Friday, August 31, 2012

Print All Articles

Story claiming Wash. state ruled against Church marriage collections ‘misleading,’ official says

by Kathleen Gilbert Fri Aug 31 18:01 EST Comments (19)

 
The allegation may have begun with Dan Savage's newspaper.
The allegation may have begun with Dan Savage's newspaper.

OLYMPIA, August 31, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Washington state official has called an Associated Press report misleading for suggesting that the government was banning the Catholic Church from taking collections to support a traditional marriage initiative.

An AP report Tuesday entitled “Catholic churches can’t collect donations to overturn gay marriage law, Washington state rules” was widely cited on homosexual news blogs and other outlets this week. Catholic Church leaders in the state are preparing to take collections in September supporting a “no” vote on R-74, which will appear on the November ballot to give voters a chance to endorse or reject the state’s same-sex “marriage” law.

The report was followed by a Thursday report spotlighting Protect Marriage Washington for supporting the allegedly illegal gift method, with the headline: “Washington anti-gay marriage law group encourages ‘bundling’ donations.” The second article noted that state officials planned to send a letter to church officials and Protect Marriage on the issue.

But when Lori Anderson, a spokeswoman for the state’s Public Disclosure Commission, was asked whether the agency had ruled against the Catholic Church’s planned collection, she responded, “Oh gosh, no.”

“The headline is kind of misleading, in my opinion,” said Anderson, the same official cited in the AP’s original report. Anderson told LifeSiteNews.com on Friday that the law means no one collecting from the pews can be employed or recruited by the Catholic Church. “Whoever’s doing that has to be an individual person,” such as a volunteer for Protect Marriage, she said.

That, according to the executive director of the Washington state Catholic Conference, was the plan all along.

“We have not been out of compliance. We can hardly be out of compliance when we hadn’t done anything,” Sr. Sister Sharon Park told LifeSiteNews. 

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

Park said that attorneys had already reviewed state law to make sure the Protect Marriage collections would be in compliance, noting that Washingtonians “probably have one of the strictest public disclosure laws in the country.” Park said the letter she received from state officials later this week simply informed them of the law.

“The strange part was, we only read this in the press. The press contacted us and we said, ‘What?’” she said. 

One source pointed to a blog article in Seattle’s prominent alternative newspaper The Stranger, where LGBT activist Dan Savage is editorial director, that had questioned the legality of the campaign one day before the first AP story was published.

Traditional marriage campaigns, normally the financial underdog, have benefited significantly from Christian pew collections.

Financially, Washington’s traditional marriage effort currently lags behind its opponents by more than a 12-to-1 ratio, with Washington United for Marriage garnerning over $6 million so far.

David Hains, communications director for the Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, said that North Carolina bishops donated of their own resources to Amendment 1, which enshrined marriage in the state constitution this year. Although bishops there did not use Sunday collections for the marriage effort, Hains said, the Catholic Church in America uses the power of the pews to support issues “all the time.”

“No bishop or issue can support say a candidate, but they can do things to support issues,” he said. “Having collections to support issues is nothing new in the Church.”

 

Tags: catholic voting, media bias, same-sex 'marriage', washington state

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

Romney rejected Condi as VP over abortion, marriage: report

by Ben Johnson Fri Aug 31 17:52 EST Comments (25)

 
Condi chose pro-choice views over the vice presidency, a sou
Condi chose pro-choice views over the vice presidency, a source says.

TAMPA, August 31, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Mitt Romney vetted former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice as his vice presidential running mate, but turned her down because her pro-choice, pro-homosexual views would split the party, according to media reports.

“Condi was fully vetted to become Mitt Romney’s running mate,” an unnamed campaign source told RadarOnline.com. Romney thought Rice would add foreign policy expertise “and he knew she would help with the all important female vote and African American support.”

The problem? Condoleeza Rice describes herself as “mildly pro-choice,” favors some kind of legal recognition for homosexual unions, held a prominent post in the unpopular George W. Bush administration, backs Affirmative Action, and may have voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

“Mitt’s advisers talked him out of it, because Condi is pro-choice and she isn’t willing to change her position on the controversial issue,” the source said.

These advisers reportedly told the former Massachusetts governor “ultra conservative support” would “immediately be lost” if he chose Rice.

That proved to be good advice. After rumors surfaced that Rice had been vetted for veep, values voters sparked a rebellion.

Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List called Rice “an unqualified candidate,” and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council described her candidacy as “a non-starter.” Conservative activist Richard Viguerie encouraged his readers to call the Romney campaign to talk them out of offering Rice the number two spot.

Instead, Romney chose Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, a selection that left many pro-life leaders thrilled.

Rice still graced the platform at the Republican National Convention the same night as John McCain, the 2008 nominee who attempted to dilute the GOP’s pro-life plank four years ago.

The former Bush-41 adviser may still harbor political ambitions. According to the source, she is thinking seriously about running for governor of California, where Republicans often hold pro-abortion and pro-homosexual views.

Tags: condoleezza rice, mitt romney, republicans

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

Team Romney forced ‘undemocratic rules’ to disenfranchise pro-life Republicans, Rush says

by Ben Johnson Fri Aug 31 17:09 EST Comments (44)

 
Limbaugh revealed the behind-the-scenes moves of the GOP est
Limbaugh revealed the behind-the-scenes moves of the GOP establishment.

TAMPA, August 31, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – While political observers watched Rick Santorum, Paul Ryan, and Marco Rubio, the Republican National Committee pushed through new rules that could change the face of the party for some time – including one rule that Rush Limbaugh said was designed to freeze pro-life Christians out of the GOP.

Under rules proposed by election lawyer Ben Ginsberg, who said he was acting on behalf of the Romney campaign, the presidential candidate who wins a state primary would get to select all state delegates to the convention and “disavow” anyone who meets his disapproval. The delegates, in turn, draw up the platform and formally nominate candidates.

The new code was opposed by the Family Research Center, Leadership Institute founder Morton Blackwell, and attorney James Bopp, who helped draw up the original pro-life plank in 1980. 

House Speaker John Boehner presided over the voice vote on the rule, which appeared to have an even number of yes and no votes.

The controversy deepened after a video showed a teleprompter with a prerecorded message that the change had been approved, leading to speculation the vote was fixed.

Dean Clancy of FreedomWorks called the move “a transparent attempt to neuter the grassroots and head off future insurgencies like those of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Ron Paul.”

Richard Viguerie of ConservativeHQ.com rapped the Romney campaign and the Republican Establishment. “Competing candidates and issues are what makes a party strong and brings new voters into the party as candidates and issues vie for support,” he wrote

More than a few believe the change is intended to deprive pro-life, pro-family Republicans from having a voice and venue in the party of Lincoln.

“The establishment Republicans want to kick the conservatives out of the party. They don’t want the conservatives having any say-so in the party whatsoever,” said Rush Limbaugh on his radio program on Tuesday.

Limbaugh said “major figures” used to approach him to ask, “What are you gonna do about the Christians?”

“This abortion, it’s killing us!” he says they told him. “You gotta get them to shut up about this.”

“We don’t want ‘em! It’s not good. It’s embarrassing.”

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

He said the rules change was “about the establishment finally being at its wits’ end on this ‘War on Women.’”

In 1968, the Democratic Party began its liberalization by changing its formula for selecting delegates, transforming the disparate national party into an advocacy group for feminists, unions, and the far-Left. Four years later, the party nominated George McGovern.

Former Congressman Jim Kolbe, who is openly homosexual, has said this will be the last Republican Party platform to defend marriage. 

Sarah Palin stated recently that a conservative third party could replace the Republicans if they ignore their traditional platform.

A second vote, presided over by former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu, passed a rule that shortened the primary season, which critics say will undermine grassroots campaigns while assisting those with abundant financial resources or insider connections. 

Romney surrogates say they have adopted the rules to assist him if he is running for re-election in 2016.

Rush Limbaugh indicated another reason behind the change in delegate selection by quoting an Associated Press story, which states conservatives are leaving the GOP “badly out of step with a nation that’s rapidly becoming less white.”

“[A]ccording to the AP, when you boil it all down, the biggest problem with the Republican Party is its ‘whiteness,’” Limbaugh said. ”We gotta get rid of ‘em. The AP wants us gone. The Democrat Party wants us gone. And the Republican establishment doesn’t want the hassle of dealing with this.”

“Even if you were able to cleanse the party of all these white conservatives, do you think the AP is gonna start writing love stories about you?” he asked.

Columnist Michelle Malkin, an outspoken conservative, told the party’s conservatives to remain engaged and take their party back.

“The bottom line: Get organized, get loud, and stay vigilant,” she wrote. “No matter who ends up in the White House in January, no matter what letter follows the names of the people in power in Washington, the grass-roots conservative movement must be prepared to stand its ground.”

Tags: john boehner, republicans, rush limbaugh, sarah palin

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

Canadian government will appeal euthanasia exemption given to Gloria Taylor…again

by Alex Schadenberg Fri Aug 31 17:07 EST Comments (14)

 
Hon Rob. Nicholson
Hon Rob. Nicholson

August 31, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) - A letter was received by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition today from the Honourable Rob Nicholson announcing that the government of Canada intends to appeal the decision by Madam Justice Prowse.

On August 3 Justice Prowse heard arguments concerning the validity of the constitutional exemption that was granted to Gloria Taylor to die by euthanasia and assisted suicide. On August 10, Justice Prowse upheld the decision by Justice Lynn Smith to grant Gloria Taylor a constitutional exemption to die by euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition asked the Hon Rob Nicholson to appeal the August 10 decision because it allows a legislative framework for euthanasia and assisted suicide. The constitutional exemption that was granted to Gloria Taylor, could also be requested by other Canadians who are living with similar conditions. Link to the EPC position on the Constitutional Exemption.

Text of the letter from the Hon Rob Nicholson:

Thank you for your correspondence concerning euthanasia and assisted suicide.

As you may be aware, the case of Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) is a court challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in relation to the prohibition on assisted suicide. The British Columbia Supreme Court heard this case and made its ruling on June 15, 2012. After careful consideration, the Government of Canada appealed this decision to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. We also sought a stay of all aspects of the lower court decision. On August 10, 2012, the Court of Appeal refused to stay the decision granting a constitutional exemption to one of the plaintiffs in this case. We have sought to appeal this refusal as the Government views this exemption as resembling a regulatory framework for assisted suicide.

The Criminal Code prohibits the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. These laws exist to protect all Canadians, including the most vulnerable members of our society, such as those who are sick or elderly and persons with disabilities.

We believe that the provisions prohibiting a medical professional, or anyone else, from counselling or providing assistance in a suicide are constitutionally valid. As you may know, in 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the existing legislation in Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General). In addition, in April 2010, the legalization of medical euthanasia and assisted suicide under certain conditions was democratically debated in the House of Commons. A large majority of Parliamentarians voted against changing these laws.

The Government will provide its full position to the British Columbia Court of Appeal when the case is heard.  As this case continues to be before the courts, I cannot comment further at this time.

Thank you again for writing.

Yours truly,

The Honourable Rob Nicholson

Tags: canada, euthanasia

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

Chick-fil-A ‘Tastes Like Hate’ vandal won’t be charged: D.A.

by John Jalsevac Fri Aug 31 16:36 EST Comments (33)

 

TORRANCE, CA, August 31, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Manuel Castro may have accused Chick-fil-A of peddling hate, but police say they have determined that he wasn’t motivated by hate when he vandalized a Chick-fil-A restaurant earlier this month.

Castro, a gay activist, had scrawled the words “Tastes Like Hate,” along with a cow holding a paintbrush, on the side of a Chick-fil-A restaurant in Torrance, California, on “National Same-Sex Kiss Day” – an event organized to protest company CEO Dan Cathy’s stance in support of traditional marriage.

“National Same-Sex Kiss Day” followed on the heels of Chick-fil-A “Appreciation Day,” on which hundreds of thousands of traditional marriage supporters had lined up, sometimes for several hours, to dine at Chick-fil-A as a show of their support for Cathy.

Photos of Castro’s graffiti traveled far and wide in the media, becoming one of the most recognizable images from the kerfuffle.

But police announced this week that Castro would not be charged with a felony in connection with the vandalism.

“The suspect has acknowledged his wrongdoing and offered to make restitution,” the District Attorney’s office said in a notice rejecting prosecution. “Finally, the record does not establish the suspect was motivated by religious hatred.”

However, the D.A. said the case has been referred to the Torrance City Attorney’s Office “for consideration of possible misdemeanor prosecution.”

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

In an interview with the Huffington Post after the graffiti was discovered, Castro had compared marriage supporters lining up to eat lunch at Chick-fil-A to Christians protesting blacks marrying whites.

“Everybody is entitled to free speech, but it seems like for the gay tribe, this is more of an issue of equal rights, human rights,” said Castro. “I’m against what these people stand for, what this company stands for. They’re trying to take away what little rights we already have.”

In a subsequent statement Castro offered to pay for the damages – which reportedly totaled several hundred dollars to repaint the wall.

 

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

Christian organizations’ ‘Yardstick’ evaluates anti-bullying policies for pro-LGBT bias

by Thaddeus Baklinski Fri Aug 31 15:30 EST Comments (4)

 

SCOTTSDALE, Arizona, August 31, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) - Two leading U.S. Christian advocacy groups have joined forces to create a guideline to assure school anti-bullying policies protect all students from bullying and are not being used simply to advance the homosexual agenda.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), in a joint effort with Focus on the Family, has announced the “Anti-Bullying Policy Yardstick,” which allows public schools and the general public to evaluate thelegal aspects of a school’s anti-bullying rules.

“All students deserve to be protected from bullying, not just ones favored by certain political activist groups,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “And all schools need help to ensure that their policies comport with their students’ First Amendment freedoms and other legal protections. This tool is designed to provide that help.”

The Yardstick outlines the good and bad approaches to the top 10 most common components of school anti-bullying policies and will help detect strictly pro-homosexual programs propagated in the name of “safe schools” or “anti-bullying.”

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys stress that schools do not need to adopt “anti-bullying” policies to prevent bullying, because school officials already possess authority to prohibit student intimidation.

However, according to the Yardstick, a good anti-bullying policy “provides a precise definition of ‘bullying’” and “focuses on the acts or words said by the alleged bully rather than the intent or motives behind the actions.”

A bad anti-bullying policy, on the other hand, “uses vague and overly broad definitions of bullying,” prohibiting such offenses as “offensive” and “annoying” speech, making others feel “uncomfortable,” and inflicting ill-defined “mental harm.” It also punishes the alleged bully based on the alleged victim’s perceptions of his behavior, without any inquiry into the behavior’s objective content.

Such vagueness, ADF argues, fails to give students adequate definitions of prohibited actions, allows broad discretion in enforcement, and constricts student expression that is protected by the First Amendment.

The Yardstick also deals with teacher liability, cyber-bullying and off-campus speech, promotion of political agendas, parental notification, anonymous complaints, and recognizing the rights of private schools.

The ADF notes that the homosexual lobby is demanding that protections for ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ be inserted into existing anti-bullying policies, so that inappropriate sexual material can be promulgated to school children.

“Schools are being transformed from places of safety and learning to places of unprecedented sexual education,” a press release states.

Tedesco illustrates the point by noting the unfortunate situation where “activist groups that promote homosexual behavior often dupe schools into adopting policies that protect students based on their ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity,’ which can unconstitutionally silence students who want to express their biblically based views on sexuality.”

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

For example, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) that have sent letters to public school districts nationwide, pressuring them to promote activists’ messages about sexuality, while at the same time encouraging them to censor differing viewpoints.

The Yardstick project is backed up by facts, statistics and response strategies presented in Focus on the Family’s True Tolerance project.

True Tolerance gives parents, students, and educators proactive resources to enable them to identify homosexual program materials, and guidelines on how to approach school officials.

School officials can be presented with a model anti-bullying policy that encompasses what Focus on the Family believes are the three most effective objectives to stop bullying, namely: 1) protect children by strongly prohibiting bullying of any kind against any child for any reason, 2) respect local control, allowing school officials and parents to develop solutions that best meet their particular school’s needs and 3) do not unnecessarily politicize or sexualize the issue in a way that undermines parental rights and students’ religious freedoms.

The True Tolerance website also provides a legal memorandum produced by ADF and fact-based responses to claims made by homosexual advocacy groups.

The various documents and resources have been compiled into packets, complete with a cover letter from the Alliance Defending Freedom that can be printed and delivered, or emailed, to school officials.

“When it comes to protecting your family’s rights and safeguarding your child’s innocence, it’s so important to be proactive,” Focus on the Family and Alliance Defending Freedom advise. “Don’t wait for bad situations or age-inappropriate materials to surface in your school. Take action now by sharing these new resources directly with your state representatives and/or local school board members and school officials.”

“This new Anti-Bullying Policy Yardstick helps schools identify which policies are driven by a narrow political agenda and which ones protect First Amendment freedoms,” Tedesco said.

ADF’s “Anti-Bullying Policy Yardstick” is available here.

Focus on the Family’s “True Tolerance” information packets are available here.

 

Tags: alliance defending freedom adf, bullying, focus on the family

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

Campaign says Romney misspoke, does not support abortion for ‘health’ of the mother: pro-life leader

by Ben Johnson Fri Aug 31 14:48 EST Comments (6)

 
Mitt Romney accepting the Republican presidential nomination
Mitt Romney

TAMPA, August 31, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney misspoke this week when he said he believed abortion should be permitted if a doctor says the “health” of the mother might be compromised, according to the leader of one of the nation’s leading pro-life organizations.

“My position has been clear throughout this campaign,” Romney told CBS News. “I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.”  

Romney had not previously included maternal “health,” an exception pro-abortion activists have interpreted so broadly that it essentially justifies abortion under any circumstances.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, told American Family Radio host Bryan Fischer this week that she had spoken with a campaign official, who confirmed the former governor did not favor such an expansive exception. 

“If that were his position, he would never have received our endorsement, that’s for sure,” Dannenfelser said. “I have heard clarification from his spokesperson, restating what his position really is, which is rape, incest, life of the mother. That is his position. Those are his exceptions.”

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

She said Romney had suffered a verbal miscue. “It happens a lot,” she said. “There are a lot of people misspeaking these days.”

In the interview with CBS, Romney had added that the president has little say over the issue, since Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court. The next president is expected to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.

 

Tags: mitt romney, susan b. anthony list

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

How the pro-life movement changed the abortion debate in South Korea

by Susan Yoshihara Fri Aug 31 13:41 EST Comments (2)

 

NEW YORK, August 31, 2012, (C-FAM)—South Korea’s highest court upheld that country’s 59-year abortion ban last week, amidst a surge of pro-life activism led by former abortionists. On Wednesday, the government reversed a decision that would have lifted the prescription requirement for emergency contraception.

The Associated Press’ brief report on the court ruling, picked up by several major media outlets, omitted to mention the pro-life influence in South Korea, pointing only to government concern over Korea’s low birthrate.

What dramatically changed dynamics in Korea was that the government, which had for decades encouraged doctors to perform abortion as a means of population control to foster economic growth, expressed official support for a pro-life doctor’s group. Because of that, “the political terrain of abortion politics in South Korea is changing drastically,” researcher Young-Gyung Paik said.

Young-Gyung’s 2012 paper showed that pro-life activism, long marginalized as “religiously driven,” suddenly gained prominence:  “It was only after the formation of the group of doctors called ‘Pro-life Doctors’ in 2009 that the contentious issue of abortion started to gain public attention in South Korea.”

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

“In [the doctors’] opinion, the South Korea’s low fertility rate has originated from its high abortion rate, which, in turn, was the result of the immoral and profit-oriented conducts of Korean medical doctors,” Young-Gyung found. 

Whereas Korean media painted the pro-life activism as a “war between doctors,” Young-Gyung’s extensive interviews with both sides found it was fostered by the development of neo-natal medical technologies, decreased interest in embryonic stem cell research, the rise of disability activism, as well as concern about depopulation.

According to a paper by the Pro-life Doctor’s Association, the winners from the court’s decision are Korea’s women. “Most abortions used to be easily performed because doctors or women undergoing abortions were not prosecuted even though abortion was illegal,” the paper said. Even after the country had become economically successful, the “trend of encouraging abortion was prevalent in our society and as a result, women used to be compelled by social pressure to undergo abortion.”

“I bought into the government’s argument that it was OK to do this,” Shim Sang-duk told the Los Angeles Times in 2010. The doctor received death threats and took a significant pay cut after abandoning the practice of abortion. “[I thought] it was good for the country. It boosted the economy,” said Shim, who founded the Korean Gynecological Physicians’ Association to encourage other doctors to stop performing abortions and call on the government to enforce the law’s penalties. 

An eight-judge panel needed six votes in to declare the law unconstitutional but only got four, which has spurred hot debate in the Korean media, a spokesman for the doctor’s association told the Friday Fax. An opinion piece in The Korea Times Thursday criticized the government on its decision not to allow emergency contraception to be sold over the counter as bowing to “doctors and religious groups.”

In 2010, a midwife who helped perform an abortion at six weeks gestation went on trial and then challenged the law’s constitutionality, especially the law’s maximum two-year jail term for medical practitioners. The constitutional court argued that a lighter punishment would only make abortion more rampant, Radio Australia reported.

Abortion has been illegal in South Korea with exceptions for rape, incest, or severe genetic disorders since 1953, but the law has been routinely flouted.

Kwak Seung-jun, chairman of the Presidential Council for Future & Vision, told reporters in 2010: “There are few people who realize abortion is illegal. We must work to create a mood where abortion is discouraged.”

Reprinted from C-FAM.

 

Tags: pro-life doctors, south korea

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

Political drama written for Catholics

by Judie Brown Fri Aug 31 13:05 EST Comments (38)

August 31, 2012 (ALL.org) - Something rather odd is playing out on the political stage, and recent events lead me to believe that the nation is in colossal trouble. I am not a political junkie; I do not think the sun rises and falls on an election, and I certainly do not believe that any politician—including those who claim some degree of pro-life conviction—will ever end the slaughter of preborn babies.

Yet I also know that our First Amendment rights as believing Americans are in jeopardy right now, and that is why the script below concerns me greatly.

ACT ONE: Cardinal Timothy Dolan extended invitations to the Al Smith Dinner to presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama. We seek a cancellation of the Obama invitation, because we do not believe that the most pro-abortion president in the history of America needs to dine with a prince of the Church and use the photo-op to confuse Catholics prior to the November 6 election.

Of course our request has fallen on deaf ears, but now I think I understand why.

ACT TWO: Cardinal Dolan gave an interview to the National Review in which he made a statement regarding vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan and U.S. vice president, Joe Biden. The cardinal said: “We’ve got two men who—and you can disagree with one of them or both of them—say they take their faith seriously, who don’t try to hide it, and who say, ‘Hey, my Catholic upbringing and my Catholic formation influences the way I think.’ Not bad. Not bad.”

This stuns me. The attempt to compare these two men based on the Catholic teaching that abortion is murder is like comparing Hitler to Mother Teresa! Biden’s pro-abortion record is clear and we have plead with Catholic hierarchy for nearly 10 years to obey Church law and deny the Eucharist to Biden until he repents publicly of his support for abortion-on-demand.

If the cardinal really means that the situation he describes is “not bad,” we have a glimpse at how this play will end.

ACT THREE: Cardinal Dolan is invited to offer the benediction prayer at the Republican National Convention and agrees to do so. He suggests that he would be available to do the same for the Democratic National Convention next week in North Carolina right after Obama gives his acceptance speech. At first the Democrats reject his offer and then, just this week, lo and behold, they accept. So, now the shepherd of the Archdiocese of New York will be offering benediction prayers at both conventions.

What?

Some say perhaps the cardinal will use his time at both conventions to speak Catholic truth since there is no candidate for either party who is 100 percent pro-life. After all, Dolan has said, “The most pressing life issue today is abortion…If we’re wrong on that one, we’re just plain wrong.”

It would be nice to hear that from the cardinal as he prays—and we hope we do.

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

ACT FOUR: The Knights of Columbus Civility Pledge has been touted because the document suggests that everybody should be nice to one another during the campaign. It could be read to mean that civility cannot be achieved if we start exposing the evils perpetrated by Obama and his ilk. Clearly some promoting this pledge have cleverly lumped abortion into the so-called social issues. But wait! Abortion is evil and is among the most uncivil acts known to man. It is most certainly tno nice to babies!

At this critical juncture, we must expose the facts, not merely smile and pretend that tolerance is our Gospel.

ACT FIVE: Confusion sets in and Catholic voters just don’t know which man should run the country for the next four years. Catholics will see photos from the Al Smith Dinner depicting laughing and joking between the cardinal and Obama and Romney. This will happen after we have seen the cardinal praying at both conventions.

All this civility gives me heartburn.

And as we leave this play, we can almost hear the theme song, “Don’t Worry, Be Happy!”

But though there may be confusion, we have attempted to alleviate some of that by providing topics you must consider before you cast your vote. Visit our website to see ALL Voter’s Guide so that you are able to make an informed decision about which candidate deserves your vote in November.

Reprinted from the American Life League.

Tags: timothy dolan

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

Planned Parenthood: the pig at the trough of government funding

by Rita Diller Fri Aug 31 12:57 EST Comments (1)

 

August 31, 2012 (STOPP.org) - A hog never backs away from the trough, and neither does Planned Parenthood. Raging like a boar in a perpetual feeding frenzy, the abortion giant obsessively gnashes, grunts, bullies, and pushes, caring not who it tramples to get a bigger share of the spoils.

Witness Planned Parenthood of the Heartland’s latest ploy in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to add a few medical services in order to gain a bigger place at the government trough, via Obamacare and spin-off funding.

Tulsa World recently ran an article saying that PP in Tulsa is adding “family practice.”

Planned Parenthood’s website shows three Tulsa Planned Parenthood practices at the same address - Midtown Health Center: Family Planning, an abortion referral center; Midtown Health Center: Pediatrics, an abortion referral center; and Midtown Health Center: Prenatal, an abortion referral center. It also lists South Peoria Health Center, Tulsa, an abortion referral center; and Westside Health Center, Tulsa, an abortion referral center.

A look at the “services” at each Tulsa facility on the PP website shows a very limited amount of “general health care” available at the Midtown center and the Westside facility, including anemia testing, cholesterol screening, diabetes screening, flu vaccination, high blood pressure screening, and smoking cessation. Just enough, perhaps, to qualify it as a primary care facility in anticipation of more money from Obamacare.

The “pediatrics” center offers additional children’s vaccines, sports and physical exams, thyroid screenings, in addition to “primary care” for routine, well-child checkups, and sick-child care. Then it warns that payment is expected at the time of service, unless prior arrangements have been made or one can qualify for a state-funded program.

By expanding into areas other than abortion and birth control, Planned Parenthood reaches to gain primary caregiver status, ensuring that individuals can choose the abortion giant as their primary care provider under Obamacare. It can utilize staff that is already on hand to do so, thus gaining millions of dollars in income with minimal outlay.

The abortion giant’s share of taxpayer money and government-mandated private money continues to grow, even as public confidence in the abortion superstore wanes.

• In 2010—the most recent year for which Planned Parenthood has released numbers—government funding provided 46.5 percent of its total $1 billion plus income.

• The Obamacare abortion premium will raise enough money to completely fund two million abortions every year.

• Planned Parenthood continually increases its share of the abortion market, with CEO Cecile Richards having presided over 1.5 million abortions in only four years - a full one-fourth of Planned Parenthood’s total death count over a 42-year period.

• Planned Parenthood will experience a huge windfall from the government mandate that requires employers to provide insurance that pays 100 percent for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient pills - mainstays of Planned Parenthood’s business model.

• According to Planned Parenthood’s Action Center: “The new health care reform bill authorized $75 million [annually through 2014] in mandatory funding for teen pregnancy prevention. Most of this will go to states to support evidence-based, medically accurate, culturally appropriate sex education programs that address both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS.”

• “This is on top of the $114.4 million for evidence-based, teen pregnancy prevention that President Obama and Congress are providing to community organizations and local governments this year,” Planned Parenthood continues.

That means Planned Parenthood will be greatly assisted by Obamacare in its efforts at cultivating generations of sex addicts to fuel its business.

Never content with the alpha pig’s share, PP then moans: “Unfortunately, the health care reform bill also included a renewal of $50 million per year funding of Title V abstinence-only education for states until 2014. Planned Parenthood is continuing our work with our supporters, youth activists, and policymakers to put an end to this ineffective program.”

Not willing to wait at the trough, the big pig known as Planned Parenthood never takes a break. When it climbs in the mud, it is there to sling it on people of good will in order to increase its own girth.

Visit our Defund Planned Parenthood Action Center today, and learn how to push Planned Parenthood back from the trough. The fate of our children, our communities, and our nation depends on it.

Rita Diller is the national director of Stop Planned Parenthood (STOPP). This article originally appeared in STOPP’s Wednesday newsletter and is reprinted with permission.

Tags: abortion, obamacare, planned parenthood

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

Planned Parenthood’s cancer screening initiative is a joke

by Rita Diller Fri Aug 31 12:08 EST Comments (16)

 
Planned Parenthood's "cancer screenings" are exactly the same thing any woman can do in the privacy of her own home.

August 31, 2012 (STOPP.org) - Planned Parenthood Federation of America and various affiliates have released scads of stories over the past week touting a new breast cancer initiative. The $3 million it says will fund the initiative is the amount Planned Parenthood claims it raised in four days in response to the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s quickly-rescinded announcement that it would stop funding the abortion giant.

So, what about this huge investment of $3 million Cecile Richards says she is earmarking for breast cancer screening and education? To put it in perspective, Planned Parenthood’s total income in 2010 was $1.04 billion. The three million dollars it says it will commit to the breast cancer initiative is less than one perecent of its total annual income.

Planned Parenthood gets $1.3 million from the government each and every day of the year. It is earmarking an amount equal to a bit more than two days of its government income to “expand” its breast cancer screening and education. Seriously, Planned Parenthood? You want us to believe that you are serious about providing real healthcare services for women? Especially when we consider that PPFA pocketed in excess of $164 million in 2010 alone from killing innocent preborn children, and untold millions from handing out cancer-causing birth control?

This entire expansion nonsense represents some big-time drama on the part of Planned Parenthood, all for the hope of positive publicity and future funding. Under attack from every direction, the abortion mogul desperately needs to put on a good face for the public so it can continue to improve its standing in the community, expand its government funding, and increase its abortion business.

While it touts this “new” initiative, the fact remains that Planned Parenthood is not licensed to do anything beyond Level 1 manual breast exams - the same exam that a woman can do in the privacy of her own home. According to a Reuters article from msnbc.com that quotes Planned Parenthood head Cecile Richards, her true intention appears to be to “fund” some ultrasounds, biopsies, and other follow-up services. A quick reading would imply that Planned Parenthood is expanding services, but a closer look shows that, while it may actually add some new offerings, it may very well just plan more referrals, some of them possibly funded by Planned Parenthood. It also plans to use the money to reach out more to Hispanic women - already a huge item on Planned Parenthood’s agenda. It says it will provide new, unnamed educational resources for women. And, oh yes, it will add a new, unnamed, unexplained “screening tool for the network’s doctors and nurses.”

Bottom line: Planned Parenthood has to do something to make people think it cares about women’s health. It raised some money by bullying the Susan G. Komen Foundation, and thought it would be wise, obviously, to mount yet another publicity campaign to pat itself on the back for supposedly saving women’s lives.

As Pope Benedict XVI recently said, falsehood, or insincerity, is the mark of the devil. Planned Parenthood exists only because of its artfully constructed walls of insincerity, lies, and deception. But those walls are starting to crumble, as more and more people come to understand that the only reliable thing about the abortion giant is that you can count on it to lie. The master of deception will not survive the truth.

Without a government committed to propping it up, it would crumble and turn to dust overnight. Planned Parenthood is an integral part of the government’s machinery that is working to downsize and eventually destroy America. By exercising our right to vote, and working continually to expose Planned Parenthood’s evil role in the decline of our society, we can make a huge difference.

As a nonprofit 501(c)(3) pro-life educational organization, American Life League (as well as other similar nonprofit organizations) can neither endorse nor oppose a candidate for political office at any level. We suggest to those who inquire, however, that they review our Voter Guide and become informed of the candidates’ positions and then make a decision from there.

Be sure you and your friends and family members are registered to vote, and do everything you can to get them to the polls, fully armed with education about the stance of those on the ballot. The deadline for registration is fast approaching. Make some phone calls today to make sure everyone in your circle of friends is registered and ready to vote in this most crucial upcoming November election.

Rita Diller is the national director of Stop Planned Parenthood (STOPP). This article first appeared in STOPP’s Wednesday report, and is reprinted with permission

Tags: abortion, breast cancer, planned parenthood

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

European court ruling creates ‘right to eugenics’

by Hilary White, Rome Correspondent Fri Aug 31 11:57 EST Comments (0)

BRUSSELS, August 31, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Legal experts are expressing their concerns over the decision of the European Court of Human Rights this month that Italy’s law against eugenic screening of embryos conceived by in vitro fertilization must be overturned. The Strasbourg-based court said that Italy’s prohibition of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) was “incoherent” in the face of existing laws allowing abortion for eugenic purposes. It awarded a couple who had chosen to abort their child, who was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis, 15,000 Euros.

Italian commentators have pointed out that the court’s ruling shows a predisposition to accept eugenic abortion as the default legal position. The court, said Rome-based biologist and ethicist Enzo Pennetta, revealed its presumptive bias by ruling that the conflict must be resolved by changing the IVF law to coincide with the abortion law, not the other way around.

The European Centre for Law and Justice intervened in the case as an amicus curiae brief and submitted written observations. Gregor Puppinck, the head of the ECLJ wrote that the court had created a new “right” out of whole cloth.

The court said that the “wish” to have a healthy child “constitutes an aspect of their private and family life and comes under the protection of Article 8” of the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore the law prohibiting PGD gives the applicants the status of “victims” and infringes their rights—which, for the ECHR, includes a “right to give birth to a child who does not suffer from the disease they are carriers of.”

In plain language, Puppinck wrote, this means that the court has declared that the “wish to have a child free from the disease constitutes a right, which imposes obligations to the State.”

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

“Identifying a wish with a right reveals a conception of human rights as a projection of the individual will in the social order,” Puppinck added. The ruling effectively creates “a right not to transmit bad genes, a right to eugenics.”

Moreover, he said, the ruling vastly oversteps the statutory limits of the ECHR’s jurisdiction. By claiming that the case rests upon the “incoherence” of two contradictory domestic laws, neither of which contravene the Convention, “the control of the European Court thus goes very far.”

The matter, however, may not be settled, and the ECLJ is asking that the case be referred to the next stage of the Grand Chamber.

In another case before the ECHR, a Latvian mother of a child with Down syndrome is arguing that her rights were violated when she was not offered genetic screening to help her decide whether to abort her daughter. ECLJ said in its submission to the court that the question behind the complaint is, “Does the Convention guarantee a right to eugenics for parents, and in particular to the procedure of prenatal screening-elimination of sick or disabled fetuses? If so, does the State have a positive obligation in this regard?”

The ECLJ hosted a meeting of disability organisations in June, which issued a declaration stating that “eugenics is not a human right”. The meeting, Puppinck said, was “intended to raise the awareness of institutions about the eugenic current of European society”..\

Puppinck told CNS News, “People with disabilities, like other categories of people in other times, today have an obligation to demonstrate their humanity in order to enjoy the protection of human rights.”

Following the meeting, Italian legislator Luca Volonte brought forward a motion for a resolution, “Combating eugenics and discrimination against people with disabilities,”  in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). The motion says that people with disabilities are still experiencing discrimination in their daily lives, they are “perceived and treated differently, being considered as inferior.” Particularly people with genetic disabilities, like Down syndrome, suffer from a resurgence of a “eugenic ideology, which considers their very existence as a medical error.”

“Eugenics is a reality in countries where prenatal screening has become systematic, in turn leading to the stigmatization of persons with genetic disability and their families, in particular those with Down syndrome.”

The motion proposes that the PACE adopt as policy the affirmation “that every human being has the inherent right to life and…to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others, as required, inter alia, by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”

The PACE will discuss the motion in the upcoming months, and according to the normal protocols will designate a Rapporteur in charge of drafting a comprehensive report on the issue, and eventually vote a Resolution and a Recommendation.

 

Tags: down syndrome, eugenics, european court of human rights

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

Atheists in the pulpit? The sad charade of The Clergy Project

by Albert Mohler Fri Aug 31 11:54 EST Comments (48)

 
Richard Dawkins

August 31, 2012 (AlbertMohler.com) - “It is hard to think of any other profession which it is so near to impossible to leave.” That is the judgment of Richard Dawkins, perhaps the world’s most famous living atheist, as he welcomes unbelieving pastors to join the Clergy Project, a group designed to help unbelieving pastors make their way out of the ministry. Apparently, some are not moving out very fast.

Dawkins explains that the Clergy Project “exists to provide a safe haven, a forum where clergy who have lost their faith can meet each other, exchange views, swap problems, counsel each other — for, whatever they may have lost, clergy know how to counsel and comfort.” Dawkins, who once held one of the world’s most coveted academic posts, has now reduced himself to addressing small gatherings of atheists and celebrating a motley crew of pastors who have abandoned the faith — even if some have not abandoned their pulpits.

The Clergy Project’s own statement is even more blunt, describing itself as “a confidential online community for active and former clergy who do not hold supernatural beliefs.” Most people, believers and unbelievers alike, are no doubt in the habit of thinking that the Christian ministry requires supernatural beliefs. That assumption is what Richard Dawkins and the Clergy Project want to subvert. More precisely, they want to use the existence of unbelieving pastors to embarrass the church and weaken theism.

This past Sunday, The New York Times Magazine told the story of Jerry DeWitt, once a pastor in DeRidder, Louisiana and later the first “graduate” of the Clergy Project. He is now the executive director of a group known as Recovering from Religion, based in Kansas. DeWitt told the magazine of his struggle as an unbelieving pastor. “I remember thinking,” he said, “Who on this planet has any idea what I am going through?”

As the story unfolds, DeWitt tells of being the pastor of a Pentecostal church. What readers will also discover, however, is that even by the time he assumed the pastorate, DeWitt “espoused a more liberal Christianity.” Though he never earned a college degree, he educated himself by reading authors such as Carl Sagan, an atheist astronomer, and Joseph Campbell, a proponent of the mythological. Later, he read Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, key figures in the New Atheism. By the time he had read Dawkins and Hitchens, “even weak-tea Christianity was becoming hard to follow.”

When he found that he could no longer pray for his own parishioners or preach a coherent message, DeWitt resigned, preaching his last sermon in Cut and Shoot, Texas in April 2011. Now he travels the country organizing Recovering from Religion local chapters and working with the Clergy Project.

The magazine also told of Teresa MacBain, once a Methodist preacher in Tallahassee, Florida and now another trophy of the Clergy Project. The magazine simply states that MacBain “resigned from her pastor’s position in Tallahassee and went public as an atheist.” That is a very strategic example of under-reporting the story. As National Public Radio reported, MacBain first told just about everyone but her church of her atheism.

“I am currently an active pastor and I’m also an atheist,” she said. “I live a double life. I feel pretty good on Monday, but by Thursday — when Sunday’s right around the corner — I start having stomachaches, headaches, just knowing that I got to stand up and say things that I no longer believe in and portray myself in a way that’s totally false.”

Of course, she didn’t have to say such things at all. She could have resigned and spared herself and her church the hypocrisy. MacBain told NPR of her experience with mounting doubts, and then of her “eureka moment” when she realized, “I’m an atheist. … I don’t believe.”

On March 26, 2012, she stood before the American Atheists convention in Bethesda, Maryland and told the 1,500 attendees, “My name is Teresa. I’m a pastor currently serving a Methodist church — at least up to this point — and I am an atheist.” As NPR reported, the crowd hooted and clapped for more than a minute.

NPR and The New York Times Magazine attempt to portray MacBain and DeWitt as victims. MacBain presents herself as unnerved by the fact that her church fired her and did not appreciate her declaration of atheism behind their backs at a convention hundreds of miles away.

The Clergy Project and similar efforts are rooted in a 2010 study undertaken by Daniel C. Dennett and Linda LaScola of Tufts University. Dennett is one of the major figures in the New Atheism. He argues that belief in God once served an important evolutionary purpose, but does so no longer. Religious belief, he argues, is a vestigial remnant of our evolutionary past that modern humanity must overcome. He is hardly a neutral and dispassionate observer.

Nevertheless, Dennett and LaScola conducted and published a study known as “Preachers Who Are Unbelievers.” In that study, a small sampling of atheist or unbelieving pastors was considered, along with five representative profiles. These pastors clearly are not believers, at least in any orthodox or recognizably Christian sense. They spoke openly and in considerable detail about their unbelief, with the ministers explaining how they had abandoned any confidence in biblical Christianity.

Why didn’t they just resign? Most shockingly, some openly spoke of losing their salaries as the main concern. So much for intellectual honesty.

Dennett and LaScola made a very interesting and important observation in their research report. They acknowledged that defining an unbelieving pastor is actually quite difficult. Given the fact that so many liberal churches and denominations already believe so little, how is atheism really different? In the name of tolerance, the liberal denominations have embraced so much unbelief that atheism is a practical challenge.

In the words of Dennett and LaScola: “This counsel of tolerance creates a gentle fog that shrouds the question of belief in God in so much indeterminacy that if asked whether they believe in God, many people could sincerely say that they don’t know what they are being asked.”

The Clergy Project gets to the point more concisely, defining its membership as “active and former clergy who do not hold supernatural beliefs.” Nevertheless, this definition suffers from the same problem. Many liberal ministers hold to no supernatural beliefs, but they also tenaciously hold to their pulpits without admitting atheism.

The Clergy Project is a parable of our times, but it is also a pathetic portrait of the desperation of many atheist and secularist groups. They are thrilled to parade a few trophies of unbelief, but do they really believe that these examples are serving their cause? They celebrate a former Pentecostal preacher with no education, who was already a theological liberal when called to his church, and who then educated himself by reading Sagan, Dawkins, and Hitchens. Seriously?

The Clergy Project is a magnet for charlatans and cowards who, by their own admission, openly lie to their congregations, hide behind beliefs they do not hold, make common cause with atheists, and still retain their positions and salaries. Is this how atheists and secularists groups intend to further their cause? They are getting publicity from the media to be sure, but do they think it will win them friends?

Ministers struggling honestly with doubts and struggles are in a different category altogether. Doubt will lead to one of two inevitable consequences. Faithful doubt leads to a deeper embrace of the truth, with doubt serving to point us into a deeper knowledge, trust, and understanding of the truth. Pernicious doubt leads to unfaithfulness, unbelief, skepticism, cynicism, and despair. Christians — ministers or otherwise — who are struggling with doubt, need to seek help from the faithful, not the faithless.

Christianity has little to fear from the Clergy Project. Its website reveals it to be a toothless tiger that will attract media attention, and that is about all. The greater danger to the church is a reduction in doctrine that leaves atheism hard to distinguish from belief. And the real forces to fear are those who would counsel such a reduction.

Reprinted with permission from AlbertMohler.com

CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!

Tags: atheism, richard dawkins, the clergy project

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

Rape victim writes Akin: describes ‘unimaginable joy’ of giving birth, raising child

by Meg T. McDonnell Fri Aug 31 11:40 EST Comments (47)

 
Shauna Prewitt

August 31, 2012 (Mercatornet.com) - United States politician Todd Akin has created quite the discussion with his rather fumbled comments on “legitimate rape”. Although the Missouri Representative has apologized and will proceed with his campaign for the Senate, against the wishes of many of his colleagues, the larger discussion on how to care for a woman who is impregnated by rape continues.

All rape is violating and repulsive. What makes rape such an outrage is that it takes what is supposed to be an intimate, natural and loving act, and uses it for power, aggression, and self-gratification on the sole part of the rapist. The victim is left feeling used, ashamed and often angry.

Then, if a woman finds herself pregnant after rape, she understandably will feel more misery and shame. As one rape victim wrote, “my pregnancy legitimatized my rape. It had happened; this was real.”

But the misery doesn’t have to stay, says this rape victim, Shauna Prewitt. In her poignant open letter to Representative Akin, Prewitt writes:

“Although I would not be able to articulate it for months, I was experiencing a most curious emotion toward the life growing inside of me, an emotion that both enlivened me and caused me to experience an intolerable shame. You see, to my surprise, I did not altogether hate the life growing inside of me. Instead, I felt a sort of kinship, a partnership—perhaps the kind that only develops between those who have suffered together—but, nevertheless, I felt a bond.”

Her emotions confused her, she said, since she felt like a “bad rape victim” who saw “light” in her pregnancy, instead of hatred. Why was this? Prewitt mused.

“Perhaps the answer is as simple as this: Just as being raped did not override my body’s natural ability to get pregnant, rape did not altogether override my body’s natural response to being pregnant.”

Though it was no easy decision, Prewitt gave birth to and is raising her daughter, an experience of “unimaginable joy,” she says.

And there’s the rub. Rape is violating because it takes joy out of what should be a loving act. But rape doesn’t have to remove the joy out of a second loving act—the giving of life to another.

Click ‘like’ if you want to END ABORTION!

But not all who read Prewitt’s story understood that point. Journalist Hanna Rosin, whose views of women’s freedom I tend to disagree with, commented on Prewitt’s story for Slate magazine with a concern:

“One worry I had upon reading Prewitt’s letter is that Akin and other conservatives will seize it as fodder for the pro-life position. See, what matters is the precious life that resulted from this! But again, that is not at all Prewitt’s point. What she’s saying is, things are complicated. There is no predictable magic. One can feel rage and shame and joy about the same fact. That’s what it means to really understand ‘life.’”

You are right, Ms Rosin. Life can be complicated, especially for a woman who finds herself pregnant from a rape. But the pro-life position does not fail to acknowledge and properly address those complications that unplanned pregnancies can bring.

In fact, from the pro-life position, equally as important as the precious life of the child in the womb is the precious life of the woman who was violated.  She too deserves a redeeming experience of joy.

And that, Ms Rosin, is the point in this discussion. As backwards and complicated as it might seem, a rape victim’s pregnancy and her decision to give life to her child can bring joy after the awful attempt of her rapist to take joy from her.

Yes, rape is always repulsive,  and a pregnancy resulting from rape may bring further fury to already intensely negative emotions. But when we understand the mystery and the joy that is wrapped up in woman’s ability to bring new life into the world, those negative emotions can subside—perhaps never disappear—but certainly subside.

Abortion, then, is hardly the answer to a pregnancy resulting from rape. Why should a woman have taken from her what is meant to be yet another joy-filled experience—that of bringing new life into the world?

Meg McDonnell is the Director of Communications for the Chiaroscuro Foundation.

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

U.S. politics and the Culture of Death

by Elisa Sumanski Fri Aug 31 11:22 EST Comments (6)

 

August 31, 2012 (HLIWorldWatch.org) - Election season is upon us, and politics is on everyone’s mind. There is always a lot at stake come election time: the direction of the country, the economy, wars and foreign affairs. For Catholics and pro-life activists, this year’s presidential election is especially crucial if we are to protect and maintain our constitutionally-guaranteed religious liberties, and win the fight for life around the world.

Politics in the United States has an enormous impact on the international effort to defend life from conception until natural death. For example, there is a direct connection between the person who sits in the White House and how much money the United States spends promoting abortion overseas.

One of the first things President Obama did when he took office in January 2009 was reverse the Bush administration policy that restricted federal funding for international organizations that promote or provide abortions. The Obama administration, in collusion with an anti-life Congress, has since been funneling an average of more than $45 million a year to the abortion-pushing United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The Bush administration did not fund UNFPA at all.

If $45 million sounds like a lot, consider the nearly $600 million spent in 2010 alone on the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID, under the Obama administration, pushes abortion and contraception around the world. These are just two examples of how your tax dollars are being spent, in the midst of serious domestic economic problems, to promote an anti-life agenda all over the world.

And this money has very real, very devastating effects – especially in the developing world. Human Life International (HLI) Kenya and other Kenyan pro-life organizations spent much of 2010 fighting against the ratification of a new constitution that would open the door for legalized abortion in this traditionally pro-life Eastern African nation. The old Kenyan constitution protected life from the moment of conception. Had the legalization of abortion not been so carefully hidden in its text, it is almost certain that the Kenyan people would have rejected the new constitution. According to a report from the U.S. Inspector General, the Obama administration spent over $23 million to support the new Kenyan constitution – money that went directly to pro-abortion groups engaged in lobbying and get-out-the-vote efforts. Additionally, Vice President Joe Biden and a string of congressmen visited Kenya in the months leading up to the vote, all in an effort to ensure that the referendum was adopted. The U.S. did not just tacitly support the legalization of abortion in Kenya, it aggressively lobbied for it. The United States bought abortion for Kenya with our tax dollars.

Unfortunately, the amount of money being spent to push the deadly sins of abortion and contraception on unsuspecting cultures is not our only concern. The current administration has also launched a direct assault on Catholics and our religious liberties. The now infamous mandate issued by the Department of Health and Human Services is a crystal clear example of the battle we are currently fighting. This mandate will force most Catholic institutions and all Catholic employers to provide health insurance coverage for contraception – which the Church defines as intrinsically evil!

We live in a country that was founded by settlers looking for religious freedom. But the Culture of Death has become so strongly entrenched in our nation that our leaders are poised to force us to violate our religious beliefs and to provide others with something we consider a great moral evil.

It should come as no surprise that anti-life activists have finally publicly set their sights on the Catholic Church. The Church has long been the loudest and often the only voice that cries out in opposition to the evils of the Culture of Death. Can you think of another institution, religious or otherwise, that has remained steadfast in its position on such life-issues as contraception, divorce and marriage? These aren’t merely political issues to discuss with our neighbors; they are true and absolute evils. And evil’s number one target will always be the Catholic Church, because the Church is the primary means of salvation for the world.

This evil has become so pervasive that society now considers contraception and abortion to be “healthcare” even though there are mounds of evidence that they can be very harmful to those who use them. Various forms of abortion and contraception have been linked to breast cancer(1), depression(2), and even death of the mother(3) (of course, in the case of abortion, there is always also the death of a child).

Even if our liberties were not under attack, we would have a moral obligation as Catholics to vote in November. We must always vote against the evils of the Culture of Death, and this year we must stand up for our own rights as well. Come Election Day, we are the voice of the Church.

Elisa Sumanski works at Human Life International (HLI), the world’s largest international pro-life and pro-family organization. A version of this article appeared in HLI’s official magazine FrontLines.

——-

1. According to the National Cancer Institute, taking the pill seems to increase one’s risk of breast cancer, cervical cancer, and ovarian cancer.

2. The Alfred Psychiatry Research Centre studied 60 women, and found that those taking the pill containing both estrogen and progesterone were almost twice as likely to be depressed as those who did not.

3. Complications from abortion and abortion-inducing drugs like RU486 have caused thousands of deaths. Conversely, in Chile maternal deaths dropped 70% after abortion was banned.

Tags: abortion, contraception, election 2012, obama

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

Romney pledges to protect ‘sanctity of life,’ marriage in GOP acceptance speech

by John Jalsevac Fri Aug 31 11:12 EST Comments (20)

 

TAMPA, August 31, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney delivered his acceptance speech at the GOP convention Thursday night, laying out his vision for a Romney presidency.

“Mr. Chairman, delegates. I accept your nomination for president of the United States of America,” Romney said. “I do so with humility, deeply moved by the trust you have placed in me. It is a great honor. It is an even greater responsibility.”

In a speech focusing mainly on the country’s economic quandary and his own life history, Romney inserted a reference to social issues, pledging to protect life and marriage if made president.

“As president, I will protect the sanctity of life. I will honor the institution of marriage.”

In a reference to the HHS mandate, he said, “And I will guarantee America’s first liberty: the freedom of religion.”

Click ‘like’ if you want to END ABORTION!

Romney also touted his wife’s role as the mother of five boys, saying that even as he was working building his business, “I knew that her job as a mom was harder than mine. And I knew without question, that her job as a mom was a lot more important than mine.”

Earlier this year, a Democratic advisor provoked a media firestorm after criticizing Ann Romney’s decision to be a stay-at-home. Hilary Rosen told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that Mrs. Romney, “has actually never worked a day in her life,” echoing a similar charge Teresa Heinz Kerry made against Laura Bush in 2004.

Mrs. Romney rose to her own defense, tweeting, “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.”

In last night’s speech Romney also renewed his pledge to repeal and replace Obama’s health care reform law, conventionally known as “ObamaCare,” a law that has been heavily criticized by pro-life leaders for funding abortion.

Tags: abortion, election 2012, mitt romney, republicans

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

Under Obamacare 15-year-olds in Oregon can get tax-funded sterilization without parental consent

by Thomas Peters Fri Aug 31 09:46 EST Comments (9)

 

August 31, 2012 (LiveActionNews.org) - I’ve been covering the pro-abortion movement for long enough to think I didn’t have it in me to still be shocked.

Well, I was wrong.

Check out this report from CNSNews:

Thanks to an Obamacare regulation that took effect on Aug. 1, health care plans in Oregon will now be required to provide free sterilizations to 15- year-old girls even if the parents of those girls do not consent to the procedure.

Oregon has some of the worst abortion laws in the country (if not the worst), and Planned Parenthood has been busy opening up abortion mega-clinics there (as Live Action reported last July). That’s why Oregon is particularly bad when it comes to women’s health and why it is so vulnerable to ObamaCare’s mandates opening up new access to (taxpayer-funded) sterilizations, contraception, and abortion-inducing drugs:

Under Oregon law, girls from 15 years of age and up are given complete control over whether to be sterilized or not. The parents or guardians of a minor girl – between 15 and 18 – can neither grant nor deny consent for a sterilization.

And it gets even worse:

The Oregon Health Authority has created a special consent form called “Ages 15-20 Consent to Sterilization.”

“When I first asked for the information, I was told that the decision to be sterilized is completely up to me,” says this Oregon form for 15-year-old children. “I was told that I could decide not to be sterilized.”

I understand that the sterilization must be considered permanent and not reversible,” says this consent form. “I have decided that I do not want to become pregnant, bear children or father children.”

The consent form even includes a section that can be signed by an interpreter, in case a 15-year-old child being sterilized by their own consent in Oregon is incapable of understanding English.

Now, you can probably see why I’m so shocked by all of this. A non-English-speaking 15-year-old in Oregon can be permanently sterilized at taxpayer expense without her parents ever knowing or being able to do anything about it. This is the true face of the pro “choice” movement, and I find it appalling.

Moreover, in two separate instances, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) refused to answer questions about the ObamaCare mandate’s implications for young women (CNSNews includes a transcript of both interactions):

At a press conference in mid-July, which specifically focused on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), CNSNews.com attempted to ask House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) whether she supported the HHS regulation insofar as it extends to teens and college-age women. Pelosi, however, cut the question off before it could be completed.

… In another instance on Capitol Hill, CNSNews.com asked Pelosi, “Do you support the regulation taking affect August 1 requiring all health plans to cover free sterilizations for teenage girls?”

Pelosi said, “I don’t subsribe [sic] to your characterization of it,” and then moved on to ther [sic] questions.

That’s simply extraordinary. One of the highest officials in the Democratic Party is simply refusing to acknowledge how offensive and dangerous this regulation is to the health and well-being of girls as young as 15. Clearly we have to do more to get the word out, both inside and outside Oregon, about what ObamaCare is forcing the rest of us to pay for and how it is endangering young people.

An effort this year to qualify a ballot initiative that would put an end to public funding of abortion in Oregon made it only about half-way to the required number of signatures (but the petitioners are already planning to try again in 2014).

Abortion advocates often try to make us pro-lifers out to be extremists, and when they do, we should ask if they support what is happening in Oregon – because the truth is on our side! Let’s pray for the young people of Oregon: that they will be given all the information they really deserve to have, and that their parents will be able to play an active and supportive role in helping ensure they make the right choices – no matter what the law may read!

And may we work to change these anti-life laws in Oregon and ObamaCare.

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.org

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

REAL US election issues, Bizarre orientations list, Pussy Riot hate

by Steve Jalsevac Thu Aug 30 22:33 EST Comments (2)

Thank God, literally, for Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum’s speeches at the Republican convention. They understand that life, family and the culture are indeed REAL election issues that will determine whether a free, prosperous America will survive.

Peter Baklinski’s analysis of the ludicrous, always growing list of supposed sexual orientations is an instructive must read. It’s about time someone put all this together. Plain common sense has been rejected by gullible, weak people who keep giving this stuff credibility. Peter explains what’s behind the bizarre phenomenon.

Matthew Hoffman has crafted an excellent report on the violent, new anti-Christian movement in Europe that seems to have launched into high gear with the Moscow Pussy Riot demonstration. We can’t ignore these growing incidents of mad hatred for traditional sexual morality and culture. There is a connection here to decades of dreadfully weak response to the massive killing of the preborn and rejection of God’s natural laws for sexual behaviour.

By the way, we made a math error in our headline on Wednesday’s Colorado Personhood initiative story. 26,000, not 16,000, signatures were rejected by the government. Now, do any of you seriously think that such a large number of signature could possibly have been genuinely invalid?

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

LGBTTIQQ2S: How many more letters do we need?

by Peter Baklinski Thu Aug 30 19:33 EST Comments (30)

 

30 August, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - “LGBTTIQQ2S? How many letters do we need, and what do half of these even stand for?,” someone recently asked in the comments section of a news article I wrote.

The answer is simple: A letter is needed for every single sexual inclination and action that deviates from the obvious norm - i.e. sexual inclinations and actions between a male and female that are best expressed in marriage.

Can I say such a thing without being discriminatory and homophobic?

I hope it is not being discriminatory to point out what biology teaches. On a purely biological level, sexual organs are for the sake of reproduction. Nature produced woman with a vagina and man with a penis so that the two could come together to procreate new life. Ejaculation is for the sake of shooting a seed to fertilize the egg so that a new human being can come into existence. On a purely biological level, the sexual inclination is for the sake of the continuation of the species. If there was no sexual drive, the human race would become extinct. Any lover of wisdom worth his salt knows this, from Aristotle to Darwin to John Paul II. It is not homophobic to point out the function of the sexual organs and to argue from this that male/female relations are the sexual norm.

But there is more than the biological evidence for establishing the male/female sexual norm. Men and woman are not simply biological machines that by nature have parts that fit together. They are also persons who have been made to complement each other on the personal, emotional, and spiritual dimensions. Marriage is the institution that has for millennia provided the social framework that allows a man and a woman to come together and rear children while at the same time providing for them an occasion for the flourishing of their personal/emotional/spiritual dimensions. In this kind of communal flourishing, a man and a woman partake in the full spectrum of the human experience.

But what happens when society forgets that a man and a woman have sexual inclinations and sexual bodies for the sake of flourishing together and uniting so that the species may continue? The answer in a nut shell is this: numerous sexual perversities. There is an operating principle here, namely that actions continuing with their purpose lost, multiply perversities. In a similar way, archers who are ignorant of the mark will shoot their arrows with bizarre futility.

So, how did society get to the point of having LGBTTIQQ2S?

Because people have forgotten, mostly through radical propaganda efforts by homosexual activists, that the body of a man and the body of a woman were made to come together in the sexual act for the sake of union and procreation.

But how could people forget such a basic thing? People became predisposed to listen to the homosexual activists only after using contraceptive technologies to separate the unitive dimensions of the sexual act from its procreative potential. For the past 70 years and more, contraception has essentially turned sexual acts between a man and a woman into homosexual acts by deliberately precluding the potential of the act to create new life. Contraception was a major perversion of sexuality that set the stage for all the other perversions that were to follow, and for the ones that are yet to come.

Because of contraception, people began to subconsciously reason that since sexual acts were no longer about procreation, why should such acts not be condoned between people of the same-sex. Society’s acceptance of contraception was the thing that stripped away any real argument that one might make against homosexual activity. Thus, society grew to accept Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual non-procreative sexual activity via acceptance of contraception.

What the acronyms stand for:

G, for Gay, is for men who experience an inclination to other men and want to express that inclination in sexual ways. Since a man was not made by nature to enter into another man via the rectum, this activity is concomitant not only with sickness, disease, and shortened life, but also with numerous emotional and psychological maladies. This fact is openly admitted by homosexuals themselves. A homosexual group once filed a complaint with a government agency claiming that they were not receiving adequate medical support for all the health problems caused by their homosexual lifestyle.

L, for Lesbian, is for women who experience an inclination to other women and want to express that inclination in sexual ways. Lesbian activity also results in a set of maladies. One study found that bacterial vaginosis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, heavy cigarette smoking, alcohol abuse, intravenous drug use, and prostitution were present in much higher proportions among women active in the homosexual lifestyle when compared to ‘heterosexual’ women.

B, for Bisexual, is for men and women who sometimes experience an inclination to the same-sex, and sometimes to the opposite sex. The same health risks apply to this groups as to the G and L group.

The double T, for Transexual and Transgender, is for people who have the biological parts of a man or woman, but who believe that their body is a mistake and that they really belong as members of the opposite sex. Many mental health professionals continue to express serious reservations about encouraging people to identify themselves in this way. One of the most prominent of these, Dr. Paul McHugh, distinguished professor of psychiatry at John Hopkins University School of Medicine and psychiatrist-in-chief at John Hopkins Hospital, says he was compelled to ban “sex change” surgery in his hospital after discovering that it did not rectify the problem for people who were struggling with their biological sex. He wrote in 2004 that “Hopkins was fundamentally cooperating with a mental illness” by catering to the desires of people who wanted surgery to change their biological sex.

“We psychiatrists, I thought, would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia,” he wrote, adding that “to provide a surgical alteration to the body of these unfortunate people was to collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat it.”

I, for Intersexual, is for people who appear to have both male and female sexual characteristics. This relatively rare but naturally occurring phenomena has been hijacked by intersex activists to further the gender agenda which would have people believe that masculine and feminine characteristics are simply social constructs that have no real basis in reality.

Q, for Queer, is meant to be a catch-all term for anyone with same-sex attraction who does not want to be identified as a stereotypical homosexual.

The other Q, for Questioning, is for people who have made the decision not to identify themselves as a man, woman, homosexual, bisexual, Intersexual, queer, or any of the other options that our society has made available. These people want to explore their options before committing.

2S, for Two Spirited, is a term created by homosexual activists in the 1990’s to label indigenous persons from the past who were known to have performed tribal tasks that were usually performed only by a male or female.

So, is this the end of the letters that represent sexual anomalies? Not quite. There are some deviations that fall away from sexual inclinations and resulting actions that are proper to male/female relations that homosexual activists want to keep hidden from their supporters.

MAP, for Minor-Attracted Persons, indicates those people who believe that pedophilia is a “sexual orientation” comparable to homosexuality or heterosexuality. Homosexual-themed MAP academic conferences have taken place that aim at reordering society so that the “stigma” associated with older men acting sexually toward younger children will be erased. Psychology experts at these venues suggest that persons who are “emotionally and sexually attracted to children” ought to have society bless their inclinations and the sexual acts that result from them.

Here are all the acronyms lined up now: LGBTTIQQ2SMAP. Can there possibly be more?

A, for Asexuality, describes a group of people who have no sexual attraction to others.

V, for Vorarephilia, is for people who believe in homosexual cannibalism. Montreal gay porn actor Luka Magnotta shocked the world in June by allegedly killing and cannibalizing his ex-homosexual partner. Critics have pointed out that Magnotta’s behavior follows a newly discernible trend of an out-of-control sexual deviancy fueled by violent pornography. Dr. Judith Reisman, an internationally-recognized expert on pornography and sexuality, said about Magnotta that his “homosexual cannibalism links sex arousal with shame, hate and sadism”.

LGBTTIQQ2SMAPAV. Enough yet?

M, for Masturbators, is for people who believe that having sex with one’s self is the “cornerstone of sexual health”. 

Z, for Zoophilia, what used to be called bestiality, is for people who believe in having sex with animals. The renowned animal rights group PETA came out in favor of zoophilia after animal rights activist and Princeton Professor Peter Singer endorsed the practice in an article titled Heavy Petting.

LGBTTIQQ2SMAPAVMZ. Where does the deviancy stop?

The fact is that such deviancy cannot stop. The further society falls away from the truth that sexual acts belong to a man and woman for the sake of union and procreation, and that the best context for this is marriage, the more the deviancies multiply.

The only way to stop the deviancy and avert an impending social collapse resulting from the chaos is for society to return to the ancient wisdom - testified to by nature - that human beings were made as male and female for one another.

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh … What therefore God [through nature] has joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matt 19:5-6)”

Tags: family, homosexuality, marriage, sexual revolution

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

back to top