Featured Image
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, ,

100+ ‘moderate’ Republicans back pro-abort Democrat over pro-life stalwart in Kansas gov. race

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

One of the nation's most pro-life governors is facing growing opposition from his own party -- and some of that opposition has backed a pro-abortion candidate to replace him.

More than 100 self-described “moderate Republicans” have thrown their support behind a pro-abortion Democrat against an embattled pro-life Republican Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas, saying economic matters are of greater importance than abortion.

The 100 Republicans have endorsed Paul Davis, a supporter of abortion and the top Democrat in the state House. Critics have focused their ire on what they say is an irresponsible approach to the state budget -- Brownback's tax cuts are being blamed for revenues that are $300 million below projections -- as well as education budget cuts.

Brownback has a record of pro-life support going back more than a decade.

As Senator, Brownback supported overturning Roe v. Wade, and stood against taxpayer funding for abortion. In 2007, he voted in favor of an amendment that would have prevented federal grants from going to most organizations that conduct abortions for reasons other than to save the life of the mother.

During a brief campaign for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, Brownback accused candidate Mitt Romney of being soft on the issue of abortion.

Since entering the governor's office in January 2011, Brownback has worked to make Kansas the first state to defund Planned Parenthood, and has passed numerous other abortion restrictions. Among these restrictions are two that were signed just months after he entered the governor's mansion: A bill that limited abortions after 22 weeks' gestation because of fetal pain, and another that required consent from both parents before a minor could have an abortion. He also compared abortion to slavery in his 2014 “State of the State” address.

Davis, on the other hand, has a record of supporting pro-abortion legislation as a member of the State House. In 2007, he opposed a measure that would have made it a crime to harm an unborn child under certain circumstances, and defined an unborn child as a human from the point of conception. According to Vote Smart, the pro-life legislation passed the House with such overwhelming support that it was eventually signed by then-governor Kathleen Sebelius, a supporter of abortion.

Sebelius, who was the Obama cabinet secretary responsible for implementing the HHS Mandate of the Affordable Care Act, has joined Davis at least once on the campaign trail. Sebelius is a prominent Catholic supporter of abortion whose bishop has banned her from receiving Communion. As governor, Sebelius was closely associated with scandal related to abortion clinics in her state, and she vetoed a bill that would have limited late-term abortions in Kansas.

Davis also appears to disagree with Brownback on marriage. While the incumbent is a public supporter of marriage, Davis has been at odds with marriage groups in the past, such as when he voted against a bill earlier this year that would protect religious freedom by individuals, groups, and businesses. That bill passed the House, but was held up in the Senate. Brownback supported a similar bill in 2012.

Governor Brownback “has been the real deal, working to advance both economic and social conservatism,” Family Research Council Vice President of Government Affairs David Christensen told LifeSiteNews. “A number of the Republicans in Kansas attacking the governor are Republican-In-Name-Only, and it would be a huge mistake for the GOP to ignore the factually real strides made on behalf of tax cuts, increased numbers of jobs, and increased funding of education, as well as the advances made on social issues.”

“One example is Governor Brownback’s leadership in creating the Midwest Stem Cell Therapy Center, a serious model for governors across the country to copy,” Christensen said. “It promotes ethical ways to advance science and produce treatments for Americans suffering from so many diseases, and is already treating patients for serious conditions.”

Brownback's troubles with other Republicans can be traced at least as far back as mid-2012. At the time, fiscally and socially conservative groups helped oust several moderate Republicans, which led to the tax and pro-life policies enacted in 2012 and afterward. However, the budget deficit combined with a bond rating drop by Moody's Investors Service left critics outraged.

Jim Yonally, chairman of the anti-Brownback group Traditional Republicans for Common Sense, told LifeSiteNews his group is made up of “former legislators or state party officials.” He told LifeSiteNews that while the organization has not endorsed Davis, “many of our members, as individuals, have.

“As for the topic of abortion, we have never discussed it,” said Yonally.

