---

SHARE THIS PAGE: E-mail  Print

---

---

Harper Has Left Himself Little Room to Defend Traditional Marriage - Vows no Notwithstanding Clause

By John-Henry Westen

OTTAWA, December 16, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Restoring marriage to its proper definition seems off the map in this political cycle.  Conservative Leader Stephen Harper greatly disappointed defenders of traditional marriage during the leadership debate last night by vowing "never" to use the notwithstanding clause to defend the traditional definition of marriage.

During the first of the Leaders debates, a French-language debate, the leaders of the four parties represented in Parliament responded to a question on homosexual 'marriage'.  While the Bloc, NDP and Liberal Leaders tripped over themselves trying to outdo one another in support of homosexual 'marriage', Harper said, "the Conservative party has made a commitment. Voters can now vote and a Conservative government would put forward a motion so that Parliament could freely vote on the issue of marriage. Even if members decided to change the definition and bring it back to the traditional definition, we have to respect same-sex marriages that already exist."

In response to the charge that he would have to use the charter's notwithstanding clause to defend marriage Harper said, "I will never use the notwithstanding clause on that issue."

Critics have pointed out that the Conservative Leader has moved the marriage issue to a low priority, since the comment does not rule out use of the notwithstanding clause, but only its use to defend marriage.

Jim Hughes, President of Campaign Life Coalition commented to LifeSiteNews.com on the debate saying, "what an appalling situation. Harper) has said he won't use the very vehicle that was placed in the constitution to deal with situations like this."

Admittedly, undoing the damage to Canada caused by the Liberal Government's imposition of  homosexual 'marriage' is a long shot.  Harper has said he would put forward a motion in the Commons on the matter and if it passed would bring forward legislation to enshrine in law the traditional definition of marriage.  However, even if such legislation passed in the Commons, it would likely never make it through the heavily left leaning Senate. 

Should the legislation somehow be passed into law the Supreme Court would almost surely strike it down as unconstitutional, and now Mr. Harper has ruled out using the method of last resort, the notwithstanding clause, to force the courts to back-off. 

In related news, Harper also dismayed conservatives in recent days by writing a letter to the conservative Washington DC paper the Washington Times in which he distanced himself from American conservatives.  "And while I have promised a free vote in Canada's Parliament to reconsider the recent change of law to allow same-sex marriages in Canada, and will vote myself for a return to the traditional definition of marriage, I have said any changes must protect the existing status of same-sex couples who have been legally married," said Harper.  He made of point of also adding, "As well, a new Conservative government will not initiate or support any effort to pass legislation restricting abortion in Canada." What he expected to gain from this peculiar initiative is unclear.

Despite the lacklustre appearance of Harper and thus the Conservative Party for social conservatives, the Party remains superior to the other mainstream parties in that they have vowed to allow free votes on moral issues and differ significantly on allowing choice in child-care. 

However, it remains to be seen if those differences will move social conservatives whose main concerns are life and family to get out to vote.  For most they will be voting based on the views of their local candidate on those issues.  For some however, the mainstream parties' outright animosity toward them and the Conservatives' treatment of them as second-class citizens will drive them to register a protest vote for the Christians Heritage Party.

Indeed, in a press release responding to the Conservative debate, Christian Heritage Party Leader Ron Gray dubbed the Conservatives "Liberal Lite" saying they have "now deserted all three of the most important issues in this campaign."

Those three issues, he said, are:
o the sanctity of innocent human life;
o the sanctity of marriage;
o the urgent need to defend the Canadian Constitution from judicial usurpation of Parliament's exclusive authority to write laws.

The CHP stands for the protection of life, marriage, and the Constitution, he added.

See the English translation transcript of the debate:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051213/elxn_TEMPLATE_backu...=

 Back to Top   |   Send Letter to Editor

---

Bush Strategists Won by Not Soft-Peddling Social Conservatism Ralph Reed Tells Canadians

Ran “unapologetically and boldly on a conservative, pro-family platform”

By Tony Gosgnach for the January 2006 Interim Newspaper

TORONTO, December 16, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - One of the key figures in the social conservative political revival in the U.S., and in the election and re-election of President George W. Bush, brought his formula for success to Canada recently, in the hopes that some of his accomplishments south of the border would rub off in this country.

Ralph Reed, the former head of the influential Christian Coalition who has worked on seven U.S. presidential campaigns, spoke during the Canadian Values Conference, staged by the nascent Institute for Canadian Values at Canada Christian College in Toronto Nov. 29 – Dec. 1. Reed served as a senior adviser to the Bush campaign in 2000 and as the president’s southeast campaign chair in 2004. Greeted with a standing ovation, he told the crowd in Toronto that the recipe for social conservative success in the political sphere is not “rocket science” and emphasized two simple planks in the process – a commitment to unabashed social conservatism and grassroots activism.

“Grassroots works every single time and it will work in Canada,” he stressed. However, he noted that people tend to shy away from such work because it is hard and unglamorous. It means the difficult, plodding tasks of knocking on doors, driving people to polls, one-to-one campaigning and so on. People would rather eschew that and just show up for the victory party.

Yet the grassroots work yields results. Reed recounted how, by using that paradigm, he and his Bush co-workers successfully endeavoured to recruit 1.4 million volunteers, who in turn brought in 10.5 million new voters to the Bush camp. His efforts as southeast campaign chair for Bush in 2004, meanwhile, won the Georgia governorship for the Republican Party for the first time in 130 years.

Did the Bush strategists do it by soft-peddling social conservatism, as is often the case in Canada? No, they did the opposite, so befuddling the elites who thought that a politician couldn’t possibly win as important a position as the presidency on such a platform. In 2000, in fact, the media were predicting a Bush loss by five million votes.

Yet, “We did better among every constituency,” said Reed. “The ‘gender gap’ went from 16 points in 1996, when we were soft-peddling these issues … to a four-point gender gap in 2004.” Significant gains were made among Hispanic and Catholic voters, even though Bush, a Methodist, ran against a nominal Catholic, John Kerry.

“The reason why we won was … we ran unapologetically and boldly on a conservative, pro-family platform,” he said to enthusiastic applause from his listeners. He added that when a politician runs on a social conservative platform, he is not simply “preaching to the choir,” but appealing to every constituency, because such values are held commonly by people of every background.

“It’s a mainstream, common sense set of values,” he said, adding that those principles are anchored by five key points: an emphasis on personal responsibility; the honour and preservation of traditional marriage; the strengthening of the loving, intact family; the maximization of individual freedom and liberty; and a commitment to human and civil rights for every individual.
So why do politicians not always run on a social conservative platform? “They’re intimidated by the opposition and by personal attacks,” answered Reed. Add to that a media chorus that perpetuates the mantra that “you can’t win on social conservative values” and candidates with weak backbones tend to whimper away.

“But you can win!” exclaimed Reed, who pointed to the example of socially conservative former U.S. president Ronald Reagan, who overcame advanced age, a hostile Hollywood environment and even the humungous Communist bloc in achieving a place in the pantheon of great U.S. presidents. “History is not static,” said Reed. “It can change … you don’t have to accept it the way it is.”

He concluded by giving social conservative Canadians a four-point action plan as they go into the campaign for the federal election Jan. 23: build a strong grassroots organization that will touch every single voter; train workers to be effective; set achievable goals and constantly monitor them; and turn out the vote on election day by “flushing” people out of their homes and driving them to polling stations, if necessary.

“Get on your work boots and tennis shoes,” he urged. “Let’s usher in the greatest victory in the history of this (Canadian) country!” The crowd once again gave him a standing ovation.

Reed’s address capped three days of events at the Canadian Values Conference, which saw sessions led by speakers including Canada Christian College president Charles McVety, Canada Family Action Coalition executive director Brian Rushfeldt, Campagne Quebec Vie president Luc Gagnon, Senator Anne Cools, Equipping Christians for the Public Square executive director Tristan Emmanuel and Canadian Coalition for Democracies executive director Naresh Raghubeer. They and others looked at issues such as tax policy and the radical social agenda, judicial activism, Canada’s foreign policy, mobilizing people of faith and working with the media.

