The Editors

An open letter to the students of St. Peter’s Catholic High school

The Editors
The Editors

“The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts—a child—as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience.”
        - Mother Teresa

Dear students,

Many of you have come to our website in the last few days to write comments defending your civics teacher, Mr. Searle, and to vent your frustration about the cancellation of this week’s trip to Ohio.

Firstly, it’s worth observing that at no point did LifeSiteNews.com call for the trip to be cancelled. It is unfortunate that one misguided decision to include a strong partisan element has scuttled what otherwise may have been a memorable educational experience. And secondly, we have never questioned Mr. Searle’s teaching abilities or character. Your comments have made it abundantly clear that Mr. Searle is a charismatic and well-liked teacher.

Quite simply, the controversy over this trip is about whether students at a Catholic high school should be travelling to support Barack Obama, the most extreme pro-abortion President in American history: the same President who has been strongly condemned by the country’s Catholic bishops for attacking freedoms of conscience and religion, especially those of Catholics.

When we first reported on the trip, we spoke to one mother who expressed concerns that Obama is pro-abortion. However, many of you have dismissed this mother’s concerns, arguing that the president’s views on this issue are irrelevant and that the purpose of the trip was not to “support abortion.” Some of you have even made the claim that one can be both Catholic and “pro-choice.” We can understand how you might have come to those views. But we regret that your Catholic schools have failed in their duty to equip you with the truth about abortion – the greatest civil rights issue facing our generation.

The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is murder. It does so not based upon some abstract theological argument, but rather on the basis of modern science, which demonstrates conclusively that human life begins at the moment of conception, and that from conception forward life is simply an ongoing process of development.

The greatest threat to “abortion rights” today is not the pro-life movement, but the widespread availability of the ultrasound, which has opened a window into the womb, exposing the undeniable truth that the preborn child is as human as any of us – and therefore possesses the basic human right not to be killed. Is it any wonder, then, that abortionists have gone to great lengths to make sure mothers do not see an ultrasound image of their child before undergoing an abortion?

Every year in Canada some 100,000 unborn children are killed through abortion. In the United States, the number is much higher. If indeed abortion is murder, then there is no more pressing issue facing us today, because no other issue involves such a massive loss of innocent human life.

As well, we must consider the welfare of the mothers of these babies, who are often pressured into abortions by unsympathetic boyfriends and husbands, and who are often traumatized as a result. Many fathers, too, have been negatively affected by abortion, especially in the heart-breaking circumstance when they have wished to keep and care for their child.

While Mr. Searle is a popular civics teacher, we humbly submit that he has failed in one important duty as a civics teacher at a Catholic school if he has not informed you about Mr. Obama’s positions on critical moral issues such as abortion.

Here are a few key facts that you should know about the sitting U.S. president:

→ Mr. Obama voted three times while a senator in the Illinois senate against a bill that would have protected babies born alive after failed abortions from being abandoned and left to die. The bill was introduced after a nurse at an Illinois hospital witnessed living babies being taken to a utility room in the hospital, and then left on a table to die. Obama expressed concerns that supporting the bill would somehow restrict legal abortion. However, even after an amendment was introduced to the bill, explicitly stating that the bill would in no way affect abortion rights, he still voted against it, effectively voting to protect infanticide. It may sound too horrific to be true, but unfortunately, it is. You can find out more here. A later federal version of the bill was passed with the overwhelming bi-partisan support of Republicans and Democrats – putting President Obama on the extreme fringe even of his officially pro-abortion party.

→ Mr. Obama opposed a federal ban on the so-called “partial-birth abortion” procedure. In a partial-birth abortion, a fully-formed baby is mostly born, with only his head still remaining in his mother’s birth canal. Scissors are then used to puncture a hole in the back of the skull, into which a suction device is inserted, which vacuums out the baby’s brains, killing the baby. The skull is then crushed and the body of the baby is removed and discarded. Even though numerous medical organizations testified that there is no conceivable medical reason for a partial-birth abortion, Obama opposed the legislation, saying it should include “exceptions” for the health of the mother.

→ Mr. Obama has also expressed support for so-called “late-term” abortions, in which fully-formed, living babies into the third trimester of pregnancy are literally ripped apart, limb-by-limb. You can read one former abortionist’s description of this process here. Be warned, the descriptions are gruesome, graphic, and heart-rending.

→ Recently top Obama aides were asked to name any abortion restrictions that the president supports. They could not think of a single one.

→ Earlier this year the Obama administration issued a new rule that requires nearly all employers to provide contraception, sterilizations and drugs that can cause early abortions to their employees free of charge. All of these things violate Catholic moral teaching. Since then, dozens of Catholic employers have sued the Obama administration. The U.S. bishops have strongly spoken out against the rule, calling it an unprecedented attack on freedom of religion in the United States. Despite the massive backlash from Catholics, Obama has continued to defend the rule, and refused to consider allowing those who object on moral grounds to opt out.

→ On his very first day in office, President Obama rescinded a rule called the Mexico City Policy, which forbade U.S. foreign aid money from going to groups that promote or perform abortions.

This is really only the tip of the iceberg of Mr. Obama’s abortion activism. During the current presidential campaign, the president has made abortion rights a central element of his platform, mentioning his support for abortion and the country’s #1 abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, wherever he goes.

In short, it is not possible to argue that Mr. Obama’s abortion support is simply one among many issues the president supports. It is an issue of life and death for millions of unborn babies, whose only crime was being conceived. One can try to argue that it’s ok to support a pro-abortion candidate despite his support for abortion (the Catholic Church would disagree), but certainly it is impossible for any voter or political activists with a moral conscience to simply ignore the issue as inconsequential.

As Pope Benedict said in 2006, abortion is “today’s gravest injustice.”

There are other issues as well that should be of grave concern to Catholics or any voter of good will, including Mr. Obama’s support for embryonic stem cell research, which exploits human life at its earliest stages, as well as his support for same-sex ‘marriage.’ Any discussion about political candidates in a Catholic school should include an analysis of the candidates’ stance on these issues.

We sincerely hope that Mr. Searle and other teachers at your school will renew their dedication to the school’s mission to impart an authentically Christian worldview to their students, equipping you to make a positive difference in a world that is all too hostile to the fundamental values of life, family, faith and freedom. And certainly we encourage you, students at a Catholic school, to spend some time researching the truth about abortion and other key moral issues.

Sincerely,
The LifeSiteNews.com team


Advertisement
Featured Image
A Nazi extermination camp. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

Imagine the outrage if anti-Semites were crowdsourcing for gas chambers

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski
Image
A Nazi oven where the gassed victims were destroyed by fire. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Empty canisters of the poison used by Nazis to exterminate the prisoners. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Syringe for Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion AbortionInstruments.com
Image
Uterine Currette AbortionInstruments.com
Image

Imagine the outrage if the Nazis had used online crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment used to eradicate Jews, gypsies, the handicapped, and other population groups — labeled “undesirable” — in their large industrialized World War II extermination facilities. 

Imagine if they posted a plea online stating: “We need to raise $85,000 to buy Zyklon B gas, to maintain the gas chambers, and to provide a full range of services to complete the ‘final solution.’”

People would be more than outraged. They would be sickened, disgusted, horrified. Humanitarian organizations would fly into high gear to do everything in their power to stop what everyone would agree was madness. Governments would issue the strongest condemnations.

Civilized persons would agree: No class of persons should ever be targeted for extermination, no matter what the reason. Everyone would tear the euphemistic language of “final solution” to shreds, knowing that it really means the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction. 

But crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment to exterminate human beings is exactly what one group in New Brunswick is doing.

Reproductive Justice NB has just finished raising more than $100,000 to lease the Morgentaler abortion facility in Fredericton, NB, which is about to close over finances. They’re now asking the public for “support and enthusiasm” to move forward with what they call “phase 2” of their goal.

“For a further $85,000 we can potentially buy all the equipment currently located at the clinic; equipment that is required to provide a full range of reproductive health services,” the group states on its Facebook page.

But what are the instruments and equipment used in a surgical abortion to destroy the pre-born child? It depends how old the child is. 

A Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion uses a syringe-like instrument that creates suction to break apart and suck the baby up. It’s used to abort a child from 6 weeks to 12 weeks of age. Abortionist Martin Haskell has said the baby’s heart is often still beating as it’s sucked down the tube into the collection jar.

For older babies up to 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Curettage (D&C) abortion method. A Uterine Currette has one sharp side for cutting the pre-born child into pieces. The other side is used to scrape the uterus to remove the placenta. The baby’s remains are often removed by a vacuum.

For babies past 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) abortion method, which uses forceps to crush, grasp, and pull the baby’s body apart before extraction. If the baby’s head is too large, it must be crushed before it can be removed.

For babies past 20 weeks, there is the Dilation and Extraction (D&X) abortion method. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist uses forceps to partially deliver the baby until his or her head becomes visible. With the head often too big to pass through the cervix, the abortionist punctures the skull, sucks out the brains to collapse the skull, and delivers the dead baby.

Other equipment employed to kill the pre-born would include chemicals such as Methotrexate, Misoprostol, and saline injections. Standard office equipment would include such items as a gynecologist chair, oxygen equipment, and a heart monitor.

“It’s a bargain we don’t want to miss but we need your help,” writes the abortion group.

People should be absolutely outraged that a group is raising funds to purchase the instruments of death used to destroy a class of people called the pre-born. Citizens and human rights activists should be demanding the organizers be brought to justice. Politicians should be issuing condemnations with the most hard-hitting language.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Everyone should be tearing to shreds the euphemistic language of “reproductive health services,” knowing that it in part stands for the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction that include dismemberment, decapitation, and disembowelment.

There’s a saying about people not being able to perceive the error of their day. This was generally true of many in Hitler’s Germany who uncritically subscribed to his eugenics-driven ideology in which certain people were viewed as sub-human. And it’s generally true of many in Canada today who uncritically subscribe to the ideology of ‘choice’ in which the pre-born are viewed as sub-human.

It’s time for all of us to wake-up and see the youngest members of the human family are being brutally exterminated by abortion. They need our help. We must stand up for them and end this injustice.

Let us arise!


Advertisement
Paul Wilson

The antidote to coercive population control

Paul Wilson
By Paul Wilson

The primary tenet of population control is simple: using contraception and abortifacients, families can “control” when their reproductive systems work and when they don’t – hence the endless cries that women “should have control over their own bodies” in the name of reproductive health.

However, in much of the world, the glittering rhetoric of fertility control gives way to the reality of control of the poorest citizens by their governments or large corporations. Governments and foreign aid organizations routinely foist contraception on women in developing countries. In many cases, any pretense of consent is steamrolled – men and women are forcibly sterilized by governments seeking to thin their citizens’ numbers.  (And this “helping women achieve their ‘ideal family size’” only goes one way – there is no government support for families that actually want more children.)

In countries where medical conditions are subpar and standards of care and oversight are low, the contraceptive chemicals population control proponents push have a plethora of nasty side effects – including permanent sterilization. So much for control over fertility; more accurately, the goal appears to be the elimination of fertility altogether.

There is a method for regulating fertility that doesn’t involve chemicals, cannot be co-opted or manipulated, and requires the mutual consent of the partners in order to work effectively. This method is Natural Family Planning (NFP).

Natural Family Planning is a method in which a woman tracks her natural indicators (such as her period, her temperature, cervical mucus, etc.) to identify when she is fertile. Having identified fertile days, couples can then choose whether or not to have sex during those days--abstaining if they wish to postpone pregnancy, or engaging in sex if pregnancy is desired.

Of course, the population control crowd, fixated on forcing the West’s vision of limitless bacchanalia through protective rubber and magical chemicals upon the rest of the world, loathes NFP. They deliberately confuse NFP with the older “rhythm method,” and cite statistics from the media’s favorite “research institute” (the Guttmacher Institute, named for a former director of Planned Parenthood) claiming that NFP has a 25% failure rate with “typical use.” Even the World Health Organization, in their several hundred page publication, “Family Planning: A Global Handbook for Providers,” admits that the basal body temperature method (a natural method) has a less than 1% failure rate—a success rate much higher than male condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps or spermicides.

Ironically, the methods which they ignore – natural methods – grant true control over one’s fertility – helping couples both to avoid pregnancy or (horror of horrors!) to have children, with no government intervention required and no choices infringed upon.

The legitimacy of natural methods blows the cover on population controllers’ pretext to help women. Instead, it reveals their push for contraceptives and sterilizations for what they are—an attempt to control the fertility of others. 

Reprinted with permission from the Population Research Institute.


Advertisement
Featured Image
United Nations headquarters in New York Shutterstock.com
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

New development goals shut out abortion rights

Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
By Rebecca Oas Ph.D.

Co-authored by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

A two week marathon negotiation over the world’s development priorities through 2030 ended at U.N. headquarters on Saturday with abortion rights shut out once again.

When the co-chairs’ gavel finally fell Saturday afternoon to signal the adoption of a new set of development goals, delegates broke out in applause. The applause was more a sigh of relief that a final round of negotiations lasting twenty-eight hours had come to its end than a sign of approval for the new goals.

Last-minute changes and blanket assurances ushered the way for the chairman to present his version of the document delivered with an implicit “take it or leave it.”

Aside from familiar divisions between poor and wealthy countries, the proposed development agenda that delegates have mulled over for nearly two years remains unwieldy and unmarketable, with 17 goals and 169 targets on everything from ending poverty and hunger, to universal health coverage, economic development, and climate change.

Once again hotly contested social issues were responsible for keeping delegates up all night. The outcome was a compromise.

Abortion advocates were perhaps the most frustrated. They engaged in a multi-year lobbying campaign for new terminology to advance abortion rights, with little to show for their efforts. The new term “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” which has been associated with abortion on demand, as well as special new rights for individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual (LGBT), did not get traction, even with 58 countries expressing support.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Despite this notable omission, countries with laws protecting unborn children were disappointed at the continued use of the term “reproductive rights,” which is not in the Rio+20 agreement from 2012 that called for the new goals. The term is seen as inappropriate in an agenda about outcomes and results rather than normative changes on sensitive subjects.

Even so, “reproductive rights” is tempered by a reference to the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, which recognizes that abortion is a matter to be dealt with in national legislation. It generally casts abortion in a bad light and does not recognize it as a right. The new terminology that failed was an attempt to leave the 1994 agreement behind in order to reframe abortion as a human rights issue.

Sexual and reproductive health was one of a handful of subjects that held up agreement in the final hours of negotiations. The failure to get the new terminology in the goals prompted the United States and European countries to insist on having a second target about sexual and reproductive health. They also failed to include “comprehensive sexuality education” in the goals because of concerns over sex education programs that emphasize risk reduction rather than risk avoidance.

The same countries failed to delete the only reference to “the family” in the whole document. Unable to insert any direct reference to LGBT rights at the United Nations, they are concentrating their efforts on diluting or eliminating the longstanding U.N. definition of the family. They argue “the family” is a “monolithic” term that excludes other households. Delegates from Mexico, Colombia and Peru, supporters of LGBT rights, asked that the only reference to the family be “suppressed.”

The proposed goals are not the final word on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They will be submitted to the General Assembly, whose task is to elaborate a post-2015 development agenda to replace the Millennium Development Goals next year.

Reprinted with permission from C-FAM.org.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook