All articles from September 30, 2016


News

Opinion

Blogs

  • There are no blog articles posted on September 30, 2016.

The Pulse

Podcasts

  • There are no podcasts posted on September 30, 2016.

News

Archdiocese provokes Mexican ‘discrimination’ police with article stating ‘people aren’t born homosexual’

The newspaper's editorial board received a letter of warning from Mexico City's Council to Prevent and Eliminate Discrimination.
Featured Image
Matthew Cullinan Hoffman By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

Matthew Cullinan Hoffman By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Follow Matthew
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

September 30, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – The Archdiocese of Mexico has kindled the ire of the country’s “discrimination” police after publishing an interview with psychologist Richard Cohen, who recounts his conversion from homosexuality to heterosexuality as well as his subsequent career as a therapist for those suffering from same-sex attraction.

In an article entitled “People aren’t born homosexual,” the archdiocesan weekly newspaper Desde la fe (From the Faith) writes that homosexuality is “reversible” and quotes Cohen stating that his own homosexuality was caused by the disordered relationships he experienced with his parents and siblings.

“There was a lack of unity with my father and an excessive attachment with my mother; there was physical abuse on the part of my older brother and sexual abuse by my uncle, but among the most important things was that I had a hypersensitive temperament,” Cohen told Desde la fe.

“If there were anything genetic or biological in homosexuality, it would be hypersensitivity; hypersensitive boys and girls can easily be injured,” Cohen told the newspaper. “Boys are often injured by the aloofness of their fathers and girls by that of their mothers. It might be a true distancing or by way of a false interpretation, but this perception is transformed into their reality, and it is highly probable that they will seek that unrequited love in the arms of a person of the same sex.”

However, Cohen began to develop a sense of masculine identity and opposite-sex attraction after receiving the acceptance and affirmation of heterosexual male friends. “I then felt a calling from God to get a master’s degree in psychology and to help others to overcome same-sex attraction,” he told Desde la fe. The newspaper notes that Cohen claims to have helped thousands of homosexuals abandon the lifestyle and to have trained trained thousands of therapists to do the same for their patients.

The article, which contradicts fundamental precepts of homosexual ideology, drew the attention of Mexico City’s ultra-leftist Council to Prevent and Eliminate Discrimination (COPRED), which sent a warning letter to the editorial board of Desde la fe, which “reminded ... Desde la fe of the obligation of the authorities to guarantee to all persons the enjoyment of fundamental rights without any discrimination,” and warned the president of the board, Fr. Hugo Valdemar, “in a not very conciliatory tone, the intention of COPRED to censure and sanction any opinion that might create a climate of intolerance, defamation, and homophobia against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans community of the nation’s capital,” according to the newspaper.

Fr. Valdemar has responded to the letter by accusing COPRED of “mutilating” the text of the article in quoting it selectively and notes that the homosexualist Yogyakarta Principles, which COPRED cited in its letter, have no juridical status and are not binding on Mexico in any treaty.

The Yogyakarta Principles “do not have an international consensus, nor is part of political or juridical agreements, and lacks legitimacy in that it undermines democratic structures by way of a divisive influence that favors ideologies over systems of particular law,” Valdemar wrote in an open letter published on the newspaper’s website.

So far, no response from COPRED has been announced.

COPRED’s threatening letter is the second time that Catholic clergy have come under fire from Mexico’s anti-discrimination authorities in recent months.

As LifeSiteNews reported earlier, the bishop of Cuernavaca, Ramón Castro, has been placed under investigation by COPRED’s national counterpart, the National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination, at the behest of a homosexual group for repeatedly opposing the gay agenda in the state of Morelos.

“If I go to prison, no problem, I’ll do the work of evangelization there,” Castro told his flock during a sermon at the cathedral in mid-August.


News

Mom of baby diagnosed with dwarfism refuses abortion: ‘I wouldn’t change a thing’

Baby Jocelyn's mom, Ashley Shirley, said it 'broke my heart' when doctors suggested abortion, because it was never an option for them.
Featured Image
By Nancy Flanders

By Nancy Flanders
Nancy Flanders
By Nancy Flanders

September 30, 2016 (LiveActionNews) -- Ashley Shirley and her husband, Ronnie, were excited to be expecting their fourth baby. Already parents to Lilly, 5, Londyn, 3, and Jaxson, 1, they were happy to be welcoming another little one into the bunch. However, that joy quickly turned to fear when at their 20-week ultrasound, doctors suspected something was wrong with the baby.

At a follow-up ultrasound at 24 weeks, doctors delivered some heartbreaking news: their baby girl, Jocelyn, was diagnosed with skeletal dysplasia, a condition also known as dwarfism, which can come with varying complications.

“When Jocelyn was diagnosed with skeletal dysplasia, we were initially told it looked to be non-lethal, as her chest cavity looked pretty normal and there were no other red flags,” explained Shirley. “Her femur bones were bowed, and her arms and legs measured three to four weeks behind the rest of her body. The Corpus Callosum (the front-middle portion of the brain) was completely missing, and she had hydrocephalus (fluid on the brain). At that point the doctor gave the option to abort. It shocked me at how little had to be wrong for them to even offer that.”

Shirley said it “broke my heart” when doctors suggested abortion, because it was never an option for them. Abortion was brought up a few times after that, but they continued to refuse. The couple planned to trust God, and as the weeks went on, they noticed changes occurring on the ultrasounds.

“As she grew, her chest did not,” said Shirley. “Her heart eventually took up over half her chest, leaving virtually no room for her lungs to grow and mature. That’s when they told us they didn’t know if she would come out breathing or not.”

Told that their daughter would likely die, Shirley stayed hopeful. Each week, she would ask the doctors the same questions about her daughter’s lungs and how they were doing. Each week, she received the same answer: the doctors just didn’t know — it didn’t look good.

“I sat many days and just wondered why this was happening. I would pray in my mind, but couldn’t open my mouth to pray. I couldn’t open my Bible. I was just emotionally and mentally drained,” she said.

The devastating diagnosis of death for her daughter continued through the rest of the pregnancy. The couple called in a photographer to be there at Jocelyn’s birth to take, what they thought, would be the only photos of her. But July 7th, when the day of her birth arrived, Jocelyn shocked everyone.

“The neonatologist said, ‘I came to this delivery expecting a very abnormal and sick baby, but she looks normal!’ They could not explain it. I tell them all ‘it’s a miracle!!’ Not something you can explain with science,” said Shirley. “When I heard her scream from behind the curtain, my heart exploded. My husband and I wept together, thanking God!!! I was in shock at that goodness of God.”

The photographer who had come to take pictures of a baby’s birth and death could barely contain her excitement.

“I wept tears of joy,” Jennifer Wilkerson of Wilkerson Photography wrote on Facebook. “I ran over to mom and started showing her the pictures of the baby and saying, ‘I think she’s okay,’ and mom is crying and we are all crying… full testing showed the part of her brain that was showing absent was now there; the limbs that were bowed and short were now straight and full; there was no fluid on her brain, and her chest cavity, which had been deemed too small to support life, looked normal from the outside.”

After a stay in the neonatal intensive care unit, Jocelyn was sent home with her family. While her story is indeed miraculous, she still faces some challenges. Her parents recently found out that she is blind. Her retinas never completely formed or attached as they should have. She uses a G-tube to ensure proper nutrition and growth, but is steadily working on improving her oral feeds. She has doctor appointments three or four times a week.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Shirley says life has been crazy since the day Jocelyn was born. Between driving her five-year-old to kindergarten, housework, feeding Jocelyn with her tube and cleaning it every three hours, she also serves as a youth pastor at their church. Shirley says she often feels like she is pulled in 1,000 different directions.

“By the grace of God, I’m doing it. I get through each day knowing how blessed I am to have this crazy, but wonderful life. And I wouldn’t change a thing,” she said.

The couple never told their older children about Jocelyn’s diagnosis, and they are glad they didn’t, as it would have caused them unnecessary stress. Her big siblings adore Jocelyn, Shirley said. They are gentle and loving, and even one-year-old Jaxon can’t seem to get enough of her.

“We will continue to trust God through this,” said Shirely. “He hasn’t let us down yet, and I know he will continue to show himself faithful.”

Reprinted with permission from Live Action News.


News

Abortion survivor to Congress: ‘I was born alive after being burned in my mother’s womb’

'Apart from Jesus himself, the only reason I am alive is the fact that the abortionist had not yet arrived at work that morning.'
Featured Image
By Leah Jessen

By Leah Jessen
Leah Jessen
By

September 30, 2016 (DailySignal) -- An abortion survivor urged Americans to “wake up” to the reality that some babies born alive after an attempted abortion are left to die, the survivor testified at a hearing on Capitol Hill last week.

“Many Americans have no idea that babies can even live through abortions and are often left to die, but this does happen,” Gianna Jessen, 39, said at the hearing. “I know this, because I was born alive in an abortion clinic after being burned in my mother’s womb for 18 hours.”

Jessen, who has cerebral palsy due to her attempted abortion, added at a House Judiciary Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee hearing on Sept. 23:

My medical records clearly state the following: Born during saline abortion … Apart from Jesus himself, the only reason I am alive is the fact that the abortionist had not yet arrived at work that morning. Had he been there, he would have ended my life by strangulation, suffocation, or simply leaving me there to die.

“Often when I’m in the midst of abortion advocates, they never can answer this one question and it is this: If abortion is merely about women’s rights, then what were mine?” Jessen said.

“Apart from Jesus, the reason I am alive is the fact that the abortionist had not yet arrived at work.” —@giannajessen

In 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, making it illegal to kill any babies born alive.

“Unfortunately, incidents involving born-alive children being killed after an attempted abortion have continued after this law [was passed] and into the present,” Arina Grossu, director for the Center of Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, testified at the hearing. Grossu’s written testimony says:

Abortionist Kermit Gosnell operated his dirty and dangerous Philadelphia abortion business and committed horrendous crimes in Philadelphia for over three decades. … His heinous and murderous practices of snipping the spines of born-alive children were only discovered by accident when federal and state authorities raided his facility in 2010, not because he was illegally killing born-alive infants, but because of his illegal prescription drug activity.

Grossu says Gosnell is “not an outlier.”

“Not one person to date has been charged or convicted under the current federal [Born-Alive Infants Protection Act] law,” Grossu testified.

The House passed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, introduced by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., in September 2015. An identical bill in the Senate, introduced by Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

“The abortion industry has labored for all of these decades to convince the world that unborn children and born children should be completely separated in our minds, that while born children are persons worthy of protection, unborn children are not persons and are not worthy of protection,” Franks, chairman of the subcommittee, said at the hearing.

Franks’ legislation would protect the rights of infants born alive after an abortion and leave criminal consequences for health care professionals who violate the law. The legislation would also require proper medical care be given by the health care practitioner present when an infant is born alive.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The legislation “explicitly requires health care practitioners to treat born-alive abortion survivors with the same care they would treat any other born-alive baby and admit such babies immediately to a hospital.” The law would also hold abortionists accountable for killing born-alive infants, Grossu testified.

President Barack Obama’s administration “strongly opposes” the passage of this bill, according to a statement from September 2015.

“The White House has promised that it would veto the born-alive legislation, citing it would have a ‘chilling’ effect,” Grossu testified. “I cannot think of a more chilling effect than continuing to let U.S. abortionists commit infanticide.”

Grossu urged support for the legislation to stop infanticide, or intentionally killing an infant child, in the United States.

The Hyde Amendment, also under examination at the hearing, prohibits the use of certain taxpayer dollars in abortion cases, except in rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life.

“Today we will hear testimony on existing statutory language prohibiting taxpayer funding from paying for the taking of the lives of preborn children through abortion,” Franks said. “There is concern that the Obama administration or a potential Clinton administration may intend to reinterpret the plain and longstanding meaning of the Hyde Amendment.”

The Hyde Amendment, an appropriations policy rider that has been passed each year since 1976, has its 40th anniversary this week.

“As a black woman, I am outraged that the morally bankrupt Hyde Amendment has been permitted to persist for so long,” Kierra Johnson, executive director of Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, testified. “It is a source of pain for many women and should be a source of shame for those who support it.”

“The Hyde Amendment prevents women from even being able to make a decision about their health care,” Johnson said.

While Genevieve Plaster, a senior policy analyst at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a pro-life nonprofit organization, testified that the Hyde Amendment has saved over 2 million lives since 1976, or approximately 60,000 lives per year.

“America was founded on the concept that our rights come from God,” Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said at the hearing. “When our rights come from God, how would it be possible that those rights would confer a right to kill a baby?”

Reprinted with permission from The Daily Signal.


News

Catholics rally outside Richmond bishop’s office urging him to deny Communion to Tim Kaine

Richmond Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo has refused to deny Communion to Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine despite his support for abortion.
Featured Image
Catholics protest Tim Kaine's support for abortion in August at his parish.
Claire Chretien By Claire Chretien

Claire Chretien By Claire Chretien
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire
By Claire Chretien

RICHMOND, Virginia, September 30, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — About two dozen Catholics prayed a rosary outside the Diocese of Richmond’s pastoral center on Tuesday and petitioned Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo to enforce Canon 915, the Catholic Church’s law forbidding the distribution of Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians.

Canon 915 says that individuals “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is the literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Tim Kaine’s home diocese is Richmond. After Hillary Clinton announced Kaine as her running mate, Kaine’s parish gave him a standing ovation and his pastor praised him despite his adamant support for abortion and same-sex “marriage.”

DiLorenzo subsequently issued a statement saying Catholics have a duty to determine their own worthiness to receive Holy Communion “through an upright and informed conscience.”

A few months later, Kaine predicted that the Catholic Church will change its stance on same-sex “marriage” just like he did. He publicly admitted that he knows the Church’s stance and rejects it.

“My full, complete, unconditional support for marriage equality is at odds with the current doctrine of the Church that I still attend,” Kaine said at a dinner for a prominent LGBT advocacy group. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith” (CCC 2089). Canon 1364 of the Code of Canon Law says that heretics incur automatic excommunication.

The Catholics who gathered Tuesday prayed the Angelus, the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary, and the Divine Mercy Chaplet, according to one of its leaders, Frances Bouton.

Bouton said the rally participants were praying for DiLorenzo and that he will enforce Canon 915.

“We remain respectful and very hopeful that the Bishop will do the right thing in this important situation by enforcing Canon 915, and we continue to offer our prayers for him in this regard,” Bouton told LifeSiteNews via email.

“A steady stream of folks have been writing Bishop DiLorenzo to ask him to enforce the canon,” Bouton said, so the rally came “on the heels of that.”

“Praying the rosary is always a good thing, and Bishop DiLorenzo always seeks prayers on his behalf,” Deborah Cox, the communications director for the Diocese of Richmond, told LifeSiteNews in an email. She referred LifeSiteNews to DiLorenzo’s previous statement saying Catholics should determine their worthiness to receive Holy Communion “through an upright and informed conscience” and a September 13 statement he issued affirming the Catholic Church’s unchanging teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman.

The petition the faithful delivered to DiLorenzo on the day of the prayer rally said, “Tim Kaine’s anti-Catholic positions put him squarely in opposition to Holy Mother Church. These very publicly championed positions include abortion, homosexual ‘marriage’, homosexual adoption, transgender ideology, ordination of women, and no religious freedom.”

“In short, it would appear that Tim Kaine is an enemy of the Catholic Church,” the petition continued. “But because Tim Kaine continues to call himself a Catholic in good standing, and because he is running as a vice presidential candidate, we are asking you to set the record straight by publicly disciplining Kaine under Canon 915. Catholics in America and beyond have the right to know that Tim Kaine is not a Catholic in good standing, and you, as his Bishop, are the rightful authority to whom this clarification belongs.”

The petition asked DiLorenzo to enforce Canon 915 “for the sake of our children, our children’s children, and all the millions more unborn children who will be aborted under a Hillary-Kaine administration.”

In her speech to the rally participants, Bouton outlined Kaine’s well-documented support of abortion, same-sex “marriage,” same-sex adoption, transgender ideology, women’s ordination, and the triumph of the LGBT agenda over religious freedom.

“Now that Tim Kaine is a vice presidential hopeful with Hillary Clinton, and Hillary is calling for taxpayer funding for abortions through all nine months [of pregnancy], it is totally clear that Tim Kaine has officially and willing become a consenting party to the further expansion of this most egregious and barbaric evil,” Bouton said.

Furthermore, she asked, “If Tim Kaine used his status as a Catholic senator to publicly petition the pope for women priests,” referencing a statement Kaine made around the pope’s U.S. visit, “what might we expect from him to petition for as a vice president?”

“We are still encouraging faithful Catholics from around the U.S. to very politely and respectfully write Bishop DiLorenzo,” Bouton told LifeSiteNews.


News

WATCH: Viral Irish video destroys pro-abortion lobby’s call to ‘repeal’ pro-life law

Ireland's Youth Defense wants to expose the 'reality behind the Repeal the 8th slogan.
Featured Image
Pete Baklinski By Pete Baklinski

Pete Baklinski By Pete Baklinski
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

IRELAND, September 30, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — Ireland’s abortion lobby might have billionaire George Soros in its pocket along with mainstream media in the all-out fight to overturn the country’s pro-life Eighth Amendment, but they don’t have a group of dedicated pro-life teens who have just released a powerful video defending the law that’s going viral.

“Repeal Kills: See the reality behind the slogan” was released last weekend by Youth Defense, Ireland's largest and most active pro-life organization. The one-minute, 49-second video that shows the reality behind the push to extend abortion has already racked up 242,000 views on Facebook and YouTube combined.

Ireland, considered one of the world’s safe havens for preborn children, passed via referendum in 1983 the Eighth Amendment, which upholds the “right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”

The abortion lobby under the banner of “The Abortion Rights Campaign” is calling the law “archaic and dangerous” and is hoping to have a referendum to repeal the law “so that full reproductive health services, including abortion, can be made available.” They campaign with the slogan “Repeal the 8th.”

In response, Youth Defense created a video that they say shows the “reality behind the ‘repeal the 8th’ slogan.”

Drawing on historical situations where words like “segregation” and the “final solution” were used to discriminate against a class of people, the film makes the case that “repeal” in Ireland is the new word for discrimination.

“‘Repeal’ [is] the word currently being used in Ireland to address the ugly truth of abortion. It kills a baby. […] When you hear the slogan, ‘Repeal the 8th,’ do you really know what it means? It means unrestricted access to abortion on demand, abortion for any reason, throughout all nine months of pregnancy,” the film states.

“‘Repeal’ means discrimination. […] ‘Repeal’ means taking the right to life away from another human being. ‘Repeal’ kills,” it adds.

Clare Molloy of Youth Defense hopes the film will be a “game-changer” for Irish people unsure of what the “repeal” campaign is all about.  

“The Irish people have been hearing a constant ‘Repeal the 8th’ message from the media on a daily basis, and this video shows the reality behind that innocuous phrase. The reality is that abortion kills a baby, and Ireland can do better for mothers and babies,” she said.

Molloy called ‘repeal’ an euphemism for abuse.

“As has been done in every jurisdiction in the world, phrases like ‘repeal’ and ‘choice’ are used to mask the reality of abortion. Using euphemisms was also a tactic used to justify slavery and genocide and civil rights abuses. We’re making sure that deception is revealed here,” she said.

Ireland’s Life Institute, which is campaigning alongside Youth Defense to defend the Eighth Amendment, called the video “powerful and hugely effective.”

The institute’s president, Niamh Ui Bhriain, told LifeSiteNews that if Ireland’s constitutional protection of preborn children is repealed, then the country would follow the pattern of other European countries where “babies' lives have become utterly disposable.”

"If we look at the shocking abortion rates across Europe — 21 percent of all babies lose their lives to abortion in Britain; 90 percent of babies with Down syndrome are aborted; Sweden has a 40 percent repeat abortion rate — we can see that without the 8th amendment Ireland faces the disturbing vista of abortion on demand and all the consequences that entails,” she said.

