All articles from January 16, 2015




  • Nothing is published in Blogs on January 16, 2015.


  • Nothing is published in Episodes on January 16, 2015.


  • Nothing is published in Video on January 16, 2015.

The Pulse


Judge mocks Bible in decision forcing Michigan to recognize 300 same-sex ‘marriages’

'What the state has joined together, it may not put asunder,' Judge Mark Goldsmith said Thursday.
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 7:08 pm EST
Featured Image
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

A U.S. District Judge mocked the Bible in a decision that validated 300 same-sex "marriages" that took place in Michigan last year.

"In these circumstances, what the state has joined together, it may not put asunder," said Judge Mark Goldsmith in his Thursday decision. The ruling came after nearly a year of uncertainty regarding same-sex couples who were "married" the day after a different judge said Michigan's marriage law was unconstitutional.

The 2014 decision was put on hold, which allowed the state to not recognize the "marriages." However, Goldsmith concluded that the due process and equal protection rights of the 300 couples were violated. He issued an injunction to his own ruling for 21 days, and said the issue of the constitutionality of same-sex "marriage" was irrelevant to the lawsuit he addressed. According to Goldsmith, the state "cannot withdraw the status that it has awarded, even if the couples had no right to demand to be married in the first place."

Goldsmith's reference to the Bible is similar to one used by President Obama in 2012, when the president cited the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount for his second flip on the issue of same-sex "marriage."

Michigan's Republican governor, Rick Snyder, said he will follow the ruling unless the decision is appealed or amended. The Supreme Court decided on Friday to examine the Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee marriage case, but as of this writing it was not clear what Snyder's reaction would be.

  homosexuality, same-sex 'marriage'


Kenyan bishops still wary despite new tests showing no sterilizing agent in UN vaccines

Despite new test results showing a vast majority of samples from anti-tetanus vaccines are free of a suspected sterilizing agent, Kenya’s Catholic bishops and doctors are still not satisfied.
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 7:00 pm EST
Featured Image
Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

Despite test results showing a vast majority of samples from anti-tetanus vaccines are free of a suspected sterilizing agent, Kenya’s Catholic bishops and doctors are still not satisfied that a joint UN-government vaccination campaign in progress isn’t a sterilization drive in disguise.

Dr. Wahome Ngare, a spokesman for the Kenyan Catholic Doctors Association, told LifeSiteNews that the Catholic Church would be testing future mass vaccinations “so they will not poison our people in the future.”

However, Matercare International’s Dr. Robert Walley, who helped alert the world to the bishops’ concerns last fall, now believes their fears are groundless. He told LifeSiteNews that the Kenyan bishops and Catholic doctors “got confused, I think, by the reports from Mexico and India about sterilization campaigns,” and by the unusual (five-shot) form of the vaccine campaign.

After consulting his own contacts in the disease-control field, he believes the peculiarities of this campaign are explicable and laudable, intended as they are to provide permanent immunization against tetanus. Moreover, the early tests run on the vaccine samples supplied by the Catholic bishops found amounts of HCG far too small to sterilize women, he says.

Earlier this week the first results of tests commissioned by Kenya’s Parliament and monitored by a joint committee of Catholic and government doctors reported that only three of 59 vials of vaccine contained the HCG antigen the bishops claim is intended to sterilize the women injected with it. More results from Germany are pending.

Local news media and the Catholic Information Service for Africa reported this as if it resolved the controversial issue that has divided the Catholic Church, which operates 50-plus hospitals in Kenya along with several medical schools, from the government.

But on Wednesday the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a 19-point statement questioning the test claims and laying out its reasons to “insist that no further mass tetanus vaccination campaigns should be undertaken in Kenya before the vaccines have been appropriately tested and proven to be safe.”

Signed by the chairman of the conference, Cardinal John Njue, it contends:

  • that none of 50 of the samples the government submitted for testing in Germany and locally came from the  first two rounds of the five-round vaccination campaign, the source of the nine samples the bishops submitted. Three of these tested positive for HCG, the antigen which the bishops and the Kenyan Catholic Doctors Association believe will cause miscarriages and, they further believe, has been used in UN mass sterilization campaigns in Mexico and South America. 
  • That the original test was supposed to use an equal number of samples from the bishops and the government, but when three of the resulting 19 samples proved positive for HCG, the government submitted another 40 samples, also from their stores.  “The results of these 40 vials were loaded onto the previously completed results of 19 vials from the joint committee,” claim the bishops. “This was aimed at creating a dilution and bias of the 3 vials that were positive out of 9.”
  • That the government had insisted all along it had tested the WHO vaccine and found no contaminants. But “to the shock of the joint committee, the Ministry of Health did not have prior sampled vials that it had claimed to have tested. They did not also have laboratory results from such prior testing.”
  • That the government delayed the committee’s report for over a week to allow the inclusion of the additional 40 vials.

Dr. Ngare, who had earlier warned that the government might skew the joint tests with samples that did not come from the suspected WHO campaign, now says that is just what happened.  “The normal vaccine used in hospitals is not the problem. People can take that safely,” he told LifeSiteNews.

But since late in 2013, the government has been conducting a mass vaccination scheme aimed at 2.3 million women and girls of child-bearing age, using a special vaccine from WHO and UNICEF. Its stated goal is to provide, over five injections in two years, permanent immunization to tetanus for the recipient and any children they bear.

Because of the unusual number of injections, the targeting of fertile women and the security around the vaccine, Kenya’s bishops and Catholic doctors grew concerned last year that what was really going on was mass sterilization, such as American pro-life organizations like Human Life International claimed had been conducted in South America and Mexico in the 1990s.

The Catholics obtained the UN vaccine surreptitiously and submitted it for testing, pretending the samples were from the blood of pregnant women. These tested positive for HCG but the tests turned out to have been the wrong kind of tests for a vaccine.

Now, though three of nine of the Church’s samples test positive for HCG using the correct methodology, “a joint team of experts from the Catholic Church in Kenya and ministry of health have declared the controversial tetanus vaccine safe.” The three exceptions are being retested to see if they have been contaminated.

CISA’s report also contradicts a key contention of the bishops, that their samples alone came from the WHO vaccination campaign. “The other 50 samples were obtained from the field,” states CISA, “ and central store with batch numbers corresponding to the ones with KCCB.”

The joint tests appear to have failed in their goal of restoring government-church relations and, instead, have hardened their division. “We don’t see why anyone should be surprised,” Dr. Ngare told LifeSiteNews. “They did it in South America.”

Dr. Ahmed Kalebi, director of the Lancet Kenya laboratory, is watching the dispute with regret. “They are all my good friends on both sides. Now they are rubbishing each other.” Dr. Kalebi believes the tests clear the WHO vaccine, and that the three outliers may have been contaminated. But he also believes that the government should have responded openly from the first to the Church’s concerns about the vaccine. “Everybody has a right to know everything about these things which affect their lives.”

Dr. Walley’s Matercare has released a statement that notes the rumours about mass sterilization go back “to the development of contraceptive vaccines back in the 1970s-80s, by WHO,”  but adds that it never went beyond a Phase 1 trial.” A feminist backlash halted further development under WHO, the report claims.

Nonetheless alarms were sounded in India, Central and South America and Africa in the 1990s over sterilization vaccines being used, but testing found no evidence, according to Matercare’s statement.

The Matercare statement also argues that “WHO and UNICEF are intensively regulated organisations mandated to improve the physical and social well-being of women and children throughout the world…[who are] therefore, unlikely to be involved in giving a contraceptive vaccine disguised as a tetanus vaccine. This would amount to a gross violation of human rights.”

The statement concludes by recommending that WHO randomly test all future vaccination schemes to allay public concern.

  forced sterilization, kenya, united nations, world health organization


Canadian premiere of Not About Mary Wagner film this Sunday 3 p.m. in Toronto

In a rare coincidence, court hearings for pro-life activists Linda Gibbons and Mary Wagner both took place Friday morning in downtown Toronto.
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 6:47 pm EST
Featured Image
Pro-life prisoners of conscience Linda Gibbons (L) and Mary Wagner (R) Steve Jalsevac / LifeSiteNews
Tony Gosgnach
By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO – In a rare coincidence, court hearings for pro-life activists Linda Gibbons and Mary Wagner both took place Friday morning in downtown Toronto.

At Osgoode Hall, the all-female Ontario Court of Appeal heard submissions from Gibbons’ defence counsels on why her 2011 conviction on a charge of disobeying a court order should be overturned. In the provincial court at College Park, Wagner appeared for a scheduled bail hearing following her arrest at the Bloor West Village Women’s Clinic abortion site just before Christmas.

The Gibbons case harkened back to April 12, 2011, when Justice Mara Beth Greene found Gibbons guilty after she dismissed an application for a stay based on abuse of process by the Crown. Greene then sentenced her to one day in jail on top of over two years she had spent in pre-trial custody. The charge had been laid, and Gibbons arrested, in January 2009.

Friday morning, defence counsels Daniel Santoro and Nicolas Rouleau put forth three main arguments for their appeal, which had been moved up to the Ontario Court of Appeal after being unsuccessful at the Superior Court level. Their arguments centered on three main points – abuse of process by the Crown, an improper delegation of legislative powers by the federal government to the legislature of Ontario, and the unconstitutionality of Section of 127 of the Criminal Code (regarding breaches of court orders).

On the first point, Santoro singled out the fact that a 1994 “temporary” civil court injunction limiting pro-life activity outside certain Toronto abortion sites was still being enforced by the province and Crown attorneys almost two decades later, with no moves made to either drop it or make it permanent. This, he suggested, is an abuse of process.

“The injunction was meant to be temporary,” Santoro emphasized, pointing out that lower court justices said the conduct on the part of the Crown was “troubling” and displayed a “laissez faire” attitude. In addition, Santoro said Gibbons was not formally represented by legal counsel at the time of the enactment of the injunction, as her previous lawyer, Peter Jervis, had removed himself. Thus, she was not bound by the injunction’s terms.

The failure of the Crown in the performance of its duties in these matters, said Santoro, meant it couldn’t then come to the courts asking for enforcement of the injunction. He added Gibbons should have been brought before a civil court.

Rouleau argued the point that Section 127 is unconstitutional. The statute has no public purpose, he said, and Parliament has improperly given the province the power to decide which breaches of court orders are criminal. This creates an arbitrary “hierarchy” of court orders as Parliament improperly applies the provincial legislature’s decisions on the criminality of breaches.

Santoro closed by submitting that Section 127 is “arbitrary, over-broad and disproportionate.” The arbitrariness arises from the fact a serious breach of a court order can be treated non-criminally and vice versa, he said. This creates divergent applications of criminal law.

Section 127 is also over-broad, Santoro continued, as it criminalizes any breach of a court order and is not just a codification of civil contempt. Meanwhile, the statute is also disproportionate as it can criminalize a minor offence.

In her rebuttal, Crown counsel Susan Magotiaux said there has to be a high standard of misconduct – oppressive or vexatious – to constitute abuse. She argued Jervis did not formally remove himself as Gibbons’ counsel in 1994 and so was still her counsel of record.

She added the Crown should not be held liable for the fact that a temporary injunction is still being enforced, and criminally at that, as there is evidence to suggest all parties have been content with the pace of events, the Crown has not delayed the matter and it has not litigated it maliciously.

Magotiaux said Gibbons has had avenues at her disposal if she wishes to challenge the injunction, including the right of appeal and the ability to apply to have it dismissed. On the improper governmental delegation of power, she said Section 127 is “a constitutionally sound exercise in criminal law” and there is permissible overlap in the jurisdictions of various levels of government. This is co-operative federalism, she said.

Wading into the realm of clichés, Magotiaux called Section 127 a vehicle for maintaining public order and confidence in the administration of justice, ensuring the integrity of the legal system, preventing affronts to the courts and society and protecting against anarchy.

Finally, the rule of law is the rule of law in all its forms, she said. All laws are obliged to be followed and one can’t say one law is “trivial” and another is not. Laws are “products of our system of government” and a “parliamentary policy choice.” Section 127 itself allows for flexibility and “accounts for a proportional response to a given set of facts.”

Appeal Court Justices Sarah Pepall, Janet M. Simmons and Kathryn N. Feldman reserved their judgement to a later date.

At Mary Wagner`s bail hearing, supporter John Bulsza reported that her lawyer in an ongoing appeal appeared, but announced he will not be retained as her counsel for coming proceedings on charges of breaching probation and mischief. Dr. Charles Lugosi told the court of the appeal and tried to file a notice of it with the court, but that was denied by the justice of the peace.

Lugosi added Wagner has chosen to not have counsel and plans to remain silent throughout the proceedings in solidarity with unborn human beings victimized by abortion. He then asked that she be allowed to read aloud a letter, after which she planned to fall silent. The justice of the peace allowed the request.

“What is at issue here is that unborn children are being slaughtered systematically with the complicity of the judicial system,” said Wagner in part. “I have sought the best way to respond to these current charges – in other words, the best way I can stand in defence of the children in the womb.”

“They have no voice to defend themselves. They are at the mercy of a judicial system that chooses to ignore them. I choose to have no lawyer represent me. The children in the womb are silent and, from this point on, I will stand for them here as their silent representative and friend.”

If Wagner continues to remain silent and unrepresented by legal counsel, the courts will enter a plea of not guilty on her behalf and a trial will proceed with only Crown witnesses and submissions. If she is found guilty, only Crown submissions on sentencing will be heard as well.

Wagner was put over for her next appearance to February 5 at 10 a.m. in Room 505 of College Park court.

Meanwhile, reasons are still being awaited regarding the decisions of Justice Fergus O’Donnell in her trial that concluded last June and which are the basis of the current appeal. A “housekeeping” hearing regarding that appeal will be heard in the Superior Court of Justice at 361 University Avenue in Toronto the morning of January 23.

And this Sunday, January 18 marks the Canadian premiere in English of the Polish documentary film, Not About Mary Wagner. Admission is free and the screening is to take place beginning at 3 p.m. at the John Paul II Cultural Centre, 4300 Cawthra Road in Mississauga. A screening of Eugenics, a related documentary by the same film maker, Grzegorz Braun, will follow at 4:30 p.m.

  abortion, linda gibbons, mary wagner


Star of abortion romantic comedy ‘Obvious Child’ won Critics Choice award

Jenny Slate saluted the filmmakers for 'fighting for our rights.'
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 5:19 pm EST
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

Jenny Slate, the star of the first “abortion romantic comedy” Obvious Child, won a Critics Choice Award for “Best Actress in a Comedy” at Thursday night's awards gala, the awards' 20th year.

In her acceptance speech, Slate saluted the filmmakers for "fighting for our rights.”

Slate, a former Saturday Night Live performer, plays a comedienne who gets pregnant and has an abortion following a one-night stand with a sweet Christian man.

“I am so proud to be in a movie that is joyful and thoughtful and depicts a modern and authentic experience of unplanned pregnancy,” she said. “Gillian Robespierre and Elizabeth Holm, who wrote this movie, assert that even while we're fighting for our rights we can do so creatively. Activism and creative expression can go together.”

The film, a much-lauded box office flop, was not nominated for any additional awards.

The award continues the longstanding trend of Hollywood rewarding motion pictures or television series that convey a message that conflicts with traditional morality.

The Critics Choice decision came on the heels of the Golden Globe Awards, which honored Jeffrey Tambor as “Best Actor in a TV Series, Comedy or Musical” for his role as a transgender dad in the series Transparent. The actor dedicated his award to the transgender activist movement.

“This is much bigger than me,” began Tambor, who is known for his roles in films such as Mr. Mom and Muppets from Space.

"If I may, I would like to dedicate my performance and this award to the transgender community. Thank you, thank you. Thank you for your courage. Thank you for your inspiration. Thank you for your patience, and thank you for letting us be part of the change."

The show's creator, Jill Soloway, said she based the show on her own father, psychiatrist Harry Soloway, who now identifies as a transgender woman.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

She said she welcomes the fact that her program is only available on and not on any television network. “The socialist in me welcomes the kind of democratization these platforms are bringing to our creative community and the viewing public,” Soloway said. “I feel like I’m part of this creative revolution, like an Arab Spring – but let’s call it an Auteur T.V. Spring – sweeping across the land.”

  hollywood, jeffrey tambor, jenny slate, obvious child, transgender, transgenderism, transparent tv series


Los Angeles archdiocese expects thousands at first-ever, massive pro-life conference on Saturday

Speakers include the Radiance Foundation's Ryan Bomberger, actor Eduardo Verastegui, Supreme Knight Carl Anderson, 40 Days for Life Director David Bereit, and Mother Agnes Mary Donovan of the Sisters for Life.
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 4:51 pm EST
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa
By Lisa Bourne

A first-of-its kind major pro-life event is taking place this Saturday in Los Angeles, a brand-new initiative inspired by L.A.’s pro-life archbishop.

“This is completely the idea of Archbishop (Jose) Gomez,” Kathleen Buckley Domingo, Life Coordinator for the archdiocese’s Office of Life, Justice and Peace told LifeSiteNews. “He really provided the entire vision and framework for this event.”

The event takes place outdoors in downtown Los Angeles and offers a long list of pro-life presenters, who will speak about abortion, human trafficking, euthanasia, and adoption.

The keynote speaker is Ryan Bomberger of the Radiance Foundation. Bomberger plans to debut a new 60-second video titled Never Picture Perfect, addressing the emptiness that occurs when those who are considered imperfect in life are discarded.

Also appearing at the pro-life event are actor and pro-life activist Eduardo Verastegui, Supreme Knight of Columbus Carl Anderson, 40 Days for Life Director David Bereit, Mother Agnes Mary Donovan, SV, the first Superior General of the Sisters of Life, and many others.

“One of the first things [Archbishop Gomez] did when he got here,” said Domingo, “was to look around and say, ‘People don’t need to travel to San Francisco or Washington D.C. (for the West Coast walk for Life or the annual national March for Life), they should be able to be pro-life right here in Los Angeles.’” 

The archbishop put words into action. Not only was the idea for OneLifeLA born, the archbishop expanded and renewed the archdiocese’s Office of Peace and Justice to its current form of Life, Justice and Peace.

One of his priorities upon arrival was “proclaiming the Culture of Life,” Domingo said.

“As a Church, we are entrusted with the good news of Jesus Christ — that the human person is sacred and created in the image of God,” the archbishop said in his first pastoral letter.

“This move will strengthen every aspect of our Archdiocese’s vital social mission — from our many works of charity and service, to our efforts to seek justice for immigrants, workers, the imprisoned, and the poor,” Archbishop Gomez said of his decision to expand the Justice and Peace office and combine it with pro-life. “This change will also advance our efforts to build a culture of life — because it will demonstrate our belief that the right to life is the foundation of every other right and liberty and the true foundation of justice and peace in society.”

For the last six or so months, that has meant heavy focus on planning and organizing Los Angeles’s first-ever large-scale pro-life event. 

OneLifeLA’s purpose is to “celebrate the beauty and dignity of every human life from conception to natural death,” according to event info, and also to “declare a commitment to valuing and protecting all human life, particularly the most vulnerable in our community.”

Domingo also stressed that the goal of OneLifeLA was not for it to be an event in and of itself, but to inspire people to take action. Organizers don’t just want people to come to a meaningful pro-life event and go home thinking it was great. The idea is for them to leave with the ability to put their pro-life convictions in motion.

Domingo said getting OneLifeLA going was the perfect way to organize parishes and groom leaders on the ground for the pro-life cause.

Archbishop Gomez was also instructive in nurturing the unity component of the event, Domingo told LifeSiteNews. OneLifeLA’s community partners involve organizations from across the spectrum of supporting life, including foster parenting, adoption, ministry to the homeless, Special Olympics, refugee services, and poverty relief.

“We are definitely pulling all of our community together,” Domingo said, “and building a culture of life in Los Angeles.”

Archbishop Gomez succeeded Cardinal Roger Mahoney when the cardinal retired in 2011 after 25 years as head of the LA archdiocese.

The archbishop has been a strong supporter of the pro-life cause since before his time in Los Angeles. He was one of the many bishops to oppose the scandal created by Notre Dame’s 2009 invitation to Barack Obama to speak at the university. He was also a close second to Cardinal Timothy Dolan when the U.S. Bishops voted last November for the next chairman of their Committee on Pro-Life Activities.

The Archdiocese of Los Angeles will co-sponsor OneLifeLA along with the Knights of Columbus, Right to Life League of Southern California, and the Dioceses of Orange, San Diego, San Bernardino, and Fresno.

Domingo told LifeSiteNews that busses will be coming in from all of those areas, and they expect thousands to attend.

“We know they’re coming far and wide from the southern California region,” she said. “We’re gearing up for a nice big crowd.”

OneLifeLA is free and geared for families, including a picnic, free concert and a pro-life walk. More information is available at

  abortion, archbishop jose gomez, catholic


U.S. Supreme Court will rule on gay ‘marriage’ issue

'Marriage was not created by government action, and shouldn't be re-created by government action,' said Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 4:24 pm EST
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

After more than a decade of legal wrangling and a burst of judicial activism that overturned the will of the voters in dozens of states, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to rule on whether same-sex “marriage” is an unalienable constitutional right.

Justices announced Friday that they had consolidated four cases from the states of Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky, scheduling two hearings for April.

According to the Court's document, the first 90-minute session will ask, “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?” The second session, scheduled to last one hour, will ask, “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”

The move comes after the High Court declined to hear a series of appeals in October, leaving states where judges had redefined marriage without legal recourse. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hinted at a public hearing that justices could weigh in on the issue if lower court rulings began to conflict.

In November, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Ohio, upheld the constitutionality of constitutional marriage protection amendments in four states – the four states where the justices agreed to hear appeals on Friday.

Court watchers expect a ruling before the end of the court's term in late June.

“This case could potentially transform the cultural landscape of America. We should pray for the Court, that they will not seek to redefine marriage,” said Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “Marriage was not created by government action, and shouldn't be re-created by government action. Even more than that, we should pray for churches who will know how to articulate and embody a Christian vision of marriage as the one flesh union of a man and a woman in the tumultuous years to come.”

But the New York Times greeted the news by stating, “The court's announcement made it likely that it would resolve one of the great civil rights questions of the age before its current term ends in June.”

The vast majority of states have seen the definition of marriage overturned by judicial decree.

Same-sex “marriage” is currently legal in 36 states – in 28 by judicial fiat. Two of those states subsequently passed laws ratifying the definition of marriage imposed by the judiciary. Nine other states and the District of Columbia have adopted same-sex “marriage” by often controversial legislative votes. In only three states – Maine, Maryland, and Washington – have voters approved of same-sex “marriage” by popular referendum.

Five additional states – Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, South Dakota, and Texas – have had their state laws overruled by the judiciary, but the rulings are currently stayed.

  same-sex 'marriage', supreme court


Chicago March for Life expects record attendance on Sunday

At least 14 buses are expected to make the trip, representing several parishes, pro-life groups, and at least one diocese.
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 4:12 pm EST
Featured Image
The front of the Chicago March for Life in 2014 Pro-Life Action League
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

The organizers of the 10th annual Chicago March for Life are predicting a record attendance at Sunday’s event. They expect more than 3,000 people to join, a 50 percent increase from 2014.

