Rita Diller

Planned Parenthood’s war on the family

Rita Diller
By Rita Diller
Image

September 5, 2012 (Stopp.org) - Behind Planned Parenthood’s favorite slogan, “Every child a wanted child,” is a sinister agenda that strikes with deadly force at the child—the very heart of the family.

The late 1960s was a time when our brothers and best friends were disappearing from our ranks as they headed to Vietnam. Many never came back; others were forever horribly wounded—physically, spiritually, and emotionally. The war was front and center in the news every day, and we watched the horrors of war live and in color on our televisions.

At the same time, another war was coming to a head—a war that was hidden behind smoke and mirrors. It was a war that had been brewing like a deadly potion in a witch’s cauldron for decades; it was a war that would disfigure and seek to kill our families and our nation from within—and most of us never saw it coming.

It was a war that would backfire in the face of the women who championed it and who were supposed to benefit from it. In reality, it was a war on the smallest and the weakest in society, a war on morality and a war on the very backbone of society—the family.

It eventually became known as the sexual revolution.

And its most successful weapon looked so small, so innocent, so helpful. The sexual revolution was indeed catapulted into its heyday by a tiny pill.

One woman was front and center in developing and promoting that pill, setting the sexual revolution in motion. That woman was eugenicist and immorality expert extraordinaire, Margaret Sanger—the foundress of Planned Parenthood. Sanger practiced what she preached. She kept a husband and assorted lovers on the line simultaneously, and left her children with “anybody handy,” according to her son, Grant, while she gallivanted around the world promoting her sinister agenda.

Her war on morality and the family would eventually claim among its victories a supposed right for women’s autonomy over their “own” bodies, to the exclusion of the welfare of the new lives they were entrusted with by God. It was a war that pitted mothers against their own children in a battle to the death.

As Mary Eberstadt writes in her book Adam and Eve After the Pill:

A series of popes, some of the world’s leading scientists, and many other unlikely allies all agree: No single event since Eve took the apple has been as consequential for relations between the sexes as the arrival of modern contraception.

Modern contraception is not only a fact of our time; it may even be the central fact—in that it is hard to think of any other whose demographic, social behavior, and personal fallout has been as profound.

Today, the rotten fruit of the pill and the “sexual revolution” it propelled is all around us, as predicted by the Vicar of Christ himself.

In 1968, Pope Paul VI warned in his encyclical Humanae Vitae that widespread acceptance of contraception would result in dire consequences.

Dr. Janet Smith sums up Paul VI’s predictions about the consequences of contraception:

1. Infidelity and moral decline.

2. Lost respect for women. ”[T]he man” will lose respect for “the woman” and “no longer (care) for her physical and psychological equilibrium” and will come to “the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.”

3. Abuse of power: “Paul VI also observed that the widespread acceptance of contraception would place a ‘dangerous weapon… in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies.’

4. Unlimited dominion: The idea of unlimited control over one’s body.

We find ourselves 44 years later in the midst of a society that has lost its moral bearings. Many young women today find that men, in general, are no longer interested in marriage, but are looking for a one-time sexual hookup, a “friend with [sexual] benefits” or, at the very most, a live-in lover. Birth control is expected, and is left up to the woman. When the birth control fails—as it does in the case of half of unintended pregnancies—the woman finds herself being shoved into a Planned Parenthood abortion facility, or often goes there herself to allay desertion by the one who should be protecting both her and their child. When she refuses to do so, she is often left to raise the child alone.

Sexual immorality, spurred on by the pill, is very bad news indeed for families. In 1960, when the pill came on the market, 5.3 percent of births were to unmarried women. In 2010, more than 41 percent of children were born to unmarried women. Among black, non-Hispanic women, that rate soared to 73 percent.

Meanwhile, the number of divorced people increased by 345 percent between 1960 and 1992.

The number of unmarried women of childbearing age who are cohabiting skyrocketed from 439,000 in 1960 to 5.5 million in 2000—an astounding 1,150 percent increase in 40 years. In 2008, there were 6.8 million cohabiting opposite-sex adult couples.

The children of single mothers, overall, fare poorly compared to their peers who have both mother and father intricately involved in their lives. They are more likely to live in poverty, more likely to have problems with the law, and more likely as young adults to be unemployed and less likely to attain higher education.

Planned Parenthood lies when it says it represents the best interests of women and children. In reality, it is a social engineering machine that is intent on destroying the traditional family. Planned Parenthood is the orchestrator of a massive war on families—a war in which we all come out on the losing end.

Now it joins hands with the government to hold hostage Catholics and others who object to contraceptives, sterilization, and abortive drugs, playing the bully that will force us to violate our consciences or to pay huge fines and lose our businesses for daring to object to its mandate.

Visit our website, www.thepillkills.com, for more information on the perils of the pill, and visit our page on Facebook.

To paraphrase St. Pio of Pietrelcina (Padre Pio), contraception is not just homicide; it is also suicide. It is time we heed the words of the popes, saints, and scientists who forewarned us of the monstrosity that is the pill, and join with one mind and heart to overcome the stranglehold of contraception on our nation while working to stop its advance worldwide. St. Pio, please pray for us.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Quebec groups launch court challenge to euthanasia bill

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

As announced when the Quebec legislature adopted Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care, the citizen movement Living with Dignity and the Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia, representing together over 650 physicians and 17,000 citizens, filed a lawsuit before the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Montreal on Thursday.

The lawsuit requests that the Court declare invalid all the provisions of the Act that deal with “medical aid in dying”, a term the groups say is a euphemism for euthanasia. This Act not only allows certain patients to demand that a physician provoke their death, but also grants physicians the right to cause the death of these patients by the administration of a lethal substance.

The two organizations are challenging the constitutionality of those provisions in the Act which are aimed at decriminalizing euthanasia under the euphemism “medical aid in dying”. Euthanasia constitutes a culpable homicide under Canada’s Criminal Code, and the organizations maintain that it is at the core of the exclusive federal legislative power in relation to criminal law and Quebec therefore does not have the power to adopt these provisions.

The organizations also say the impugned provisions unjustifiably infringe the rights to life and to security of patients guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. They further infringe the right to the safeguard of the dignity of the person, which is also protected by the Quebec Charter.

In view of the gravity of the situation and the urgent need to protect all vulnerable persons in Quebec, they are requesting an accelerated management of the case in order to obtain a judgment before the Act is expected to come into force on December 10, 2015.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Colorado baker appeals gvmt ‘re-education’ order

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

A Colorado cake artist who declined to use his creative talents to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony appealed a May 30 order from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to the Colorado Court of Appeals Wednesday.

The commission’s order requires cake artist Jack Phillips and his staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop to create cakes for same-sex celebrations, forces him to re-educate his staff that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act means that artists must endorse all views, compels him to implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and requires him to file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years. The reports must include the number of patrons declined a wedding cake or any other product and state the reason for doing so to ensure he has fully eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.

“Americans should not be forced by the government – or by another citizen – to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said the cake artist’s lead counsel Nicolle Martin, an attorney allied with Alliance Defending Freedom. “This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it’s about the message the cake communicates. Just as Jack doesn’t create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn’t create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order.”

“In America, we don’t force artists to create expression that is contrary to their convictions,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “A paint artist who identifies as homosexual shouldn’t be intimidated into creating a painting that celebrates one-man, one-woman marriage. A pro-life photographer shouldn’t be forced to work a pro-abortion rally. And Christian cake artists shouldn’t be punished for declining to participate in a same-sex ceremony or promote its message.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. Craig and Mullins, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The case now goes to the Colorado Court of Appeals as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig.

“Jack, and other cake artists like him – such as those seen on TV shows like ‘Ace of Cakes’ and ‘Cake Boss’ – prepare unique creations that are inherently expressive,” Tedesco explained. “Jack invests many hours in the wedding cake creative process, which includes meeting the clients, designing and sketching the cake, and then baking, sculpting, and decorating it. The ACLU calls Jack a mere ‘retail service provider,’ but, in fact, he is an artist who uses his talents and abilities to create expression that the First Amendment fully protects."

Celebrity cake artists have written publicly about their art and the significant expressive work that goes into the artistic design process for wedding cakes.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Tony Gosgnach / LifeSiteNews.com
Tony Gosgnach

,

Prisoner of conscience Mary Wagner appeals her conviction

Tony Gosgnach
By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO -- As promised, Mary Wagner has, through her counsel Dr. Charles Lugosi, filed a formal notice of appeal on numerous points regarding her recent, almost two-year-long court case that ended on June 12.

Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice rejected every application made by the defence – including for access to abortion center records, public funding, standing for a constitutional challenge and for expert witnesses to be heard – before he found Wagner guilty and sentenced her to five months in jail on a charge of mischief and four months on four counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

He further levied two years of probation, with terms that she stay at least 100 metres away from any abortion site. However, because Wagner had spent a greater time in jail than the sentence, she was freed immediately. She had been arrested at the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site on Lawrence Avenue West in Toronto on August 15, 2012 after attempting to speak to abortion-bound women there. She then spent the duration of the trial in prison for refusing to sign bail conditions requiring her to stay away from abortion sites.

Wagner is using the matter as a test case to challenge the current definition of a human being in Canadian law – that is, that a human being is legally recognized as such only after he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal in a breathing state.

Wagner’s notice states the appeal is regarding:

  • Her conviction and sentence on a single count of mischief (interference with property),
  • Her conviction and sentence on four counts of breach of probation,
  • The order denying public funding,
  • The order denying the disclosure of third-party records,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts on the applicant’s constitutional challenge concerning the constitutional validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts concerning the construction of Section 37 of the Criminal Code,
  • The probation order denying Wagner her constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion on all public sidewalks and public areas within 100 metres of places where abortions are committed,
  • And each conviction and sentence and all orders and rulings made by O’Donnell.

In the notice of appeal, Lugosi cites numerous points on which O’Donnell erred:

  • He denied Wagner her constitutional right to make full answer and defence.
  • He denied Wagner her right to rely on Section 37 of the Criminal Code, which permits “everyone” to come to the third-party defence and rescue of any human being (in this case, the preborn) facing imminent assault.
  • He decided the factual basis of Wagner’s constitutional arguments was a waste of the court’s time and that no purpose would have been served by having an evidentiary hearing on her Charter application because, in the current state of Canadian law, it had no possibility of success.
  • He misapplied case law and prejudged the case, “giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and impeding the legal evolution of the law to adapt to new circumstances, knowledge and changed societal values and morals.”
  • He accepted the Crown’s submission that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to question the jurisdiction of Parliament legally to define “human being” in any manner Parliament sees fit.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code is not beyond the powers of Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code does not violate the Preamble to, as well as Sections 7, 11(d), 15 and 26, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • He denied Wagner standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code.
  • He ruled that Section 223 of the Criminal Code applied generally throughout the entire Criminal Code and used it to deny unborn human beings the benefit of equal protection as born human beings under Section 37 of the Criminal Code.
  • He denied the production and disclosure of third-party records in the possession of the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site, although the records were required to prove Wagner was justified in using reasonable force in the form of oral and written words to try to persuade pregnant mothers from killing their unborn children by abortion.
  • He denied Wagner the defence of Section 37 of the Criminal Code by ruling unborn children did not come within the scope of human beings eligible to be protected by a third party.
  • He ruled Wagner did not come within the scope of Section 37 because she was found to be non-violent (in that she did not use physical force).
  • He ruled the unborn children Wagner was trying to rescue were not under her protection.
  • He denied Wagner the common-law defences of necessity and the rescue of third parties in need of protection.
  • He denied Wagner public funding to make full answer and defence for a constitutional test case of great public importance and national significance.
  • He imposed an unconstitutional sentence upon Wagner by, in effect, imposing an injunction as a condition of probation, contrary to her constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Among the orders Lugosi is seeking are:

  • That an appeal be allowed against conviction on all counts and that a verdict of acquittal be entered on all counts,
  • That Section 223 of the Criminal Code be found unconstitutional  and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the unwritten constitution of Canada,
  • That the sentence be declared unconstitutional and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unwritten constitution of Canada or that a new trial be conducted, with Wagner permitted to make full answer and defence, be given standing to make a constitutional attack on Section 223 of the Criminal Code, with the admission of expert witnesses,
  • That the Women’s Care Clinic abortion site be made to produce third-party records pertaining to patients seen on August 15, 2012 (when Wagner entered the site),
  • And that there be public funding for two defence counsels at any retrial and for any appeal related to the case.

No date has yet been established for a decision on the appeal or hearings.

A defence fund for Wagner’s case is still raising money. Details on how to contribute to it can be found here.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook