents, and that the therapy had “delayed his self-acceptance as a gay man,” Spitzer decided to apologize for a study that he now considers fatally flawed — because, he said, “there was no way to determine if the subject’s accounts of change were valid.”

Of course, there was never any chance the gay lobby was going to accept Spitzer’s study — no matter how well designed it was.  They are too heavily invested in the claim that people are “born gay” and cannot possibly change their orientation.

And if the Times writer Benedict Carey had wanted to cover this story fairly, perhaps he could have made some effort to track down former patients who were happy with the counseling or therapy that they had undergone — men who had seen their same-sex attractions diminish. There are plenty of them, as my friend, psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, notes in his book “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth.”

Satinover writes, “Since the professional normalization of homosexuality, we no longer hear of the many successful programs that continue to ‘cure’ homosexuality nor of the deeply moving stories of those who have successfully negotiated this difficult passage.”

While the debate over how many people will benefit from such therapy will doubtless continue, we’ve got to be clear on the biblical position about human sexuality, and that is that God intended it for the blessing of a man and a woman within marriage and for the procreation of children; and that all sexual activity (hetero- and homosexual) that is outside of marriage is outside of God’s will. And we and our churches should be offering love and support to anyone who is struggling in this area.

I hope you’ll read Dr. Satinover’s book. It is informative, compassionate — and it’s a great resource for those who want the truth about homosexuality.

Because while the New York Times says that it gives us all the news that’s fit to print, when it comes to covering success stories that back up the Christian worldview, all too often the truth itself becomes a culture-war casualty.

Reprinted with permission from

Tags: ex-gay, homosexuality

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

What is there to hide?

by Margaret Somerville Thu Jun 07 12:18 EST Comments (3)


“‘Curiouser and curiouser!’ cried Alice (she was so much surprised that, for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English).”

Two current abortion-in-the-public-square situations in Canada show abortion is much more than a pro-life versus pro-choice conflict, it’s a pro-democracy versus anti-democracy one.

The furor over Stephen Woodward’s private member’s motion in Parliament to discuss whether the unborn child is a human being has been front and centre in the media. Politicians, including the prime minister, and pro-choice advocates have attacked the motion by insisting either there’s nothing to discuss or debate must be silenced. But these are anti-democratic stances taken in our primary democratic institution, in relation to a foundational societal value — that of respect for human life.

Likewise, a recent change in Ontario law to restrict access to abortion information manifests the same clash between pro-democracy values (pro- freedom of speech, pro-transparency, pro-accountability, and so on) and anti-democracy values (denial of these rights). Contrary to strong contemporary trends in the opposite direction, this change moves Ontario from an earned trust position (“Trust me, because I’ll show you that I can be trusted by keeping you fully informed”) to a blind trust position (“Trust me, because I know what’s best for you and will decide for you, so you don’t need information.”)

Effective January 1,  section 65 the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) was amended to exclude records relating to the provision of abortion services. This means “individuals no longer have a right to make access requests under Part II of FIPPA to an institution for records in the custody or under the control of that institution relating to the provision of abortion services.”

All information relating to abortion held by government institutions or departments in Ontario is now secret. We know doctors billed for over 44,000 abortions in Ontario in 2010, but this type of information will in future be hidden from the public.

This change has ethical implications. It might also raise legal issues. For instance, a right to freedom of speech is seriously curtailed if one is prevented from obtaining the facts needed to form one’s opinion. And we often speak of such restrictions, when they are imposed in non-democratic countries, as a breach of human rights.

This amendment to section 65 was slipped in, it seems silently, as part of Bill 122, an act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector, hardly a title that would alert one to its presence.

Hansard does not record any debate in the Ontario legislature or at the committee hearings on Bill 122 on this change. There appear to be no media reports, which makes it unlikely most Ontarians were aware of it and could have expressed their views to their MLAs prior to its enactment.

FIPPA is meant to augment the transparency, openness and accountability of all levels of government for their decisions and actions, and our right, as Canadian citizens, to participate in democracy and democratic decision-making. My guess is that if the same approach were taken to information on breast cancer, people would be outraged.

The Ontario government might have enacted this law as a response to two kinds of fear: The fear that abortion information could trigger violence between its supporters and opponents, and the fear of political fallout if that happened and from the facts on abortion becoming known.

In the past, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care has refused a request under FIPPA for information regarding OHIP records related to abortion, citing “danger to life and physical safety”, “danger to security of a building”, “endangering the safety of service providers”, and a danger of pro-life “violence”, if the information were released. On appeal, the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered the ministry to disclose the requested statistics.

A similar situation arose in British Columbia, with an initial denial of access to information on abortion being overridden, on appeal, by the BC Information and Privacy Commissioner. The BC legislature then stepped in to exempt abortion information from disclosure, although the exemption is narrower than Ontario’s.

In 1999, a nurse from Calgary’s Foothills General Hospital leaked confidential documents on terminations of pregnancy on genetic grounds to the Alberta Report. The Calgary Regional Health Authority won an injunction preventing the Report from using the information.

The Court of Queen’s Bench ruled that the patients’ and doctors’ rights to privacy outweighed the public’s right to know what goes on in a hospital, which is correct with respect to personal, nominal information.

Apart from the fear politicians have that whatever they say regarding abortion will lose them votes, the Ontario MLAs might also be trying to pre-empt a pro-life argument that has become increasingly prevalent — that we shouldn’t use public health-care funds for abortion. That argument would be much less compelling if it can’t be shown that multimillions of taxpayer funding are being spent on it.

The government might also want to avoid de-funding abortion, because of the highly vocal outrage that would generate in the pro-choice lobby. Or perhaps, politically, they just want the issue of abortion to go away and hope that secrecy of information will help to achieve that outcome. But that’s not how democracy is supposed to work.

Margaret Somerville is Samuel Gale Professor of Law and Director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics & Law and is an international leader in the discussion of complex ethical questions in medicine. This article reprinted with permission from

Tags: abortion, canada

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

‘The Meaning of Sex’: why sexual integrity isn’t out-of-date

by Nathaniel Peters Thu Jun 07 12:00 EST Comments (4)


June 7, 2012 ( - How should we respond to the hookup culture? A number of concerned parents, pastors, and professors from all sides of the religious and political spectrum have expressed concern about the sexual culture that today’s young people inhabit. Some scholars, such as sociologists Mark Regnerus, Jeremy Uecker, and Kathleen Bogle, have published value-neutral analyses that aim to assess current trends and save us from common misperceptions. In empirical terms, they tell us how and why the sexual economy hurts its actors. Others, such as Laura Sessions Stepp and Donna Freitas, have offered more personal—and, for Freitas, spiritual—analyses of problems and possible solutions in modern sexual culture. Interestingly enough, these authors don’t write as traditionalists or social conservatives. They aren’t advocating purity rings or “modest is hottest.” Instead, they seek to help young people make more responsible sexual decisions. Not surprisingly, though, their counsel often aligns with a traditional conception of sexuality and monogamy, even if not perfectly. The science shows that more commitment and fewer sexual partners tend to make people happier.

But what about those who think that morality requires a bit more of us? How can they persuade young people that reserving sexual intimacy for marriage is the right thing to do? In his book On the Meaning of Sex, popular author and political philosopher J. Budziszewski attempts to make such an argument on the basis of human nature and natural law. He begins with an anecdote from teaching. During a classroom discussion of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, one of his students, Harris, said he found the characters disgusting. When pressed, Harris clarified that he had no problem with their sexual habits: “Sex doesn’t always have to mean something,” he insisted. What he found disgusting was their factory production of human beings.

But, Budziszewski argues, holding those two positions is not logically consistent:

It shouldn’t have bothered Harris unless procreation is something that ought to take place in the loving embrace of the parents. . . . Moreover, since Harris was revolted that the aspiration to children could ever be separated from the aspiration to union, it would seem that he recognized that these two meanings aren’t merely sometimes joined together, but that they are joined whenever we have sex. . . . Apparently sex means something to us even if we don’t admit to ourselves that it does.

That last sentence conveys Budziszewski’s goal and style of argumentation: He wants to draw attention to the reader’s gut feelings and instincts that may have been trained away by education or social conditioning. He wants to help them see what they know, even if they don’t know that they know it.

After some well-laid-out arguments about function, purpose, and natural law, Budziszewski argues that our bodies and actions have natural purposes. This means that some actions, such as those necessary for sexual union, mean something, whether we want them to or not. To put it another way, they say something, even if that is not what we want them to say: “A bodily action is like a word; we mean things to each other no less by what we do than by what we say. . . . To crush your windpipe with my thumbs is to say to you, ‘Now die,’ even if I tell you with my mouth, ‘Be alive.’ To join in one flesh is to say, ‘I give myself to you in all that this act means,’ even if I tell you with my mouth, ‘This means nothing.’” What sex means is total gift, a union of selves instantiated through bodily union, and it cannot but help mean that. By acting against this nature, which we cannot change, we do damage to ourselves and others.

Budziszewski further argues that human nature entails complementary differences between men and women. He notes that these differences are similar across cultures, both in terms of what people think they are and what they think about them. “Mark it up as another victory of quantitative social science,” he writes: “We can now confirm by counting that what everyone used to know without counting really is true.” He then explores how the particular characteristics of men and women make them attractive—in short, what we mean when we say that someone is sexy. Budziszewski thinks we mean that we find their manliness or womanliness desirable. Womanliness, for instance, “isn’t something she contrives, but something that glows from her. . . . The most compelling and believable signs of being a nice person to marry, make love with, and have children with are the ones that arise spontaneously. They are an outward glory given by an inward and invisible reality. A beautiful woman cannot help giving off such radiance, because it is an effect of what she really is.” Beauty conveys something deeper and more holistic than raw sexual appeal.


Similarly, spousal love is not a matter of feelings but an act of the will. Enchantment is a feeling of emotional infatuation, the moment of “wow” when she enters the room. Love, by contrast, is really about charity, which Budziszewski defines as “a permanent commitment of the will to the true good of the other person.” Erotic charity is a mode of charity bound to one person, and sexual intercourse is a particular act of this charity that fuses two selves together in the union of their flesh. Because love is not about enchantment, but charity, it is an act of the will, not a feeling. Therefore, Budziszewski argues, “it is something that one decides to do, and it can be promised.” To the many young people who claim that permanent, exclusive marriage is impossible because you can’t promise feelings, he would say yes—but marriage is not a promise of feelings.

Not surprisingly, Budziszewski calls for embracing sexual purity, which, he makes clear, is a matter of pursuing goods—goods that will be useful and helpful for marriage—not fleeing from them. Its temporary “no’s” enable one to give a full “yes” at the right time. He sees sexual purity as coming in both masculine and feminine flavors: “One awakens the feminine intuition of something that must be guarded; the other, the masculine sense of something that must be mastered.” And he extols the virtues of purity: decorum, “the conduct befitting the dignity of man as a rational being”; modesty, which “expresses respect for the fragility of this dignity . . . [and avoids] provoking appetites that people should be trying to moderate”; and temperance, finding order and the mean in one’s actions.

Throughout the book, Budziszewski resists invoking God or anything beyond rationally accessible premises. More accurately, he hints at such ideas without developing his hints, nor has he explained why every chapter begins with a quotation from John of the Cross. In the conclusion, though, he argues that sex points to and is ultimately about God: “Nature points beyond herself. She has a face, and it looks up. . . . ultimately, human love makes sense only in the light of divine love. The point is not that divine love means something and that human love doesn’t. Human love means so much, because divine love means still more.” In a variation on C.S. Lewis’s argument for the existence of God based on desire, he notes that even when we love well, mortal love is not enough. Since no human longing is made in vain, this unfulfilled natural desire must point toward a supernatural lover.

But taking this argument into religious waters poses the question of which audience Budziszewski hopes to reach. And that poses the larger question of how effective his efforts—not to mention the broader efforts of like-minded religious believers—actually are. If he wants to strengthen the faithful as they navigate young adulthood, he might well succeed. To be sure, far too many young religious men and women have followed the cultural lead and abandoned chastity. If On the Meaning of Sex gave them better reasons for it, that alone would be a great feat. But how is he to persuade students who press with further questions or actively oppose his views on principle? Budziszewski’s occasionally chivalric language might go over well with young Chestertonians, but many young adults would balk at passages like this one:

When we do attempt the journey back to the commonwealth of sense, we will meet trolls and enchanters on the way. They will obstruct passage, demand tribute, and try to lure us into byways and bogs. But why should that discourage us? We are already begrimed and bewitched. The first thing to do is open our eyes, grasp hold of the nearest branches, and pull ourselves out of the ooze. Odd knights we! Having made ourselves muddy and ridiculous, we may as well journey with a smile.

Likewise, the Arthurian metaphor of the Siege Perilous for a woman, her sexuality, or her reproductive organs is not going to fly outside more traditional Christian circles, and even there it might receive tenuous support.

Inquisitive students will desire more proof that sex has to mean what Budziszewski thinks it means—and why it cannot mean what they might want it to mean. His passages about sexual beauty offer an attractive vision of what it means to be human, but can they pierce the carapace of wounded, ironic disdain? He discusses sexual differences with nuance and care, and many young adults would no doubt find resonances of his words in their lives, but, albeit unfairly, a good number will dismiss it as patriarchal and outmoded.

How then can those who agree with Budziszewski try to show young adults a more excellent way? There are few easy answers, but On the Meaning of Sex’s strengths show where to begin: by offering an eloquent, engaging description of the beauty of men, women, and sexuality. Moreover, it seeks to show young people the wisdom of their desires and repugnance. It tries to preserve good intuitions and gently check misunderstandings, to show them what their hearts know, even if unwittingly. It also hands on the wisdom of our forebears with care and winsomeness. Of course, those who believe that chastity leads to flourishing must also demonstrate it with their lives. But arguments are necessary as well, and both the style and the content of On the Meaning of Sex offer a good place to find them.

Nathaniel Peters is a Ph.D. student of theology at Boston College. This article reprinted with permission from

Tags: chastity, marriage

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

Anatomy of a lie: Kansas court’s scheme to eliminate Planned Parenthood prosecutor revealed

by Kathleen Gilbert Thu Jun 07 10:45 EST Comments (12)

Phil Kline

TOPEKA, Kansas, June 7, 2012 ( - The man who became the first prosecutor in America to take on Planned Parenthood in court has revealed new details in the astonishing story of how the Kansas Supreme Court colluded with prosecutors and the Kathleen Sebelius administration to halt his investigation and turn the media against him, culminating in an effort to end his legal career.

For those unfamiliar with the Phill Kline case, the recusal motion filed last month by lawyers for the former Kansas Attorney General deftly encapsulates how the investigator was vilified for allegedly violating “patient privacy” in the normal course of investigating child rape, which in turn brought him head to head with Planned Parenthood. 

The motion tells the story Kline summed up recently as “Alice through the looking glass: It only gets curiouser and curiouser.”

Although Kline’s motion focused on the need for two of the state Supreme Court’s justices to recuse themselves, in a testimony to the strength of his argument, all five Supreme Court justices named for their involvement in the case recused themselves last month - an exodus unprecedented in recent memory, as a Court spokesman acknowledged.

One of the motion’s early footnotes notes that the reason for the twisted tale was predictable: it involved abortion. 

“It is difficult to fathom any other context where criminal targets could so effectively use the courts to prevent a prosecutor from using lawful means to gather evidence of their crimes,” said Kline’s lawyers. “However, in the context of abortion it should surprise no one.” The lawyers quoted U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s observation that, “the jurisprudence of this Court has a way of changing when abortion is involved.”

Click ‘like’ if you want to END ABORTION!

From the beginning, AG Kline’s investigation into child rape was repeatedly hampered by abortionists’ extraordinary legal motions: in one example, the court handed over the task of redacting the records in question to the target of the investigation itself, Planned Parenthood - a move Kline called “unprecedented,” and which resulted in over-redaction.

As soon as Kline moved out of the attorney general’s office in 2007, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri teamed with Kansas’ new top attorney in a desperate bid to recover the abortion records Kline still held.

Kline’s pro-abortion successor, AG Steve Morrison, first attempted to run “an intelligence raid for Planned Parenthood” in the spring of 2007 by demanding Kline’s records - even though Morrison already owned copies of all of them, and had no intention of prosecuting anyway - but the motion was denied. Two months later, Planned Parenthood began trying to force Kline to hand over the records. Meanwhile Morrison, who publicly cleared Planned Parenthood of charges, subpoenaed a local magistrate for his copy of the records.

When that failed, Planned Parenthood officials arrived unannounced three days later in the same judge’s office to demand the records. The judge, Richard Anderson, said the records likely contained evidence of their criminal activity, and refused.

Finally, Morrison joined forces with Planned Parenthood itself in their Supreme Court action against Kline, a bid that failed in December 2008.

But Supreme Court Justice Carol Beier’s opinion in that ruling, widely noted for its surprisingly abusive language against Kline, had a falsehood buried within that few noticed at the time: she wrote that Kline left “no coherent copies” of the records at the AG’s office, a claim Kline’s lawyers called a “whopper.” The “spectacular falsehood” was the basis of Beier’s faux “sanction” ordering Kline to return totally redundant record copies, putting him in a bad light.

Even worse, previous writings by Beier strongly hinted that the red herring was intentional: Beier had endorsed the idea that “[t]he media are tools to produce cultural infrastructure.”

The ruse worked: “Kline abortion prosecution faulted, Justices order medical records turned over to state,” reported the Topeka Capital-Journal; the Kansas City Star blared, “High court sanctions Kline for handling of abortion records.”

Ultimately, many of the 107 charges Kline had brought against Planned Parenthood, including all 23 felonies, were thrown out last year when it was discovered that the Kathleen Sebelius administration had destroyed key documents needed to compare Kline’s records with Planned Parenthood’s later submissions. The destruction took place in 2005, two years after Kline began uncovering abortionists’ alleged criminal activity.

Fortunately, Kline’s recent recusal motion has had an impact: four days after the filing, the five justices, including Sebelius-appointed Carol Beier, said they would recuse themselves based on a technicality regarding their previous involvement with Kline - something they would have known about for years - reasoning Kline’s attorney called a smokescreen to divert attention from the embarrassing motion.

Even so, said the attorney, the layers of deception demonstrated in the case have rendered it “irretrievably flawed.” Meanwhile, as Kline fights the ethics allegations aimed at suspending his license, in proceedings that have also proved deeply flawed thus far, his legal expenses have topped $300,000 and counting.

Although the recusal motion focused on Justice Beier’s role in the affair, its contents reveal just how far Kansas officials were willing to go to protect Planned Parenthood from prosecution.

Not only were AG Morrison’s actions baseless other than to erase record of abortionsts’ wrongdoing, said Kline’s lawyers, but the Beier sanction raised the stakes even more by requiring Kline to hand over records that Kansas officials never had to begin with - ones he procured in his own subsequent abortion investigations as a district attorney.

As a result, private documents and statements Kline had assured sources would be kept private, were handed over to Kansas - and abortionists.

“I’ve been told,” said Kline, “that all of that information was then turned over to the attorneys for the abortion clinics.”

Click here for more information on contributing to Phill Kline’s legal fund.

Tags: abortion, kansas, phil kline, planned parenthood

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

Turkish prime minister battles Eurocrats to lower abortion limit to first four weeks of pregnancy

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Thu Jun 07 09:51 EST Comments (0)

Recep Tayyip Erdogan

June 7, 2012 ( - Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has incurred the wrath of the country’s pro-abortion feminists by proposing to reduce the limit on abortions to the first four weeks of pregnancy, a measure that critics complain would virtually eliminate surgical abortions in the country.

He has also received an admonition from the Council of Europe’s “Equality and Non-Discrimination Committee” and the pro-abortion “human rights” group Amnesty International.

Hundreds of people reportedly marched last Sunday in Istanbul in response to the proposal, claiming that it is “misogynist” and robs women of the right to control their bodies. They held signs stating “Abortion is a right” and “It’s my body.”

According to Turkish sources, the Council of Europe’s Equality and Non-Discrimination Committee has reacted to Erdogan’s initiative by warning that that “A ban on abortions does not result in fewer abortions but only leads to clandestine abortions,” a claim that pro-life organizations say is belied by statistical evidence from countries that have prohibited abortion in the past.

Click ‘like’ if you want to END ABORTION!

The Committee also claimed that such a law would be an attack on “sexual and reproductive health,” a term that is not considered applicable to abortion in international treaties.

“Welcoming the fact that Turkey has been the first country to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, the committee urged the Turkish authorities not to allow any setback on women’s rights, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health,” the Committee reportedly wrote.

Amnesty International, an international organization which several years ago abandoned its neutrality on abortion and began to openly lobby for the killing of the unborn as a “human right,” said that it was “profoundly worried” about Prime Minister Erdogan’s statements, and claimed that it would “put the life and health of female Turks in danger.”

Edrogan has been on the attack against abortion since May 25th, when he began to denounce it as a murderous form of population control.

“No one should have the right to authorize it. Whether you kill the baby within the womb of his mother, or kill him after his birth, there’s no difference,” said Erdogan, who also stated that the purpose of abortion is “to prevent this country’s population from growing further.”