“It's not that we don't care about abortion. It's just that we think there are more pressing issues in Kansas,” he said, citing “a fair tax system,” educational funding, and the political appointment process as “our major challenges.”

Wint Winters of Republicans for Kansas Values, which is also publicly critical of Brownback, told LifeSiteNews that “the issue of pro-life or pro-choice is not really a defining issue for Kansans.” He said that there are 10 issues as to why his group stands with Davis, and “none of them relate to abortion.”

“The abortion issue is important to the people of Kansas, and to certain members of our group, but that's not what brought this group together. What brought this group together is concern about taxes and the budget,” he said.

Most of the 100 backers are no longer elected officials, including some have been ousted since Brownback entered office. Kansas.com reports that the Executive Director of the GOP in Kansas, Clay Barker, called the support for Davis “sour grapes.”

A Rasmussen poll conducted last week showed Davis leading Brownback by 10 points, with support from 30 percent of Republicans and 20 percent of self-described conservatives. The race has been categorized as “Safe Democrat” by Rasmussen.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Brownback supporters note that the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee shows that as of June 2014, Kansas' unemployment rate was 4.9 percent, well below the national average of 6.1 percent that month. But critics such as the editorial board of the The Kansas City Star, point to how Kansas' job growth has been poor compared to other states. 

Just $5 for PRO-LIFE?

If each person who read this donated just $5, LifeSite would surpass our critical fall campaign goal. Please, donate today!


Advertisement
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

Sandra Cano, ‘Mary Doe’ of Doe v. Bolton, RIP

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson
Image

Sandra Cano, the woman whose divorce custody case morphed into a Supreme Court decision extending the “constitutional right” to an abortion throughout all nine months of pregnacy, has passed away of natural causes.

Cano was “Mary Doe” of Doe v. Bolton, the other case settled by the High Court on January 22, 1973. In 1970, at 22, Cano saw an attorney to divorce her husband – who had a troubled legal history – and regain custody of her children. The Georgia resident was nine weeks pregnant with her fourth child at the time.

Cano said once the attorney from Legal Aid, Margie Pitts Hames, deceptively twisted her desire to stay with her children into a legal crusade that has resulted in 56 million children being aborted.

“I was a trusting person and did not read the papers put in front of me by my lawyer,” Cano said in a sworn affidavit in 2003. “I did not even suspect that the papers related to abortion until one afternoon when my mother and my lawyer told me that my suitcase was packed to go to a hospital, and that they had scheduled an abortion for the next day.”

Cano was so disgusted by the prospect that she fled the state.

Yet the legal case went on, winding up before the Supreme Court the same day as Roe v. Wade. The same 7-2 majority agreed to Roe, which struck down state regulations on abortions before viability, and Doe, which allowed abortions until the moment of birth on the grounds of maternal “health” – a definition so broad that any abortion could be justified.

All the justices except Byron White and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed that “physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age” are all “factors [that] may relate to [maternal] health.”

“I was nothing but a symbol in Doe v. Bolton with my experience and circumstances discounted and misrepresented,” Cano said in 2003.

Two years later, she told a Senate subcommittee, “Using my name and life, Doe v. Bolton falsely created the health exception that led to abortion on demand and partial birth abortion... I only sought legal assistance to get a divorce from my husband and to get my children from foster care. I was very vulnerable: poor and pregnant with my fourth child, but abortion never crossed my mind.”

On the 30th anniversary of the case, she asked the Supreme Court justices to revisit the ruling that bears her pseudonym, but they denied her request. “I felt responsible for the experiences to which the mothers and babies were being subjected. In a way, I felt that I was involved in the abortions – that I was somehow responsible for the lives of the children and the horrible experiences of their mothers,” she explained.

By that time, both Cano and Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, opposed abortion and implored the Supreme Court to overturn the rulings made in their names. Both also said their pro-abortion attorneys had misrepresented or lied about their circumstances to make abortion-on-demand more sympathetic.

"I pledge that as long as I have breath, I will strive to see abortion ended in America,” Cano said in 1997.

Priests for Life announced last week that Cano was in a hospital in the Atlanta area, in critical condition with throat cancer, blood sepsis, and congestive heart failure.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

“My heart is broken that Sandra will never witness an end to abortion,” Janet Morana said. “She never wanted to have an abortion. She never had an abortion, and she certainly never wanted to be a part of the Supreme Court decision, Doe v. Bolton, that opened the gates for legal abortion at any time during pregnancy and for any reason.”

“Sandra’s work to overturn that devastating decision that was based on lies will not end with her death,” Fr. Frank Pavone said. “When life ultimately triumphs over death, Sandra will share in that victory.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
We don’t kill problems anymore. We kill people, and pretend that it is the same thing.
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

First we killed our unborn children. Now we’re killing our own parents.

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

In a culture that elevates transient pleasure as a “value,” while reducing “value” itself to a subjective and utilitarian status, I suppose it should not be surprising that the worth of human beings is now constantly in question.

We once lived in a culture that drafted laws to protect “dependents”: the very young, the very old, and the disabled. This was done in recognition of the fact that a human being’s increased vulnerability correspondingly heightens our moral responsibility to that human being.

Now, however, the exit strategists of the Sexual Revolution are burning the candle at both ends - abortion for children in the womb, euthanasia and “assisted suicide” for the old. Both children and elderly parents, you see, can be costly and time-consuming.

We don’t kill problems anymore. We kill people, and pretend that it is the same thing.

I noted some time ago that the concept of “dying with dignity” is rapidly becoming “killing with impunity,” as our culture finds all sorts of excuses to assist “inconvenient” people in leaving Planet Earth.

There is a similarity to abortion, here, too—our technologically advanced culture is no longer looking for compassionate and ethical solutions to the complex, tragic, and often heartbreaking circumstances. Instead, we offer the solution that Darkness always has: Death. Disability, dependence, difficult life circumstances: a suction aspirator, a lethal injection, a bloody set of forceps. And the “problem,” as it were, is solved.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

We don’t kill problems anymore. We kill people, and pretend that it is the same thing.

There is something chilling about the intimacy of these killings. As Gregg Cunningham noted, “Ours is the first generation that, having demanded the right to kill its children through elective abortion, is now demanding the right to kill its parents through doctor-assisted suicide.” The closest of human relationships are rupturing under the sheer weight of the selfishness and narcissism of the Me Generation.

The great poet Dylan Thomas is famous for urging his dying father to fight on, to keep breathing, to live longer:

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Such sentiment is not present among the advocates of euthanasia. In fact, the tagline “dying with dignity” is starting to very much sound like, “Now don’t make a fuss, off with you now.” Consider this story in The Daily Mail from a few days ago:

An elderly husband and wife have announced their plans to die in the world's first 'couple' euthanasia - despite neither of them being terminally ill.

Instead the pair fear loneliness if the other one dies first from natural causes.

Identified only by their first names, Francis, 89, and Anne, 86, they have the support of their three adult children who say they would be unable to care for either parent if they became widowed.

The children have even gone so far as to find a practitioner willing to carry out the double killings on the grounds that the couple's mental anguish constituted the unbearable suffering needed to legally justify euthanasia.

… The couple's daughter has remarked that her parents are talking about their deaths as eagerly as if they were planning a holiday.

John Paul [their son] said the double euthanasia of his parents was the 'best solution'.

'If one of them should die, who would remain would be so sad and totally dependent on us,' he said. 'It would be impossible for us to come here every day, take care of our father or our mother.'

I wonder why no one considers the fact that the reason some elderly parents may experience “mental anguish” is that they have come to the sickening realization that their grown children would rather find an executioner to dispatch them than take on the responsibility of caring for their parents. Imagine the thoughts of a mother realizing that the child she fed and rocked to sleep, played with and sang to, would rather have her killed than care for her: that their relationship really does have a price.

This is why some scenes in the HBO euthanasia documentary How To Die In Oregon are so chilling. In one scene, an elderly father explains to the interviewer why he has procured death drugs that he plans to take in case of severe health problems. “I don’t want to be a burden,” he explains while his adult daughter nods approvingly, “It’s the decent thing to do. For once in my life I’ll do something decent.”

No argument from the daughter.

If we decide in North America to embrace euthanasia and “assisted suicide,” we will not be able to unring this bell. Just as with abortion and other manifestations of the Culture of Death, the Sexual Revolutionaries work hard to use heart-rending and emotional outlier examples to drive us to, once again, legislate from the exception.

But for once, we have to start asking ourselves if we really want to further enable our medical community to kill rather than heal. We have to ask ourselves if the easy option of dispatching “burdensome” people will not impact our incentive to advance in palliative care. And we have to stop simply asking how someone in severe pain might respond to such a legal “service,” and start asking how greedy children watching “their” inheritance going towards taking proper care of their parents.

And to the pro-life movement, those fighting to hold back the forces of the Culture of Death—the words of Dylan Thomas have a message for us, too.

Do not go gentle into that good night…
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

Advertisement
Featured Image
Luka Magnotta http://luka-magnotta.com
Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

,

Gay porn star admits dismembering ex-lover and molesting his corpse on film

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski

Montreal gay porn actor Luka Magnotta admits killing and dismembering his ex-lover and molesting his corpse on film, but pled not guilty on Monday to all five charges filed against him.

Magnotta shocked the world in June 2012 by allegedly killing and cannibalizing a 33-year-old university student from China, Jun Lin, then posting a video of his actions and the results online. He later hid some of the dismembered parts in the garbage, but also mailed parcels containing body parts to political offices in Ottawa and schools in Vancouver.

He was charged with first-degree murder, committing an indignity to a body, publishing obscene material, mailing obscene and indecent material, and criminally harassing Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other MPs.

Magnotta's lawyer Luc Leclair is basing the not guilty plea on the defendant having a history of mental illness, thus making him not criminally responsible.

Crown prosecutor Louis Bouthillier said he intends to prove that Magnotta planned the alleged murder well before it was committed.

"He admits the acts or the conducts underlying the crime for which he is charged. Your task will be to determine whether he committed the five offences with the required state of mind for each offence," Quebec Superior Court Justice Guy Cournoyer instructed the jury, according to media reports.

However, some authorities have pointed out that Magnotta’s behavior follows a newly discernible trend of an out-of-control sexual deviancy fueled by violent pornography.

Click "like" if you  say NO to porn!

Dr. Judith Reisman, an internationally-recognized expert on pornography and sexuality, told LifeSiteNews in 2012 she believes Magnotta’s behavior “reflects years of brain imprinting by pornography.”

“His homosexual cannibalism links sex arousal with shame, hate and sadism,” said Reisman. Although cannibalism is not as common as simple rape, she added, “serial rape, murder, torture of adults and even of children is an inevitable result of our ‘new brains,’ increasingly rewired by our out-of-control sexually exploitive and sadistic mass media and the Internet.”

In their 2010 book “Online Killers,” criminology researchers Christopher Berry-Dee and Steven Morris said research has shown “there are an estimated 10,000 cannibal websites, with millions ... who sit for hours and hours in front of their computer screens, fantasizing about eating someone.” 

This underworld came to light in a shocking case in Germany in 2003, when Armin Meiwes was tried for killing his homosexual lover Bernd Jürgen Brandes, a voluntary fetish victim whom Meiwes picked up through an Internet forum ad seeking “a well-built 18- to 30-year-old to be slaughtered and then consumed.”

After the warrant was issued for his arrest, Magnotta was the target of an international manhunt for several days until he was arrested in Berlin, where police say he was found looking at online pornography alongside news articles about himself at an Internet café.

The trial is expected to continue to mid-November, with several dozen witnesses being called to testify before the jury of six men and eight women.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook