LifeSiteNews.com Life, Family and Culture News

August 15, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The sole suspect in this morning’s shooting at the Family Research Council headquarters in Washington D.C. has been volunteering at a community center for homosexuals, it has been revealed.

David Mariner, the executive director of The DC Center for the LGBT Community, told the Associated Press that Floyd Corkins II had been volunteering at the center for the past six months or so. He described Corkins as, “kind, gentle and unassuming.”

Corkins, 28, of Herndon, Virginia, allegedly entered the lobby of FRC this morning, where witnesses say he criticized the conservative organization, before opening fire. One security officer was shot in the arm before the officer was able to subdue Corkins with the assistance of others.

Corkins was reportedly armed with multiple weapons.

While police have not released any information about a possible motive, a picture is beginning to emerge of a homosexual activist who may have had an axe to grind against the conservative organization, particularly its recent stance in support of fast-food chain Chick-Fil-A.

An early report from Fox News, subsequently confirmed by law enforcement officials, had said that Corkins was spotted carrying a Chick-Fil-A bag. Chick-Fil-A is a well-known donor to Family Research Council. The fast-food chain has also been in the news a great deal recently, after its CEO, Dan Cathy, affirmed that he believes in the traditional definition of marriage.

Meanwhile, President Obama has weighed in on today’s events, with his spokesman, Jay Carney, telling the press that Obama expressed his concern for the victim and said that such violence has no place in society.

Earlier in the day Mitt Romney had released a statement condemning the shooting. “I am appalled by the shooting today at the offices of the Family Research Council in our nation’s capital,” Romney said. “There is no place for such violence in our society. My prayers go out to the wounded security guard and his family, as well as all the people at the Family Research Council whose sense of security has been shattered by today’s horrific events.”

NEW YORK, August 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan has for the first time personally responded to what he refers to as “stacks of mail protesting the invitation to President Obama.”  The strongly pro-life Archbishop and head of the USCCB says he takes seriously the charge of scandal, and apologizes “if I have given such scandal.” He wonders however, “would I give more scandal by inviting the two candidates, or by not inviting them?”

In his defense, the Cardinal notes that Pope Benedict XVI received President Obama. Cardinal Dolan says he and his fellow bishops are similarly “open to dialogue” with the administration.

When Pope Benedict received Obama in July 2009, however, the circumstances were very different.  The Pope did not ask Obama to come to speak at a Catholic fundraiser. Moreover the Holy Father took the opportunity to speak to Obama about abortion and conscience rights and made his talking points known publicly - a scenario unlikely to unfold at the jovial Al Smith dinner.

The papal meeting was also not just 19 days before a U.S. presidential election. The Vatican Secretary of State is acutely aware of the need to avoid such politically sensitive situations.

Cardinal Dolan commences his letter speaking of the need for ‘civility’ in political life, praising the Al Smith dinner for fostering such civility. “What message would I send if I refused to meet with the President?,” asks the Cardinal.

The question is a sensitive one since it could be seen by some as a criticism of former New York Cardinal John O’Connor, founder of the Sisters of Life,  who did exactly that - he refused then-President Clinton an invite to the Al Smith dinner, reportedly over Clinton’s veto of the partial birth abortion ban.  Dolan fails to mention Cardinal O’Connor’s action. 

Obama has proven to be even more extremist on abortion and a far greater threat to Christianity and the Catholic Church than Clinton ever was.

LifeSiteNews has followed a policy in all our reports on this controversy of being respectful, civil and acknowledging of the many positive actions by Cardinal Dolan. We have avoided any criticisms of the person of the cardinal or questioning of his motives. The emphasis has been on questions about the wisdom, at this time in U.S. history, and only a few weeks before perhaps the most critical of U.S. elections ever, of having the current president speak at this very prominent Catholic fundraising event.

LifeSiteNews also strongly encourages others engaged in this discussion to avoid what the cardinal refers to as “negativity, judgmentalism, name-calling, and mudslinging”. But respectfully expressing opinions that suggest there could be serious negative ramifications with the Obama invite are none of these, although some are unfortunately characterizing them as such.

The New York Archbishop concludes his letter saying: “In the end, I’m encouraged by the example of Jesus, who was blistered by his critics for dining with those some considered sinners; and by the recognition that, if I only sat down with people who agreed with me, and I with them, or with those who were saints, I’d be taking all my meals alone.”

Addressing that point in a column last week, Catholic World News editor Phil Lawler wrote: “When Jesus sat with tax collectors, the dinners were private. They were not ‘photo ops’ for political candidates. The Lord could speak directly to the hearts of his dining companions, and convert them. Remember, St. Matthew left the tax-collecting business to follow Christ. Does anyone believe that after the Al Smith dinner, Obama will decide to rescind the contraceptive mandate?”

Regardless of the many reports and expressed concerns about the invitation to the president, we must emphasize that LifeSiteNews has a high regard for Cardinal Dolan. He has recently played a major role, along with some of his notable brother bishops, in leading and motivating the U.S. Catholic population to publicly challenge the anti-life, anti-family culture. He has been boldly fighting the attacks on religious freedom that have been exponentially growing in recent years. And for all that everyone should be grateful.

As for the current controversy, it concerns prudential judgment on an issue that has potentially significant ramifications for the entire American public. It could send seriously confusing signals to a public that has been convinced by the bishops and others about the great dangers to faith, morals and freedom of a second Obama term. Politically, Obama has much to gain and nothing to lose from speaking and telling jokes at this function.

Considering what is at stake in this election, respectful, even emphatic dialogue is appropriate. It is about much more than a dinner.

See the LifeSiteNews document, Composing Effective Communications in Response to LifeSiteNews Reports

Related story
An open letter to Cardinal Dolan about the Obama invitation

ROME, August 15, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – “Membership of the species Homo sapiens is not enough to confer a right to life.”

To the ears of us ordinary people, it sounds like the ravings of some fringe group of European neo-fascists or Communists, but the man who made that statement in a Scottish newspaper today is perhaps the most acclaimed and respected ethical philosopher alive, toasted by liberal academic and political elites around the world.

Philosopher and Bioethicist Peter Singer defended abortion in an op-ed in the Scotsman today.

“Opponents will respond that abortion is, by its very nature, unsafe – for the fetus,” he wrote. “They point out that abortion kills a unique, living human individual. That claim is difficult to deny, at least if by ‘human’ we mean ‘member of the species Homo sapiens.”

Singer is among the cadre of leading thinkers who maintain that being a human being isn’t enough to confer any legal rights. To be a “person,” one must fulfill a particular set of criteria.

“It is also true that we cannot simply invoke a woman’s ‘right to choose’ in order to avoid the ethical issue of the moral status of the fetus,” Singer continued. “If the fetus really did have the moral status of any other human being, it would be difficult to argue that a pregnant woman’s right to choose includes the right to bring about the death of the fetus, except perhaps when the woman’s life is at stake.

“The fallacy in the anti-abortion argument lies in the shift from the scientifically accurate claim that the fetus is a living individual of the species Homo sapiens to the ethical claim that the fetus therefore has the same right to life as any other human being.”

Contrary to how he sounds, Peter Singer is not some obscure crank, writing for a tiny audience of like-minded nutters. Probably most famous for being the “father” of the modern animal rights movement, he is also widely regarded as the most influential bioethicist in the world. And his positions as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne, are as good an indicator as any to start to appreciate just how far into the Upsidedownland Matrix academia and the world of bioethics has gone.

Even as one of the most famous professional philosophers in the world, Singer’s ideas continue to shock pro-life people with his forthright defense of infanticide, the wholesale killing of people with dementia, the sexual use of animals, (whom he maintains are capable of “consent”), and the use of the cognitively disabled for medical experiments.

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

As a bioethicist, Singer swats aside outdated concepts like “mercy killing” to end the suffering of the patient, arguing instead that it is the suffering of the patient’s family, friends, and of society as a whole that is more important. Suffering patients cost society money to keep alive and comfortable; they demand extra care and time that diminishes the freedom and autonomy of their caregivers.

Singer is renowned for carrying the logic of classical Utilitarianism to its furthest extreme. Utilitarianism, the philosophy developed in England in the 18th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, proposes that all human action must be ordered to producing “happiness” and reducing suffering. That might sound fine on the surface, but in practice it means that the moral worth of any action is determined only by its resulting outcome, not by whether it is good or evil in itself. This means that killing would not be evil in itself, but only when it brings “unhappiness” into the world.

Singer’s extreme form of “preference utilitarianism” proposes that human life has no inherent value. Therefore, killing a patient out of mercy is a purely mathematical consideration, one that prioritizes the reduction of the overall quantity of suffering in the world, tipping the global scales towards “happiness.” He and those who follow his theories, posit a kind of invisible cloud of suffering, like a layer of pollution, covering the world that must be reduced. And the most convenient way to do that is simply to remove those who suffer.

To justify this, Singer has developed the idea that only those with a certain level of cognitive function can be considered “persons,” which idea he expanded to propose that any creature with higher presumptive cognitive functions than the bare minimum were also persons, including great apes, dogs, and dolphins.

“We can plausibly argue,” he wrote in the Scotsman, “that we ought not to kill, against their will, self-aware beings who want to continue to live. We can see this as a violation of their autonomy, or a thwarting of their preferences. But why should a being’s potential to become rationally self-aware make it wrong to end its life before it has the capacity for rationality or self-awareness?”

The one group that does not qualify for personhood in Singer’s world are newborn humans and brain damaged people of any age. These, he says, ought to have “personhood” legally bestowed upon them only after the approval of their parents or caregivers. Parents, he believes, should be given a month or so to decide if they want to keep their child, and only then should it have the protection of the law.

“We have no obligation to allow every being with the potential to become a rational being to realize that potential,” he argued in today’s piece.

“If it comes to a clash between the supposed interests of potentially rational but not yet conscious beings and the vital interests of actually rational women, we should give preference to the women every time,” he wrote.

What the Scotsman declines to mention is that Singer is possibly the most read, most listened-to, and most followed thinker of our times. So ubiquitous are his ideas in academia, government, and most prominent medical ethicists throughout the Western world that most people parroting them often have no idea they are following him.

A conversation comes to mind that I had many years ago over the internet with a man running for public office in the eastern Canadian province of Nova Scotia. This man, a Unitarian minister, regarded himself as driven by his high ethical ideals. He was telling me in all earnestness that the real political task was to increase the general quantity of human happiness in the world. An unborn infant, he said, was not capable of being truly happy, because it didn’t have the cognitive ability to appreciate its surroundings. Therefore, the rights of the mother to her full measure of happiness must take precedence.

He was somewhat horrified when I countered that as a good disciple of Peter Singer he ought to be taking the argument a step forward and offering to include infanticide on demand in Nova Scotia’s public medical insurance coverage. After I explained who Singer was, he was shocked that such a wicked man could have become so influential.

Many people believe that philosophy is nothing more than a kind of academic playpen for tenured eggheads and unmotivated undergraduates. But philosophy is the foundation of our societies, how we decide what is and is not worth doing as individuals and as a civilization, what is and is not morally acceptable. Over the last few centuries, there has been a slow but massive shift, mostly unknown to us ordinary folks outside the ivy-covered walls, away from traditional Judeo-Christian ethics to these new, Enlightenment-era principles.

Philosophy and culture are inextricably connected, but it is usually only when a man like Peter Singer writes his ideas out loud in a daily newspaper that the general public starts to become aware of the origins of our current cultural sickness. But these new ideas have slowly grown their poisoned tendrils into every corner of human endeavor and strangled the basic notions upon which our civilization was built.

A lot of pro-life people got involved because of a single legal change, something that shocked and horrified them, the legalization of abortion or euthanasia. But it is crucial for pro-life people to understand the bigger picture, that the thing we are fighting is bigger than a single incident, or a single issue.

It is not about overturning Roe v. Wade or the Abortion Act 1967. It is about defeating an entire new philosophical culture, a system of thought governing all human action. This new set of ideas has created the abortionist and pansexualist regime we are fighting in the pro-life movement. The sexual revolution did not spring out of nothing in 1965.

LONDON, August 15, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Margaret Forrester, the Christian nurse who was fired for sharing her views on abortion with colleagues, has settled out of court for an undisclosed amount in her suit against her former employers, the National Health Service.

Forrester, 40, was sacked in June 2011 after she shared a booklet showing the medical realities of abortion and its effects on women to her co-workers. Her employer called the book “offensive” and said that she had been guilty of “gross professional misconduct” for discussing the subject.

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

Forrester said that the move was a form of discrimination, which she called “dangerously totalitarian.” She took the Central and North Western London NHS Foundation Trust to court, accusing the public service of violating her rights to free speech and religious belief.

She was being represented by the Thomas More Legal Centre, a public advocacy group defending Christians in their increasingly common clashes with British officialdom. She brought two actions against the Trust, one with the courts and the other with an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal, religious discrimination, and religious harassment under the Human Rights Act.

Forrester, a Roman Catholic with “religious and moral objections to abortion,” was employed by the NHS as a Psychological Well Being Practitioner. The booklet she shared, titled “Forsaken,” gave the personal accounts of women who have had abortions and its effects on them.

The Thomas More Legal Centre said they were “privileged to have been able to represent Margaret Forrester in this important case and stands ready to support any other NHS employees who may find themselves being threatened for expressing religious or pro-life views.

KELOWNA, British Columbia, August 15 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The City of Kelowna in British Columbia has proclaimed the last week in September as Protect Human Life Week, and has agreed to hang a pro-life flag on City Hall during the week.

The city’s Director of Communications Tom Wilson only approved the flag after Kelowna Right to Life agreed to take off the statement “From Conception to Natural Death,” because it was “advocating a point of view” and was not “reflecting the actual event.”

However, the city’s proclamation of the event, signed Mayor Walter Gray, says, “It is the intention of this proclamation to promote respect and protection to all human life, especially the infirm, the aged, the handicapped, and the unborn.

Click ‘like’ if you want to END ABORTION!

This is the fifth consecutive year that the city has proclaimed Protect Human Life Week. Events for the week include a Memorial Service for the Unborn, a Walk for Life Fundraiser, a screening of the pro-life movie October Baby, and the annual Life Chain.

“At a time when pro life groups on Canadian college campuses are routinely censored and pro-life initiatives get very little positive exposure in the news media, it is certainly refreshing to have our Mayor’s Office recognize our efforts on such a consistent basis,” said Executive Director of Kelowna Right to Life Marlon Bartram.

“Their continuing proclamation of Protect Human Life Week shows the rest of the country that Kelowna truly is an inclusive place that respects the many diverse communities comprising our great city.”

Kelowna Right to Life will also be handing out pro-life postcards to homes in the Kelowna area during the week.

WASHINGTON, August 15, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The suspect arrested for shooting a security guard after attempting to enter the Family Research Council headquarters was carrying paraphernalia related to Chick-Fil-A, the restaurant chain that came under fire last month for supporting traditional marriage, according to reports.

Federal officials said the suspect, identified as Floyd Corkins, of Herndon, Virginia, “was carrying a backpack containing materials related to Chick-fil-A restaurants,” according to NBC.

In an earlier report, Fox News said that sources claimed the gunman “may have been carrying a bag from Chick-fil-A.”

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

Chick-Fil-A was condemned by gay rights leaders and several mayors for CEO Dan Cathy’s expression of Biblical beliefs regarding the sanctity of marriage, remarks that touched off renewed opposition to Chick-Fil-A for donating to “hate groups,” including the Family Research Council.

Perkin’s group, one of the country’s most high-profile advocacy groups against redefining marriage, had strongly supported Cathy’s statements as well as the “Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day” that drew tens of thousands of Americans to the restaurant chain in an expression of support.

It’s harder to count the bodies when they’re still standing.

But, my friends: this is what an Aurora shooting looks like when it’s stopped just in time.

Gwendolyn Crump, communications director for the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, told LSN that officials responded at 10:45 am to a report of a shooting after a suspect entered the Family Research Council building and was confronted by a security guard in the lobby.

“The suspect opened fire on the security guard, striking the security guard,” said Crump. “The security guard and others assisted in subduing the suspect.” Crump said the guard was listed in stable condition after being taken to a local hospital.

Although police have not confirmed it, Fox News initially reported that the suspect carried multiple weapons and made inflammatory statements about FRC before he was subdued, at which point he told the guard he had shot, “it was not about you, it was what this place stands for.”

I may have had to write a much more horrifying headline this morning if it weren’t for Leo Johnson, the head security guard that took a bullet in the arm but managed to keep this young man (reportedly in his twenties) from entering past the lobby.

Even more disturbing:

Sources also said the gunman may have been carrying a bag from Chick-fil-A, the embattled fast-food restaurant whose president came under fire from gay activists after he said he did not agree with same-sex marriage.

Chick-Fil-A, of course, donates to FRC.

A number of LGBT leaders have expressed sadness and condemned the violence. I’m truly grateful to my brothers and sisters on the other side of the aisle for this swift gesture.

Yet these leaders bear much of the shame for hammering the message that opposing the redefinition of marriage means you “hate” certain people, and pushing the Southern Poverty Law Center’s classification of FRC as a “hate” group to rubberstamp this concept. A quick look around Twitter during the Chick-Fil-A controversy showed prominent LGBT voices, including the groups noted above, attacking pro-family groups in the most hyperbolic terms as hateful, bigoted, and downright evil - for supporting what even President Obama professed a few months ago: that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

The people at Family Research Council hate no one, and are the kindest people you will ever meet. The actual murderous hate that breeds in reaction to fabricated murderous hate is all too real.

“F—k dialog with people who want us dead,” said the “Angry Queers,” one of several gay anarchist vandal groups, who admitted to shattering the windows of a Christian church this spring. It is because of “churches” and Christian society, they said, that transgender people die. The Mormons and Knights of Columbus members threatened with death for supporting Prop 8 received the same message.

There is no doubt that 2012 has proved a year of reckoning, of sorts, for America’s conscience. Amid the advent of visceral hatred for basic Christianity, more visible than ever before in the Chick-Fil-A fiasco, this year also inaugurated the HHS mandate, and with it the start of real religious persecution in the land of the free.

Obviously, we do not yet know with certainty what the motive of this morning’s shooter was, and I have no intention of condemning the currently innocent. Whether or not this scenario was what it seems, it most certainly foreshadows what waits in store for us as our era of trial shudders slowly to life.

ATLANTA, August 15, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) - The full story of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation’s decision to defund Planned Parenthood will be told next month, when former employee Karen Handel releases her new book for Simon & Schuster.

Planned Bullyhood, The Truth Behind the Headlines about the Planned Parenthood Funding Battle with Susan G. Komen for the Cure (http://books.simonandschuster.com/Planned-Bullyhood/Karen-Handel/9781451697940) will be available on September 11.

Earlier this year Komen announced it was cutting off funding from Planned Parenthood because of a new policy not to fund organizations under investigation by the government, and because Planned Parenthood does not perform mammograms.

Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun explained that “the cutoff results from the charity’s newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities.” In 2011, the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee announced that it was investigating Planned Parenthood to determine whether the abortion organization handles criminal conduct properly, or whether it has violated the Hyde Amendment by diverting federal funds to pay for abortion services.

In the ensuing firestorm of protest from pro-abortion activists, Komen stated the move was “not about politics.”

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

“We regret that these new policies have impacted some longstanding grantees, such as Planned Parenthood,” the statement said, “but want to be absolutely clear that our grant-making decisions are not about politics. Throughout our 30 year history, our priority has always been and will continue to be the women we serve.”

The cancer fighting organization added its members were “dismayed and extremely disappointed that actions we have taken to strengthen our granting process have been widely mischaracterized.”

Shortly afterward, Karen Handel resigned as Komen’s vice president for public policy, though not without a parting shot at the abortion provider’s “vicious” campaign of coercion.

Speaking to Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly, Handel said the Komen foundation was subjected to an unprecedented attack by the nation’s leading provider of abortion.

“What was unleashed over this past week was a vicious attack against a great organization and…individual attacks against [Komen founder] Nancy Brinker, an individual whom I admire greatly – and I would think all of us should be saddened that an outside org should put this kind of pressure on another organization.”

“The last time I checked, private non-profit organizations have a right and a responsibility to be able to set the highest standards and criteria on their own without interference, let alone the level of vicious attacks and coercion that has occurred by Planned Parenthood,” Handel said.

In her letter of resignation, Handel “respectfully” declined a severance package offered by Nancy Brinker, the founder and CEO of Komen for the Cure.

Jill Stanek wrote that accepting the package “might have required her to keep silent.”

Handel’s forthcoming book, Planned Bullyhood, The Truth Behind the Headlines about the Planned Parenthood Funding Battle with Susan G. Komen for the Cure will illuminate the inside story of that decision and its aftermath.

WASHINGTON, August 15, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Twenty-three organizations supporting gay rights have condemned a shooting at the Family Research Council headquarters Wednesday morning, saying that although the motive of the attack hasn’t been clearly established, the leaders “utterly reject and condemn” such violence.

“We were saddened to hear news of the shooting this morning at the offices of the Family Research Council. Our hearts go out to the shooting victim, his family, and his co-workers,” said the leaders in a statement Wednesday afternoon, hours after the shooting took place.

One security guard employed by the pro-family conservative group was shot in the arm after confronting a heavily armed man who attempted to enter the group’s headquarters, reportedly while making inflammatory statements about FRC’s views. The suspected shooter is in custody, while the guard, identified as head security guard Leo Johnson, is in stable condition, according to D.C. police.

Fox News reports that sources have told them that the shooter “may” have been carrying a Chick-Fil-A bag. Tony Perkins, the head of FRC, had spoken out in favor of Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s statements in support of traditional marriage.

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

The statement from LGBT rights leaders said that, “The motivation and circumstances behind today’s tragedy are still unknown, but regardless of what emerges as the reason for this shooting, we utterly reject and condemn such violence. 

“We wish for a swift and complete recovery for the victim of this terrible incident.”

Signatories include Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out (TWO), Dr. Eliza Byard of the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Chad Griffin of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Jennifer Chrisler of the Family Equality Council, and Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry.

LGBT groups such as Truth Wins Out and HRC routinely characterize FRC as “a certified anti-gay hate group” for its stance against redefining marriage, and have encouraged boycotts of businesses that fund the conservative group as supporting “hate.” In 2010 the Southern Poverty Law Center endorsed opponents’ characterization of FRC as a “hate group.”

August 15, 2012 (HLIAmerica.org) - I am an Olympic blubberer. Whenever I read the news stories or watch the competitions I need a box of tissues nearby. The drama of the competition, the heartbreaking falls, the soaring successes and the inspiring narratives all reduce me to tears. The 2012 Summer Olympics tugged at my heartstrings with so many stories, but none more so than the bronze medal winner in the shot put, Reese Hoffa. When the reporters put the microphones in his face seeking a comment after the medal ceremony, he took advantage of the platform to extol the virtues of adoption.