The Institute for Canadian Values was founded last March as a national think-tank dedicated to advancing knowledge of public policy issues from Judeo-Christian intellectual and moral perspectives, as well as promoting awareness of how such perspectives contribute to a modern, free and democratic society. It has a website at http://www.canadianvalues.ca.

 Back to Top   |   Send Letter to Editor

---

Planned Parenthood Caught Concealing Rape of 11-year-old

By Hilary White

SAN FRANCISCO, December 16, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Planned Parenthood’s San Francisco office has removed a letter from its website that purported to be from a girl thanking the organization for not telling her parents that she has been raped when she was eleven by her then-17 year-old “boyfriend.” “Planned Parenthood helped me deal with the aftermath of the rape allowing me to deal and cope as best as I could in my own way,” the letter said.

American Life League’s affiliate, STOPP International said that Planned Parenthood removed the letter from their website after it caught the attention of their own and other pro-life groups.

Jim Sedlak, executive director of STOPP International said, “Planned Parenthood acts as if it is exempt from the law. The organization knows it is mandated to report suspected cases of sexual abuse involving minors, yet it seemingly fails to do so.”

STOPP International is calling on California’s Attorney General to investigate Planned Parenthood’s practices.

Under the title, “It keeps us safe” the unsigned letter said that Planned Parenthood had provided the girl with birth control pills when she “decided to start having sex,” at age 14. The letter said that the girl, now 17, had also been provided with testing for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, four times. Nothing in the letter indicated that Planned Parenthood had alerted the authorities about the rape or had tried to discourage the girl from underage sex.

Under the California penal code, the legal age of consent is 18, and anyone who has sexual relations with a child can be found guilty of a felony. According to recent statistics, in California, almost 70% of teen births are fathered by adult men.

In 2002, the Texas-based pro-life group, Life Dynamics surveyed 800 abortion facilities and revealed that in 91% of cases, the facility staff agreed to conceal cases of statutory rape.

Read the letter:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041022181821/www.ppgg.org/advocacy/stories.asp?ID=1...

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Exposé Links Abortion Industry with Sex Abuse Crimes
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2002/may/02052101.html

 Back to Top   |   Send Letter to Editor

---

USCCB Changes Rating on Brokeback Mountain to Morally Offensive

By John-Henry Westen

WASHINGTON, DC, December 16, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The United States Conference of Bishops Office for Film and Broadcasting has altered their rating for the homosexual propaganda film Brokeback Mountain after a story by LifeSiteNews.com pointed out that the office's praise for the film was completely inappropriate. (see the LifeSiteNews.com story: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/dec/05121503.html )

While the glowing review remains, the USCCB office's rating for the film has been altered to the most severe rating - "O" for morally offensive from "L" which denotes that it is appropriate for a limited adult audience.  Moreover, the author of the review of the film published on the USCCB's news service Catholic News Service, Harry Forbes, has removed his name from the article, which is now listed as published "By Catholic News Service".

See the new version here: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/05mv682.htm
And the old version from Google's cache here: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:CBNmIUiHLl4J:http://www.catholicnews.com/da...

A LifeSiteNews.com reader contacted USCCB President Bishop William Skylstad who according to the LifeSiteNews.com reader said "Oh, the rating has to be changed to 'O'".

The review, which was yesterday attributed to Forbes, still entices Catholics to see the film. "Director Ang Lee tells the story with a sure sense of time and place, and presents the narrative in a way that is more palatable than would have been thought possible," says the article.  "The performances are superb. Australian Ledger may be the one to beat at Oscar time, as his repressed manly stoicism masking great vulnerability is heartbreaking, and his Western accent sounds wonderfully authentic."

All that for a movie which is being hailed as the best-ever promotion for sodomy.  A Newsweek review of the film states: "Brokeback feels like a landmark film. No American film before has portrayed love between two men as something this pure and sacred. As such, it has the potential to change the national conversation and to challenge people's ideas about the value and validity of same-sex relationships."

Tead Behr, a Christian movie reviewer points out these facts about the film: (It uses) "about 58 obscenities (including ,many "f" words), 15 strong profanities, one light profanity, and references to urinating; two extreme scenes of bloody violence include shot of castrated man and man's head is beaten bloody until he is dead, and scenes of violence where men fight and wrestle in a rough way, and homosexual sodomy scene plays almost like a homosexual rape; very strong sexual content includes depicted homosexual and heterosexual sodomy (with a hint of sadomasochism during one or more homosexual scenes), depicted homosexual kissing and groping, depicted intercourse between married couple, and implied intercourse and almost intercourse with women who are shown topless; upper female nudity in several scenes, full male nudity in bathing scene, rare male nudity, and upper male nudity; alcohol use and drunkenness; smoking; and, lying, men cheat on wives, sexual "repression" is seen as evil, family arguments, divorce, and negative portrayal of heterosexual fathers." (see the full review here: http://www.movieguide.org/index.php?s=reviews&id=7031&PHPSESSID=892d356a... )

However, Forbes or someone who describes themselves as the editor of the CNS movie review on the film explains away the switch in rating.  "Because there are some in this instance who are using the L rating to make it appear the church's -- or the USCCB's -- position on homosexuality is ambiguous, the classification has been revised specifically to address its moral content," says the now unsigned review.

The note also says: ""Brokeback Mountain," originally rated L (limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling), has been reclassified O -- morally offensive. This has been done because the serious weight of the L rating -- which restricts films in that category to those who can assess, from a Catholic perspective, the moral issues raised by a movie -- is, unfortunately, misunderstood by many. "

To express concers:
Msgr Maniscalco, Director of Communications Dept USCCB 202-541-3000 (USCCB) ask for Communications Dept. (Msgr. Maniscalco)
Or  Msgr William Fay General Secretary.

USCCB President Bishop William Skylstad
509-358-7305

 Back to Top   |   Send Letter to Editor

---

Large Increase in Porn DVD Sales Indicates Growing Pornography Addiction

Researcher says porn “endogenous drug” that permanently restructures brain, mind, memory, conduct

By Gudrun Schultz

UNITED STATES, December 16, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A significant rise in pornographic DVD sales and rentals within the United States points to a rapidly growing addiction to pornography that is going largely unacknowledged within society.

The United States’ massive porn industry has reported a marked increase in sales of DVD’s for home adult entertainment. California-based Adult Video News predicted revenue of US$12.6-billion this year for the industry. Of that number, US$4.28-billion is predicted from sales and rentals of porn DVD’s, even though the price of a porn film has dropped 20% in the last year—to less than US$50.

The report offers no reason for the increase in sales and the growth of the industry overall, although some retailers of the products have suggested the increase is due to growing social acceptance of adult sexual entertainment.

That ‘social acceptance’ is in fact a rapidly growing addiction to pornographic material within mainstream society, according to researchers and therapists who work in the field of sexual dysfunction.

Dr. Judith Reisman, who has done extensive research discrediting the work of Alfred Kinsey, has shown compelling evidence that pornography is a powerful addictive force. In an article titled Exposing Pornography’s Addictive, Destructive Effects, published 2003, she states:

 “For decades I have lectured on visual pornography as an “endogenous drug” that permanently restructures the brain, mind, memory and conduct of unthinking users…Pornography overrides cognition and causes dramatic changes in viewers’ behavior. This can be simple coarsening, impairing the capacity to love, or it can lead to brutal sexual crimes.” (http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/exposingporn.doc)

Dr. Mary Ann Layden is co-director of the Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Program at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Cognitive Therapy. Speaking before the 2004 Senate Commerce Committee, she said, “Pornography addicts have a more difficult time recovering from their addiction than cocaine addicts, since coke users can get the drug out of their system, but pornographic images stay in the brain forever.

Social acceptance of the industry appears to be a blanket of acceptability tossed over the ugly truth of pornography—that the industry degrades the people involved in the production of material, degrades the viewer, and fosters socially deviant behavior.

“Those who use pornography have been shown to be more likely to engage in illegal behavior…Research indicates and my clinical experience supports that those who use pornography are more likely to go to prostitutes, engage in domestic violence, stranger rape, date rape, and incest, “ said Layden.

From de-valuing of women and children, to disruption of the ability to be in intimate relationship, to the acting out of violent fantasy against actual victims that leads to sexually motivated crimes, research clearly shows the devastating social results of pornography addiction.

The unchecked increase in child pornography offers unavoidable evidence for the fundamentally disordered nature of the industry. Individuals who defend adult porn may be outraged by the view that child pornography is a direct outcome of the adult industry, but in fact viewing the recorded image of child abuse has become a sexual turn-on for an appalling number of adults.

Furthermore, research shows that as an addiction, pornography builds upon itself, driving the addict to seek more extreme experiences of visually satisfying material.

“Sexual addicts develop tolerance and will need more and harder kinds of pornographic material,” said Layden. “They have escalating compulsive sexual behavior becoming more out of control and also experience withdrawal symptoms if they stop the use of the sexual material. This material is potent, addictive and permanently implanted in the brain.”

Despite industry defenders’ claims that adult entertainment is a healthy form of sexuality, the porn industry has seen an enormous increase in recent years in “extreme” porn involving violence, the abuse of animals, a focus on fecal and urinary functions, and self-mutilation.

“There are no studies and no data that indicate a benefit from pornography use,” Layden said. “If there were a benefit, then pornography users, pornography performers, their spouses and their children would show the most benefit. Just the opposite is true. The society is awash in pornography and so in fact the data is in. If pornography made us healthy, we would be healthy by now.”

For the full text of Layden’s statement, see:
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1343&wit_id=3912

 Back to Top   |   Send Letter to Editor

---

Michael Schiavo Turning Terri into Poster Child for Euthanasia

Special to LifeSiteNews.com by Judie Brown

It is frequently said that truth is stranger than fiction. In the case of Michael Schiavo, husband of the now deceased Terri Schiavo, this is precisely correct.

You may recall that during the years that Terri Schiavo suffered from a debilitating condition, Michael worked very hard to acquire legal permission to kill his wife by denying her the basic human right of receiving food and water. He argued that she would not want to be fed through a tube. His view was that she actually died 12 years earlier, and that the person in the hospital bed was not truly alive. Once he succeeded in achieving his goal, and his wife died, it became clear that Schiavo had designs on attaining as much public support and sympathy as possible. In fact, one might say that in the wake of Terri's death, Michael Schiavo was starving - for attention.

He received notoriety due to various awards that pro-death groups chose to give him. He made headlines when a woman in San Francisco was convicted of a crime for posting an internet death threat leveled at Schiavo. The threat read, "If she [Terri] dies, I will kill Michael Schiavo and the judge."

A reporter in Florida claimed that Michael Schiavo, who is a licensed health care provider, was being investigated by medical malpractice authorities due to some alleged misrepresentation on an employment application.

None of this satisfied Schiavo's thirst for recognition; it appeared to know no bounds. In fact, his ego-driven self-absorption has recently launched him into the political realm. He has just announced the formation of the Terri PAC, a political action committee founded to "restore personal freedoms and individual human rights." If you think this is a bit ridiculous, then you are sadly unaware of the immensity of the culture of death into which America is nearly fully immersed.

"Personal freedom" should be based on one's ability to exercise free will and choose between good and evil. This is not the definition currently applied in the United States, however. The majority of our citizenry, for instance, claim a "personal freedom" to murder the innocent preborn child at any point in his life. So it is no surprise that Michael Schiavo is turning to the political realm to make sure that spouses like himself can exercise another aspect of this twisted idea of personal freedom: the "right" to eliminate an inconvenient family member when illness or debilitation strikes.

Some would call that killing. Others would describe it as pure evil. We would hope that very few indeed would perceive it as true "personal freedom." Hope, yes; unfortunately, opinion polls would prove us wrong. The vast majority of Americans condone what Michael Schiavo did to his wife; they also condone taking the lives of preborn children through abortion. It's all about those "personal freedoms" that we Americans supposedly hold so dear.

There's also the sticky subject of "individual rights." Schiavo's announcement suggests that "individual rights" and "personal freedom" are the founding principles of his political action committee. The active component of his effort, however, is gathering support for candidates who support killing the weak and the vulnerable. What, pray tell, is actually at stake? Will anyone challenge Schiavo by inquiring precisely where we are to find the basic individual rights and personal freedoms of those targeted by his goals?

The preborn child is an individual who - according to the likes of Schiavo and most politicians - may not choose to exercise his own rights because he does not have a right to live. So too, according to Schiavo and his supporters, the ill, the severely disabled and the family members who are simply a "drain" have no rights at all, and they surely have no freedom - at least, no freedom from harm.

In Schiavo's view, efforts to save innocent lives are nothing more than political opportunism while those who fall prey to agendas such as his are merely being respected for their individual right to die. As he noted on his new organization's web site, "If our political leaders have taken no lessons from their shameless exploitation of Terri, and the public outcry against it, I have. I have taken my sadness, anger and worry and channeled them into a personal resolution: I will do everything in my power to keep another unsuspecting American family from re-living our private national nightmare."

Excuse me? How could Michael have forgotten the personal agony and the nearly debilitating toll the struggle to protect their daughter took on her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler? It occurs to me that the so-called national nightmare was started by an unloving husband who wished to be free to cavort and beget children with a new mate while denying his wife rehabilitation and care, leaving her to decay. And we are supposed to be thankful that Michael Schiavo is taking his case to the political arena?

C. S. Lewis once wrote, "If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair."

It is my firm conviction that Lewis' words apply totally to the Michael Schiavos of this world. The problem is, of course, that those who support his point of view (most Americans, it would appear) happen to be in a position to make Michael's version of truth become reality, enlarging that wicked comfort zone that will result in hell on earth for the victims. It's the American way.

Judie Brown is president and co-founder of American Life League, the nation's largest Catholic pro-life educational grassroots organization. She is a recognized expert on the sanctity of human life and member of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Mrs. Brown is the author of three books.

 Back to Top   |   Send Letter to Editor

---

Pharmacist Vows He Will Not Dispense Abortifacient Despite Job Loss

Governor: “Right of conscience does not apply to pharmacists.”

By Terry Vanderheyden

ST. LOUIS, Illinois, December 16, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Walgreens pharmacist, suspended last month without pay, has refused to sign a pledge promising that he would dispense the abortifacient morning-after pill in accord with a law instituted by Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Rich Quayle said he is looking for other work, forfeiting his $100,000 a year job for the decision; one of two other pharmacists also suspended has decided to sign the pledge to keep her job.

The pharmacies, all located in Illinois, are subject to a law instituted by Blagojevich in April that forces pharmacists to fill prescriptions whether they are morally opposed or not. A spokesman from Blagojevich’s office, Abby Ottenhoff, said that the “right of conscience does not apply to pharmacists,” according to an AP report.

Claiming that dispensing an abortifacient is not the same as performing an abortion, Ottenhoff explained, “In general, the aim was to give medical professionals who may be in a position to perform an abortion the right to abstain from doing so. We fully support that right, but a pharmacist is not asked to perform abortions. He’s asked to fill prescriptions.”

“People try to paint us as being religious zealots,” Quayle said. “I have firm religious beliefs, and I choose not to destroy a human being. I don’t think that's necessarily a bad moral stance to take.”

“The media has painted us as a bunch of rogues and uncaring individuals, and that couldn't be farther from the truth,” he added. “I like helping people. But I’m not there to kill anybody, and I won’t do it.”

Quayle, a Baptist, explained, “If you prevent the egg from implanting in the uterus you prevent that from becoming a human being. If I give her this medication, that medication is designed to eliminate one of those lives, and that’s a position I choose not to participate in.”

The American Center for Law and Justice filed charges last week with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in St. Louis alleging that Walgreens engaged in unlawful religious discrimination by effectively firing Quayle and two of his colleagues who requested accommodation of their religious objections to dispensing the “morning-after pill.” The other pharmacists are John Menges and Carol Muzzarelli, who, with Quayle, all worked at Walgreens stores in the St. Louis Metro East area of Illinois.

Since the promulgation of Bladovich’s emergency rule, which became permanent in August, the three pharmacists have let Walgreens know of their objections and have requested an accommodation of their religious beliefs – “a right guaranteed to them under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Illinois Human Rights Act, and the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act,” according to an ACLJ release.

On November 28, Menges and Quayle refused to sign a new policy agreeing to dispense the abortifacient. In response, Walgreens placed each of them on “unpaid indefinite suspension.” Carol Muzzarelli, who was on a personal leave of absence at the time, was told that she could not come back to work for Walgreens in Illinois unless she agreed to sign the policy.

According to the ACLJ, the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, for example, makes it “unlawful for any person, public or private institution . . . to discriminate against any person in any manner . . . because of such person’s conscientious refusal to . . . participate in any way in any particular form of health care services contrary to his or her conscience.” The Act’s definition of “health care personnel” includes “professional, paraprofessional, or any other person who furnishes, or assists in the furnishing of, health care services.”

“If the Right of Conscience law means nothing and religious beliefs mean nothing, we’re in a lot of trouble,” Quayle emphasized.

Contact Walgreens:
On line: https://www.walgreens.com/contactus/email/general_email.jsp;jsessionid=GFP3ZFI4X...

200 Wilmot Road
Deerfield, IL 60015
Phone: (847) 914-2500, 1-877-250-5823

 Back to Top   |   Send Letter to Editor

---

Epoch-Making Korean Cloning Study now Believed Faked

By Hilary White

SEOUL, December 16, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - South Korean cloning researcher, Dr Hwang Woo-suk, author of the cloning research paper that was lauded in the international press as the most important, epoch-making breakthrough in the stem cell field, has allegedly admitted to colleagues that he fabricated some of the results. 

Roh Sung-il, who collaborated on the paper, published in the leading journal, Science, said in television interviews that at least nine of the eleven stem cell lines the team had claimed to have created were faked. Roh said that a team member had been pressured into doctoring results to make the embryos look like clones.

Hwang himself, however, has only gone as far as admitting that some of the photographs appearing in the paper were duplicated. He said in a statement, “I apologize for creating this uproar both in and out of Korea. The fact remains that our research team was successful in creating stem cells from patients' skin cells. Still, there were mistakes made, human errors, in taking photographs and in the preservation of the stem cells.”

Roh, chairman of the Mizmedi hospital, told South Korean news sources, “Professor Hwang admitted to fabrication.” Roh said that photographs of two groups of cells were made to appear as though there were more for the report.

The journal’s publisher, the American Association for the Advancement of Science confirmed that Hwang and Dr. Gerald Schatten, the study’s lead authors, have asked that the paper be withdrawn. The Association, however, said that the paper could not be withdrawn without the agreement of all the authors.

Seoul National University and the University of Pittsburgh are investigating and Dr. Hwang is said to be receiving treatment for stress in hospital.

British cloning researcher Ian Wilmut, the creator of Dolly the sheep, has suggested that Hwang submit the cells for independent tests to verify his claims.

The controversy has created a furor in South Korea, which had been positioning itself as a leading country in stem cell research based on Hwang’s work. Biotech stocks in Seoul have plummeted and the South Korean president has called an emergency cabinet meeting.

The creation of cloned human embryos, and from them of stem cell lines genetically matched to patients, usually referred to as “therapeutic cloning,” is considered the holy grail of the embryonic stem cell field, one that most researchers believed was years away. The news that the South Korean team had achieved it was greeted with surprised jubilation by media and the scientific community around the world.

The media enthusiasm was largely unchecked by any acknowledgement of the immoral nature of cloning human beings or killing them to extract stem cells. The research is still regularly called “controversial” however, and some researchers are worried that the negative press could cause problems for the industry.

Robert Lanza, medical director of Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology Inc., a biotechnology company working on stem cell therapies called the news a “disaster.'' “We were hoping that stem cell research would become less controversial, not more. The fact that it's going up in flames is obviously a black eye to the field.”

 

 Back to Top   |   Send Letter to Editor

---

First Homosexual Civil Union in U.S. Ends after Five Years

By Terry Vanderheyden

BRATTLEBORO, Vermont, December 16, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The first same-sex couple to enter into a civil-union “marriage” in the US is getting a divorce.

Kathleen Peterson and Carolyn Conrad were in court in October to dissolve their civil union and to decide on a division of home and property.

“All I want to say is that the civil union was a big source of pride for me and now it's not,” Peterson said Wednesday, as reported by the AP. The pair was the first to enter into a civil union after former Vermont governor Howard Dean signed the legislation into law in 2000.

The AP report highlighted that although 7,459 same-sex couples have entered into civil unions in Vermont, only 1,137 – 15 percent – were state residents. So far 78 dissolutions have been registered in Vermont.

A Swedish study published last year found that lesbian couples were 2.67 times as likely to divorce as opposite-sex married couples, while same-sex male couples were 1.5 times as likely to divorce as married opposite-sex couples, over a similar period of time.

Even after controlling for demographic characteristics associated with increased risk of divorce, male same-sex couples were still 1.35 times as likely to divorce, and lesbian couples were three times as likely to divorce as opposite- sex married couples.

Vermont’s civil union law grants same-sex couples most of the privileges normally reserved for heterosexual marriage such as the filing of joint tax returns, spousal health care benefits, and an allowance for making critical medical decisions for each other.

In the US, Connecticut and New Jersey also have civil union laws, and Massachusetts has legal same-sex “marriage,” while 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning the aberration.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Same-Sex Couples Face High Divorce Risks, Says New Swedish Study
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/may/04050407.html
Canada's First Same-Sex Divorce: Separated after 5 Days of 'Marriage' - Set-Up Suspected
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/jul/04072102.html
Canadian Women World's First Same-Sex Couple to be Granted a "Divorce"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/sep/04091405.html
B.C. Grants First Gay “Divorce” – Activist Judge Rewrites Law to Accommodate “Divorce”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jun/05061603.html
The Competing Social and Political Philosophies Regarding Same-Sex Unions
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2003/jul/030711b.html
The Case against Same-Sex Marriage
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/feb/040223a.html

 Back to Top   |   Send Letter to Editor

---

US Archbishop Candid About Islamic Persecution of Christians

By Gudrun Schultz

WASHINGTON, DC, United States, December 16, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Archbishop Charles Chaput, of the diocese of Denver, broke free from politically correct restrictions to speak openly about growing Moslem persecution of Christians, in an address to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, of which he is a member.

“Anti-Christian discrimination and violence seem to be growing throughout the Islamic world,” said Archbishop Chaput. “In the past several years, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and even Moslem-controlled areas of the heavily Catholic Philippines have all seen extraordinary acts of bloodshed against Christians.”

The Archbishop expressed his concern over consistent lack of media attention given to acts of violence against Christians.

“Three things distinguish anti-Christian persecution and discrimination around the world. First, it’s ugly. Second, it’s growing. And third, the mass media generally ignore or downplay its gravity.”

Archbishop Chaput referred to media coverage of recent bloody persecution in Indonesia of the Christian minority, by Moslem extremists, as an example of media inaccuracy and neglect.

“News reports tend to describe Indonesia’s violence as generically “sectarian,” as if Moslem and Christian extremists were mutually responsible. This is troubling and flatly false,” said Archbishop Chaput. “The bloodshed is overwhelmingly provoked and carried out by Islamic militants against the Christian minority. Over the past decade, hundreds of thousands of persons have been displaced and thousands killed in this anti-Christian campaign of violence.”

The attacks referred to by the Archbishop included the beheading of three Christian teen-age girls in late October by Moslem extremists, on the island of Sulawesi, Indonesia.

The Archbishop ended his address with a warning that localized acts of violence against Christians by extremists threaten relationships between Christians and Muslims worldwide, “something neither community of faith can afford.”

 Back to Top   |   Send Letter to Editor

---

SHARE THIS PAGE: E-mail  Print

---

---

MORE NEWS: LifeSiteNews.com Home Page  Last 10 Days   Archives   Special Reports

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.