“We'd be turning our backs on progress and compassion and failing mothers and babies. That's why we're fighting so hard to Save the 8th and reveal that #RepealKills,” she added.

The abortion lobby is hoping to have a referendum on the Eighth Amendment within the next 12 months.


News

Stericycle tried to ban pro-lifers from exposing them for dumping aborted babies’ bodies. They just lost.

'The court recognized that no business is immune from public criticism.'
Featured Image
Ben Johnson By Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson By Ben Johnson
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

WAUKEGAN, Illinois, September 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Pro-life leaders may aggressively speak out against Stericycle, a company implicated in dumping the bodies of aborted babies in landfills, a judge has ruled.

Last December, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine requested “documents from Planned Parenthood, specifically where do they dispose of their aborted fetuses,” and learned that Stericycle had taken fetal cadavers from Planned Parenthood to a landfill, something the attorney general said may have violated state law.

In response, Created Equal, a Columbus-based pro-life organization, launched an “awareness campaign” against Stericycle, including its president and CEO, Charles A. Alutto. Its volunteers blanketed the North Shore area with images of aborted babies and distributed a flier to Alutto’s Lake Forest neighbors that included his home address and business phone number.

After Stericycle failed to get a restraining order to legally prevent his exposure last April, the company accused pro-life volunteers of defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

Judge Margaret A. Marcouiller of the 19th Judicial Circuit Court dismissed those charges in a 20-page opinion issued  Thursday. The company may not appeal.

"This latest dismissal of Stericycle's lawsuit constitutes another signal victory for free speech on the part of ordinary citizens," stated the society’s president and chief counsel, Tom Brejcha.

The pro-life cause prevailed despite what Brejcha described as a “David vs. Goliath” legal battle. Stericycle was represented by former chief U. S. Attorney Scott Lassar and others at the elite law firm Sidley Austin LLP. Created Equal relied on pro bono representation from the Thomas More Society.

"The court recognized that no business is immune from public criticism of practices that citizens deem profoundly objectionable on moral or legal grounds," Brejcha said. "Those companies, like Stericycle, that partner with the abortion industry are not exempt from critiques even when – as in this case – the critiques have been scathing and vigorous."

Mark Harrington, the president of Created Equal, said that “pro-life free speech and the rule of law prevailed” and that “corporate bullies like Stericycle are not immune from exposure for their involvement in abortion.”

It wasn’t all good news. Judge Marcouiller is allowing the company to progress with its allegation that Created Equal deliberately caused Alutto emotional distress.

In the meantime, Harrington promises, he will not back down.

“Stericycle needs to stop enabling Planned Parenthood 's killing machine," Harrington said. “If they continue to partner with the abortion industry, the campaign to expose them will continue.”


News

MP Trost fears Canadian values test could screen out socially conservative immigrants

The Conservative party member is concerned about how the Liberal government defines 'Canadian values'
Featured Image
Ververidis Vasilis / Shutterstock.com
Lianne Laurence By Lianne Laurence

Lianne Laurence By Lianne Laurence
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

TORONTO, September 30, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — Conservative Party leadership hopeful Brad Trost says he’s afraid Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government would use a “Canadian values” screening test to prevent applicants opposed to abortion and homosexual “marriage” from immigrating to Canada.

The Saskatchewan MP told therebel.media’s Ezra Levant that supporting “Canadian values” is like cheering for the Roughriders in Saskatchewan, but the question is what the government in power considers those “values” to be.

“As soon as those ‘Canadian values’ get into the hands of Justin Trudeau, those are going to be ‘Liberal’ values,” Trost said, pointing out that some European countries now screen for “European values” and “they screen out social conservatives.”

Describing himself as “100 percent Conservative: I’m a social conservative, a cultural conservative,” Trost added: “I could not sign if I went to Belgium now — they’re screening for ‘European values’ — because I’m a social conservative.”

The controversy over the issue erupted and has been simmering since Tory leadership contender, Ontario MP and former cabinet minister Kelly Leitch sent out a campaign survey asking: “Should the Canadian government screen potential immigrants for anti-Canadian values as part of its normal screening for refugees and landed immigrants?”

While Leitch was criticized in the media for “nativist” politics, a poll commissioned by the National Post in mid-September found her move had “dramatically” increased her name recognition in a field of some half-dozen rumoured and declared candidates, and placed her then behind only Peter MacKay — since confirmed as not running — as the choice of Conservative supporters.

Trost, who is endorsed by Campaign Life Coalition as a supportable candidate because of his solid pro-life and pro-family record, told Levant that he was not against screening per se.

“We should screen, and we do for security and other things, but I want conservative values,” he said. “I’m scared the Liberals are going to use this to screen out conservatives.”

Belgium’s government announced in April that it would be passing a law requiring immigration applicants to sign an “European values” pledge. The requirement would not apply to asylum seekers or students.  

In 2006, the Netherlands adopted a controversial policy requiring applicants from predominately Muslim countries to watch a video that included scenes of homosexual men kissing and a topless woman on the beach to test their acceptance the country’s “socially liberal” values.

Immigration applicants to Canada must take a general citizenship knowledge test.


News

Pro-life movement celebrates Hyde Amendment’s 40 years, and 2 million lives saved

Voters must 'tell our elected leaders that if they do anything to the Hyde Amendment, they must strengthen it, not weaken it.'
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson By Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson By Ben Johnson
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – In a year when national lawmakers have given pro-life advocates little to celebrate, national celebrations are taking place over a federal provision passed 40 years ago today. The Hyde Amendment, introduced by Rep. Henry Hyde in 1976, protects taxpayers from funding abortion-on-demand by blocking federal Medicaid funding for elective abortions.

Until that time, Medicaid financed an estimated 300,000 abortions a year.

Congressman Hyde, a Catholic Democrat-turned-Republican from the Chicago suburbs, introduced his measure as an amendment to a bill funding the Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) department in 1976.

“Abortion is a lethal assault against the very idea of human rights,” Rep. Hyde later said, explaining his dedication to the issue.

After 11 weeks of hard-fought negotiations with the Senate – and the support of Sens. Jesse Helms and James Buckley – the Hyde Amendment became part of the bill.

The original version had no exception for rape or incest.

However, it was promptly vetoed by President Gerald Ford, who said the bill cost too much. “I agree with the restriction on the use of federal funds for abortion My objection to this legislation is based purely and simply on the issue of fiscal integrity,” Ford, a “pro-choice” Republican, said.

But a coalition of pro-life congressmen who supported Hyde, and liberal Democrats such as far-Left feminist Bella Abzug who favored higher spending levels, joined forces to override his veto on September 30, 1976.

The bill was immediately held up in the courts, not taking effect until 1977 (when Democrat Jimmy Carter signed the measure). In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Hyde Amendment is constitutional in a 5-4 decision, Harris v. McRae.

In 1993, Rep. Hyde amended his own amendment, adding the rape and incest exception, because he feared President Bill Clinton and a Democratic-controlled Congress would repeal in its entirety. "I didn't think the votes were there anymore for a straight ban on abortion funding,” he said.

Congressman Hyde passed away in 2007 at the age of 83.

Since its passage, the Hyde Amendment has saved two million children's lives, one of every nine babies born on Medicaid in states that observe Hyde. The Guttmacher Institute has estimated the number of abortions would “expected to increase by approximately 33,000 if the Hyde amendment were to be repealed.”

Some 15 states use state funds to pay for abortion-on-demand. “Interestingly, 11 of those 15 states are funding abortion through Medicaid because of a judicial ruling or a court order,” writes Dr. Michael New, an economic professor at Ave Maria University, in a new paper published by the Charlotte Lozier Institute.

Most Americans have been able to avoid paying for the vast majority of abortions.

“For decades, the Hyde Amendment has protected unborn children as well as the conscience rights of pro-life taxpayers who do not want to be complicit in abortion,” saysMarjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List. That will change if Hillary Clinton is elected president, Dannenfelser warns.

Clinton has promised to gut both the Hyde and Helms Amendments. Her running mate, Tim Kaine, has held five separate personal positions on the amendment but, if elected, he will support Clinton. The 2016 Democratic Party platform calls for “repealing the Hyde Amendment” and U.S. funding of abortion “as part of America’s global health programming.”

Secretary Clinton’s “radical support for forcing taxpayers to fund abortion on-demand, up until the moment of birth is out of step – even with members of her own party.”

Sen. Joe Manchin, a pro-life Democrat from West Virginia, called the platform’s call to fund abortion at home and around the world “crazy.” Donald Trump, who has publicly committed to “making the Hyde Amendment permanent law,” enjoys a prohibitive lead in his once staunchly Democratic state.

Mr. Trump will have a partner in the legislative branch, if Republicans maintain their Congressional majorities. “Make no mistake: The Hyde Amendment will remain central in our fight for life until the day Roe v. Wade is overturned entirely,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said on Friday.

And the pro-life movement, which celebrates today, will lobby leaders of either party to make the Hyde Amendment’s permanent, regardless of the child’s parentage.

“Every child deserves a chance at life, regardless of their family's income level or manner of conception,” says Lila Rose, the president of Live Action. Voters must “tell our elected leaders that if they do anything to the Hyde Amendment, they must strengthen it, not weaken it, and once and for all, end all public funding of abortions and of any business that commits them.” 


News

University president: Transgender ideology ‘dumbs down the definition of the human being’

Oklahoma Wesleyan University's Everett Piper says the Obama administration's gender guidelines are anti-woman, anti-freedom.
Featured Image
Oklahoma Wesleyan University President Everett Piper
Claire Chretien By Claire Chretien

Claire Chretien By Claire Chretien
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire
By Claire Chretien

September 30, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — The Obama administration’s imposition of transgender ideology on schools is anti-woman and “would be laughable if it weren’t so sad,” Oklahoma Wesleyan University President Dr. Everett Piper told LifeSiteNews in an exclusive video interview.

“The government should stay out of the business of the college and the university. The government should not control ideas,” Piper, who is unapologetically Christian, told LifeSiteNews.

“Title IX is a law that was established in 1972 to give women —women! — equal access to the athletic field and to facilities and programs,” Piper explained. Yet this is the same law that President Obama has used to threaten schools with the loss of federal funding if they do not let students access the restrooms, showers, and intimate facilities of the opposite sex.

“Now how in the world is it possible for anybody to be pro-woman if they now, under the Title IX ‘Dear Colleague’ letter, which tells us to deny the biological fact of the female, and give her rights — the biological female’s right to the athletic field and to her shower and to her toilet and to her facilities — give those rights to someone who fancies himself or fabricates female identity out of thin air?” Piper asked.

Denying biological reality “insults the female,” Piper said. “It dumbs down the definition of the human being to nothing but a fabrication and a fantasy rather than a biological fact. Now why would I want to do that and why would anybody who’s pro-woman — why would a classical feminist ever [want to] buy that particular line of thinking?”

Piper blasted political correctness and the prevailing mindset that universities should reward students for having opinions rather than pursuing the truth.

“You pursue truth because it’s an objective reality, it’s out there,” he said. “Go get it, embrace it, learn more of it — that’s the objective of going to college in the first place.”

“If you’re a nurse, for example, and you’re going to administer medication to me on the basis of your opinion, I’d like you to stay away from me because you’re dangerous,” Piper said. “All the despots of history” had opinions, “but it didn’t end very well. Jesus told us, ‘You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.’ And there’s a reason that that motto was emblazoned across libraries across the world at one time: because it’s the only context for true liberty and true liberalism.”

Piper said that under no circumstances would he allow men and women to share dorm rooms at OWU. It wouldn’t make sense to try to force that on OWU because students “come to our institution, [and] enroll voluntarily” because they believe in the four pillars of its mission statement: the primacy of Christ, the priority of Scripture, the pursuit of truth, and the practice of wisdom.

“You have freedom of association … You sign a contract saying that you will behave a given way because that’s the type of community environment you want,” Piper said. “Why would anybody presuppose to tell me to start dishonoring that and start violating that in the way I deal with students in terms of the ideas that I teach, the policies that we promote, or the expectations that we have for our students or faculty?”

Last year, Piper penned a piece titled This is not a daycare. It’s a university! It quickly went viral for skewering political correctness and the notion that students should be protected from ideas that might upset them.

His newest book, Not a Day Care: Why a Coddled Nation is a Crippled Nation, will be released in April 2017.

OWU was one of nearly 40 institutions that, along with the Little Sisters of the Poor, took the Obama administration to the Supreme Court for trying to force them to formally cooperate in the provision of contraception and abortion-inducing drugs.


News

Mother intervenes to keep ‘brain dead’ Montana boy alive

Tasha Calloway was able to prevent hospital tests that are supposed to determine 'brain death.'
Featured Image
Seven-year-old Allen Calloway
By Steve Weatherbe

By Steve Weatherbe
Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

CONRAD, Montana, September 30, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — Seven-year-old Allen Calloway may be still alive in St. Vincent’s Hospital in Billings thanks to a court order making his mother, Tasha, his guardian and giving her the power to veto a test the hospital sought to determine whether he was “brain dead.”

“The ruling is quite significant because it keeps decision-making with parents,” Dr. Paul Byrne of the Life Guardian Foundation told LifeSiteNews. “Further, it requires permission from parents or someone to do the harmful, cruel, potentially lethal procedure of apnea testing.”

The dispute raises the issue of “brain death,” which, according to Byrne, is a concept developed to maximize opportunities to harvest internal organs from people who are still alive but comatose.

Allen nearly drowned on July 22, but paramedics pronounced him alive and took him to the hospital in Billings still “spontaneously breathing.” When his condition worsened a week later and he needed a respirator to breathe, the hospital conducted tests designed to satisfy the conditions of Montana’s Uniform Determination of Death Act for declaring him “brain dead.”

The tests are supposed to reveal whether “irreversible” damage has been done to the brain and, if so, allows the hospital to disconnect him from routine bodily sustenance, or given the boy’s overall health, to keep him alive in case his family consented to an organ donation.

“It is in the best interest or the transplant industry when there is no consent to transplants that the person who is found brain dead very quickly becomes really dead so that the public does not find out the lie being told,” Byrne told LifeSiteNews.

Allen’s mother, Tasha Stone, and her partner, Clint Stone, told the court they were not advised initially that the tests were to confirm “brain death.” According to their testimony, they believed “the procedures were being conducted to determine the health of A.C.’s brain.”  

Moreover, the apnea tests, which involved cutting off the respirator, caused Allen distress, at least according to Stone, who was present. The results led medical staff to conclude the boy was "brain dead" and they sought to retest him.

While hospital staff told the court apnea tests were safe, Byrne told LifeSiteNews that the body is overloaded with carbon dioxide, not only causing discomfort but risking injury. “Sometimes people die from it.”

Asked for consent for yet another apnea test, the mother refused permission and sought a court order confirming she was Allen’s guardian and that she had the legal authority to refuse medical procedures. Judge Robert Olsen granted her guardianship and confirmed that it gave her such power, though the hospital disputed the judge’s ruling.

Olsen noted that parental rights were “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests the Supreme Court has recognized under the Due Process Clause” of the Constitution and they include the right to make medical decisions in the child’s interests. And while a court could override parental rights to save a child’s life, in this case the parents were trying to save their child’s life while “it is the hospital and its personnel who are administering medical procedures that could lead to the termination of A.C.’s life.”

The hearing revealed startling discrepancies in the hospital’s findings. Prior to taking the apnea tests, Allen displayed brain activities that hospital staff admitted under cross examination contradicted the apnea tests’ finding of brain death.

Byrne, an activist against organ transplants, notes that there are several indications that “brain death” is misleading. In the United Kingdom, for example, organ harvesters must anaesthetize the donors before opening up their bodies to alleviate pain. “A corpse does not feel pain,” Byrne told one interviewer. “And several unconscious women who met all the criteria for brain death nonetheless have given birth. A corpse does not bear children.”

Byrne said Callaway is now being treated to reduce the swelling in his brain in order for it to heal and be restored to normal function. He added that research into treatment for brain injuries is being hampered by the transplant industry’s reliance on “brain dead” patients. “Every organ that is harvested comes from a living person like Allen. His organs are worth a million dollars at least and as much as $5 million.”

“We feel the hospital was deceptive and unprofessional at first,” Tasha Stone told LifeSiteNews. “But they have been very helpful since the court ruling in getting Allen prepared for returning home.”

The Stones are revamping what is now their classroom (they are homeschoolers with seven children) to provide Allen a ground floor bedroom, and they are acquiring two respirators (one for backup) and two generators because winter power outages are common in rural Montana.

“Allen won’t be on any special medications,” Mrs. Stone reported. “All we hope and pray for is that he will wake up.” She asked for prayers.


News

Baby’s birth mother decides to keep her after adoptive mother rejects her

'I was not fully prepared for her, but now I can no longer see my life without either one of my daughters.'
Featured Image
Abigail was diagnosed with Treacher Collins, a genetic condition that causes underdevelopment of certain facial features, including the jaw and cheekbones as well as the ears and eyes.
By Nancy Flanders

By Nancy Flanders
Nancy Flanders
By Nancy Flanders

September 30, 2016 (LiveActionNews) -- When Christina Fisher discovered she was pregnant in 2015, she felt she wasn’t in a good place financially to raise another child. She already had an 18-year-old daughter and referred to her living situation as “basically homeless.” She decided that the best thing she could do for her new baby was to place her with an adoptive family. However, things didn’t go according to plan.

When baby Abigail Lynn was born on January 11, 2016, her adoptive mother was there. But after seeing Abigail, the woman left the hospital in tears, never to be heard from again.

Abigail was diagnosed with Treacher Collins, a genetic condition that causes underdevelopment of certain facial features, including the jaw and cheekbones as well as the ears and eyes. Some people with Treacher Collins have difficulty with hearing while some others have respiratory problems. She may need cochlear implants for hearing at some point, but otherwise, doctors expect Abigail to lead a completely normal life.

When Fisher realized what had happened, and that her baby had been rejected by her adoptive mother, she decided she would raise her daughter herself.

“That is when I realized she is meant to be mine only now ’cause of her needs,” she wrote on her now-closed fundraising page. “I was not fully prepared for her, but now I can no longer see my life without either one of my daughters.”

Since she wasn’t prepared and was unable to return to work because she was caring for Abigail, friends, family and strangers alike raised over $20,000 to help her cover basic expenses, including diapers. Local nonprofits also helped out by donating clothes and diapers.

“I’ve been very fortunate,” Fisher told NWF Daily News. “I don’t need a glamorous lifestyle. I just need enough to take care of her.”

“They missed out on the most amazing baby in the world,” she said. “She saves my life every single day, just like my 18-year-old did. She doesn’t know how much she means to me… she’ll understand one day.”

Reprinted with permission from Live Action News.


News

Catholics defy Church teaching by favoring employer contraception coverage: survey

A Pew Research Center study indicates a majority of Catholics want birth control in their health plans.
Featured Image
American Life League
Lisa Bourne By Lisa Bourne

Lisa Bourne By Lisa Bourne
Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa
By Lisa Bourne

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 30, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – A large majority of Catholics think it’s OK for the government to force employers to cover contraceptives in employee health plans, a new poll says.

Sixty-five percent of Catholics believe employers should not be allowed to opt out of providing birth control for employees, the Pew Research Center survey finds.

Released Wednesday, the Where the Public Stands on Religious Liberty vs. Nondiscrimination survey was conducted August 16 through September 12 among 4,538 respondents and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.4 percentage points.

Catholic teaching holds that contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, also known as natural law. Unnatural birth control also contradicts the symbolic renewal of the marriage covenant.

The controversial issue of government-imposed birth control subsidization has been at the forefront since the Obama administration instituted its HHS Contraception Mandate, which requires employers to cover birth control, including abortifacients, without patient co-payment under the guise of preventive services.

The mandate has been the subject of countless lawsuits from religious institutions and other closely held companies, including the Catholic Church, objecting to its violation of religious freedom.

At the same time, Catholics in the Pew Research survey who favored government forcing companies to provide birth control by a 2-1 margin not only were placing themselves at odds with their own Church, they are fully in line with the culture — being of the world and opposed to the Church — because the numbers in the survey matched those of the general population. The  public approved of government-mandated contraception coverage by employers 67 percent to 30 percent.

Fifty-four percent of Catholics also favored laws requiring businesses to participate in weddings that violate their conscience. Additionally, Catholics agreed by a slight majority (50 percent-47 percent) that biological males should not use women's restrooms. 

The apparent rejection of Catholic principles and the failure to recognize the significance of religious liberty demonstrate the need for clear proclamation of Church teaching, noted two observers involved in Catholic-related issues. 

“It is a sad commentary on the state of the Church in America that polling shows the majority of self-identified Catholics fail to understand the importance of religious liberty in such concrete cases as forcing employers to pay for contraception or to provide wedding services to homosexuals,” said Dr. Joseph Meaney, Human Life International’s director of outreach and expansion.

Meaney pondered whether the lack of strong religious persecution against Catholics in recent decades has diminished their understanding of what it means to be discriminated against for one's beliefs, pointing out, however, that this kind of discrimination by government bodies is increasing.

The issue has been cleverly and misleadingly framed by liberals, he said, as one of civil or human rights vs. religious bigotry.

“Very few Catholics have a clear understanding that following one's conscience is a fundamental human right and that the proper formation of one's conscience goes far beyond simple feelings as to what is right or wrong,” Meaney stated. “There is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority, and the U.S. founding fathers were very aware of this danger.”

Adam Cassandra, editor for The Cardinal Newman Society, concurred.

“When you’re talking about health care plans, wedding cakes and restroom facilities, there are a number of nuances that people could be confused about in terms of moral obligations and cooperation with evil,” he said, “though any government infringement on religious freedom should raise some flags.”

Both agreed that more should be done in terms of educating Catholics in their faith.

“The numbers showing tragically low percentages of Catholics believing that use of contraceptives, having an abortion and homosexual behavior are morally wrong are truly concerning as they are obvious mortal sins, and Church teaching is clear on these issues,” Cassandra told LifeSiteNews. “The first concern of any Catholic who sees these numbers should be for the souls of the poll respondents and anyone else who doesn’t agree that all three of these actions are morally wrong.”

“Then we have to ask why these numbers are so dismal,” he continued, citing issues at the parish level and colleges across the country.

“People have to speak out and take action in order to turn things around — in our schools, colleges, and in our parishes,” Cassandra said. “No matter what the opinion polls say, Church teaching cannot change on these issues, so it’s our job — our calling as Christians, in fact — to bring our brothers and sisters around to knowing and accepting the truth and embracing the fullness of faith.”

“Many American Catholics have obviously failed to inculcate some elementary concepts from the Catechism,” Meaney told LifeSiteNews. “As American society becomes ever more secular and even hostile to traditional religious values, a clear priority for the Church must be to educate the faithful about the importance of conscience and that forcing men and women to violate their reasonable religious beliefs is an intolerable human rights abuse in a just political system.”


News

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore suspended over gay ‘marriage’ order

The Alabama judge was on trial for upholding the state's ban on homosexual 'marriage.'
Featured Image
Roy Moore
Fr. Mark Hodges By Fr. Mark Hodges

Fr. Mark Hodges By Fr. Mark Hodges
Fr. Mark Hodges Fr. Mark Hodges
By Fr. Mark Hodges

MONTGOMERY, Alabama, September 30, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Pro-marriage and family conservative stalwart Judge Roy Moore was suspended Friday for the rest of his term after he opposed a federal court order on same-sex "marriage."

Moore is the Alabama Supreme Court chief justice who was suspended in May for telling probate judges to follow the state's ban against homosexual "marriage" while the Alabama Supreme Court reviewed the matter. Because of his directive, Moore has been the focus of a campaign by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and other liberal groups to unseat him.

Alabama's nine-member Court of the Judiciary ruled unanimously in favor of suspending Moore because of "his disregard for binding federal law" while refusing to marry same-sex couples. His term was to expire in 2019. The 69-year-old judge was not removed from the bench entirely, but he will be unable to seek the position again because of age limits.

On January 6, six months after the U.S. Supreme Court constitutionalized same-sex "marriage" in Obergefell v. Hodges, Moore issued an order to probate judges that for the time being they should follow the Alabama Supreme Court decision upholding the state's same-sex “marriage” ban.

Moore's directive stated, "Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect."

The SPLC raised numerous complaints against the chief justice, and in response the Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) filed six charges, including disregarding a federal injunction forcing same-sex "marriage" in Alabama; "unwillingness to follow clear law;"  "abuse" of administrative authority; substituting his judgment for the judgment of the Alabama Supreme Court; making public comments about a pending proceeding in his own court and then not recusing himself; and "interference with the legal process."

Moore was accused of telling probate judges to violate federal court rulings, but his January directive stated: "I am not at liberty to provide any guidance to the Alabama probate judges on the effect of Obergefell on the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court. That issue remains before the entire Court which continues to deliberate on the matter."

Judge Moore was represented by Liberty Counsel, which is dedicated to "advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family." Founder and Chairman Mat Staver told Christian News Wire this week after his trial that Moore “merely gave a status report on the pending case” before the state Supreme Court.

"The JIC apparently wanted Chief Justice Moore to usurp the authority of the Alabama Supreme Court and order all probate judges to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples,” Staver said. “The JIC overstepped its authority to bring these politically-motivated charges."

"The underlying issue in this case concerns the nature of the federal system and the relationship between the federal and state courts," John Eidsmoe, senior counsel for the Foundation for Moral Law, told LifeSiteNews. “This is an issue Americans struggled with well before the Constitutional Convention and continue to struggle with today.”

"The way to resolve this issue is through scholarship, debate, argumentation, litigation, and the political process," Eidsmoe reasoned.

"Unfortunately, the Left wants to short-circuit that process and silence all opposing views by removing dissenting judges from office," Colonel Eidsmoe continued. "That's not the American way of doing things.."

This was Moore's second suspension. In 2003, he refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments at the Alabama Judicial Building despite orders to do so from a federal judge and was removed from his position as chief justice.

After his 2003 suspension, Moore unsuccessfully sought political office, losing in the Republican gubernatorial primaries. He then won back the office of Alabama chief justice in 2012.


News

U of T prof blasts ‘totalitarian’ gender ideology: ‘I guess I should be put in jail’

The University of Toronto's Dr. Jordan B. Peterson is warning about the Trudeau government's pending 'human rights' legislation.
Featured Image
By Steve Weatherbe

By Steve Weatherbe
Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

TORONTO, September 30, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – A University of Toronto psychology professor who warns on YouTube that the new gender ideology is “absurd,  dangerous, totalitarian," and without “scientific standing” also believes that these words alone might be enough to land him in jail.

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, an expert on the psychology of religion and author of Maps of Meaning: the Architecture of Belief, used his YouTube talk to challenge the federal Liberal government, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and his own university’s human resources department for their promotion of what he calls a “Marxist” ideology of gender identity and gender expression.

The proposed federal Bill 16, which makes it a hate crime to discriminate on the basis of gender identity or expression, and the new OHRC regulations are so broad, subjective and vague, he says, that they seem designed “to get as many people in trouble” as they can —starting with him.

“If someone can be put in jail for questioning that [gender ideology], then I guess I should be put in jail,” he says at one point in the hourlong video, “because I’m going to continue to question it.”

He parses new provisions in the OHRC prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression discrimination, noting that organizations violate these provisions when they permit “actual or potential” discrimination, whether or not anyone complains, and whether or not they know about the discrimination.

He also analyzes the OHRC’s attempt to define gender identity and expression, and points out what he sees as glaring inconsistencies. When a person with a male body believes his gender identity is that of a woman, he notes, this condition is unchangeable. But when a person’s gender identity is the same as their biological condition, that is a “social construct” that is entirely mutable. This is completely illogical, he claims.

Peterson identifies the intellectual basis for this as Marxism. According to Peterson, the philosophical basis for Soviet and Chinese Communism, all intellectual history, including that of religion and philosophy, is an offshoot of the current forms of economic production.

If feudal agriculture prevails, then the feudal lords that dominate and benefit from feudalism will invent a religion (Roman Catholicism) and a political system (monarchy) that justify their powerful position. Protestantism and democracy simply reflect new economic developments. Gender, too, is just a reflection and justification for the dominance of biological males over females.

Peterson reserves some of his most scathing comments for Marxists. He says at least 20 percent of academics admit to being Marxists, “which in my opinion is no better than “identifying as Nazis,” given the “murderous” policies of Marxist-inspired governments around the world.

Peterson also takes to task the University of Toronto’s human resources department after learning of a memo directing professors to refer to students by the pronouns and gender of their choice. Peterson says he would refuse. “I don’t recognize another person’s right to determine what pronouns I use to address them. I won’t do it.”

But trying to restrict speech — even hateful speech — is counterproductive, Peterson argues.

“If you stop people talking, you stop people thinking,” he says at one point in the presentation. He argues that if people are not free to express views that are hateful, they will never be challenged about the reasons for their hate but will simply hate in secret until, potentially, they act violently.

While the University of Toronto has not responded to Dr. Peterson’s criticisms, some tweeters have called him a bigot and have warned him to watch himself the next time he submits research for peer review.

U of T professor A.W. Peet, who self-identifies as transgender, told the National Post that “academic freedom” should not protect Peterson when he uses it to “hurt vulnerable genderqueer members of the university community.”

Interpreting Peterson’s presentation as a denial of the existence of transgender people, Peet contended that “all that is necessary to invalidate a faulty claim is one counterexample. Here, I am that counterexample. I openly defy Peterson by existing: I am nonbinary and transgender.”

Peterson and the university did not respond to LifeSiteNews requests for comment.

Peterson plans two more YouTube presentations on the subject.

Watch Peterson's first Youtube video:

 

RELATED

Women’s shelters must admit ‘transgender’ men: Obama admin rule
New video exposes gender identity lies
Sexual predator jailed after claiming to be ‘transgender’ to assault women in shelter


News

Letter calls on religious leaders to repent for their lack of moral guidance

Evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox are asked to step up and proclaim Christian morality during this election year.
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Fr. Mark Hodges By Fr. Mark Hodges

Fr. Mark Hodges By Fr. Mark Hodges
Fr. Mark Hodges Fr. Mark Hodges
By Fr. Mark Hodges

September 30, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — A major encyclical from hundreds of Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical Christian leaders is calling out their liberal counterparts.

Describing themselves as "an ad hoc fellowship of evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox believers," the American Association of Evangelicals issued "A Call to Repentance & Renewal" this week via an open letter to "pastors, leaders and believers who assist the anti-Christian Progressive political movement in America."

It is an appeal to those who lead believers and yet acquiesce on causes antithetical to the Christian faith.

Beginning with the Christian teaching that everyone, including themselves and all Christians, are "called to repentance," the leaders believe "our entire nation will be revived as we return to the Lord."

Citing Martin Luther King's stand that "Christianity sets forth a system of absolute moral values," they state, "We are not here endorsing or denouncing a political candidate, but reminding you of basic Christian morality."

The letter does not officially endorse any political candidates but makes clear the authors' preferences, alluding to several politicized issues such as "hate speech" being redefined as anything contrary to the "anti-Christian politicians and global elites'" view of homosexuality, same-sex "marriage," and "the transgender agenda imposed by Obama-government edict."

The epistle does single out one political party for criticism on abortion "rights.” In delineating "the consequences of Progressive political activism," the writers note that "trafficking in human baby organs and body parts" is both "funded and defended by the Democratic Party."

Echoing the popular cliché “What Would Jesus Do?” the authors then pointedly ask, "What justification would Jesus offer for those who murder children and sell their body parts to the highest bidder?"

Included in a list of "consequences" of liberal leadership is the U.S. justice system's increasing hostility to religious freedom, as evidenced "in our courts, media and universities, including the suppression of conservative speakers, free thought and moral education." 

Additionally, the letter criticizes "the widespread, political use of the IRS to intimidate conservative, patriotic and Christian groups."

"This letter is important, because as I outline in my book, Abolishing Abortion, the beginning of building a culture of life is an attitude of repentance," Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life told LifeSiteNews. "We have to repent for not doing more than we have done, for not saying more than we have said, and for allowing ourselves to be captive to our own fears."

"The biggest obstacles to overcome abortion are not powerful government administrations or organizations like Planned Parenthood, but rather the fears and hesitations that abide with in our own souls."

"Believers in the congregations are ready to support their leaders in all of this, and that is why an open letter like this can be very helpful for pastors and congregations to refocus their priorities and ask the Lord for the courage necessary to advance his kingdom at this moment in America," Father Pavone said.

The letter's authors quote presidential candidate Hillary Clinton stating that "religious beliefs ... have to be changed," and, along with her saying "the unborn, ah, person, ah, doesn't have Constitutional rights," her promised commitment to a pro-abortion litmus test for any Supreme Court appointee and her campaign promises to increase tax funding for Planned Parenthood and abortion worldwide, they interpret those stands as Clinton "openly declaring war on Christian believers and the Church."

Father Pavone also constructively criticized his Catholic brethren. "We have a tremendous problem within the Church of giving into a far more restrictive interpretation of the prohibition on political intervention than the law actually indicates," he said.

"In particular, it is ridiculous and untenable to hold that, as some diocesan memos sometimes say, we should not appear to criticize a candidate or a party," Pavone said. 

"When the Democratic Party stands for abortion and the Republican Party stands for the unborn child, it is impossible to articulate the Church's stance for the unborn child without thereby appearing to favor the Republicans and criticize the Democrats."

"The fact of the matter is that the church's position does favor the one and criticize the other, but that is not the church's fault," Pavone explained. "If tomorrow, the parties reversed their positions on abortion, the church's position would remain the same."

“We need a renewal of leadership across the Body of Christ,” Father Pavone concluded. “That leadership needs to be filled with confidence in our message and in our ability to accomplish our task of building a culture of life. And it needs to be free of self censorship.”

After its indisputable Christian morals appeal, the open letter seems to get sidetracked with other issues, such as the national debt, minority unemployment, racial tension, immigration, Islamic refugees, and the "shameless" practice of liberals who "falsely label those with political differences as ‘racists.’"

Finally, the letter concludes with a return to its main agenda. "Why do those who claim to share our faith in Christ continue to advocate for politicians who will pass legislation, and appoint justices and judges who will attack Christian liberty and persecute believers?" the writers ask. "Turning our nation over to the enemies of biblical faith does not honor Christ (or) promote love of neighbor."

"(N)ow is the time to pray, to speak and to act with Godly courage. ... We are bound together. Let us stand together," the letter concludes.

Signers form a "Who's Who" of pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-family leaders throughout the nation, including Christian researcher George Barna, Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver, Pavone, Breakpoint's Eric Metaxas, American Family Association's Tim Wildmon, Institute for Creation Research's Dr. John D. Morris, Traditional Values Coalition's Andrea Lafferty, Voice of the Martyr's Peggy Dau, Vision America's Rick Scarborough, and civil rights activist and author Dr. Alveda King, niece of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Also signing the Call to Repentance are former Congressman Bob McEwen, Lt. Gen. Wm. “Jerry” Boykin, Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, former Bush appointee and author Kay Coles James, radio host and actress Sam Sorbo, Asian Action Network's Herman Martir, Hispanic Prayer Network's Mark Gonzalez, and numerous Right to Life Society directors and leaders.

Joining them are megachurch pastors Miles McPherson, Dr. Jim Garlow, Carlton Smith, Jim Franklin, Steve Riggle, Steve Smothermon, Tim Throckmorton, Dr. Benny Tate, Dudley Rutherford, Dr. Larry Lamb, George Grant, Dave Welch, Bishop Harry R Jackson Jr., and the historic Azusa Street Mission's Herman Martir, as well as university presidents and seminary professors Dr. Everett Piper, Dr. Wayne Grudem, Dr. Jay Richards, Dr. Gerson Moreno-Riano, and Robert Schwarzwalder, and an ever-increasing host of other moral leaders.


Opinion

These women just want the freedom to be Christian artists: Phoenix won’t let them

These two Christian artists face fines and jail for standing up for what they believe.
Featured Image
John Stonestreet By John Stonestreet

John Stonestreet By John Stonestreet
John Stonestreet John Stonestreet
By John Stonestreet

September 30, 2016 (BreakPoint) -- Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski met at a Starbucks café in north Phoenix in January 2015. Both were Christians, and both were artists. They decided to go into business together, combining their love for Jesus with their love for making beautiful things. Soon they launched Brush & Nib Studio, a for-profit art business that sells hand-drawn invitations and paintings.

According to the Alliance Defending Freedom, a leading Christian legal-defense organization, “As Christian artists, Joanna and Breanna had a simple goal for their studio: to recreate the beauty God placed all around us and to share that beauty with others. And this goal made it natural for Joanna and Breanna to focus on artwork for weddings.”

Well, this combination of Brush & Nib’s Christian conviction and its focus on weddings created a problem for Joanna and Breanna—as it already has for bakers and wedding photographers who believe marriage is between a man and a woman and cannot, by conscience, participate in wedding ceremonies between homosexuals.

The city of Phoenix has passed an ordinance which, according to ADF, “requires Brush & Nib to create invitations and other artwork for same-sex wedding ceremonies. It also prevented Brush & Nib from explaining to customers and the public why they could only create art consistent with their beliefs about marriage.”

This is what’s known in some circles as a two-fer, violating not only their religious freedom but also their freedom of speech! Not only that, but the law said that for each day business owners such as Joanna and Breanna were in violation, they would be liable for a $2,500 fine … and six months in jail.

These two Christians face fines and jail for standing up for what they believe. At the same time, no one would think of the government penalizing NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick for standing up—or in his case, not standing up—for what he believes. Why the inconsistency?

Phoenix is just the latest city to enact a “human rights” ordinance that is, in effect if not intent, marginalizing Christian citizens from living out their deeply held beliefs in the public square, forcing them to consent to the new sexual orthodoxy, not only in deed, but now also in word.

It’s only been five years since President Obama publicly changed his mind and announced his support for “gay marriage.” It’s only been a little over two years since then-Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, bowed to blackmail from the National Football League and vetoed SB 1062, which would have protected Joanna and Breanna from being forced to violate their convictions.

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

In case there’s any remaining doubt, this is not just another random, isolated event.  As the recent comments by Martin Castro of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reveal, religious freedom is no longer considered a good thing but instead code language for hate. “The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom,’” he wrote, “will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia or any form of intolerance.”

Such contempt for religious liberty is growing. In the case of Joanna and Breanna, Judge Karen Mullins of the Superior Court in Maricopa County denied their request for a preliminary injunction against the Phoenix ordinance, calling their position “absurd.”

Jonathan Scruggs of ADF, which is representing Joanna and Breanna, replied, “Artists shouldn’t be threatened with jail time and other penalties simply for making art that is consistent with their beliefs.”

Joanna and Breanna are considering an appeal. They deserve our prayers. And groups defending our most precious freedom—groups like Alliance Defending Freedom—deserve our support. 

Reprinted with permission from Break Point.


Opinion

One million abortions a year not enough for Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton has sworn to end the Hyde Amendment which is celebrating its 40th anniversary today and has prevented 2 million abortions over that period of time.
Featured Image
Pro-Life Action League
By Eric Scheidler

By Eric Scheidler
Eric Scheidler
By Eric Scheidler
Image
Hillary Clinton 2016

September 30, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — On September 30, Americans will celebrate the 40th anniversary of the enactment of the Hyde Amendment, a provision of federal law that bans taxpayer funding of most abortions. The Hyde Amendment is estimated to have prevented 2 million abortions over the past four decades.

The Hyde Amendment enjoys widespread support among the American people, who oppose their tax dollars going to pay for abortion by a margin of 2 to 1. The measure has enjoyed wide bipartisan support, having been renewed yearly since it’s first passage in 1976. Even those who support legal abortion are reluctant to force their fellow citizens to pay for something that at least half of them consider fundamentally wrong.

But Hillary Clinton has sworn to end the Hyde Amendment, at the behest of Planned Parenthood and her friends in the abortion industry. They insist that it’s not enough for abortion to be legal through all nine months of pregnancy. Anything less than taxpayer funding of abortion constitutes a lack of access, they claim.

A lack of access to abortion? More than a million unborn children are aborted every year in the United States. That’s 2,900 a day. But it’s not enough for the abortion industry and their champion, Hillary Clinton. Her husband Bill used to talk about making abortion “safe, legal and rare,” but Hillary wants even more abortion, paid for by you and me.

Beyond the question of whether American taxpayers should have to pay for abortions, Clinton’s position betrays a deep cynicism about the American dream and a basic denial of the dignity of economically disadvantaged people. Clinton styles herself an advocate for the poor, but her first solution for poverty is to eliminate poor people by preventing them from being born. For Clinton, you’re better off dead than to be born into a poor family in the United States.

Setting aside the fact that a poor woman who gets an abortion is still poor after her unborn child has been killed, Clinton’s position is profoundly un-American. Some of our greatest leaders were born into poverty—like Alexander Hamilton, who rose from poverty and illegitimacy to become one of the architects of our republic. Hamilton’s inspiring life story has captured our national imagination, thanks to the brilliant Broadway musical by Lin-Manuel Miranda, whose own father rose from extremely humble beginnings.

The examples of Hamilton and Miranda underscore the principle that no American child should be valued less because her mother is poor. Nor should the American taxpayer be forced by Hillary Clinton to pay for a poor woman’s unborn child to be killed.

On this anniversary, let us celebrate the Hyde Amendment, and resolve not to let Hillary Clinton tear it down. Not only has Hyde expressed the will of the majority not to pay for abortions, but it has allowed 2 million poor children to be born and have their own chance to pursue the American dream.

Eric Scheidler is the executive director of the Pro-Life Action League, a national pro-life education and activism organization based in Chicago.


Opinion

If you’re on the fence about your vote, this pastor clarifies how the very future of America is at stake

Political freedom, economic freedom and religious liberty coexist together. One cannot exist without the other two. ... Hillary will decimate all three.
Featured Image
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Shutterstock.com
By Dr. Jim Garlow

By Dr. Jim Garlow
Dr. Jim Garlow
By

September 30, 2016 (CharismaNews) -- I have been asked "the question" so many times regarding Trump or Hillary. By way of background, I have followed every national convention—Republican and Democrat—from the time I was age 9, and have attended most of the GOP Conventions from 1984 to the present. I have watched the news virtually every day from the age of 8. I have never seen anything like what we are observing.

In spite of the unprecedented nature of this election cycle, I will attempt to respond to "the question." I am not demanding that anyone else share my view. But I was asked. Here is my best attempt to answer as I am able to see things at this time:

1.   The Democratic and Republican party platforms are as different as night and day, in my opinion, as far apart as evil vs. good. The 51-page Democratic platform is the most leftist ever. (I don't care for the "right vs. left" nomenclature. I am far more concerned with "right vs. wrong.") The Democratic platform contains many points which are anti-biblical. (Time does not permit me here to identify what is meant by "anti-biblical," which is covered in my new book Well Versed: Biblical Answers to Today's Tough Issues.) It is thoroughly socialistic (a socialist is a communist without a gun). The 54-page GOP platform is one of the strongest GOP platforms ever. A biblically alert person could be comfortable with almost all of it. Party platforms are a big issue to me. Although some "blow off" party platforms, I do not. Nor do many people up and down the ballot who are running for office. This is a serious and very important item. I have a hard copy of both platforms in front of me now. Most people have never checked out what the party platforms say. They should. If a person is not drawn to the "top-of-the-ballot" candidate, they ought to at least consider voting for the candidate attached to the best party platform.

2.   Analogy #1: Both candidates are flawed. We all know that. But permit me an analogy: As a pastor, I would rather deal with a church attendee who is blatant and brash in his sinning than one who is devious, lying, cunning and deceptive. Both are problematic, but one is easier to deal with than the other. If I were a pastor bringing correction to a parishioner, I would prefer dealing with a "Trump-type" any day over a "Hillary-type." The chances of making progress with the "Trump-type" are many times greater than the "Hillary-type."

3.   Analogy #2: When my (late) wife's remarkable and much loved oncologist said, "Don't take Carol to that alternative (non FDA approved) treatment." I asked, "Why not?" He said, "The unknown." I said, "Doctor, your 'known' is much worse than the alternative treatment's 'unknown.'" I took her to that alternative treatment. One year later that same oncologist went to the alternative treatment doctor to see how it was that Carol had improved so much. While this alternative treatment did not ultimately save her life, it likely stretched two to three years of life to six years of life—by the admission of another one of her brilliant young oncologists who later said, "Without any medical training or scientific fact, you have put together a protocol of treatment that has moved her into the top fraction of 1 percent of survival rates of all patients with Carol's particular cancer. Application of the analogy: Hillary's "known" is considerably worse—many times over—than Trump's "unknown."

Share this article to spread the word!

 

4.   Trump has lots of sins in his past (actually, we all do), and—in the present—says things he should not say. I make no attempt to defend any of the things he has said. There is no need to rehearse the wrong things he has said. We know what they are. He should not have thought or said them. But there is no need to rehash them here. So we won't. But let's turn to the other candidate. Although America has had some scandal-ridden candidates in its history, we have never seen any one major party candidate more constantly scandalous as Hillary (along with her husband). She seems to exceed all previous boundaries for wrongdoing. The scandals just don't stop. In the same way we did not take time to list all of Trump's misstatements, neither will we here rehash the seemingly continuous string of horrific scandals of the Clintons.

5.   Trump is slowly being surrounded by increasingly good people. From time to time, I receive encouraging calls regarding this. Can these good people impact Trump? We will see. In contrast, I see no reason for any encouragement regarding the people who surround Hillary.

6.   Trump is right on approximately 75 percent of the issues. I wish it was 100 percent. It is not. I am in hopes that those beginning to surround him can help him connect the dots on more issues. Hillary is wrong on 100 percent of the issues.

7.   This next issue might be one of the most important, but I suspect few will understand its significance. Trump opposes globalism. Hillary thrives on it. Globalism is far more than "geographical" or "eliminating national borders and boundaries." It is spiritual and demonic at its core. Few—very few—understand this. This is quite likely one of the main reasons why Trump is hated. Do your homework on this one. Think "principalities and powers." Serious. Extremely serious.

8.   Not voting is not a viable option, contrary to what the "purists" claim. It is not my intention to begin a war of the issue. I know that some radically disagree with this. My view? They have the right to be wrong.

9.   Voting for a third party candidate is—regardless of what is said—a complete "throw-away." No third party candidate will be elected, or even come remotely close to being elected. And yes, that matters to me. And for the record, the Libertarian ticket—Johnson and Weld—is nearly as bad on many issues as Hillary. When I listen to them, I am stunned people of their ability have ever made it to elective office.

10.   Trump has moved pro-life. Hillary is pro-baby killing, and prides herself on that, and honors the organization—Planned Parenthood—that actually traffics human parts from dead babies whom they have killed. This is below anything we have seen since Nazi Germany. The gall of Hillary! The Clintons have evaded justice for decades and likely will continue to. But they will someday stand before the Great White Throne. They will have to give account of their support of the ripping babies to shreds in the womb. For the record, those who vote for those who support the genocide of pre-borns will also have to give an account.

11.   Trump wants to defend the nation (which is the purpose of government). Hillary has a horrific track record as Secretary of State, and due to hundreds of millions of dollars given to her and her husband's foundation, she is beholden to those who want us dead.

12.   Hillary claims "everything is fine" in America. This defies every single fact, but facts have never been an interest of Hillary's. Trump understands that it is 11:59 p.m. on the "cultural clock." America is near the end—morally, economically, militarily and, sadly, spiritually. There are very clear identifiable indicators—measurable ones—that America is no longer the world's leading power. That day is over. Hillary will hasten the final destruction. Trump could either slow that down—or possibly, with God's help—reverse it. Maybe.

13.   Trump will address the massive government spending. Hillary will expand it above the existing unsustainable debt the U.S. currently is carrying (almost $20 trillion plus unfunded liabilities to Social Security, etc).

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

14.   Trump will expose—and I pray, bring down—"the systemic evil" (crony, deceitful, misuse of capitalism) that reigns among many high-dollar lobbyists. Hillary thrives because of them.

15.   Trump will stop the massive overreach of government. Hillary will extend it.

16.   Freedoms come in "threes." Political freedom, economic freedom and religious liberty coexist together. Take one away and the other two will eventually disappear. One cannot exist without the other two. The genius of America is that it had all three, until recently. Trump fully grasps the loss of religious liberty. I have heard him speak on it in person on several occasions. He knows that economic and political freedoms are evaporating. He will reverse that. Hillary will decimate all three.

17.   Every rational person knows the Supreme Court appointments are paramount. Trump has listed 11 superb potential nominees. Hillary's appointments would snuff out the tiny vestige of the three freedoms that are left (mentioned in the statement above).

18.   I make no excuse for wrongdoing or wrongful, hurtful words from either candidate. Candidly, I want King Jesus. He rules in my heart. And yours too, I suspect. And I want Him to rule here—now. But that day is not fully manifested—yet. In the meantime, we prayerfully, carefully navigate this challenging election season, with great concern that above all, we honor our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in every arena of our lives, including the voting booth. That is my hope. I believe it is yours as well. 

Editor's Note: Dr. Jim Garlow is pastor of Skyline Church in the San Diego, CA area.   Dr. Garlow has written a follow-up article about President Obama's shaky relationship with Israel. You can find that story here.

Reprinted with permission from Charisma News.

** See important related articles:

Priest: ‘You might not have a church to go to if you don’t vote the right way in November’
US priest: Voting for the pro-abort in this election may put ‘your soul…in grave danger’
The uncomfortable truth about Christian support for Trump
Donald Trump has undergone a transformation in recent months that many did not think possible
Don’t buy Satan’s lies: Only one political party aligns with the Church on the most basic issues
Fr. Pavone on US election: It’s ‘time for repentance’ over abortion, not just debates
WATCH: Fr. Pavone on why Catholics can’t sit out the election
Donald Trump v. Grandma Clinton: What's Really At Stake? (Michael Matt)
A refresher on Catholic teaching about abortion for this US election season
Kansas bishops: Catholics must vote with ‘catastrophe’ of abortion at ‘forefront of their minds’


The Pulse

Former Planned Parenthood workers post troubling online reviews of abortion giant

'This job will work your anxiety to the core. After finding out what happens behind closed doors it is time for me to say goodbye.'
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
By Carole Novielli

By Carole Novielli
Carole Novielli
By Carole Novielli
Image
23 emergency 911 EMS calls to Planned Parenthood in St. Louis, Missouri

September 30, 2016 (LiveActionNews) -- A number of reviews posted on Indeed.com by alleged former Planned Parenthood staffers may indicate problems at several Planned Parenthood centers across the country.

Indeed.com, a job sharing site where potential employees can upload their resumes for review by a number of employers, allows current and past employees to leave a review of their experience working with a specific employer. Planned Parenthood is among them. While the majority of reviews were positive towards the largest chain of abortion clinics in the nation, a few not-so-complimentary reviews were attention-worthy. While former employees could, in theory, write bad reviews out of spite or revenge, if any of the accusations are true, they may be worth investigating. After all, Planned Parenthood receives over half a billion in taxpayer dollars every year.

DELAWARE

1. On August 24, 2016, an alleged former employee described his/her role at a Delaware Planned Parenthood as a “clinician,” and claimed that assistants are performing duties that this employee felt were not permissible. The employee also claimed that one of the abortionists at this Planned Parenthood would “mark off her college savings fund for her child on [abortion] AB days.” She allegedly “[d]id as many [abortions] as possible with absolutely no compassion or caring,” said the employee, who wrote:

Honestly the MOST disrespectful management I have ever encountered in my ENTIRE career. It was shocking how degrading management was to the very people providing services to clients.

Clients were generally easy to work with, But the ‘frequent fliers’ were frankly too used to high quality, ‘free’ care and were allowed to abuse the system.

Very poor system as a whole, unsafe practices, (ie: HCA’s performing jobs they are in NO WAY allowed by law to do.).

There were very clear racial preferences toward employees by management., Did not value clinicians.

One particular MD provider who used to mentally mark off her college savings fund for her child on AB days. Did as many as possible with absolutely no compassion or caring. just the paycheck.

2. The reviews were not that much different for a Planned Parenthood in Wilmington, Delaware. On June 8, 2016, an alleged former employee who claimed to be a “Center Manager-Family Planning” called that center the “worst organization I’ve worked for” with “horrible work conditions,” writing:

Worked for this organization in Wilmington, DE and I must say this by far was the worst organization I’ve worked for. There was constant turnover due to the horrible work conditions. Management did not know how to effectively manage and as a result, set unrealistic expectations and demands on their employees. Definitely not a family friendly atmosphere. Would not recommend anyone to work for this organization in the Delaware area.

The Wilmington Planned Parenthood was under scrutiny a few years ago after two former staffers came forward to reveal many troubling aspects of the facility. One RN claimed she sent documentation and letters of complaint about the facility to Planned Parenthood. These complaints were ignored, including claims of sexual harassment by an abortionist who appeared to be employed by several Planned Parenthoods across the country. The question is, has anything changed at either of these Delaware locations?

CALIFORNIA

A review claiming to be from a former Planned Parenthood “Reproductive Health Assistant II,” published in December of 2015, alleged that a Planned Parenthood in Los Angeles, California, was a “terrible place to work” and that “upper management” was “condescending”:

Upper management was condescending and difficult to deal with. I absolutely did not trust any of my managers–they were duplicitous and consistently told you (or implied) that you were doing a terrible job. I learned a lot and got very good experience from my time there but the work culture is kinda bad. It wasn’t always like that but a new management regime has made it a pretty terrible place to work.

INDIANA

In May 2016, someone claiming to have been a “Health Care Assistant” described her employment at a Planned Parenthood in Muncie, Indiana, as “really bad.” She alleged that the managers show up late and “cuss and yell in front of patients”:

Planned Parenthood is ran extremely bad. The managers show up late, cuss and yell in front of patients, and are generally horrible. The environment there makes employees hate their jobs, and patients say they will never come back.

ILLINOIS

A former “Phone Specialist” who claims to have worked at the Planned Parenthood megacenter in Aurora, Illinois, wrote this December 9, 2015:

This job will work your anxiety to the core. After finding out what happens behind closed doors it is time for me to say goodbye.

The reviewer did not specify exactly what happened “behind closed doors.”

MARYLAND

A former employee who claimed to have been a “Surgical Assistant – Lead Educator/Counselor” at a Planned Parenthood in Baltimore, Maryland, sent a review of the clinic on November 18, 2013, alleging that management “staff was very poor” and that several staffers were “fired for misconduct”:

A typical day began with paying 10 dollars a day to park in a parking garage. I learned a lot from the doctors and co workers I worked with but the management staff was very poor. In the 6 months I was there 3 people from my direct management staff got fired for misconduct of some sort. Very rude individuals. My coworkers were great girls. The hardest part of my job was the travel and the paying to park. The most enjoyable part of my job was either setting up IVs and drawing blood which I enjoy doing, or helping the patients through a really hard time in there life by just being compassionate and nice to them.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Whether or not there is any validity to these claims, these former employees are not the first to allege wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. While the nation’s largest abortion conglomerate claims to be all about “healthcare,” the organization’s own annual reports show that they commit more than 300,000 abortions every year. Beyond this, Planned Parenthood has been embroiled in a number of questionable practices which include:

  • Medicaid overbilling (here and here)
  • Failure to report suspected child abuse (actual cases here)
  • Privacy breaches (here)
  • Patient Medical Emergencies requiring them to call 911 (here). In just one example, a St. Louis Fire Department recently released a list of 23 emergency calls to Planned Parenthood for hemorrhages, or heavy bleeding, which is a potential complication of abortion.

Tax dollars funneled to the abortion business increased by almost 35 percent under the Obama Administration. Hillary Clinton, whose campaign employs several former Planned Parenthood employees, is expected to maintain that trajectory. Despite Planned Parenthood’s record, President Obama and Hillary Clinton are pushing to increase funding to Planned Parenthood through a repeal of the Hyde Amendment (which prohibits federal dollars to pay for abortion) and are pushing for an HHS Rule which would prohibit states from defunding Planned Parenthood under Title X.

Reprinted with permission from Live Action News.


The Pulse

San Fran to ban city contracts with businesses in states with ‘anti-LGBT laws’

The bill is aimed at North Carolina and its law providing religious freedom.
Featured Image
HB2 protesters in North Carolina display signs and hail passing cars J. Bicking / Shutterstock.com
Pete Baklinski By Pete Baklinski

Pete Baklinski By Pete Baklinski
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

SAN FRANCISCO, September 30, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — For anyone who still believes that hopping on the homosexual bandwagon is all about being “tolerant, diverse, and inclusive,” well, here’s something that will likely pop your bubble.

Earlier this week, San Francisco became the first city in the U.S. to not only prohibit its employees from using public dollars to travel to states with laws defending religious freedom and respecting biological differences when it comes to public bathrooms and change rooms but to bar city contracts with businesses headquartered in those states.

"This legislation will make San Francisco the first city in the country to ban city contracting and spending in states that adopt anti-LGBT laws," said District 8 Supervisor Scott Wiener, who sponsored the bill. He added: “This will put San Francisco on the cutting edge of advocating for full equality and acceptance of issues important to LGBT."

Of course, this bill, which must be read a second time before becoming law, directly targets North Carolina for its recent law protecting religious freedom. The bill’s sponsor confirmed as much.

Reports Court House News:

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee in March forbade city workers from traveling to North Carolina for any nonessential city business, after its Governor Pat McCrory signed a law barring transgender people from using bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity rather than their gender at birth.

"This legislation codifies the ban and expands the ban to include spending in these states," Wiener said. "This will have a strong message that San Francisco stands firmly with our LGBT community around the country."

[…]

San Francisco's action comes as North Carolina faces mounting economic pressure for its "bathroom law," which also prohibits local governments from adopting protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

And there you have it, folks. Where is the “tolerance” championed by the gay lobby for so many years? Where is the diversity of views and the inclusivity? Gone, gone, and gone.

The movement’s true face is utterly revealed here. And it looks rather hideous.

What we see happening here is the calculated imposition of a radical sexual ideology that brooks no dissent. While pushing the creed of equality and diversity, the movement attacks individuals such as bakers, wedding photographers, florists, professors, counselors, and health care workers in an effort to achieve total adherence. Now we see the movement attacking entire states.

And the pushers and backers of the gay agenda just love quashing anyone who stands up for reason, common sense, and God’s own truth when it comes to marriage, sexuality, and the human binary of male and female. Again, the bill’s sponsor states as much.

Reports Court House News:

The new San Francisco ordinance, which the city's 11-member board of supervisors unanimously approved Tuesday, bars city-funded travel to states that have enacted laws reversing protections for LGBT individuals since June 25, 2015, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage.

"We've achieved some huge victories around marriage equality in recent years," Wiener said earlier this week at a San Fran board meeting. "Now we're seeing a backlash in laws, for example, enabling local business to discriminate against LGBT people."

Yes, Wiener certainly is seeing a backlash, and he and his LGBT-activist comrades are going to do all they can to stop it, to squish it, to end any voice that opposes their vision of reality.

But they cannot win in the long run. Unforgiving nature cannot allow the entire sexual sphere to be turned upside-down willy-nilly without dramatic consequences for those who do so. LGBT activists can pass whatever laws or ordinances they want. But these will never change the facts that sexuality is ordered toward procreation, it takes a man and a woman to have a child, and human beings are divided between males and females. Anyone who tampers with these truths does so at his own peril.

Read the full Court House News report here.


View specific date
Print All Articles