Hoffa’s life story has been told many times. He was placed in an orphanage when he was four years old. His mother was barely sixteen when she gave birth to him, her second child. She tried to raise the two children but had no money and no family support, so she did what she thought was best for her children and gave them up for adoption. When speaking of his biological mother, Reese says, “I have to say thank you very much … For her to make a decision to give the best life I could possibly have, I’m sure that took incredible courage on her part.”

Reese Hoffa of the United States won the bronze medal in men’s shot put at the 2012 Summer Olympics.
The Hoffa family adopted Reese when he was five years old. They were a faithfully Catholic family who already had four children. They gave him love and nurtured him to success. He graduated from the University of Georgia and has participated in three Olympic games, finally winning a medal in London. The Washington Post reports on Hoffa’s desire to encourage others to consider adoption:

I think that’s very important to me, to show a lot of parents out there looking to give kids homes, that we are great people that we want to do great things but we just need a home to do that in. If you’re a loving, caring mother or father, looking for a child, adoption is an incredible option. I’m definitely testament to that.

Think about that. In his third Olympics he wins his first medal and the first thing he does is to urge parents to consider adoption.

His message is sorely needed. The fertility industry is a multibillion-dollar industry centered on immoral technology that preys on the desires of couples to have their own biologically related child. Yet, in the United States there are at least 115,000 children in foster care awaiting adoption. Imagine if more infertile couple sought to promote life by generously opening their families to these children instead of relying on medical technologies like in vitro fertilization that turn children into commodities to be bought and sold.

Mother Angelica, founder of EWTN, said, “God from all eternity chose you to be where you are at this time in history to change the world.” God calls each of us to a unique role in salvation history. When a couple finds themselves unable to conceive a child, perhaps their role includes being an adoptive parent.

Most adoptive parents will not raise Olympians like Reese Hoffa or Scott Hamilton.  Their child very likely will not be an innovator like Steve Jobs. He or she may not be a successful entrepreneur like Wendy’s founder Dave Thomas. Each of these famous figures was adopted. But every child, no matter his potential for worldly greatness, is a precious gift made in the image of God and deserving of the unconditional love of a family. Long after Reese Hoffa’s bronze medal is forgotten, the fruits of his win will endure if it spurs even one child to be adopted into a loving home. That is the pro-life legacy of London 2012.

Denise Hunnell, MD, is a Fellow of HLI America, an initiative of Human Life International. She writes for HLI’s Truth and Charity Forum, where this article originally appeared.

August 15, 2012 (Mercatornet.com) - Nine Days that Changed the World is a book about Pope John Paul II’s nine-day trip to Poland in 1979.  The Pope’s pilgrimage laid the groundwork for the revolution of conscience that eventually brought down the Communist regimes throughout Eastern Europe. Thus those nine days really did change the world. Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day could very well be the One Day that changes our world this year.

During Pope John Paul’s first trip to his homeland after being elected Pope, he did not assemble an army.  He did not set up a network of spies. He did not give rabble-rousing speeches. He did not go to inspire a revolution.

He just preached the love of Jesus Christ, the person who is Truth personified.  And literally millions of people came to listen. Those millions of people looked around and saw that they were not alone.  The Polish people had been living in an oppressive regime since the end of World War II.  The Communist regime created fear.  The fear created a spiritual isolation: people not speaking their minds, not trusting each other, consuming a constant diet of lies.  People became accustomed to not speaking truths that were right in front of their eyes.

The Pope’s visit brought millions of people into the sunlight. At one of his appearances, people started chanting: “We want God. We want God.”  They weren’t supposed to want God. They hadn’t known how many of their neighbors also wanted God.

They began being unafraid to live in the truth. And once truth could have its say, it began to take care of itself.

On Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, millions of people saw that they were not alone. All those ordinary Americans who decided to Eat More Chicken were standing in line for religious freedom, for the institution of marriage, for free speech. They sat in the traffic jams out of respect and gratitude for the Cathy Family for taking a stand.

Every one of us who stood in one of those lines, or who sat in one of those traffic jams or who gloated on facebook over the photos, can see that we are not alone.

We are tired of the oppressive lies of the sexual revolution.  We know that men and women are different, not interchangeable. We know that marriage is about children and what they need, not just about adults and how they feel. We know that sex is much more than a sterile recreational activity.  We know that every sexual act is deeply significant, even when we treat our sex acts as meaningless and our sex partners like toys.

We believe that God loves each and every person into existence. We believe our spousal love is meant to be an image of God’s fruitful and faithful love.  We are not ashamed to believe these things.

On Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day, millions of Americans saw that they are not alone.  We know we can say what we think in public.

More Christian businesses will refuse to be bullied by the Thought Police, and will instead stand up for marriage and family values. More people will show up to political rallies. More people will attend their school board meetings to find out what our children are really being taught. More people will get involved with their professional associations and steer their professions away from the shoals of political correctness. And yes, more people will get involved with the November elections.

The whole world is watching America. When our values go down the tubes, we take the rest of the world with us. If we can turn our country toward common sense and good morals, the rest of the world will benefit. But this will only happen if every person who ate a chicken sandwich on that historic Wednesday is emboldened, motivated and activated to move their own corner of the world in the right direction.

If all of us do our part, August 1, 2012, could well be the One Day That Changed the World.

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. is the Founder and President of the Ruth Institute, a project of the National Organization for Marriage Education Fund. This article reprinted with permission from Mercatornet.com under a Creative Commons License.

August 15, 2012 (CNS) - A Catholic Jesuit law school has announced that its new interim dean will be a personal injury lawyer who in 2010 reportedly represented a mother in a “wrongful life” lawsuit, claiming doctors had failed to detect that her child had a congenital condition leading to the loss of the baby’s left foot. Had she known, the woman said she would have aborted the baby.

Following the abrupt resignation of the previous dean, Saint Louis University announced last week that alumnus Thomas Q. Keefe Jr. would be the interim dean of SLU’s School of Law. Keefe reportedly represented Amber Gray in 2010, after federal courts declined jurisdiction over her suit filed in 2008.

Saint Louis University’s mission statement says the university is committed to ”the pursuit of truth for the greater glory of God and for the service of humanity.” But does that include all humanity? What message does this hiring send to students of the university and law school?

The details, according to court records, are as follows:

Gray was pregnant, and Dr. Saji Jacob was her doctor. During Gray’s second trimester, Dr. Jacob ordered an ultrasound. A sonographer performed Gray’s ultrasound and filled out an ultrasound OB worksheet, which is a form used to indicate the position and status of the fetus during the ultrasound. The sonographer’s worksheet indicated that all the fetus’ extremities were seen during the ultrasound, and that the fetus was normal. Radiologist Dr. Samuel Essma reviewed the sonographer’s work, and drafted his own report. Dr. Essma’s report concluded that “partially visualized extremities were normal” and that the ultrasound showed a “normal 22 week 3 day old fetus”.

Dr. Jacob received the worksheet and report on the same day that the ultrasound was performed, and reviewed them to make his own determination. Dr. Jacob checked the language on the sonographer’s worksheet, which he knew indicated a normal ultrasound, against the language in Dr. Essma’s report, which he also knew indicated a normal ultrasound, and determined that the ultrasound was in fact normal. He did not believe that there were any problems with the development of the extremities or that Gray needed another ultrasound.

Upon delivery, it was discovered that Gray’s child suffered from amniotic band syndrome, which is a condition that can be diagnosed during an ultrasound.

Because the doctors failed to diagnose her child, Gray was not given the opportunity to terminate her pregnancy, and she has and will continue to incur great expenses in order to treat and manage her child’s disorder.

In April of 2010, that suit was dismissed by Illinois Southern District Court, which declined federal jurisdiction. Less than a month later it was reportedly filed in Madison County Circuit Court, this time with Keefe as the attorney of record. According to The Madison Record, the lawsuit stated plainly:

“Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to discover her unborn child’s disorder, and thus denied the chance to terminate her pregnancy…Had she learned of the disorder, she would have so terminated.”

The complaint sought a judgment of more than $225,000, plus costs. That case was also dismissed, the circuit court told The Cardinal Newman Society.

Fr. Lawrence Biondi, S.J., President of SLU has a message on the university’s website, detailing some of the reasons he saw Keefe as a fit for the position:

Tom and his family have a long and impressive record with our law school. Tom, his father, four brothers, and two of his children have attended SLU’s School of Law. Tom has also supported our law school with two endowed professorships and a scholarship. He loves Saint Louis University and our law school and believes in the school’s mission and vision, now and for the future…Tom has agreed to enthusiastically and wholeheartedly engage in fundraising for the renovations to the Scott Law Center.

Keefe’s website touts, “More Than $150 Million in Verdicts and Settlements for Our Clients.”

The previous dean resigned last week with a scathing resignation letter that called into question the integrity and honesty of the institution. “It is the ultimate irony that a Jesuit university would operate so far outside the bounds of common decency, collegiality, professionalism and integrity,” Annette E. Clark, the resigning dean, wrote in her resignation letter. “I simply cannot be part of, and I assure you I will not be complicit with, an administration that can’t be trusted to act honestly.”

Fr. Biondi said he had intended to fire Clark last week, but she resigned first. Far from being a last-minute replacement, Keefe reportedly said that the president approached him about taking the job three weeks ago.

Keefe and SLU did not respond to questions.

Reprinted with permission from the Cardinal Newman Society.

DENVER, Aug. 15, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – While Republican candidate Mitt Romney was the only leading mainstream candidate to miss all three presidential debates hosted by Personhood USA earlier this year, his decision to keep the personhood movement at arm’s length is not shared by his running mate.

Romney’s choice for VP, Paul Ryan, is currently one of the 64 co-sponsors of the pro-personhood H.R. 212, known as the Sanctity of Human Life Act. He also co-sponsored the 2009 Sanctity of Human Life Act, H.R. 227.

The Sanctity of Human Life Act states that under “Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United State ... the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person” and that “the life of each human being begins with fertilization.”

“In supporting Personhood, Congressman Ryan has taken a consistent pro-life position, one that is called for by the Republican party’s own platform” remarked Gualberto Garcia Jones, J.D., Legal Analyst for Personhood USA.

The Republican party’s platform states that “we support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

Click ‘like’ if you want to END ABORTION!

“Far from being extreme, Congressman Ryan has picked up the mantle of President Ronald Reagan in his support for a congressional declaration of personhood,” commented Jones. “We are hopeful that as Ronald Reagan did before him, Congressman Ryan will use his position of influence to advocate uncompromisingly for the dignity and full legal personhood of the preborn.”

On January 14, 1988 President Ronald Reagan called for a National Sanctity of Human Life Day, stating that the “personhood of the unborn be declared and defended throughout our land. In legislation introduced at my request in the First Session of the 100th Congress, I have asked the Legislative branch to declare the ‘humanity of the unborn child and the compelling interest of the several states to protect the life of each person before birth.’ This duty to declare on so fundamental a matter falls to the Executive as well. By this Proclamation I hereby do so.”

In addition to missing Personhood USA’s debates, Romney has also declined to sign their personhood pledge.

Your Eminence,

During the last week, there has been much written on diocesan websites and by other bishops concerning the controversy created by your invitation to President Obama to attend the Alfred E. Smith dinner. Much of what has been written seeks to justify that invitation.

American Life League recently launched an effort to convince you to rescind that invitation. The reason for this memo is to let you know exactly why we are doing what we are doing.

First, let me point out that Cardinal Egan invited Mr. Obama to this same dinner four years ago and we did not object. Although we disagreed with Obama’s basic philosophies, we felt that an attempt by the cardinal to show congeniality was worth trying.

However, it is now four years later and it is clear that whatever the cardinal hoped to accomplish at the 2008 dinner did not work. In four short years, President Obama has done everything in his power to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church. As you know, he is implementing programs and policies that may soon make it necessary for the Church to repudiate our basic beliefs or close down all of our charitable and educational organizations.

Your Eminence, Mr. Obama has a long history with the Catholic Church. From his days as a community organizer working with Catholic churches in Chicago to his current attack on our beliefs, Obama has shown himself to be a shrewd politician with a captivating personality. How else do you explain the fact that, despite his very public support of abortion, contraception, and Planned Parenthood, he received 54 percent of the Catholic vote in 2008?

The question is NOT why you invited Mr. Obama to the dinner. The real question is why he accepted.

I submit to you that the reason he accepted is that he has nothing to lose. The Al Smith Foundation website touts that, at the 2008 dinner, Obama displayed “wit, wisdom, warmth, and wile.” I am sure the author of those words thought he was being totally complimentary, but the fact is that he was very accurate. Synonyms for “wile” are, of course, “hoax,” “ploy,” “scam,” and “deception.”

I believe Mr. Obama sees the 2012 Al Smith dinner as an opportunity to, once again, use his wiles to entice the Catholics in America to “trust” him——a trust that he has betrayed time and time again.

Your Eminence, when I think of the outcome of the event - where you are seen hosting both candidates for president - I am convinced the idea that will be transmitted through the images of that dinner will be that a vote for either candidate is okay with the hierarchy.

This is precisely why American Life League launched the No Dinner for Obama campaign. We don’t want Catholics to be confused about the most pro-abortion president in American history. Our duty is to be faithful and to defend moral principles, while begging our hierarchy to do the same.

We pray for you, and all members of the hierarchy, “Lead us out of temptation and toward truth, particularly today when so much is at stake.”

You and the bishops of the Church have convinced us over the last several months that the future of the Catholic Church in America is hanging in the balance. We MUST oppose the contraceptive mandate and all of the other affronts the current administration is throwing at us.

Inviting the head of that administration to dinner and a night of humor and congeniality is NOT how we are going to save our Church.

Please, your Eminence, cancel the invitation or cancel the dinner. If you do neither, I am very afraid that, at this time next year, you may be forced to cancel most Church activities that take place outside the confines of your physical churches.

Asking the blessing of Your Eminence, I am,

Yours respectfully in Christ,
 
Judie Brown, President
American Life League

Click ‘like’ if you want to END ABORTION!

WASHINGTON, DC, August 15, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Saturday, August 11, over 40 young people from colleges around the country met in Washington, D.C. to mark the conclusion of their four simultaneous Crossroads pro-life walks across America.

Since 1995, Crossroads has organized 12-week-long walks across America from the west coast to Washington, D.C.  Walking day and night through rain or shine, and this summer through scorching heat and drought, these young people, wearing shirts that are emblazoned with the words “PRO-LIFE” in big letters on the front, have spent the last 12 weeks witnessing to Americans that they are “taking steps to save lives.”

Starting from Seattle, San Francisco, San Jose & Los Angeles on May 19th, the four groups of pro-life college students each covered over 3,000 miles for a total of more than 12,000 miles of pro-life witness and outreach to hundreds of thousands of people along the way.

Altogether the walkers passed through 40 states and thousands of towns and cities, where they said they found the reality that the overwhelming majority of Americans identify themselves as pro-life.

“The mainstream media may tell you different, but we can say with authority and through actual experience at the grass-roots level, that America is truly a pro-life country,” observed Jim Nolan, National Director of Crossroads Pro-Life.

“The reality is that the Obama Administration is sadly out of touch with the values of mainstream America. We know because what we experience firsthand from the hundreds of thousands of people we meet along the way is in stark contrast to the strident stances now coming from the leadership in Washington, D.C.”

Click ‘like’ if you want to END ABORTION!

During the journey, each walker averages over 1,000 miles and takes an active role in the organization’s mission by speaking to churches and youth groups as well as doing radio and newspaper interviews. Crossroads walkers also engage local communities through peaceful, prayerful protests and sidewalk counseling at abortion clinics in the cities they travel through.

In their final event for this summer’s Crossroads pro-life walk, the four groups, meeting all together for the first time, held a noon rally at Upper Senate Park on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol building.

“With the recent attacks by the Obama administration on religious liberty and conscience rights of pro-life Americans, the witness of these young people is needed more now than ever,” stated Nolan.

“The dignity and value of human life is under unprecedented assault in our country - we need to take a stand and let our elected representatives that America is a pro-life country. The polls show what we’ve been seeing for many years - the majority of Americans are pro-life and the ultra-left in our country is out of touch,” Nolan concluded.

Read blogs, some amazing poetry, and see photos of this year’s US Crossroads walk here.

Updated 2:59 pm EST. See updates at bottom.

WASHINGTON, August 15, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A security guard is in stable condition after being shot at the Family Research Council headquarters Wednesday in an incident authorities are reportedly treating as domestic terrorism.

FRC spokesperson Darin Miller confirmed the shooting to LifeSiteNews.com late Wednesday morning before releasing a statement from FRC president Tony Perkins.

“The police are investigating this incident.  Our first concern is with our colleague who was shot today.  Our concern is for him and his family,” said Perkins.

One local report initially said that another individual was also wounded, but now reports only the injury of the security guard. The guard was reportedly shot in the arm and retained consciousness, while a suspect is in police custody.

Update: Fox News reports that the suspect “made statements regarding their policies, and then opened fire with a gun striking a security guard,” according to one source, and that authorities were treating the attack as a case of domestic terrorism.

Update II: Gwendolyn Crump, communications director for the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, told LSN that officials responded at 10:45 am to a report of a shooting after a suspect entered the FRC building and was confronted by a security guard in the lobby.

“The suspect opened fire on the security guard, striking the security guard,” said Crump. “The security guard and others assisted in subduing the suspect.” Crump said the guard was listed in stable condition after being taken to a local hospital.

Update III: The guard has been identified as head security guard Leo Johnson. D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier called Johnson a “hero.”

“The security guard here is a hero, as far as I’m concerned. He did his job. The person never made it past the front,” Lanier told reporters.

FBI’s Washington Field Office head James McJunkin said that officials deny knowledge of whether the violence was a reaction against the views of the prominent conservative organization, which has been labeled a “hate group” by leftist organizations for its stance against redefining marriage to include homosexual couples.

Meanwhile, a scene has been painted that suggests an ideological motive: sources told Fox News that the shooter was a young man carrying multiple weapons who told the guard that had been shot, “it was not about you, it was what this place stands for.”

MADISON, WI, August 15, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – A rabbi in Wisconsin believes that removing the right to abortion would violate “the essence of being human.” 

“Women are moral decision makers,” said Rabbi Bonnie Margulis, a leader with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice’s (RCRC) Wisconsin branch. “They have a conscience, guided by their moral values and the moral teachings that they follow.”

“When we deprive people of the ability to make those decisions themselves, we deprive them of being fully human,” she said.

She said her religion motivated her support of abortion. “You can be pro-choice because of your faith,” she told The Capital Times.

Rabbi Margulis is heading up efforts to support the HHS mandate, as she led similar efforts to support Wisconsin’s state requirement that all health care plans – including that of the Catholic archdiocese – provide contraception coverage.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

Two years ago, she excoriated Bishop Robert Molino of the Diocese of Madison for saying the diocese would comply with Wisconsin’s state mandate and offer the insurance coverage – but would fire any employee who used it in defiance of the Church’s teachings. The diocese said that willingly engaging in contraception would violate the Catholic faith, diminishing employees’ ability to represent the diocese.

The mandate was “essential to the inherent dignity and right of conscience of women,” wrote Rabbi Margulis in the Wisconsin State Journal. “Despite Bishop Robert Morlino’s opinion, no employer, regardless of religious affiliation, should have the right to put his or her own beliefs ahead of those of employees, or to make health care decisions for employees.” 

She and the 600 members of Wisconsin’s RCRC affiliate are currently making fans that look like birth control packs and posting their pictures on the group’s Facebook page in order to “put a face to religious choice and reproductive justice.” 

Her defense of abortion is part of her “progressive” belief structure. Last February, she likened Governor Scott Walker’s attempts to eliminate some benefits enjoyed by public sector unions to Nazi assault on trade unionists.

To date, no one at RCRC has distanced themselves from her controversial stattements.

RCRC was founded in 1993 as the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR). Its member organizations include the Anti-Defamation League, the non-Orthodox branches of Judaism, the YWCA, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ (UCC), and the Unitarian-Universalists, among others.

Members of the Wisconsin branch include the Madison Jewish Federation, the Milwaukee Jewish Community Relations Council, and Law Students for Reproductive Justice – the group Sandra Fluke led at Georgetown.
 
Margulis has a long history of pro-abortion activism. She taught RCRC’s All Options Clergy Counseling program, which teaches pro-choice clergy how to counsel women considering abortion, and Pastoral Counseling for Reproductive Losses. 

During the four years she was rabbi at the Hillel chapter at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, she was coordinator of the Shenandoah Friends of Planned Parenthood. 

Margulis, who is also president of Wisconsin Faith Voices for Justice, sits on the Women and Minorities Task Force of the Reform Movement’s Commission on Social Action and is Immediate Past Chair of the Women’s Rabbinic Network Social Justice Committee. She is active in a number of “social justice” and “peace and freedom” initiatives.

She earned her Masters Degree in Judaic Studies from New York University, and was ordained at Hebrew Union College (HUC) 20 years ago.

Her husband, Jonathan Biatch, is also a rabbi. They have two children.

OTTAWA, Ontario, 14 August, 12 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Canadian pro-life journalists, columnists, and bloggers now have a new resource at their fingertips to assist them in drafting articles, columns and blogs as well as for preparing for interviews and debates thanks to a resource titled “Abortion Polls in Canada: A Compilation by Topic of Opinion Polling in Canada from 2007-2012”.

“This document provides a compilation of data from recognized polling and survey companies on the topic of abortion for the period of 2007-2012,” wrote the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC), the organization that compiled the data, in the introduction of the document.

“Abortion Polls in Canada” organizes the polling data topically. Endnotes provide online references for the polls mentioned.

The polling topic “when Abortion Should be Illegal” includes questions related to the very controversial gestational strategy that is currently causing serious division within the Canadian pro-life movement. Other topics are “awareness of abortion laws”, “requiring parental consent for minors”, “abortion as an election issue”, “self-defining as pro-life or pro-choice”, and “sex-selection and gendercide”, as well as others.

One notable poll is the 2011 poll by Abacus Data where 52% of 1006 survey participants across Canada said about opening the abortion debate in Canada that “when discussing matters of life and death there is never a bad time for debate. We shouldn’t be afraid to debate tough [questions].”

Another notable poll is the 2010 poll performed by the Manning Centre where 43% of 1000 survey participants across Canada said that “Abortion is morally wrong”.

Also of note is the 2012 poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion where 51% of 1001 survey participants across Canada said that “there should be laws which outline when a woman can have an abortion in Canada.”

“Abortion Polls in Canada” includes the most recent opinion polling data.

Download a copy of “Abortion Polls in Canada”.