“I see abortion as murder, and I call upon those circles and members of the media who oppose my comments: You live and breathe Uludere. I say every abortion is an Uludere,” Erdogan stated, referring to an air raid in 2011 that had led to the accidental deaths of 34 Turkish civilians.

Abortion-on-demand has been permitted in Turkey during the first ten weeks of pregnancy since it was legalized in 1983, and for medical reasons since 1965. The country’s birth rate has fallen from 3.14 per couple in 1980 to 2.11 today, according to the French Press Agency (AFP).

Tags: abortion, population control

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

Indiana abortions at lowest rate since 1977

by Ben Johnson Thu Jun 07 09:17 EST Comments (5)


INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, June 7, 2012, ( – Figures released by the Indiana State Department of Health show the state’s abortion rate in 2010 was the lowest since 1977, marking a prolonged decline.

ISDH reported that 10,031 unborn children were aborted in 2010, a five percent drop since 2009. That is 526 fewer abortions than the previous year.

National Right to Life notes, “Indiana’s abortion rate has now dropped over 8% since 2008 and has fallen nearly 40% from Indiana’s highest annual abortion rate of 16,505 in 1980.”
“There are lot of factors that go into it,” Marc Tuttle, president of Right to Life of Indianapolis told The dwindling number of abortionists in the state is one key. “Nobody goes into medical school in order to become an abortionist,” he said. “We’ve also had a lot of success with sidewalk counseling.”

Statutes such as the state’s parental notice law and 18-hour waiting period, and greater information about fetal development have helped women change their minds, he said.

“Finally, especially here in Indianapolis, we have a network of crisis pregnancy centers that has just bloomed and blossomed over the last five to 10 years. They deserve a lot of credit too for being able to meet the needs of women.”

A representative for Planned Parenthood of Indiana told the media, “Indiana is still 49th in the nation in terms of accessibility in family planning services.”

Tuttle said the pro-life movement has had a number of “hidden victories,” which have been overlooked because the media focus on political or judicial battles, where “pro-lifers are at several disadvantages.”

“What the media don’t cover is the number of abortionists, which has been declining drastically over a number of years; the number of women seeking abortions; and the number of women who are living healthier lifestyles and not living promiscuous lifestyles, who are therefore not at risk of having unplanned pregnancies,” Tuttle told LifeSiteNews.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

The reduction in medical abortions was almost entirely offset by the rising number of chemical, or drug-induced, abortions in the state. There were 1,968 drug-induced abortions in 2010, up from 1,460 in 2009. 

“We are shocked by the rapid increase in the use of chemical abortifacients that are largely unregulated,” said Indiana Right to Life President and CEO Mike Fichter.

Advocates of the unborn welcome the overall declining numbers but remain focused on their goal.

“On the one hand, yes, we’re on the lowest number we’ve had in decades but on the flip side it’s still a horrendous number of abortions,” Tuttle told LifeSiteNews.

“Our goal as pro-lifers needs to be to make our cities and our states totally abortion-free,” he said. “We can be heartened by these numbers, but our goal is to have no abortions.”


Tags: indiana

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

Target blocking e-mails from AFA urging them to stop supporting gay ‘marriage’

by Katie Craine Wed Jun 06 19:11 EST Comments (50)


June 6, 2012 ( - Target is blocking e-mails from people opposed to its new campaign to support the homosexual agenda, according to the American Family Association (AFA).

Target launched a campaign at the end of May to raise money for Family Equality Council (FEC), a group that is opposing legislation that would protect the traditional definition of marriage.

The massive retailer is selling t-shirts through June, which is called National Pride Month, with gay pride flags and slogans on them. The shirts were designed by musician Gwen Stefani.

Target says it will donate 100% of the proceeds from this campaign to Family Equality Council, up to $120,000.

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

In response, AFA asked its supporters to send emails to the company’s chairman. AFA provided a draft e-mail urging the company to stop supporting homosexuality that supporters can send from their website.

However, an update on the AFA’s website says that Target is blocking emails that supporters are sending from the site. Supporters are now being asked to send e-mails from their personal address or to call the company with the phone number provided.

“I hope you will not let Target silence your voice. I encourage you to call their corporate office and share your personal thoughts,” AFA said on its website, and encouraged its supporters to call the corporate office.

Tags: homosexuality, target

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

back to top