At least 14 buses are expected to make the trip, representing several parishes, pro-life groups, and at least one diocese.

According to March for Life Chicago president Emily Zender, "This occasion affirms the authentic dignity of women, celebrates the gift of children, and promotes a culture dedicated to protecting life at every stage of development."

"The March for Life Chicago message is one of love and hope," she added.

The speakers will include: Most Reverend Blase Cupich, the Catholic Archbishop of Chicago; former abortion center director Abby Johnson; Rep. Dan Lipinsky, D-IL; Rep. Peter Roskam, R-IL; and Chicago Bears owner Patrick McCaskey.

The March will take place from 2:00 to 4:00 Central Time, on Sunday, January 18. The event will start at the Federal Plaza, located at 50 West Adams Street. Marchers will walk to the James R. Thompson Center at 100 West Randolph Street. 

  march for life chicago


North Carolina Catholic diocese removes teacher over his plans to ‘marry’ a man

'We cannot and will not employ a substitute teacher who opposes Church teaching,' says the Diocese of Charlotte.
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 4:04 pm EST
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa
By Lisa Bourne

The Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, North Carolina, has told a retired teacher he cannot work at one of its schools after he announced plans to “marry” another man.

Lonnie Billard, 68, retired in 2012 after working for 11 years at Charlotte Catholic High School and continued to work as a long-term substitute. He was scheduled to begin a new assignment at the school this month. Billard announced on his Facebook page he was planning to “marry” his male partner in the summer of 2015.

Diocesan spokesman David Hains confirmed for LifeSiteNews the school notified Billard that he could not teach at Charlotte Catholic High School because of his plans to disobey Church morals.

"People who work for the Diocese of Charlotte agree that they will not oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church,” Hains said in a statement January 9. “We cannot and will not employ a substitute teacher who opposes Church teaching."

He verified diocesan policy in this regard for LifeSiteNews.

“All employees of the diocese agree upon their employment to follow the diocese's ethics policy and a personnel policy that requires them to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church,” the policy states.

Substitute teachers for the diocese are categorized as temporary employees. They do not have benefits but they are obliged to follow the same policies as other employees.

Normally the diocese does not comment on issues involving personnel, however diocesan leadership decided to comment in this instance after local media reported on Billard's dismissal.

Billard told WTSP-10 News that most people at the school were aware of his relationship and that his partner had often come to school events.

"The fact that I am in a long term, committed relationship with a wonderful man is apparently abhorrent but if I were in the closet, that would be okay,” said Billard. “That's my understanding of the church's position."

This is not the first time an employee of the Charlotte diocese has been dismissed for a similar violation of Church morals.

In 2012, a parish music director in the diocese was let go by the pastor for contracting a homosexual “marriage,” which the diocese referred to at the time as “a public act that is in disobedience to Church teaching and which violates the diocese's employee ethics policy.”

The Charlotte diocese reaffirmed Church teaching in its statement on the release of Billard.

“The Church teaches that marriage can only be the union between one man and one woman, as established in natural law and set forth as a sacrament by Christ and His Church,” it said. “Catholic teaching emphasizes that all people, including those with a homosexual orientation, are made in the image of God and therefore deserving of dignity and respect, but that matrimony is designed by God as the basis for family life and the conceiving and nurturing of children.”

The homosexual activist group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) condemned Billard’s discharge.

“Firings like this send a message to LGBT people, and LGBT Catholics in particular, that there is no place in the church for us,” said Lisbeth Meléndez Rivera, HRC’s Director of Latino/a and Catholic Initiatives. “And think of what LGBT students at his school must hear when something like this happens. The Diocese is sending these children and their student allies a message that they are less-than, that they are second-class Catholics and citizens.”

HRC relied on a now frequently used strategy of citing Pope Francis and his often-misused quote on homosexuality, “who am I to judge?”

Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski reminded employees in a letter last week that breaking their employment agreement to uphold Church teaching could result in them losing their job.

  catholic, diocese of charlotte, homosexuality, same-sex 'marriage'


Sen. Rob Portman loses conservative, pro-life support after endorsing same-sex ‘marriage’

'Any politician ... who supports the break-up of the American family ... has forfeited the right of support and endorsement of the prolife movement.'
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 3:22 pm EST
Featured Image
Sen. Rob Portman, R-OH Portman's Flickr stream
Kirsten Andersen Kirsten Andersen Follow Kirsten
By Kirsten Anderson

U.S. Sen. Rob Portman, R-OH, recently published a list of high-profile endorsements for next year’s re-election bid.  Conspicuously missing from the list, however, were a number of influential social conservatives who say his flip-flop on the issue of same-sex “marriage” cost him their support.

Portman, 59, advocated true marriage between one man and one woman until his son, Will, came out as homosexual.  After that, Portman changed his tune, announcing in 2013 that he was abandoning his faith-based objection to gay “marriage” in favor of doing what he felt would make his son happy.

“[Previously], my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman,” Portman wrote at the time.  “Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love, a blessing Jane and I have shared for 26 years.”

Now, with Portman’s campaign for a second term in full swing, pro-life and pro-family activists are warning Ohio politicians against backing Portman, saying his position on same-sex “marriage” will taint anyone who gives him their support.

“My advice to any true conservative office holder is to say NO on principle, right up front, due to Portman's choice to go against the GOP national pro-marriage platform,” said Molly Smith, president of Cleveland Right to Life, in a statement. “Remember, the marriage issue is one of the 'big two' for social conservatives. You don't need to pick up Portman's baggage.”

So far, a significant number of legislators have heeded Smith’s call.  According to the Cincinnati Enquirer, one Republican state senator, 11 Republican Ohio House members and 11 GOP county chairmen have refused to endorse Portman.  One of those is Rep. John Becker, R-Union Township, who told the Enquirer that Portman’s reversal on the same-sex “marriage” issue cost him his support.

“Senator Portman and I go back a long way,” said Becker. "However, in recent years our values have become divergent to the point that I can no longer offer Senator Portman my endorsement."

Rep. Doug Green, R-Mount Orab, echoed Becker’s sentiments in an interview with the Enquirer, telling the paper that he’s struggling with the idea of endorsing Portman due to “the obvious: the same-sex marriage issue.”

Ray Warrick, chairman of the Warren County Republican Party, told the Enquirer that Portman’s position on same-sex “marriage” was also a factor in his decision not to endorse the senator. Portman’s “flip-flop on gay marriage doesn't sit well with social conservatives in Warren County,” Warrick said.

Not all self-styled social conservatives have abandoned Portman, however.  On the list of Portman’s endorsements is Michael Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life, who told the Daily Beast after Portman’s flip-flop that the statewide organization has “consistently supported Rob Portman in his career, and the senator has a 100 percent pro-life record.”

“We’re Ohio Right to Life, not Ohio Right to Marriage,” Gonidakis said.

The National Right to Life Committee went so far as to disown the Cleveland chapter over its criticism of Portman, saying the controversy over same-sex “marriage” is a “non-right-to-life issue.”

But Smith defended both her organization’s stance against same-sex “marriage” and its distrust of Portman.   "If [Portman’s] daughter was to come home and say she had just had an abortion, would there be the same change on that?" Smith asked at the time. 

Cleveland Right to Life board member Jerry C. Cirino backed Smith’s opinion. "We know it is not only important to protect the rights of a child to be born...we should also care about the child after they are born," Cirino told LifeSiteNews. "This is about supporting the family in America and any politician, including Portman, who supports the break-up of the American family and supports the denial of a mother and father for children has forfeited the right of support and endorsement of the prolife movement.”

  abortion, cleveland right to life, homosexuality, ohio, ohio right to life, rob portman


Health Canada may push back abortion drug decision until after federal election

'Realistically, Health Canada shouldn't want to touch this drug again with a 30-foot pole,' Fonseca said
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 2:28 pm EST
Featured Image
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

Abortion activists campaigning to have Health Canada approve a foreign-made abortion drug that allows a pregnant mother to kill and then expel her pre-born child are disappointed that a decision has been put off until sometime next fall.

The National Abortion Federation, an umbrella group representing abortion facilities in the U.S. and Canada, leaked to CBC News that Health Canada has requested additional information from Linepharma International, the France-based drug company submitting the application. This means the decision, expected to have come mid-January, will be many months from now.

Linepharma manufactures only mifespristone and misoprostol, a two-drug combination that allows a pregnant mother to abort. The company’s mission statement is: “To make high-quality medical abortion products available and to provide related services to all women worldwide."

Jack Fonseca of Campaign Life Coalition said he was pleased that the decision has been pushed back, adding that he hopes the move means that Health Canada scientists are “demanding more data from the manufacturer because they have safety concerns about the dangerous drug.”

Health Canada dropped an application to approve mifespristone, also known as RU-486, in 2001 after clinical trials ended in the death of a woman from British Columbia. Despite RU-486 being touted by its advocates as “safe,” practically every country that has approved the drug has had women die as a result of complications arising from taking it.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

“Realistically, Health Canada shouldn't want to touch this drug again with a 30-foot pole,” Fonseca said. “There's no logical reason for them to lift the existing ban... other than political pressure. Why on earth would the agency want to revisit a drug that's a known killer, which it has already banned for killing someone not so long ago?”

Health Canada will give no hint at what its ultimate decision might be, telling reporters that all drug decisions are “based on a detailed scientific review."

The timing of the delay is noteworthy. Making a decision prior to the upcoming federal election could have drastic consequences for the reigning Conservatives. An approval of the drug could potentially result in the party alienating itself from its natural base of people who respect life and think it wrong for a mother to end the life of her pre-born child. Denying the drug, however, could potentially give left-leaning institutions, politicians, and especially mainstream media added firepower to accuse it of being against ‘reproductive rights,’ and ultimately against women.

Despite the delay, the National Abortion Federation says it remains optimistic about the final outcome.

“[We believe] that at the end of the day, Health Canada will approve mifepristone as a safe and effective method of early abortion, and that Canadian women will then be able to use it with confidence that there has been a very thorough review of the medication, its safety and efficacy,” NAF President Vicki Saporta told CBC.

Fonseca said that the only reason the drug has been frequently in the news recently is because abortion advocates have “deliberately orchestrated” a media frenzy to pressure Health Canada into giving approval.

“They're trying to bring intolerable pressure to bear on the people at Health Canada. The goal here is to get the folks inside the Health Canada buildings sweating. Get them flustered, stressed out, so that emotional distress clouds their judgement and they choose to put politics ahead of science and the safety of women,” he said.

Campaign Life Coalition is asking concerned citizens to contact Health Canada and urge it to reject the drug.

“I believe that if pro-lifers don't do something to counter-balance the pressure tactics of the abortion lobby/mainstream media, then Health Canada will probably cave,” Fonseca said.

Contact info:

Health Canada
Address Locator 0900C2
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0K9
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 866-225-0709
Fax: 613-941-5366

  abortion, health canada, ru-486


Former Morgentaler Clinic in Fredericton to reopen as…abortion clinic, headed by ‘trans man’

The New Brunswick Right to Life Association called the news 'nothing short of a disaster for women’s health, and worse for the babies of our province.'
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 2:16 pm EST
Featured Image
Clinic 554 is located at the former Morgentaler abortion center in Fredericton. Courtesy of New Brunswick Right to Life
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

The former Morgentaler Clinic in Fredericton, New Brunswick — closed since July — has received a name change and a new director and will reopen shortly for business as usual as a “family practice” that offers a “full-scope of reproductive care, including abortions.”

Clinic 554’s new director is Dr. Adrian Edgar, a “transguy” who specializes not only in the killing of pre-born children in their mother’s womb, but also in offering people who identify as LGBTQ “primary care services.” On top of abortion and offering a full range of contraceptive services, the clinic is “excited” to offer “transgender, gender variant, and gender non-conforming children, youth and adults” with “hormone initiations and injections.”

The facility will abort pre-born children 16 weeks and younger, and will charge between $700-$850, “depending on how far along you are.” The mill is not offering medical abortions at this time, but it “look[s] forward to performing them in the near future.”

Peter Ryan, New Brunswick Right to Life Association’s executive director, called the news “nothing short of a disaster for women’s health, and worse for the babies of our province.”

“It seems they bill themselves as providing ‘reproductive services.’ That’s a misnomer, when most of the so-called services are about preventing – or putting an end to – reproduction. Certainly when dead babies up to 16 weeks gestation are part of your menu of services, that’s as anti-reproductive as you can get,” he said.

While mainstream media is abuzz with the news, it has been downplaying the fact that the center will offer abortion services. “Former Morgentaler Clinic in Fredericton to reopen as health centre,” reads Global News’ headline, stating nothing in its opening paragraph about abortion. CBC News’ headline is similar, reading: “New health centre opening in former Morgentaler clinic.”

Ryan said that no matter what other ‘health services’ the center offers on top of abortions, “an abortion clinic is still an abortion clinic.”

The Morgentaler Clinic announced in April, amidst much fanfare, that it would be closing its doors in July for financial reasons. Pro-life critics immediately denounced the move as a “ruse” to pressure the provincial government into removing what abortion activists called barriers to reproductive health, including that abortion is not tax-funded in private clinics. While the gamble proved largely successful, with the recently elected Liberal government under Brian Gallant repealing former abortion regulations, the new regulations nevertheless fell short of funding abortions in private clinics.

Joyce Arthur, director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, admitted that it was the Morgentaler Clinic’s closure that prompted the government to act.

“It took the shocking closure of the Morgentaler Clinic in Fredericton, the province's only abortion clinic, to finally spark change. Between the clinic's April announcement and its July closure, a vibrant new reproductive rights movement sprung to life in New Brunswick. Its young activists campaigned tirelessly to raise awareness, and lobbied the government to repeal the regulation,” she wrote in an article that appeared on Rabble last week.

Abortion activists continue to demand that the government begin funding abortions in private clinics. Reproductive Justice NB hopes to meet with Health Minister Victor Boudreau before the end of the month to discuss the matter. 

  abortion, fredericton, morgentaler


SBA list prez: New Congress proves ‘abortion-centered feminism is dead’

The pro-life stance 'has the potential to be the kind of issue that speaks to working-class Americans: to Hispanics, to Catholics and to women,' says Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List.
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 1:44 pm EST
Featured Image
Katie Yoder
By Katie Yoder

The death movement is dying, according to pro-life activists, Congress – and even the media’s censorship.

Just a week before the 42nd annual March for LifeMarjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List and its super PAC partner Women Speak Out, spoke at the Washington, D.C. National Press Club Jan. 15 on “The Political Punch of the Pro-Life Movement in the 2014 Elections and Beyond.” At the news conference, Dannenfelser called out abortion-crazed outlets like Jezebel and Cosmo, by arguing, “Abortion-centered feminism is dead” and praising the upcoming Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Referencing the 2014-midterm elections, Dannenfelser stressed, “What has not been discussed is the death of the abortion-centered war on women.” November 5, she said, made “clear” that “abortion-centered feminism is dead.”

Women, she explained, “disagree [with] the ranks of the feminist left like EMILY’s List and NARAL and Planned Parenthood that somehow unlimited, unfettered abortion is the great liberator of women.”

Referencing her comment on how “abortion-centered feminism is dead,” MRC Culture asked Dannenfelser how she responds to outlets like Jezebel and Cosmo that focus on abortion. Dannenfelser exposed how, “Jezebel and all of those outlets that seem to be yelling the old embraced truth that they've embraced long ago, is not working.”

“The more shrill they get,” she emphasized, “the more disaffected women, especially young women, get.” 

Instead, “[T]hey should figure out which abortion restriction they would embrace,” she recommended. “Because right now, they don't have any – even ones that protect women.” She challenged those outlets to lead “among women rather than keeping them back in the 1960s.”

Dannenfelser predicted of the feminist media:

I think you'll find that they don't talk about the abortion issue straight on. They won't be. They will continue the trend that they did in this election, which was to pretend it's not there. Why did they do that? They know it's not satisfying to women.

Including the women of Congress. During her speech, Dannenfelser expressed hope with the new Congress (“we’re off to an encouraging start”), which introduced the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act or H.R. 36 its first day in office. The bill, to be voted on January 22, the day of the 42nd March for Life, would prohibit aborting unborn babies after 20 weeks. The measure has the support of 56 percent of Independents, 46 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of women, leading Dannenfelser to call this a “historic moment.”

In regards to the mainstream media, Dannenfelser described the media’s role in promoting the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act as “central.” “Without it,” she said, “we won't get that debate communicated to the rest of the country.”

Dannenfelser admitted, “It is not in the liberal mainstream media – it is not in their interest – to have this debate covered.” But for journalists to not cover the bill now would prove “a failure of their vocation.” 

During the interview, Dannenfelser also expressed hope for journalists working for news outlets “stuck in old ideologies:”

I think that I see in journalists that are mainstream journalists or liberal journalists some conflict inside when they're talking about this issue. Because there's a point where it becomes just human. That taking a side – pro-choice, pro-life – and sticking with it kind of fades away when you start looking at late-term abortion.

Only seven countries allow abortions after 20 weeks, including the U.S., Dannenfelser noted during her speech: North Korea, China, Singapore, Vietnam, Canada and the Netherlands. “Many of those,” she said, “[w]e would not consider the ultimate human rights supporters.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

“We’re talking about a person here, not a clump of cells,” Dannenfelser reminded at one point. During fetal surgery at that stage, it is “common practice” to give the unborn baby anesthetics. “The more America looks at this practice, the more they learn about it in public debates and elections, the less they like it,” she argued, “and that says good things about who America is.”

The pro-life stance “has the potential to be the kind of issue that speaks to working-class Americans: to Hispanics, to Catholics and to women.”

“Our position is not only morally just, but politically smart, and we’re confident that in 2016, there will be even more evidence of this fact,” she concluded.

The press release for the event boasted that, since the pro-life group’s founding, “SBA List has helped elect more than 100 pro-life candidates to the U.S. House of Representatives, 19 to the U.S. Senate, and 16 to other statewide offices across the country.”

Reprinted with permission from NewsBusters.

  abortion, susan b. anthony list


China’s black market for human eggs lures the young

Illegal clinics are luring high school and college-age girls in China with the promise of large payments for their eggs. The procedure can damage the girls’ health and future child-bearing, and the clinics are offering no legal or medical help if complications ensue.
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 1:15 pm EST
Featured Image
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
By Rebecca Oas Ph.D.

Illegal clinics are luring high school and college-age girls in China with the promise of large payments for their eggs. The procedure can damage the girls’ health and future child-bearing, and the clinics are offering no legal or medical help if complications ensue.

For clinics operating on the black market, there is little incentive to inform women of possible problems. “How can we tell them about the hazards to get eggs?” one “egg agent” told reporters. “We have to lure them.”

Ten to fifteen percent of Chinese couples struggle with infertility. Mainland China prohibits commercial egg donation. In an attempt to skirt the law, illegal fertility clinics characterize the donors as “volunteers” and refer to the payment as a “subsidy for nutrition.”

The procedures frequently occur in hospitals, and “egg agents” count on bribing their way out of trouble.

“The hospitals usually wink at us egg agents,” one told a Global Times’ reporter posing as a potential donor.

“It’s nothing new in today’s China; the human body has become a commodity,” women’s studies professor Ai Xiaoming said.

Ai added that without regulation, “the rights of children and women, as well as the sex imbalance in our country, will never be properly addressed.”

The government’s one-child policy has exacerbated the country’s sex imbalance. Couples desiring sons may take harsh measures to avoid having daughters.

Some illegal fertility clinics offer comprehensive packages including eggs, surrogacy, and abortion if the baby turns out to be a girl.

If the underground fertility industry in China treats babies as commodities, to be discarded if unsatisfactory, it affords no more respect to the women whose eggs are its essential product. An “egg agent” told Chinese television that donors were expected to be educated, healthy, and attractive – preferably five feet and three inches or taller, and light skinned.

The clinics advertise on the street and on universities’ online discussion boards. Payments go up to 30,000 yuan (nearly $5,000). One woman said she would use the money to pay off her credit card bills.

The donors do not sign a contract, and have no legal recourse if things go wrong. Egg donation carries significant risks, as the donors are given treatments to stimulate their ovaries to release multiple eggs in one cycle. This can lead to ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, which causes chest pain and bloating.

“In some cases, it could cause bleeding or even necrosis, meaning she will become infertile,” warns Hong Kong obstetrician Dr Suen Sik-hung.

“Only the most serious cases might result in death,” says family planning clinic director Chen Jianming.

Fertility clinics are not the only ones with an interest in a supply of human oocytes – scientists are also eager to obtain them for embryonic stem cell research. Chinese law prohibits human cloning for reproduction, but allows for “therapeutic cloning” in which the human life created for research purposes must be destroyed.

A Chinese researcher said that oocytes could be easily obtained from IVF clinics without special consent, claiming that egg donation was like blood donation in this regard.

In China, regulations exist on paper for both the fertility industry and the field of regenerative medicine but are relatively easy to circumvent in practice. Nevertheless, the country’s one-child policy remains a cautionary tale demonstrating that increasing governmental oversight is not always the best answer.

Reprinted with permission from C-Fam.

  china, egg seller, in vitro fertilization, one child policy


Foreign abortion groups worry new U.S. Congress will establish limits

With a new Republican-controlled Congress settling in, abortion groups fear limits are coming – and are pre-emptively spreading false claims about legislation that would keep tax dollars from subsidizing foreign family planning groups that perform or promote abortion.
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 12:57 pm EST
Featured Image
Lisa Correnti
By Lisa Correnti

When President Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy six years ago—one week after his inauguration – he opened the financial floodgates to wealthy abortion providers like Marie Stopes International, International Planned Parenthood Federation, and Population Connection, formerly known as Zero Population Growth.

Now, with a new Republican-controlled Congress settling in, abortion groups fear limits are coming – and are pre-emptively spreading false claims about legislation that would keep tax dollars from subsidizing foreign family planning groups that perform or promote abortion.

They expect Congressman Chris Smith, chairman of the Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, to introduce legislation to codify the Mexico City Policy – permanently prohibiting U.S. foreign aid for family planning from going to international groups that promote or commit abortion.

Abortion groups say the Mexico City Policy will harm women, threaten HIV/AIDs programs, increase abortion and force clinics to close. These same accusations surfaced in the past when Republican presidents reinstituted the ban.

Maternal heath experts have disproved these claims by examining data from when the Mexico City policy was in place. Abortions did not increase, funding for family planning continued to rise and most clinics did not close. In 2001, when President Bush reinstituted the policy, only 9 of 448 clinics closed. Abortion groups like Marie Stopes – which actively lobby for permissive abortion policy – chose to close rather than stay and deliver healthcare to poor women.

President Ronald Reagan established the Mexico City Policy by executive order in 1984. It was triggered by a UN conference on population in Mexico City that dispatched billions of dollars in financial commitments for family planning and reproductive health programs in undeveloped countries. Reagan did not want U.S. taxpayer dollars to go to a practice many Americans morally objected to, or misused by abortion groups to agitate in other countries to change abortion policy.

Since then, funding for family planning has skyrocketed. A recent UN Population Fund (UNFPA) report estimated spending on population assistance from numerous sources totaled $66 billion in 2011. Domestic spending increased to an estimated $54 billion, with a growing number of developing countries placing family planning and reproductive health in their own budgets. That same year, twenty-three developed countries and the European Union spent $10.4 billion in international population assistance. The U.S. remained the largest contributor—spending over $630 million in foreign family planning.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The Mexico City Policy only restricts U.S. funding for international family planning. Groups choosing not to comply can receive funding from other governments, the private sector, foundations or their own governments.

There is no impact on groups receiving PEPFAR funding for HIV/AIDS programs – some $6 billion annually. These organizations can perform abortions and advocate for a change in abortion laws with non-U.S. funding.

The Mexico City Policy provides exceptions for rape, incest, to preserve the life of the mother as well as post-abortion care for women seeking medical attention for a botched abortion. Currently only two countries out of the top ten recipients of U.S. family planning funds permit abortion under circumstances broader than those allowed under the Mexico City Policy, warranting protection from groups that agitate against laws protecting mothers and babies.

Reprinted with permission from C-Fam.

  abortion, chris smith, congress, mexico city policy


Canada’s ban on film opposing gay agenda is anti-democratic: critics

Offensive material puts true democracies to the test, says civil rights lawyer John Carpay.
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 12:49 pm EST
Featured Image
Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

The banning of the Russian anti-homosexuality film Sodom by the Canada Border Services Agency, as reported Wednesday in LifeSiteNews, is anti-democratic according to Canadian civil rights lawyer John Carpay.

Carpay of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom, based in Calgary, told LifeSiteNews without seeing the movie that offensive material puts true democracies to the test. “If you truly want to show that you understand freedom of expression, then you are going to tolerate statements that are anti-gay, anti-Islam, and anti-abortion.”

But what is happening is the opposite, said Carpay. “It is precisely in those three areas that you are seeing government agencies acting as censors.” This represents a “180-degree reversal” from 15 years ago, when Vancouver’s Little Sisters Bookstore fought the Canadian government to the Supreme Court for the right to import homosexual pornography. Now, he said, homosexuals are on the side of censorship, and those opposing pornography and sexual licence are its target. 

A copy of the film, first shown on Russian TV last year, was seized at the Calgary airport last year from Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality as he was on his way to a conference being staged by Saskatchewan crusader for Christian sexual morality, Bill Whatcott. LaBarbera was notified this week by mail that the Canadian Border Services Agency had classified Sodom as hate literature and prohibited it from import.

Whatcott, who has been investigated for hate crimes but never charged, said the whole idea of hate crime was anathema to a democracy. “I think we should let the marketplace of ideas decide what is hate or not.”  But even under the existing law against hatred, found in Section 219 of the Criminal Code, Whatcott said, “I think they are legally incorrect to ban Sodom.”

The hour-long movie, made by Russian TV personality Arkady Mamontov, calls homosexuals both “sodomites” and “perverts” throughout, and warns of the danger they pose to children both as parents and as sexual assailants, but never calls for violence against them.

But Criminal Code section 219 proscribes not only incitement to violence against an identifiable group but simply the promotion of hatred per se.

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

According to Lisa White, a communications officer for the Canada Border Services Agency, “the CBSA has a legal obligation to prohibit the entry into Canada of obscenity, child pornography, and hate propaganda, as defined in the Criminal Code. ... Classification decisions are based on a comprehensive set of guidelines that reflect relevant laws and legal precedents set by the courts in Canada.” White said there was an appeal process but was unable to explain it.

Dr. Charles McVety, founder and president of Canada Christian College, warned that suppression of unpopular views by government agencies had only just begun.  “The government kicked me off TV just for describing Toronto’s Gay Pride Parade as a sex parade,” he said. “I was trying to be positive too, to mean that the parade was about more than one variety of sexuality.”

McVety also cited the campaign by the Ontario, British Columbia, and Nova Scotia legal professions to stop Trinity Western University from opening a Christian-oriented law school and the Bank of Montreal’s recent drive to force its suppliers to hire homosexuals, as reported by LifeSiteNews in November. “Soon those who believe in traditional marriage will no longer have standing in this country,” said Dr. McVety. They will eventually have a hard time getting a job.”

  bill whatcott, canada border services agency, freedom of speech, homosexuality, john carpay, sodom film


Pope Francis praises Humanae Vitae, warns of attacks on family

The family is threatened 'by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life,' he said.
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 11:53 am EST
Featured Image
Pope Francis greets the pilgrims during his weekly general audience in St Peter's square at the Vatican on January 15, 2014. Giulio Napolitano /
John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry
By John-Henry Westen

In Manila today Pope Francis met with families in the overflowing “Mall of Asia Arena.” In the largely Catholic nation, which last year saw a law go into effect pushing contraception, the pope defended Catholic teaching against birth control.

The Holy Father said that despite the “challenge of the growth of populations” Pope Paul VI nevertheless had the “strength to defend openness to life,” referring to the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae that confirmed Church teaching against the practice.

Francis noted that Paul VI knew of the difficulties in families and thus “in his encyclical, he expressed compassion for particular cases.”  John Paul Meenan, a professor of moral theology at Our Lady Seat of Wisdom Academy told LifeSiteNews that the 1968 encyclical did speak of particular difficult cases and suggested the use of natural family planning.

Humanae Vitae says that where there are “well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles…”

The encyclical speaks of compassion, saying that the Church knows the weaknesses of the faithful: “She has compassion on the multitude, she welcomes sinners.”  It adds, however, that “she cannot do otherwise than teach the law.”

The family is threatened, Pope Francis said, “by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life.”

“Every threat to the family is a threat to society itself,” he added. And quoting Saint Pope John Paul II he noted that the “future passes through the family,” exhorting the crowd to protect their families.

“Our world needs good and strong families to overcome these threats!”  Family, he said, is the “country’s greatest treasure.”

He called on families to “be sanctuaries of respect for life, proclaiming the sacredness of every human life from conception to natural death.”

  catholic, contraception, humanae vitae, pope francis, same-sex 'marriage'


Ten reasons to reject Wynne’s sex education curriculum

The morally misguided idea that elementary children can give consent to sex is evil. Children are being abused when they are introduced to explicit sex.
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 1:25 pm EST
Featured Image
Lou Iacobelli
By Lou Iacobelli

Urgent: Sign a petition to stop Ontario's graphic sex-ed curriculum here

As the Ontario government gets ready to bring back the radical sex education curriculum for Ontario's children, here are ten reasons why parents should reject it in spite of the political correctness propaganda that supports it.

1. Children don't need to know all the mechanics of sex before they are emotionally, physically, intellectually and spiritually old enough to understand what they are being taught. Scrap the curriculum and spend the money on properly counselling students, in making sure there is help for students who have mental issues and feeding those that come to school hungry.

2. The morally misguided idea that elementary children can give consent to sex is evil. Children are being abused when they are introduced to explicit sex. This isn't a healthy and responsible way to teach about human sexuality. Consensual sex doesn't necessarily make sex safe, moral and appropriate. Even the absurd idea of consent to rape or any kind of sexual abuse never justifies it.

3. What has "gender inequality" got to with sex education? Who gets to define the term and the meaning? Parents should not even recognize the word "gender" and refer only to the two sexes, male and female. Catholic parents have the constitutional right to do so. The government should say what they really intend to do. Tell Ontarians that the curriculum pushes homosexuality, "gender identity" and teaches kids dangerous sexual acts such as anal and oral sex.

4. No Ontarian should swallow the lie that the new sex education is needed to deal with Internet and safety issues. If some students have gotten into trouble with revealing pictures they have posted on the Internet, how is teaching them about the disputed "gender theory" of self-defining sexuality based on feelings and the will going to solve the problem? It's not.

5. Parents should not be misled and confuse school violence, bullying and the proper use of social media with the need to teach children all the details about sex at a young age. To address cyberbullying and sexting issues can best be done with the help of companies that provide the service and parental involvement. Let's not confuse school safety with the perverted notion of children being used as objects of sex because the agenda of political correctness entitles them, and even some groups at the United Nations agree, to have "sexual rights." This right is just as false the "reproductive right" to kill a baby in the womb. This corrupts language and leads to behaviour that's immoral.

6. Yes, it's a good idea to try to stop a student from harm because they posted an inappropriate photo on a social media site and sent it to a friend. The photo somehow gets to others who were never intended to view it or it reaches a person who misuses it to blackmail the sender. There's no easy solution, but the answer isn't this: teach the children an explicit sex education curriculum. No educator in his or her right mind believes this nonsense. Children need the proper and loving guidance of parents and teachers in order to best deal with this serious issue. Often these students need special help because they are suffering from emotional, psychological and social problems which lead to the inappropriate photo posting in the first place.

7. Sadly today some university and college students are sending graphic and explicit message about sex. At Dalhousie University, for example, social messages like would you like to "hate f__," have been used. But this is the result of a society that has oversexualized children too early and at some point we are bound to see the evil fruits. We live in a very sexualized society and more explicit sex at a  younger age is hadly the answer. Instead, the solution begins with parental and teacher guidance. As a society, we need to encourage our young to show proper respect for themselves and the dignity of the person.

8. The fact that Benjamin Levin helped develop the sex-ed component of the Health and Physical Education curriculum ought to be reason enough to reject it. Levin has been charged with seven counts of child exploitation, including charges of possessing and accessing child pornography. It's fair to say that he's currently on trial and the accusations have not been proven in court. But wouldn't a good and caring government want to distance itself from any connection whatsoever to this sordid and perverted mess?

9. Parents as First Educators, Real Women of Canada and a network of parental rights advocates that includes Campaign Life Coalition, have all come out strongly to condemn the limited parental consultation process being used by the Wynne Liberals to get the curriculum approved even before it's officially released. The sex ed curriculum should have been an election issue so that voters could have had a real and transparent consultation process with their vote. But why bother to let democracy get in the way of political correctness. Ontarians have been misled.

10. School board trustees in the province have had no say regarding the proposed new curriculum. Unless major changes are made, Catholic trustees should reject the curriculum because it contradicts the teaching of the Church on human sexuality, the family and marriage. Catholic teachers have the right to refuse to teach the curriculum and Catholic parents have the right to outright reject it. Our children must be physically and morally protected.

Find a full listing of LifeSiteNews' coverage of the Ontario government's explicit sex-ed program here.

Reprinted with permission from Everyday for Life Canada.

  homosexuality, human sexuality, ontario sex ed


We aren’t Charlie: the decline of satire and culture

Much of what passes as satire, whether it’s Charlie Hebdo, or to a lesser extent, the cartoon South Park here in the U.S., is offense for its own sake.
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 12:44 pm EST
Featured Image
Hadrian /
John Stonestreet John Stonestreet
By John Stonestreet

On Sunday, January 11, upwards of one million people, including many heads of state, marched in Paris in protest of the terrorist attacks on the offices of the magazine Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket.

The slogan “Je Suis Charlie”—“I am Charlie”—has become a kind of badge of honor. It has come to signify a commitment to a kind of liberal and tolerant social order over and against the forces of censorship and Islamic extremism.

But is it the kind of thing a Christian can or should say?

Now, let me get the obvious out of the way: What happened in Paris was despicable. No matter how offensive the magazine’s cartoons might have been, nothing justifies murder.

And let’s be clear about one thing: The magazine’s treatment of Christianity has been far more obscene and disrespectful than its treatment of Islam. Yet, as Rod Dreher wrote at the American Conservative, “It would not occur to me that anyone should lay a hand on the ‘Charlie Hebdo’ artists or editors who produced that [anti-Christian] filth.” I talked about this yesterday on BreakPoint, and how it shows an important distinction between Christianity and radical Islam.

I fully agree with Dreher’s words that “I do not want to live in a political order in which cretins like [the cartoonists of ‘Charlie Hebdo’] have to fear for their safety, much less jail.”

But that is a long way from saying “I am Charlie.”

What’s lost in all this “I am Charlie” rhetoric is that, in a truly healthy culture, our choices wouldn’t be limited to Islamic extremism or an anything-goes nihilistic libertinism promoted by that magazine.

Such a culture would understand the difference between true satire and offense for its own sake. As Carl Trueman wrote in First Things recently, satire worthy of the name “challenges human pretension and presumption and reminds us of our limits and our fallibility . . . Whether it is Isaiah the prophet poking fun at those who worship wood and stone . . . [or] Jonathan Swift pillorying the Church in ‘Gulliver’s Travels’ . . . the satirist confronts the powerful and calls them to account.”

Most of all, “the best satire is that which fits into a larger moral vision.”  When it targets Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, it does so by pointing out “the absurdities, corruptions, and failings of Christian institutions in a way that should provoke thoughtful reflection.”

While there are still examples of this kind of satire out there today, much of what passes as satire, whether it’s Charlie Hebdo, or to a lesser extent, the cartoon South Park here in the U.S., is offense for its own sake. Its goal is not to provoke thoughtful reflection or reflection of any kind. Its goal is to test the limits of what can be said—just to be more “edgy”, vile, and disgusting than the next guy.

As I said yesterday on BreakPoint, that’s in keeping with our current cultural trajectory in which personal freedom, especially in the sexual sphere, is the only thing regarded as sacred.

Because of that, as Dreher put it, “the decadence represented by ‘Charlie Hebdo’ is probably a greater threat to Western civilization than anything the Islamists can dream up.”

Taking it one step further, he added, “except in the cases of Islamic fundamentalists, I would much rather have observant Muslims as my neighbors and my children’s playmates than someone with ‘Charlie Hebdo’s’ worldview.”

While the kind of Islamists who perpetrated the attacks in Paris have never built a thriving society, Dreher notes, “at the same time, the society the West has built and is building without God or any kind of sacred values other than the Self cannot be said to be thriving either.”

It’s evident in many places, not the least of which is our increasing inability to produce satire worthy of the name. And that’s why I say, we are not Charlie.

Reprinted with permission from BreakPoint

  charlie hebdo, faith, islam


USAID is orchestrating sterilization campaign in India: part two

The USAID approach to family planning—increasing Western pharmaceutical and device consumption and reducing by sterilization the number of babies born to Indian women—population control by definition—seems only to have added to the exploitation and suffering of India’s women.
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 12:11 pm EST
Featured Image
Zzvet /
Celeste McGovern Follow Celeste
By Celeste McGovern

Read Part I of this report here.  


The OECD report also elucidates how USAID encouraged India's sterilization quota system to develop by carefully financing its activities in India. It used a unique mechanism known as “performance based disbursement (PBD”) in which the dollar value was attached to “a set of targeted results” agreed upon between USAID and SIFPSA. “The targets for achievement were set at an achievable yet ambitious level to emphasize the focus on achieving results,” according to the OECD.

Of course, on the surface it looked as though population targets were being dropped. As USAID noted to PRI this week, US law forbids funding them. The 1999 Tiarht Amendment prohibits the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) from funding any family-planning program that has targets or quotas, is coercive, has financial or other incentives or involves non-consensual experimentation. If any of these requirements is violated or a “pattern or practice of violations” emerges, the administrator of USAID has 60 days to submit a report of findings and remedies to the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

It was damaging for India to keep quotas in the open after all the bad publicity China's One Child Policy was eliciting in the 90s anyway, so in 1996 India adopted a “Target-Free Approach” to family planning. But recent investigations by human rights activists in India have found that population targets and sterilization quotas are still routine and widespread. “Every state sets targets in its annual health plan for female sterilization, male sterilization, insertion of IUDs, and distribution of contraceptive pills,” says a 2012 report from Human Rights Watch (HRW) based on interviews with 50 Indian health workers. “A central government body, the National Project Coordination Committee, reviews these targets and allocates funds for family planning in every state.”[1]

And the funds, at least in part, are coming from USAID. A 2014 report of the Health Policy Project, a five-year cooperative agreement funded by USAID in 2010 and implemented by Futures Group, Futures Institute CEDDPA and others, details how funds to India’s National Rural Health Mission in the state of Uttarakhand are dispersed through a labyrinth of implementing District Health Societies and their underling organizations and how “RCH Flexipool funds are used for reproductive and child health programming, which includes maternal health, child health, family planning, JSY, RCH camps, and compensation for sterilisation.”[2]

State family planners, working to ensure that the people sending the cash are pleased, can get draconian to meet their quotas.

“They shout at those who have not fulfilled their targets during meetings. It’s humiliating,” one worker told HRW. “They say, “If others can achieve the target, why can’t you? You must know some women? You must have relatives or some contacts after working in the villages? Use them and get women operated [sterilized].”

“In much of the country, authorities aggressively pursue targets, especially for female sterilization, by threatening health workers with salary cuts or dismissals,” the HRW report adds. “As a result, some health workers pressure women to undergo sterilization without providing sufficient information, either about possible complications, its irreversibility, or safer sex practices after the procedure.”

“I have to keep going to women’s houses,” one worker explained. “Sometimes in one week I go 10 times to one woman’s house.”

It's also why at financial year end or when new budgets are being written, sterilization targets can suddenly swell in India. Dr. Abhijit Das from the Centre for Health and Social Justice, told HRW investigators, that in Bihar state for example,  fewer than 150,000 sterilization operations were “achieved” in 2005-2006 but that target for 2011-2012 was set at 650,000—nearly a four-fold increase. Similarly, the state of Madhya Pradesh set a target of 700,000 sterilizations, doubling what was achieved in earlier years.

SIFPSA’s “target-free” policies were simply a bugbear that family planners had to work around, while still playing the numbers game. SIFPSA's website describes how it “kick-started the government sterilization programme after setbacks due to the introduction of the target-free approach and expanded services provided in camps by funding 60,148 integrated RCH camps in 33 districts of [Uttar Pradesh] and 5 districts of Uttranchal.”[3]

And there is no sign of India retreating from its population control objectives. A press release issued last month by the Government of India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare details new “schemes and awareness campaigns” by the government “to stabilize the population of the country.” These include a new emphasis on “post partum sterilization,” a “compensation scheme for sterilisation acceptors” which has been “enhanced for 11 high focus states with high TFR,” a National Family Planning Indemnity Scheme which protects “providers and accredited institutions “against litigation in the event of death or complications following sterilizations.

It also describes how the government made World Population Day a mandatory celebration in 2013, which is marked by “Mobilization Fortnight” and “Population Stabilization Fortnight” government funded campaigns marked by increased population control activity including camps.[4]


Clearly, India's sterilization camps are a public relations nightmare for health officials and any foreigners even remotely involved. It's not likely the way most American elite designers and “innovators” of the programs envisioned their population control being executed. But it is the reality.

Another new population stabilization “scheme” listed by the GOI is an “emphasis” on resurrecting hormonal and copper IUDs, intrauterine devices that are surgically implanted in the uterus to prevent conception for up to five years.

IUDs fell out of fashion in the US in the 1980s after as many as 200,000 American women testified they were injured by the notorious Dalkon Shield—and their market has never really recovered. Given the complications associated with IUDs from displacement (one 2014 study describes their migration to the peritoneal cavity is a known complication and they have even been found to migrate to the intestine), and expulsion to perforation of the uterus and infection,[5]it's hard not to wonder why a development agency would choose it for a country where women are dying from filthy sterilizations. It also is known to cause heavy bleeding in some women which would be a particular problem among Indian women, more than half of whom (56%) HRLN reports are anemic.[6]

But in the mid 2000s USAID started looking for more ways to reduce fertility in the developing world and The Contraceptive and Reproductive Health Technologies Research and Utilization (CRTU), a five-year (2005-2010) agreement with Durham, NC based Family Health International (now FHI360) resulted.  FHI started working in a number of countries including India through its Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), the Population Council, the Indian Council of Medical Research, the Constella Futures Group, SIFPSA and, of course, the government of India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, towards supporting the “revitalization” of family planning, “especially the IUD.”

In 2007, USAID sponsored a symposium with FHI360, about developing a “comprehensive strategy for IUD repositioning.” Dr L.B. Prasad, the director general of India's MOHFW once again highlighted the growing population of India. He said that “limiting methods” of contraception (ie., sterilization) were not so acceptable as they once were and that they wouldn't really affect population growth enough since sterilizing couples had already had all the children they want. In order to really get numbers down, he said, they needed “birth spacing” and the Copper T380A IUD was the answer to be “promoted by changing the mindsets and attitudes of people and providers.”[7]

This explains why currently at all of SIFPSA/ USAID/India affiliates’ websites, including those belonging to Jhpiego at Johns Hopkins University and Engender Health include copious documentation about the benefits and need for promoting social awareness and acceptance of Long Acting Reversible Contraceptives (LARCs)s like the IUD; and strategizing about social marketing and social franchising to “create a market” and “increase demand” for the devices. Once again, advertising agencies and media are enlisted, providers are being trained in the technicalities, and community workers deployed en masse to bring women into hospitals for safe, clean deliveries where they can have IUDs inserted within 10 minutes of delivery.

A study published in October 2014 in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India says that post partum insertion of a copper IUD is “safe and effective” and “cash incentives to the accepter, motivator and of course provider would bring about a substantial progress in the PPIUCD use in developing countries like India.”[8]

USAID seem to have been well ahead of that trend. One USAID/INDIA Innovations in Family Planning Services Final Evaluation Report from May 2013 discusses the implementation of a compensation scheme for IUDs and sterilizations, without any mention of the Tiahrt Amendment.  “Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY), a safe motherhood intervention under the NRHM [National Rural Health Mission], is being implemented with the objective of reducing maternal and neonatal mortality by promoting institutional delivery among poor pregnant women.”

“The success of the scheme is determined by the increase in institutional delivery among poor families,” explains the report. “All mothers irrespective of age, birth order, or income group (BPL & APL) will get cash assistance of Rs 1400 in a lump sum at the time of delivery. ASHAs [Accredited Social Health Activists] receive Rs 600 for accompanying a rural delivery and Rs 200 for an urban delivery.” The USAID document says that sterilization is equally rewarded under the scheme with 600 rupees for a tubectomy and 1,100 rupees for vasectomy. [9]

Of course, there is no guarantee that IUD provision in India will be any safer, cleaner or more ethical than the sterilization camps were meant to be. HRW interviewed health workers who said India is already implementing the “camp approach” to IUDs. One doctor in Tamil Nadu said camps in her district insert IUDs in 30 to 35 women a day and activists are documenting cases of women having the devices inserted without consent and refused their requests to have them removed.[10]


USAID said last week that it no longer supports its SIFPSA offspring. There are new strategies in play and private sector funding and corporate profiteering are playing a greater role today, although there is considerable overlap between all these agencies. Rajeev Shah, the Administrator of USAID's $22 billion annual budget, for instance, spent years in leadership positions at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation before he launched his government career.

Melinda Gates appears now to be leading the charge for IUD programs for India and the rest of the developing world. Her foundation website says it gave $3 million last year to Jhpiego Corporation to “provide support to the Family Planning Division, MoHFW, Government of India, as [it] takes leadership and management in providing voluntary, high-quality FP services in India with a special focus on the six high TFR [total fertility rate] states of UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.[11] She awarded another $5 million to Cambridge, MA based Abt Associates, a favorite of USAID, to promote a “basket of contraceptives including injectable contraceptives” to couples in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.[12] And she gave FHI360—a group that has been working in India over the past two decades—$3 million for a multi-center study on IUDs.[13]

While Gates has distanced herself from population control, Gates' family planning ties are hard to disentangle from their population control roots. Her foundation awarded $15 million this year, for example, to “promote accountability” of family planning programming in India and other countries to Johns Hopkins University[14]—a group that has been among those at the helm in India under IFPS for the past decades while women suffered the most barbarous sterilization abuses. But the Gates Foundation declined to answer PRI’s questions about its programs in India.

Some might consider the USAID/Gates “technological” approach to family planning amidst the deeply entrenched cultural context of India naïve. The question remains whether IUDs, latex rubber gloves for sterilizations and US-sponsored free condoms for men will do anything to truly help women in the country where they are still tortured to death in witchhunts, half are married before age 18 and millions of baby girls are killed by infanticide. Indeed, the USAID approach—increasing Western pharmaceutical and device consumption and reducing by sterilization the number of babies born to Indian women—population control by definition—seems only to have added to the exploitation and suffering of India’s women. Already more than 20 years of history of US underwriting of this population control tyranny is documented in tedious government and NGO policy reports. The reality is told in heartbreaking detail by human rights activists, by the women themselves, and by their surviving families and children. America must now decide whether it wants that legacy to continue.

[1]India: Target-Driven Sterilization Harming Women, 12 July, 2012.

[2]Effectiveness of Fund Allocation and Spending for the National Rural Health Mission in Uttarakhand, India Block and Facility Report,  March 2014,  The Policy Project.

[3]SIFPSA website

[4]“Population Stabilization.” Press Release of the Government of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 05 December, 2014

[5]Laparoscopic removal of migrated intrauterine device embedded in intestine.” Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, July 2014.

[6]Fact-Finding Report on Sterilization, Access to Contraceptive Information and Services, and Women’s Health in Bilaspur District, Chhattisgarh 14-18 November 2014,” Human Rights Law Network

[7]Symposium to Develop a Comprehensive Strategy for IUD Repositioning, Report of FHI 360, 03 March , 2008.

[8]Evaluation of Safety, Efficacy, and Expulsion of Post-Placental and Intra-Cesarean Insertion of Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices (PPIUCD).”Mishra S. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India. October, 2014.

[9]EVALUATION: USAID/India Innovations in Family Planning Services Project Final Evaluation Report, May 2013

[10]See No. 1.

[11]Gates Foundation website.

[12]Gates Foundation website.

[13]Gates Foundation website.

[14]Gates Foundation  website.

[15]210 women tortured to death for 'witchcraft' in Chhattisgarh, many await justice.”The Times of India, 06 December, 2014.

[16]See No. 6.

Reprinted with permission from Population Research Institute.

  forced sterilization, india, melinda gates, population control, usaid

The Pulse

Grammy-winning rapper Lecrae: I found a photo of the girlfriend I asked to abort my baby and I ‘just broke down’

'It just literally broke...the guilt, and the remorse, and the shame of it all.'
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 1:48 pm EST
Featured Image
Christina Martin
By Christina Martin

I was surprised and grateful when I saw the latest video clip from Passion Life Ministries on Jan. 9. The video teaser is described as “A conversation with Lecrae, John Piper, and John Ensor on the story behind Good, Bad, Ugly, the remorse of abortion, and the healing of the gospel of Christ.”

In the video, Lecrae shares the meaning behind the lyrics of his song “Good, Bad and Ugly,” which shares his personal experience with abortion. Live Action wrote about this song when it was first released. Lecrae goes even deeper in this new video clip, sharing details of the pain he suffered years after the abortion of his child. Lecrae tells of the time he found a picture of his ex-girlfriend, the mother of his aborted child.

In a conversation with his wife, he realized that it was hard to throw the picture away. Thinking about throwing the picture out triggered hidden feelings of guilt, shame, and remorse related to the abortion. Lecrae said that moment was the beginning of the healing process for him.

I’m a big fan of Lecrae. I’m inspired by his convictions, amazed by his creativity, and impressed by his skill as a rapper. Beyond all of that, I’m challenged by his love for Christ and proclamation of the gospel. Lecrae has a song on his new album Anomaly titled “Nuthin.” The song calls out rappers who make money releasing songs that lack meaningful significance. An excerpt from the lyrics:

Don’t talk about the laws, taking kids away from mommas
Don’t talk about your homie in the trauma cause he shot up
Or what about your young boy messing up the product
They don’t talk about the bond money that they ain’t have
And everybody snitch on everybody in the jam
They don’t talk about the pain, they don’t talk about the struggle
How they turn to the Lord when they ran into trouble
I’m a talk about it

I love the song because it expresses who Lecrae is as an artist. Lecrae is not ashamed to talk about things that matter. He’s not just trying to sell albums and get famous. He’s not rapping about “nuthin’,”; rather, he’s using his platform as an artist to uplift others. Lecrae wants to reach people with truth. His willingness to talk about abortion is further evidence that he’s committed to discussing important things.

Abortion is the #1 cause of death for African-Americans. As a black woman, I am thrilled to see Lecrae use rap music to address this issue. How many men can relate to taking their girlfriends to an abortion clinic? Countless thousands, if not millions. Out of the thousands that share that experience with Lecrae, how many are willing to admit that it hurt them? I’m sure the number is much smaller.

Abortion is too often labeled a women’s issue. Men are ridiculed or condemned for speaking out against it. The reality is that abortion affects everyone. As the post-abortive support group Silent No More says, “Men Regret Lost Fatherhood.” Men have feelings and emotions related to abortion. Sadly, they don’t always feel safe to express their grief, for fear of being ridiculed or having their pain dismissed. This is why Lecrae’s interview is so important.

Lecrae is seen by millions as a relevant leader with a voice worth listening to. John Piper and John Ensor are powerful leaders as well. Both Christian ministers have faithfully spoken out against abortion for years. I pray this interview will lead other men to be open about their abortion pain and receive healing. I pray it will reach men considering abortion, helping them to see it’s a choice that has lasting consequences. Thank you, Lecrae, for talking about something.

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews

  abortion, lecrae

The Pulse

Pro-abortion editor of RH Reality Check says there is ‘no difference’ between pro-lifers and Islamic terrorists

Islamic terrorists commit appalling human rights abuses. Pro-lifers…try to protect unborn children.
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 1:03 pm EST
Featured Image
Cassy Fiano
By Cassy Fiano

Take a minute and think about the difference between pro-lifers and Islamic terrorists. One group wants to save lives; the other takes them. It really is that simple. The two have nothing whatsoever in common. Islamic terrorists kill people around the world in a sick sacrifice to their twisted fanaticism for violence and bloodlust, as well as force women to live as second-class citizens and slaves. They commit appalling human rights abuses. Pro-lifers…try to protect unborn children.

To any rational person, there isn’t any comparison between the two. But to pro-abortion extremist Jodi Jacobson, editor-in-chief of the radically pro-abortion website RH Reality Check, pro-lifers are just like Islamic terrorists. To her, there’s no difference at all.

It all started with a rather inoffensive tweet from Jacobson:

But that commonsense proclamation that literally everyone in the world (except Islamic terrorists, of course) agrees with soon descended into this:

OK — so, denying women the “right” to have an abortion is the same thing as killing, maiming, and imprisoning women now? Saving the life of an unborn child is the same thing as killing hundreds and thousands of innocent people? Women not having the ability to kill their unborn children is similar to a woman having her nose sliced off for not wearing a veil, or being stoned to death because she was raped, or being shot in the head for daring to get an education?

Someone clearly is deluded. And it’s easy for Jacobson to make such a ridiculous comparison when she leads a cushy, entitled, safe life in the United States, where she didn’t have to worry about murder attempts because she got an education, or undergo female genital mutilation, or worry that she could be stoned to death because she had sex with someone who wasn’t married to — or even was married to, but her family didn’t approve of. It’s typical condescending American feminism, saying that the ability to have an abortion is just as important as a woman’s right to be able to live freely without terror regimes oppressing her every move, or having to live in fear of the human rights abuses terrorist groups are so infamous for. Does she not realize what would happen if she tried to run her mouth this way to them? If she even mentioned having an abortion? She either is totally clueless, or she’s being intellectually dishonest.

Jacobson argues that denying women abortion is the same thing as denying women health care (say it with me: abortion is not health care), so therefore, it’s the same thing as torturing women and killing anyone who doesn’t fall in line. The idea is so ludicrous that you really have to wonder if she actually believes it, or if she’s just desperately grasping at straws in a pitiful attempt to make pro-lifers look bad. And really, it says a lot about the extremism of the pro-abortion movement that you can’t be sure one way or the other.

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews

  abortion, isis, terrorism

The Pulse

‘She was alive and crying!’: Abortion nurse quits after baby born alive, left to die

'Til this day I hear this crying infant in my head,' says Janet Rogers.
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 12:08 pm EST
Featured Image
Stock photo.
Sarah Terzo
By Sarah Terzo

PETITION: Tell Congress to protect babies born alive, left to die after botched abortions.  Sign the petition here.

(LiveActionNews) - Janet Rogers* worked in a hospital that performed abortions. After 30 years, she has come forward with her story.

According to Rogers:

My husband was a resident at a hospital and I just got “the job of my dreams” at a nearby Oakland hospital.  I was very much a believer in the abortion issue and now I felt I was going to be part of it.

I got hired as a charge nurse at this clinic that did late term abortions.  I spent about 30 days on the day shift getting familiar with everything.  I would witness and assist the doctor in the actual procedure, injection of drugs to the fetus, the seaweed, etc.  On the day shift I really never saw the actual start of the contractions or the termination process.  I was uncomfortable, but I really thought to myself, this was something new and I needed to get more experience.

In these abortions, the woman was dilated with laminaria, which are sticks made of seaweed that are placed in the woman’s cervix. These sticks slowly absorb fluid and dilate the cervix; they can be kept in overnight or longer. Drugs were injected into the baby to kill him or her on the first day the procedure. Late-term abortions are often performed in a similar way today.

Rogers was insulated from some of the horror of these abortion procedures. She did not actually witness the dead baby or the pain of the women going through contractions.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Rogers would later be promoted to a position where she would deal with the actual aborted babies. Other clinic workers have talked about how they were eased into the more difficult parts of their jobs in a similar way. They were started off doing things that were less emotionally difficult, such as record-keeping, receptionist duties or taking blood pressure, then gradually given more responsibilities until they were handling body parts or assisting in late-term abortions.  By that time, they are “in too deep” and committed to their jobs. It is a way that some abortion clinics have been known to manipulate their workers.

Whether or not this was the case with Rogers, she would have a life-changing experience working with one late-term abortion:

One evening a young girl was having a very difficult time.  I was there with the doctor.  I knew even though the doctor wrote this patient was 15 weeks, she was close to 30 weeks.  This happened quite a bit, but no one ever said anything.

Other abortion providers, such as Carol Everett and Kathy Sparks, have spoken about their clinics doing abortions further along than was legally allowed, and trying to hide that fact. Kathy Sparks’ clinic disposed of illegally aborted late term abortions down the toilet.

Rogers says:

When she delivered this tiny baby (it looked full term to me) she was actually alive and crying.  The doctor said to me, “Put it in the room and close the door.  Do not enter til the morning shift.”  I immediately took the crying baby and wrapped it up and laid it in a room.  I then immediately started calling hospitals around (against the doctor’s wishes) to find someone that would take it.  None around would take it cause they said it was not viable.  I spent many hours trying.  I just wanted to leave this place, but I knew I could not walk out and leave other patients without a charge nurse.  Til this day I hear this crying infant in my head.

Despite her desperate efforts to get medical help for the child, the baby girl died. Rogers quit her job, no longer an abortion supporter.

She says:

I wish others that promote abortion, especially late term would experience what I did.  The next day, I terminated my employment immediately and landed a job in a pediatric unit at another hospital.

PETITION: Tell Congress to protect babies born alive, left to die after botched abortions.  Sign the petition here.

This experience would change Rogers’ life in another way when, several years later, she experienced a difficult pregnancy of her own.

After a few years I got pregnant and went into labor at 20 weeks.  The doctors wanted me to terminate immediately due to my health. They stated that this baby would not be normal and I should try again.  I refused and was in the hospital, then was at home on complete bedrest.  I was not allowed to be alone..  I finally spiked a very high fever and was rushed into the hospital.  I was quite early still.. He was supposed to be born in November, I had him in July. –  a 2 pound 10 ounce little boy.  This was 30 years ago.  I was told that he was quite small and it would be touch and go to see what would happen. They also told me, “Do not expect too much. ”  He was in the ISU for preemies for sometime.  He fought all the way and was perfectly normal.  Today my son is a healthy young man.  He is working on his 2nd Masters (MBA) and has a full time job.  He is aware that he is lucky to be alive, cause if I did not have the experience I did early on, he would not be here today.

Rogers showed great courage in fighting for that little girl’s life 30 years ago. She also showed great courage fighting for her own son’s life. And, finally, she has shown great courage in sharing her story. As more clinic workers leave the abortion business and courageously step forward to tell their stories, more and more people who are uninformed about abortion are hearing the truth. We can hope that those who have been ambivalent or uncertain about abortion will be swayed when they learn what abortion is really like, coming straight from “the horse’s mouth”: those who experienced performing these abortions first hand.

Live Action‘s Inhuman investigation shows the willingness of abortionists to not only kill preborn children in violent, late-term abortion procedures. The expose highlights Planned Parenthood’s refusal to answer what abortionists do to children born alive as a result of a botched abortion.

More stories about babies born alive during abortions:

‘This is so hard. Oh, God, it’s so hard!’: nurses tell of aborted babies born alive

‘This baby is alive!’: the heartbreaking story of Baby Hope

‘That’s not a baby. That’s an abortion!’: clinic workers describe babies born alive

Abortion worker caught on video: if baby is born alive 'they do not resuscitate'

Nurse defied abortionist, began administering CPR to baby born alive

Polish baby born alive after abortion

66 babies born alive after abortion in one year in Britain raise questions for parliamentarians

*Name changed 

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews. Sarah Terzo is a pro-life author and creator of the website and the clinicquotes tumblr at


The Pulse

Opposing physician-assisted suicide ‘is the right position for a liberal to take’: Disability activist

People of all political persuasions should be able to unite around the imperative to protect all human life, and especially the most vulnerable, from being demeaned or taken because others deem it inconvenient.
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 12:01 pm EST
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

Marilyn Golden is not what many people picture when they think of the fight against physician-assisted suicide – but maybe she should be. The Berkeley-based activist boasts of shaking hands with President Obama, lauds “great champions of disability rights” like Senators Tom Harkin and Ted Kennedy, and is concerned with “environmental justice.” But she also encourages liberals and progressives to break out of their ideological straight-jackets on the issue of physician-assisted suicide.

In a recent interview, Golden discussed her 25-year history with the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, including her role promoting the Americans with Disabilities Act and stronger measures to assure that transportation and public accommodations are accessible. Golden told J Weekly, a publication covering the Jewish community in the San Francisco area, that she opposes physician-assisted suicide:

Because of direct threats to the disability community, but also because it’s a danger to everyone. People often think, “This is the right position for a liberal to take.” But it turns out that where assisted suicide is legal, some people will lose their lives without their consent through mistakes and abuse. No safeguards have ever been enacted or even proposed that can prevent an outcome that can never be undone.

People often support it because they’re concerned about end of life pain, but, in fact, anybody dying in pain can avail themselves of something that’s already legal: palliative sedation.[1]

The disability community is very much at risk — as our lives are not deemed to be as valuable as others — but we’re not alone in the risk. There’s also significant risk of elder abuse. An heir or an abusive caregiver can steer the person toward assisted suicide, pick up the lethal dose, and, in the end, even administer it to them because no witness is required at the death.

Liberalism, I had always been told, is supposed to care about the marginalized, the forgotten, and the powerless. Yet there are few power differentials as great as that between a seriously ill person, perhaps comatose, and a team of (not-always benign) relatives, caregivers, and doctors who hold the keys of life and death in their hands. Liberals, conservatives, and independents should agree that the potential to abuse that power and inflict permanent damage upon those considered "unworthy of life" should never be allowed in the United States.

Bravo to Golden for raising the issue of human dignity in a reflexively hostile atmosphere like San Francisco. Whatever differences we might have on other topics, people of all political persuasions should be able to unite around the imperative to protect all human life, and especially the most vulnerable, from being demeaned or taken because others deem it inconvenient.


1. Palliative sedation, although sometimes controversial, can be appropriate if practised according to ethical norms. Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has told LifeSiteNews, “Even a long-term sedation can be ethical as long as the person is not being dehydrated to death. A good palliative care physician won't use the technique very often.”

The issue, ethicists say, is to assure that medication levels are appropriate for pain relief but not to hasten the patient's demise. A 1992 study found that terminally ill patients who received such treatment lived longer than those who did not. “In important ways, assisted suicide and good palliative care are not only distinct—they are radically opposed to each other,” Richard Doerflinger wrote for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

  disability rights education and defense fund, euthanasia, marilyn golden, palliative care

The Pulse

Radical pro-abortion group plans ‘dramatic’ confrontations next week at pro-life events in four major cities

At next week’s protests Stop Patriarchy plans to show 6-foot photos of pregnant mothers who died pre-Roe from illegal abortions. To accumulate enough photos, Stop Patriarchy apparently had to go all the way back to 1929.
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 11:43 am EST
Jill Stanek Jill Stanek Follow Jill
By Jill Stanek

Stop Patriarchy is a pro-abortion group led by Communist Sunsara Tayler that believes “revolution” and a “counteroffensive” are needed to “radically reset” what it correctly sees as escalating “attacks on abortion.”

One tactic of Stop Patriarchy is to engage in “confrontational, dramatic, non-violent” protests.

Because the “war on women… is getting worse,” Stop Patriarchy is upping its game, planning protests next week in Washington, D.C., Oakland and San Francisco, California, and Austin, Texas, in conjunction with annual pro-life marches and rallies….


How “radical” is Stop Patriarchy? Even mainstream abortion groups have distanced themselves from it.

So it must be pretty bad.

One example of Stop Patriarch’s radicalism came just two days ago, when member Riley Ruiz was arrested at New York City’s Union Square subway for “dramatic street theater consist[ing] of women lying ‘dead’ while wearing white outfits stained with blood between their legs and holding the faces of real women who died from botched abortion when it was not legally available.”

Riley is the one shouting in this video…

At next week’s protests Stop Patriarchy plans is to show 6-foot photos of pregnant mothers who died pre-Roe from illegal abortions.


To accumulate enough photos, Stop Patriarchy apparently had to go all the way back to Clara Duvall in 1929, who may or may not have caused her own death by self-abortion.

Whatever, Stop Patriarchy is asking for artistic help in improving the poor quality of some of its photos.

I have some more recent photos Stop Patriarchy could use, photos of mothers who have died from legal abortions. Some died very recently, so their photos are nicely pixelated…


That’s Tonya Reaves on the left, who died at a Chicago Planned Parenthood in 2012. Next to her is Jennifer Morbelli, who died at the hand of infamous late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart in 2013; then Marla Cardamone, who died after an abortion at Magee Women’s Hospital in Pittsburgh, PA, in 1989; then Christin Gilbert, a 19-yr-old with Down syndrome, who died in 2005 at the clinic of another infamous late-term abortionist, George Tiller, but who was likely killed by Carhart; then Lakisha Wilson, who died in 2014 after an abortion at Preterm Abortion Clinic in Cleveland, OH; then Karnamaya Mongar, who Kermit Gosnell killed in 2009; and finally Laura Smith, killed in 2007 at the hand of abortionist Rapin Osathanondh in Hyannis, MA.

I could go on.

In fact, the CDC reports 421 women have died from legal abortions in the U.S. since 1973. CDC’s latest figures show 10 women died in 2010 alone.

Meanwhile, the number of illegal abortions pre-Roe is well known to have been grossly exaggerated. Even pro-abortion columnist Ellen Goodman had to correct the “10,000 a year” figure she used in a 2004 Boston Globe column. The year before Roe, 1972, 39 women died from illegal abortions, according to the CDC. Quoting

[W]e find that 1,682 abortion-related deaths were officially reported in 1940….

The biggest factor in reducing abortion mortality was undoubtedly the overall improvement in prenatal and obstetrical care after World War II.

The rate of pregnancy-related deaths from causes other than abortion dropped at roughly the same pace as the abortion death rate from 1940 through 1974….

The increased mass production of Penicillin beginning in 1943 was also a huge factor.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Pro-life group Created Equal plans to show pictures of post-Roe’s maternal victims [warning: link includes autopsy photos] at the D.C. March for Life – as well as a few of its 57 million preborn victims.

Can’t forget those, although Stop Patriarchy tries.

Reprinted with permission from Jill Stanek

  abortion, stop patriarchy

The Pulse

Abortion proponent nails one big reason why the ‘S.S. Abortion’ is sinking

S.S. Pro-Life focuses on the legal right to abortion, blocking it, that is. But we are about so much more than that. Pro-aborts only 'help' women by pointing them to baby torpedo factories.
Fri Jan 16, 2015 - 11:29 am EST
Jill Stanek Jill Stanek Follow Jill
By Jill Stanek

Imani Gandy of RH Reality Check makes a good point: The “S.S. Abortion” is “doomed to forever plugging leaks” as long as its sole focus is on “the legal right to abortion.”

To be sure, S.S. Pro-Life also focuses on the legal right to abortion, blocking it, that is. But we are about so much more than that.

In particular, we support over 3,000 pregnancy care centers across the country.

S.S. Abortion only “helps” women by pointing them to baby torpedo factories.

But more than that, the officers of S.S. Abortion know their industry is extremely lucrative.


Take, for example, Imani Gandy’s boss, Jodi Jacobson (pictured right), president and editor-in-chief of RH Reality Check. She’s a comfortable member of the 1%.

In 2012, Jacobson made a cool $179,293, according to RHRC’s 990. That was 13% of its total revenue of $1,382,791.

In 2013, RHRC had a bit of money trouble, it’s total revenue dropping by a little over $200,000 to $1,180,247.

Belt tightening would be in order, no?

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

No. Jacobson got a nice little raise to $188,272, which amounted to 16% of RHRC’s total revenue.

That’s just one miniscule example, Imani. Your own poop deck stinks.

And you fool yourself if you think the focus will ever be any other than keeping the green flowing.

Word to the wise, Imani. You’re really on the Titanic.

Reprinted with permission from Jill Stanek.

  abortion, rh reality check