All articles from July 21, 2016

Featured Image
Nancy Flanders


After refusing abortion, parents of conjoined twins call them a ‘miracle’

Nancy Flanders

July 21, 2016 (LiveActionNews) -- Shellie Tucker and her husband Greg were excited to learn they were pregnant with their second child. With a son, Owen, at home, the couple had hoped to add to their family. What they didn’t expect was that they would be having identical twins, and that a specialist would advise them to abort.

At 20 weeks gestation, a routine ultrasound revealed that Shellie was pregnant with conjoined twins. The baby girls were joined at the chest and abdomen, and shared a diaphragm and liver.

“He [the doctor] asked us to go see a specialist who at that point recommended we terminate,” Tucker said during a press conference. The doctor didn’t believe the girls would be able to survive and that it would be better to abort them.

“As he was telling me, I could literally feel the girls kicking in my belly and I knew that that wasn’t possible,” said Tucker.

The couple refused abortion and sought a second opinion.

“Both of us have a lot of faith,” she explained. “And I think in that situation you have to have it, and we just kinda relied on that and figured no matter the outcome, we were gonna make it through.”

They soon found themselves at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, where doctors are well known for successfully separating 21 pairs of conjoined twins. Doctors there believed that the girls could survive and be successfully separated. The twins, Amelia and Allison, were born at Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia.

“They came out screaming,” Tucker told Good Morning America. “And it was the most wonderful feeling.”

A team of doctors performed the seven-hour-long operation to separate the twins when they were just eight months old.

“An overwhelmingly dramatic moment when the tables spread and the babies go their separate ways,” explained Dr. Holly Hedrick, the lead surgeon. “And it’s a hard moment, too, because you know, before the operation, they were happy. They were thriving. They had no problems being with each other.”

The girls are now four years old and their father calls it the “most amazing feeling” to see them separated, especially that first time.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

“I’m thankful every single day, and I can’t describe it,” said Tucker crying. “Seeing the girls and seeing them climb and get into things, as aggravated as I get, I can’t help but laugh because they’re an absolute miracle.”

Reprinted with permission from Live Action News.

Featured Image
Fr. Mark Hodges Fr. Mark Hodges


Critic pans study claiming girls fare better from aborting than choosing life

Fr. Mark Hodges Fr. Mark Hodges

HELSINKI, Finland, July 21, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — A 25-year study claims that abortion is safer than childbirth, but a closer look finds flaws in both its assumptions and conclusions.

For the study entitled “Is Underage Abortion Associated with Adverse Outcomes in Early Adulthood?” that was published in the journal Human Reproduction, researchers analyzed data on 29,000 girls born in Finland in 1987 and monitored them for “adverse socioeconomic and health outcomes” until they turned 25 in 2012.  Of those women, 1,435 became pregnant before they turned 18; 394 gave birth and 1,041 aborted their baby. 

According to the results, the women who had an abortion got higher grades in school, and those who gave birth were more likely to become dependent on welfare. 

The study authors conclude that girls who have an underage abortion fare better in life and imply that they have no negative effects from the abortion.

"Underage abortion was not found to be associated with mental health problems in early adulthood, and socioeconomic outcomes were better among those who experienced abortion compared with those who gave birth," the authors stated.

The study's abstract stated that the authors assumed "teenage motherhood has been linked with numerous adverse outcomes in later life, including low educational levels and poor physical and mental health."

“This is the result we were expecting,” study co-author Dr. Oskari Heikinheimo acknowledged. "Of course, it certainly makes a lot of sense ... young women who went on to continue the pregnancy and deliver, their overall level of education was then lower than women who chose to have an abortion."

Heikinheimo, a professor at the University of Helsinki, also said his study defends abortion against pro-life "misinformation." “I’m very glad about these results because there is a lot of misinformation about abortion” in American political discourse, he told Reuters. “Family planning services should be available for those who need them.”

The Charlotte Lozier Institute’s Dr. Michael New pointed out "some problems with the study," especially in its assumption of no health consequences from abortion.

"Some of the negative health consequences involved with obtaining an abortion occur in the long term," the professor at Ave Maria University told LifeSiteNews. "Research shows that teenagers seeking abortions are at a higher risk for breast cancer than women in their 20s and 30s who seek abortions. Even some of the studies cited by abortion advocates show that teen abortions increase the risk of breast cancer."

Additionally, New noted the study's conclusions were unrealistically premature. "Comparing the socioeconomic outcomes of 25-year-old women who raised a child to those who had an abortion is a poor comparison," he explained. "If a woman has decided to raise a child, it is more difficult for her to attend school or pursue full-time work. What is especially troubling is that the women are still relatively young (25) when the study was completed."

"A better comparison would be women to had abortions to women who decided to give up their child for adoption," New suggested.

Finally, New brought up the study's own finding about the physical health risks of abortion. "The study also finds that women who have abortions are more likely to sustain physical injuries," New told LifeSiteNews. "This finding is statistically significant.  However, the media reports have not mentioned this finding."

While the study's authors assume young single mothers are poor because they gave birth, other sociological research has shown that teen moms are not poor because they have babies, but rather, they have babies because they’re poor.

The study's authors note that 30 percent of teen pregnancies are aborted in the United States, 43 percent in the United Kingdom, 59 percent in Finland, and 77 percent in Sweden.

Featured Image
James R. Martin /
Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa

News, ,

Macy’s fires Catholic employee for questioning transgender bathroom policy

Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa

FLUSHING, New York, July 21, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Macy’s department store has fired a Catholic employee because he questioned their transgender bathroom policy, even though he says he told his employer he would enforce the policy.

Back in May, Javier Chavez, a senior store detective at Macy’s Flushing, New York, location got a phone call about a male accessing the ladies room along with a female.

A female customer and her daughter were afraid to enter the restroom due the male’s presence there, and a security guard reporting to Chavez directed the man to leave and use the men’s room. The man left, claiming to be a female, before then complaining to the store officials about being asked to leave.

Chavez was later informed by a Macy’s assistant store manager that certain males can use the ladies restroom, something he had not been made aware of prior to the incident. Then an assistant security manager told Chavez that transgender individuals can use the bathroom of their choosing.

Chavez responded that he had just become aware of the policy. He said it was contrary to his religion and the Bible, but said that even so, he would enforce Macy’s policy.

“Macy’s would not leave this alone,” Catholic League President Bill Donohue stated, “and this is where it crossed the line.”

Chavez was then called to a meeting with his human resources manager, who suspended him, and he was subsequently fired.

According to a legal complaint, the retailer terminated Chavez even though he had not previously been made aware that Macy’s allowed transgender individuals to use the bathroom of their choice, and also in spite of the fact Chavez had promised to uphold the policy while working. His case is now before the New York State Division of Human Rights.

“After my employer learned that I was a practicing Catholic, with religious concerns about this policy, I was terminated because of my religion, in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law,” Chavez states in his complaint.

LifeSiteNews inquired with Macy’s for comment but did not receive a response before press time.

Macy’s terminated another employee in the past for acting to maintain the privacy of female customers in accord with personally held religious convictions.

In 2011, Natalie Johnson was fired after telling a cross-dressing male that the ladies’ fitting room was for women only. The San Antonio woman had been instructed by her manager after the exchange to comply with Macy’s LGBT policy under threat of being fired, to which Johnson responded that it was against her religious beliefs. Macy’s let her go the next day.

“I couldn’t lie and say that he was a woman. I’m going to be accountable to what I say to my Lord Jesus,” Johnson said at the time. “I had to either comply with Macy’s or comply with God.”

Donohue said Macy’s had no lawful or moral basis for terminating Chavez, and that in doing so, the retailer acted like a totalitarian regime. He said as well that Macy’s actions conflict with the principle of religious liberty.

“The most basic religious right is the right to believe,” he said. “If conscience rights can be vitiated, the First Amendment means nothing.”

“Macy’s has no legal, or moral, grounds to stand on,” continued Donohue. “For merely holding beliefs that are contrary to the store’s policy, Chavez was fired.”

Featured Image
Fr. Mark Hodges Fr. Mark Hodges


Vermont healthcare workers fight state to protect conscience rights in assisted suicide

Fr. Mark Hodges Fr. Mark Hodges

BURLINGTON, Vermont, July 21, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — Vermont healthcare professionals are suing to be able to abide by the medical profession's ancient creed, "I will do no harm."

The state of Vermont is attempting to force healthcare workers to advise patients on doctor-assisted suicide.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, accuses the Vermont Board of Medical Practice and the Office of Professional Regulation of misapplying the state's assisted suicide law, called "Act 39," to require healthcare workers to counsel patients on suicide as an option of "palliative care."

The healthcare professionals, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), say it is unethical to facilitate or participate in killing a patient. They also say to force them to advise patients against their sincerely held beliefs is a violation of their constitutional rights.

“The government shouldn’t be telling healthcare professionals that they must violate their medical ethics in order to practice medicine,” Steven Aden, ADF senior counsel, explained. “These doctors and other healthcare workers deeply believe that suffering patients need understanding and sound medical treatment, not encouragement to kill themselves.”

“The state has no authority to order them to act contrary to that sincere and time-honored conviction,” Aden said.

Even though Act 39 includes protections for healthcare providers, the Vermont Department of Health (VDH) has "construed a separate, existing mandate to counsel and refer for 'all options' for palliative care to include the option of assisted suicide,” an ADF press release explained.

“This is nothing but the redefinition of ‘palliative care’ to mean providing assisted suicide," the lawsuit, Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare v. Hoser, states.  The healthcare workers call this "an intolerable position for Plaintiffs and other conscientious physicians and healthcare professionals.” 

"This conscience rights lawsuit in Vermont is fundamental to the freedom of medical professionals everywhere in America," Alex Schadenberg, the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, told LifeSiteNews. "This case is attempting to protect the freedom of all medical professionals to protect patients that need excellent care and not a lethal prescription."

"It was a travesty of justice and equality when Vermont passed their assisted suicide bill in 2013," Schadenberg explained. "It is a further injustice to Vermont Medical Professionals that the Vermont Board of Medical Practice and the Office of Professional Regulation is trying to force physicians, who oppose involvement in killing their patients, to refer their suicidal patients to a physician who will kill."

"Medical professionals across America need to get behind the ADF Vermont lawsuit," he concluded.

The law itself would seem to side with the plaintiffs. The VDH website states "every step must be voluntary by both the patient and the physician."

To the question, "Are all doctors, nurses and pharmacists required to participate in Act 39?" the website answers, "No. Participation by any healthcare professional is completely voluntary." The website also says pharmacists are "not required" to participate.

And yet, the website includes a seemingly contradictory statement. "If a doctor is unwilling to inform a patient, he or she must make a referral or otherwise arrange for the patient to receive all relevant information," including suicide as "relevant information."  It further states that because "a patient has the right to be informed of all options for care," including suicide as an option for "care."

The healthcare professionals explain in their legal complaint that they are suing on behalf of "state and national associations of conscientious healthcare professionals whose personal and professional ethics oppose the practice of assisted suicide."

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.

Featured Image
Steve Weatherbe


Filipino archbishop: We must defend the truth even if we’re persecuted

Steve Weatherbe

MANILA, Philippines, July 21, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — Once a powerful political influence in the Philippines, the Catholic Church is more like a despised prophet who is mocked, derided and ignored in his own land, according to outspoken Archbishop Socrates Villegas.

In a powerful opening address to the first assembly of the nation’s bishops to be held after Filipinos elected the anti-Catholic populist Rodrigo Duterte as their president, Villegas called them to be “pastors of the Church in the wilderness.” He urged them to have the courage to “defend and vindicate the rights of the poor and the oppressed, even when doing so will mean alienation or persecution from the rich and powerful.”

Villegas did not mention Duterte by name, but the man who accused the Catholic Church of corruption, called its leaders, including Pope Francis, “sons of whores,” and said one of its priests sexually molested him in high school, was probably in mind when the archbishop delivered at least some of his address.

“We were speaking a language that our flock could not understand,” he said to describe how seemingly irrelevant the church leadership has become. “When we appealed for morality, our people laughed at vulgarity. When we challenged indecency, we were despised and ridiculed as archaic."

“When we preached about marriage and family life, we were dismissed as uninformed bachelors. We are called shameless hypocrite children of whores. It felt like the Church was like Ismael, son of Abraham, sent to the desert to die.”

Villegas began his address by tracing church-state relations since the time of the dictatorial President Ferdinand Marcos, whom the Church helped oust in 1986. In what was called “critical collaboration,” the bishops had significant influence with subsequent regimes without, it hoped, giving up its independence.

“Without the military repression and an authoritarian regime, would the Church still be relevant?” the archbishop mused. “Many of us saw ourselves more collaborative than critical and, sadly, in some instances, co-opted by our former comrades … now occupying top government positions.”

Clearly, the Church had lost enough clout by 2012, Villegas noted, that its opposition to the Reproductive Health Law was ignored by the government. And without mentioning it specifically in this June’s presidential election, the bishops’ opposition to Duterte was ignored by the voters.

The Church, Villegas said, had turned a corner into a “hostile wilderness,” but this, as the life of Christ shows, can be a good thing. “The wilderness is also for purification and prayer. It is also for returning to the basics without the trappings and icings. The wilderness beckons us to stay with the Lord and return to the essentials. The wilderness tests our readiness for martyrdom.”

The essentials, he continued, meant standing up for the powerless. “We will stand up for the moral right. We will resist the moral wrong. We will stand and defend every person’s life and dignity. We will shield the weak from harm. We will protect the confused from error.”


Incoming Filipino president slams Catholic bishops as 'sons of whores’
In wake of Pope’s remarks, Filipino bishops call for a ‘re-evaluation’ of contraception in some cases

Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben


Ted Cruz’s refusal to endorse Trump: a betrayal or a courageous act?

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

CLEVELAND, July 21, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Senator Ted Cruz refused to endorse Donald Trump during his speech to the Republican National Convention last night, telling voters instead to “vote your conscience,” a move some are calling a betrayal and others an act of courage.

“Don't stay home in November,” he told voters. “Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience,” he said slowly and deliberately as GOP delegates burst into boos and catcalls. “Vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”

An incensed crowd erupted into chants of “We want Trump!” Two anonymous sources told Time magazine that the “Trump team actively whipped” up the jeers. When asked, campaign manager Paul Manafort reportedly “just grinned and chuckled,” although some state delegates say the negative reaction they saw was spontaneous.

Security escorted Sen. Cruz’s wife, Heidi, out of Quicken Loans Arena as one delegate shouted “Goldman Sachs!” - the international banking firm where Mrs. Cruz works. Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinnelli also walked with her part of the way to the door.

Although media reports initially said Donald Trump walked into public view on the convention floor as Cruz spoke about conscience, video reveals he stepped out visibly at the end of the speech, when he applauded and waved at the delegates, switching their focus to himself.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who followed Cruz on stage, quipped that “Ted Cruz said, ‘you can vote your conscience for anyone who will uphold the Constitution.’ In this election, there is only one candidate who will uphold the Constitution. So, to paraphrase Ted Cruz, if you want to protect the Constitution of the United States, the only possible candidate this fall is the Trump/Pence Republican ticket.”

Sen. Cruz said Mr. Trump’s attacks on his family during a heated primary fight, which left Cruz as the last man standing, tipped his decision not to back his candidacy. He hoped a Republican candidate would “cast aside anger for love,” he said in his speech.

“I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father,” he told GOP delegates this morning. “And that pledge was not a blanket commitment that if you slander and attack Heidi I'm going to nonetheless go like a servile puppy dog."

Trump campaign pre-approved the speech

Although the statement took the convention by surprise, the Trump campaign approved Cruz’s speech, sans endorsement, two hours before the senator took stage. The Trump camp said it was informed Cruz would not endorse two days before the speech; an anonymous source told Ben Shapiro’s website The Daily Wire they knew “weeks” earlier.

Donald Trump dismissed Sen. Cruz’s non-endorsement as “no big deal.”

Cruz took more flack before he ever gave his speech from talk show host Laura Ingraham who, in a rousing 17-minute speech, called on everyone – "even you boys with wounded feelings and bruised egos” – to “honor your pledge to support Donald Trump now – tonight.”

Cruz is not the first non-endorsement

Sen. Cruz’s non-endorsement is not entirely unprecedented in presidential politics – but his specific wording went further than any candidate in recent political history. At the last contested Republican convention in Kansas City 40 years ago, Ronald Reagan did not specifically use the phrase “endorse” in his off-the-cuff speech alongside Gerald Ford, but he called for Republican voters to stand “united” for “victory” in November. Although the two had a chilly relationship, Reagan campaigned for Ford in 25 states.

Democrat Ted Kennedy used similarly vague language, and gave a cool reception, to Jimmy Carter four years later.

After a particularly bitter primary fight in 1992, once and future California Governor Jerry Brown did not endorse Democrat Bill Clinton, but his speech did not hint that voters should not support the nominee. Despite questioning Hillary Clinton’s integrity in 1992, Brown – who is again governor – endorsed Hillary Clinton this year.

Criticism of Cruz's speech was swift, inside and outside the Republican Party. Former 2016 rival Mike Huckabee called Cruz “self-absorbed” alleging that by breaking the pledge all GOP hopefuls took to support the eventual nominee, Cruz did his best to “earn the monicker ‘Lyin’ Ted.’” Sarah Palin described the abrogated promise as “career-ending.” Gov. Chris Christie called the speech “awful” and “selfish.” Immediately after the speech, Sen. Cruz tried to enter the suite of Republican megadonor Sheldon Adelson, a social liberal who supports abortion-on-demand, but was turned away.

But some in the “Never Trump” movement appreciated his words, coming after they lost an important procedural vote on the floor. Talk show host Mark Levin, who worked in the Reagan campaigns, defended Cruz, saying, “If Donald Trump wants to win, their political guns need to be focused on the real enemy.” Trump’s supporters, he said, “are goose-stepping.” Talk show host Steve Deace called his speech “a mic drop” moment. Amanda Carpenter at Conservative Review wrote that “Cruz stayed true and gave those concerned with Trump a reminder of what the other members of the Republican Party can and should stand for even though unworthy leader looms among us.” And blogger Matt Walsh wrote at The Blaze that he “can’t quite find the controversial part” of Cruz’s remarks. “His pledge to support his wife and father — both of whom were viciously attacked and slandered by Donald Trump — supersedes a pledge to a political party.”

A broken promise? Both Trump and Cruz backed off the pledge in March

Critics have said Ted Cruz broke a promise he and all GOP candidates made to support the eventual nominee. Last fall, the Republican Party asked all presidential hopefuls to sign a statement vowing, “I [name] affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for president of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is.” All candidates reportedly did so.

On March 12, Cruz said, "I committed at the outset, I will support the Republican nominee, whoever it is.” A day later, he reiterated he would support the Republican nominee, adding, “When I give my word for something, I follow through and do what I said.”

However, later that month, all three remaining GOP presidential hopefuls – including Donald Trump – backed out of the pledge. When Donald Trump was asked if he still stood by the promise, he answered, “No, I don’t.”

The same night Cruz told Anderson Cooper, “I'm not in the habit of supporting someone who attacks my wife and attacks my family.”

An endorsement of Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson?

Rush Limbaugh told his audience a statement that people should not vote for his party’s nominee could be misinterpreted by “low-information voters” as Cruz giving his permission to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton tweeted out a statement today seeming to claim just that:

Meanwhile, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson – who supports abortion-on-demand and opposes conscience rights for Christians – said that Cruz “did say to vote for Gary Johnson, didn't he?”

This morning, in a speech to the Texas delegation to the GOP convention, Sen. Cruz stated that he was “not voting for Hillary” and had no intention of saying anything negative about Donald Trump.

Cruz 2020?

Cruz aides have told the press that the senator already plans to run for the presidential nomination in 2020.

“His gamble is that Trump is going to lose, and in a few years, he’s going to be seen as Winston Churchill,” said Rush Limbaugh, who said he believed it was poor strategy. “The problem is Cruz is not Churchill, in that he doesn’t start out with a lot of love and affection in the party.”

Another issue is that Cruz is not the only Republican keeping his distance from the party’s nominee.

Jeb Bush boycotted the convention, writing that he had not yet determined whether he will “support the Libertarian ticket or write in a candidate.” Ohio Gov. John Kasich is not attending the convention, being held in Cleveland, nor has he endorsed Mr. Trump. Sen. Lindsey Graham also said he would not support Trump.

But Chris Christie and Dr. Ben Carson have played a role in his campaign. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who once called on other candidates to drop out and coalesce behind an anti-Trump candidate, said last night that “Donald Trump is standing with the American people.” Other critics, including Bobby Jindal and Rick Perry, publicly back Trump.

Donald Trump will formally accept the presidential nomination tonight in the RNC’s final night.

Featured Image
PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel JD Lasica
Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa


Gay PayPal founder’s RNC speech to further muddy waters on Trump’s agenda

Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa

CLEVELAND, Ohio, July 21, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump continued to send mixed signals on social issues in the days leading to his formally accepting the party’s nomination on Thursday night.

After the GOP adopted what has been called the most pro-life and family platform in its history — including rejecting last year’s Supreme Court decision redefining marriage along with Barack Obama’s transgender bathroom edict — an openly gay tech investor will take the stage to speak just before Trump’s appearance closes the convention.

Billionaire Silicon Valley entrepreneur Peter Thiel, a delegate from California, is one of Thursday’s three headliners scheduled before Trump’s speech.

Thiel, the co-founder of PayPal and the first outside investor in Facebook, is known as a libertarian politically, and according to Inside Philanthropy, he was a donor to the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), a nonprofit organization established in 2009 to support the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit challenging California's Proposition 8 law protecting marriage.

The Trump campaign played down the significance of its choice of Thiel, just the third open homosexual to speak at a Republican National Convention, attributing it to Thiel’s friendship with Trump and his business background, and indicating Thiel’s sexuality or support for LGBT causes did not factor in.

“He’ll be talking about Donald Trump the man he knows and as a successful entrepreneur,” Trump’s convention manager Paul Manafort said in a report from TIME.

“People are going to be speaking at this convention based on what they want to say, not on any particular sexual preference or things like that, so I don’t think that’s the basis for why he’s on the program.”

Trump’s candidacy has remained unsolidified on marriage and abortion throughout the campaign, including his statement last year that conservatives should accept the Obergefell decision redefining marriage, causing concern among pro-life and family advocates.

However, more recently Trump pledged support for issues concerning faith-based voters in a recent meeting with evangelical leaders and he has made several statements indicating he would fight for religious freedom and appoint constitutionalist judges to the Supreme Court.

Trump has also stated more than once recently that he would repeal the Johnson Amendment, the 1954 measure forbidding churches from endorsing political candidates, considered by pastors as a danger to free speech via the threat of losing tax-exempt status.

Trump’s mixed message on social issues was further augmented by the choice to feature Thiel because of PayPal’s record of support for Planned Parenthood and homosexual activism.

PayPal has spent years on Life Decisions International’s Planned Parenthood Boycott list, landing there as recently as 2015

The global payment processing company bowed several years ago to homosexual activist pressure to deny service to a Christian ministry and a Christian blogger because of their so-called “hate” and “extremism.”

PayPal’s more recent fiscal move against the state of North Carolina for enacting legislation supporting its residents’ privacy and security was a blow to both religious freedom and jobs in the area.

PayPal pulled out of plans to open a global operations center in Charlotte in response to Gov. Pat McCrory having signed H.B. 2 into law, overturning the Charlotte City ordinance forcing businesses to give biological males access to female restrooms and showers. PayPal’s move cost the area 400 jobs.

Trump had first criticized HB 2, saying in April that North Carolina should not have passed the law, but then earlier this month he changed his position, saying he was on the state’s side and stating, “I’ve spoken with your governor, I’ve spoken with a lot of people and I’m going with the state.”

In the midst of the H.B. 2 controversy in May, Trump said he would repeal Obama's federal guidelines released that month requiring public schools to open their showers, restrooms, and locker rooms to members of the opposite biological sex.

Local pro-life and family advocates praised the GOP for its platform plank standing by the 24 states that have resisted the Obama transgender bathroom directive by bringing legal action, and also called on Trump to uphold the platform and to stand by his support of H.B.2.

“Mr. Thiel, like all attendees at the RNC, come together to support the party’s platform and Donald Trump’s commitment for pro-life and pro-family policies,” North Carolina Values Coalition Executive Director Tami Fitzgerald told LifeSiteNews. “We expect Mr. Trump to continue to support HB2 and North Carolina’s common sense policy that men should never be granted access to women’s bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms.”

Fitzgerald went on to say the PayPal decision to go back on its plan for opening its global operations there because of H.B. 2 associates the company with a dangerous ideology, and encouraged its supporters to use the same approach as PayPal by taking their business elsewhere.

“PayPal’s decision to renege on their commitment to North Carolina aligns the company with sexual predators seeking easy access into women’s bathrooms and fitting rooms,” she said. “NC Values continue to encourage all our coalition members to stop using PayPal in favor of providers, such as Cornerstone Payment Systems, for their payment services.”  

Featured Image
Ramona August, CC
Steve Weatherbe


Romania’s top court approves initiative to define marriage as between man and woman

Steve Weatherbe

BUCHAREST, Romania, July 21, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — A move to enshrine marriage in the Romanian constitution as a lifelong partnership between a man and woman moved closer to reality with the approval of the country’s Constitutional Court.

The initiative, if successful, would amend Article 48 of the Constitution, which currently states, “The family is founded on the freely consented marriage of the spouses, their full equality, as well as the right and duty of the parents to ensure the upbringing, education and instruction of their children.” The initiative would replace “spouses” with “a man and a woman.”

In May, the Coalition for the Family announced it had gathered more than three million signatures in favor of the amendment, six times what the constitution requires.

The coalition’s Mihai Gheorghiu said at the time that the surplus would be “a signal, a confession, a warning” to political and government leaders.

Once the coalition turned in its signatures, the Constitutional Court had to decide if the objective was constitutional. But according to Romanian American lawyer Peter Costea, it was not a problem because Romanian law has never recognized same-sex “marriage” or civil union, and the European Court of Human Rights does not recognize a right to same-sex “marriage.”

Now that the court has approved the initiative, both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies must also approve it by a two-thirds majority.

Costea thinks the country’s conservative-minded parliamentarians will sign on. However, a 2013 attempt to insert traditional marriage into the constitution faltered when it provoked strong, hostile lobbying by the United States and Western European governments.

But according to Agenda Europe, the Christian news website, “It is believed that a very considerable majority of the Romanian population has strongly resented this interference from outside and remains in strong opposition to the absurd idea of same-sex ‘marriages.’” The final step would be a national referendum.

While the country’s parliamentarians are conservative minded and “90 percent would want to support this,” Costea said, “they might want to wait till after the elections and pass this hot potato on to the next parliament.”

If the initiative passes Parliament, it must garner at least 30 percent of the eligible ballots in a national referendum. Costea said that should not be a problem because “goodness, the latest polling shows 88 percent of the country opposed to same-sex ‘marriage.’ People are absolutely tired of the direction things are moving in.”


Romanian Orthodox metropolitan urges faithful to sign petition against redefining marriage
Europeans campaign for one million signatures backing natural family

Featured Image
In a diplomatic visit to Australia, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden pushed for gay rights and touted the Obama administration's LGBT support. (Photo: Stock) Shutterstock
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire


Biden lectures Australia on LGBT rights during visit

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire

AUSTRALIA, July 21, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — U.S. Vice President Joe Biden lectured Australians about implementing the gay rights agenda during a diplomatic visit this week.

“Recently in Australia, both Victoria and New South Wales issued historic apologies for the past mistreatment of LGBT individuals under the law,” Biden said in his speech. “It’s a powerful gesture that sets the stage to move forward, so that institutionalized discrimination and mistreatment of the community can never happen again.”

Biden, a Catholic, told Australians he is “extremely proud” of the work the Obama administration has done to advance the LGBT cause in the United States, but there is still much work to be done and “talk is cheap” when it comes to defending LGBT values.

“In our Constitution, we use the phrase ‘in order to form a more perfect union’ – we mean it,” he said. “We have a long way to go. But it’s in order to form a ‘more perfect union.’ We’ve been willing to stand up for our values, make the changes we wish to see in the world a reality.”

Biden is one of America’s most visible Catholic politicians. Throughout his political career, Biden has touted his Catholic faith while simultaneously promoting same-sex “marriage,” abortion, taxpayer-funded research on embryonic humans, and the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate forcing Catholic institutions to formally cooperate with the provision of services they believe are morally evil.

As a U.S. senator, Biden voted against a variety of pro-life measures, such as measures prohibiting minors from crossing state lines to obtain abortions and blocking parents from being informed when their minor children received out-of-state abortions.

In 2015, Biden was the keynote speaker at the annual gala of the Human Rights Campaign, one of the most influential LGBT groups in the United States. He has participated in other events with the group as well.

The University of Notre Dame recently bestowed on Biden their highest honor, the Laetare Medal, for “outstanding service to the Church and society,” despite the protests of students, faculty, and the local Catholic bishop. Biden’s public service has been “largely against the Church,” 89 Notre Dame students wrote in an article expressing their disappointment at the university’s failure to “live up to its Catholic mission.”

Australia is slated to hold a popular vote on whether same-sex “marriage” should be legalized, but such a vote will not occur until at least the end of the year. Newly re-elected Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has resisted the lobbying of LGBT supporters, who would rather see same-sex “marriage” brought before Parliament.

This is not the first time the Obama administration has pushed the LGBT agenda abroad. In 2015, it announced the creation of a Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBT Persons to promote the gay agenda around the world. The U.S. Agency for International Development has poured money into the campaigns of openly homosexual candidates in pro-family countries like the Dominican Republic. The United States also sponsored the creation of an LGBT Chamber of Commerce in the Dominican Republic.

Featured Image
California public schools will begin incorporating LGBT history into the social studies curriculum in the elementary grades.
Steve Weatherbe


California public schools to begin teaching gay history, starting in second grade

Steve Weatherbe

SACRAMENTO, California, July 21, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — A new history curriculum recently unveiled for California public school students starting in elementary grades includes information on the homosexual movement and the legalization of gay “marriage” but only briefly mentions Christianity.

As part of the new LGBT-friendly social studies curriculum, which was mandated by legislation five years ago and then delayed by court action and petitions, pupils in Grade 2 will learn about “family diversity.” By Grade 4, students will be taught California’s role in the homosexual rights movement and in high school they will be presented with stories of people who broke the gender stereotypes of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. The course of study is mandated for public schools only.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson told the Los Angeles Times, “The new curriculum … will give our students access to the latest historical research and help them learn about the diversity of our state and the contributions of people and groups who may not have received the appropriate recognition in the past.”

The curriculum’s approach matches what British historian Herbert Butterfield termed “the Whig interpretation of history” which, as defined by Wikipedia, views the past as “an inevitable progression towards a more liberal, enlightened, scientific and democratic society.” Historical figures are depicted either as heroes who moved humankind forward or villains who obstructed it.

Allyson Chiu, who will be a high school senior in September, told one reporter, "My classmates can solve quadratic equations or cite the elements on the periodic table. They can't tell you who Harvey Milk was or the significance of the Stonewall Riots”— a reference to a California homosexual politician murdered in 1978 and a violent protest staged by homosexuals against New York City vice squad raids on the bathhouses they used for anonymous sex.

Jessica Grant of Our Family Alliance lauded the new curriculum. Her twin children “were at my wedding — to my wife — but they have no idea who fought for that or how we got to this point.”

Homosexuals appear in California’s curriculum both as heroes and victims alongside other groups such as blacks, Asians and women who struggled for better treatment.

Throughout primary and secondary school, students are guided to think of the movement toward equal rights as the essential theme of American history “from farmers in Jefferson’s agrarian nation to suffragists [sic] at the turn of the century to civil rights activists putting their lives on the line to end Jim Crow … to Americans seeking to bring marriage equality to same-sex couples in the 21st century.”

In Grade 2, students develop and share family histories. The curriculum framework explains, “Through studying the stories of a very diverse collection of families, such as immigrant families, families with lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender parents and their children, families of color, step- and blended families, families headed by single parents, extended families, families with disabled members, families from different religious traditions, and adoptive families, students can both locate themselves and their own families in history and learn about the lives and historical struggles of their peers.”

In Grade 4, the history of homosexual advocacy in California is described in terms of fighting for the “right to teach” and then the “right to get married.” History climaxes for this story, as for many in the Whig narrative, with an act of government or the judiciary.

Thus, the inhumane aspects of the British industrial revolution provoke government intervention, according to the curriculum, but the popular outcry of Evangelical Christians to dehumanizing working conditions that provoked the legislation goes unmentioned.

The attention paid to minority groups, especially homosexuals, contrasts with the handling of religion. Thus, both the contributions to the American effort in the Second World War by homosexuals are described alongside those of Mexican Americans, Filipinos, women, and Blacks, while the involvement of Christian leaders in the Civil Rights movement is referred to briefly.

Jesus Christ and religion are dealt with in Grade Seven without mentioning his claim to divinity, leading pupils to discover outside the classroom why Christianity broke with Judaism, or what was the source of its appeal.

Featured Image
John Stonestreet John Stonestreet


The condom conundrum: more prophylactics, more teen pregnancies

John Stonestreet John Stonestreet

July 21, 2016 (BreakPoint) -- Those who’ve pushed condoms like candy in public schools have given us any number of rationales. They told us that young people “are going to do it anyway,” so more condoms would equal fewer pregnancies. They also said that more condoms would lead to fewer STDs, or sexually transmitted diseases. And as they proceeded to pass out condoms by the handful to our school-age children, they told us that religion and morality should be left out of it, in the name of public health and, of course, science.

New research, however, suggests these prophets of prophylactics were wrong—desperately wrong—and that it’s time for a fresh look at the issue.

A recently released study by University of Notre Dame researchers Kasey S. Buckles and Daniel M. Hungerman has found that access to condoms in schools actually increases teen pregnancies by about 10 percent—that’s right, increases it! Buckles and Hungerman selected 22 school districts in 12 states that started such programs back in the 1990s, including New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. The study analyzed teen-fertility data from nearly 400 high-population counties over a span of 19 years.

Among the contributing factors Buckles and Hungerman cite is the possibility that condom-distribution programs can crowd out efforts to encourage young people to delay sexual activity. Condom-distribution programs may actually encourage more teenagers to have sex.

Is this really that surprising? If adults tell teens that the decision to engage in sex is theirs and give them condoms, what message do they receive?

It makes sense, especially given another finding of the study. Buckles and Hungerman found that sexual activity, along with STDs, increased in counties with condom-distribution programs. This puts a lie to all those lofty assurances from the Sexual Left that condoms would prevent all that. No, more likely, they encouraged it!

Michael J. New, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan at Dearborn, notes that this ugly outcome likely is a result of increased sexual risk-taking as a result of condoms in the schools. All at taxpayers' expense.

Now Buckles and Hungerman are quick to point out that they believe the effects of teen fertility would be less alarming if the condom-distribution programs were also accompanied by mandatory sex-ed counseling. But New says such education efforts would not totally offset the jump in teen fertility caused by condom distribution. There would still be more births to teenaged mothers, and presumably more teen STDs, than if there were no condoms in the schools in the first place.

“Overall,” says New, “the study adds to an impressive body of research which shows that efforts to encourage contraceptive use either through mandates, subsidies, or distribution are ineffective at best or counterproductive at worst. In many countries, increases in contraception use are correlated with increase in the abortion rate.”

Now it would be optimistic at best to assume that the folks who brought these condom-distribution programs to us, and their cheerleaders in the media, would own up to the conundrum they have created and work to make things right. But no, we’ll have to do that ourselves.

So the first step to changing what our schools do is to read the study and make sure that members of your local school boards have a copy. Just come to and click on this commentary for a link to it, along with more information to get you up to speed.

And second, we shouldn’t be surprised that non-Christians teach our sons and daughters a non-Christian worldview concerning the human body, the unitive act, or marriage. Teaching our own kids about sex and design and relationships and marriage, while pointing out and countering the lies about sex proclaimed in the culture, is first and foremost our job as parents and as Christian communities.

Reprinted with permission from Break Point.

Featured Image
John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry


Dismissing Cardinal Sarah’s advice – imagine if the laity did it

John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry

July 21, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Robert Sarah’s encouragement of priests to face the tabernacle with the faithful during Mass and for the faithful to receive Holy Communion kneeling created quite the stir! The Vatican, which is famous for silence or ‘reacting in centuries’ in the face of some of the most severe scandals even concerning Cardinals, this time reacted with lightning speed.

The very next business day after Cardinal Sarah returned from his trip where he made his suggestion for traditional worship, Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi put out a press release. The day after that the US Bishops Conference put out their own release referring to the Vatican telling priests, there is no “new mandate for the celebrant to face away from the assembly.”

Cardinal Sarah never said it was mandated mind you. He asked humbly for his brother priests and bishops to implement the practice, suggesting Nov. 27 – the first Sunday of Advent – as a possible start date. He didn’t insist on it, even though he is the Church’s chief liturgist. 

Imagine if Catholics only did what we were mandated to do in the Church. How much poorer a church would we be if Catholics only attended Mass on Sundays, which is the minimum mandate? What if we only went to confession once a year as we’re mandated? What if we only received Holy Communion once a year during the Easter season?

There would be no one to flip pancakes and cook the bacon and sausages at those Church breakfasts, because there’s no mandate for that. Hey, there would be no breakfasts or church suppers at all!  No fundraisers for the poor, no potlucks to benefit children’s charities and hospitals. There would be no Knights of Columbus or Catholic Women’s groups.  The good ladies who volunteer with bake sales and taking care of vestments would vanish. Forget the prayer groups, the soup kitchens, the Catechism classes, and even Catholic schools.

No one is mandated to become a priest – so of course that would become a thing of the past.

We are all called to do things beyond what is mandated.  We are called to be generous with Our Lord. So as we the faithful pledge to be generous with our gifts and talents in the service of the Church despite the stigma the world attaches to that, courageous priests and bishops have done the same and are willing to sacrifice the admiration of the world to honour Our Lord.

It’s up to the faithful to encourage their own priests and bishops to adopt Cardinal Sarah’s suggestions for liturgy.  Some of their own brother priests and bishops who prefer the 1970s-style liturgy will likely look down on them for taking the step.

But we can encourage them with the words of the head of the Church’s congregation in charge of liturgy. Cardinal Sarah said this practice should be implemented with “a pastor’s confidence that this is something good for the Church, something good for our people.”

“Dear Fathers,” he said, “we should listen again to the lament of God proclaimed by the prophet Jeremiah: “they have turned their back to me” (2:27). Let us turn again towards the Lord!”

One Bishop in France has already accepted Cardinal Sarah’s challenge.

French Bishop Dominique Rey of the diocese of Fréjus-Toulon announced that he would celebrate Mass “ad orientem” at the last Sunday of Advent “and on other occasions where appropriate.” “Before Advent,” he added, “I shall address a letter to my priests and people on this question to explain my action. I shall encourage them to follow my example.” 

May God bless you Bishop Rey! And may God bless all of you!

Featured Image
Baby Trevor survived being born at just 23 weeks
Adam Peters

The Pulse

Baby Trevor survived at 23 weeks; Planned Parenthood aborts at 24

Adam Peters

July 21, 2016 (LiveActionNews) -- Here’s a fact about abortion: the later it happens, the fewer people support it.

This isn’t surprising. You can say a fetus is only “a blob of tissue,” but certain things make that hard to believe: A heartbeat does, and it starts less than a month following conception. So do fingers at eight weeks and fingerprints at ten.

It gets even harder: research indicates a baby can feel pain at twenty weeks, by which point a majority of both men and women want to see abortion banned. The little guy pictured below is named Trevor Frolek, and he was born just three weeks after that. 

As you look at Trevor, you might be wondering, “Who would kill a child at 23 weeks?” You should probably ask Dr. Deborah Nucatola.

She’ll do it at 24.

Nucatola is the Senior Director of Medical Services at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, America’s largest abortion chain. She also performs late-term abortions, something she was heard discussing last year.

The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released undercover footage of her meeting with people claiming to be fetal tissue purchasers. At 3:43 in the clip above, Nucatola describes how she can abort children but still harvest their organs:

We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.

Planned Parenthood claims CMP’s footage was deceptively edited and those statements taken out of context. Forensic analysis has confirmed the audio wasn’t doctored. As for the context, let’s ask a question: In what context would Dr. Nucatola’s words make sense other than during a description of how she does abortions? If you’re still not convinced, compare them to what Dr. Anthony Levatino says.

Dr. Levatino is an obstetrician-gynecologist who’s done over 1,200 abortions, and in the video below, he explains how a second trimester abortion procedure called dilation and evacuation (D&E) is performed:

After the amniotic fluid is removed, the abortionist uses a sopher clamp — a grasping instrument with rows of sharp “teeth” — to grasp and pull the baby’s arms and legs, tearing the limbs from the child’s body.

The abortionist continues to grasp intestines, spine, heart, lungs, and any other limbs or body parts. The most difficult part of the procedure is usually finding, grasping and crushing the baby’s head.

After removing pieces of the child’s skull, the abortionist uses a curette to scrape the uterus and remove the placenta and any remaining parts of the baby.

Some contend late-term abortions are only done out of medical necessity–but that isn’t true. Examples of other reasons are easy to find.

Gary Cross took his thirteen-year-old stepdaughter pregnant, to Planned Parenthood after getting her pregnant. Despite the girl being well below the age of consent, Planned Parenthood arranged an abortion at 20 weeks. With the evidence gone, Cross was free to keep on abusing her.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Meanwhile, Southwestern Women’s Options in New Mexico will perform late-term abortions at up to 27 weeks for women who didn’t realize how far along they were.

If you’re troubled by how Planned Parenthood “crushes” children like Trevor Frolek, this probably won’t make you feel any better: every year, it receives over half a billion of your tax dollars.

Tell Congress that money should go to federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and community health centers (CHCs) instead. While FQHCs and CHCs don’t dismember children, they do offer affordable care, including five hundred thousand mammograms annually. That’s about five hundred thousand more than Planned Parenthood.

Another good move? Back legislation to protect pain capable children. By 20 weeks, even many who support abortion recognize a child’s humanity. The law should too.

Reprinted with permission from Live Action News.

Featured Image
Katie Yoder

The Pulse

Actress Mila Kunis on second pregnancy: ‘I have a human inside’

Katie Yoder

July 21, 2016 (NewsBusters) -- Hollywood constantly flaunts pro-abortion media (think: Obvious Child, Scandal). So when a big-name actress like Mila Kunis uses pro-life language, it’s a rarity.

On Wednesday, Kunis (That ‘70s ShowBlack Swan) appeared on Live with Kelly to discuss her role in the upcoming film Bad Moms, which hits theaters July 29. But the interview first and foremost focused on Kunis’ second pregnancy with husband Ashton Kutcher.

From the beginning of the segment, co-host Kelly Ripa asked the 32-year-old star about her current pregnancy with “baby number two.”

“I do have a human inside,” responded Kunis. “Just one.” 

Kunis went on to say that this pregnancy feels “completely different” from the first with daughter Wyatt.

“With the first one, I literally was on the app every day,” she said of 1-year-old Wyatt. “I was like, ‘what fruit size is my baby?’ And it’s like, ‘it's the size of a grape, it’s the size of an avocado.’” 

But now, she doesn’t have the time.

“With the first one, I could tell you precisely what she was developing, and what stage it was,” Kunis explained. “But the second one, I'm running after a toddler or I'm working.”

But Kunis has made an effort to teach Wyatt that she’s going to be a “big sister” and that “there's a baby inside mommy's belly.”

Because of Wyatt’s age, “she's too little to comprehend that only mommy’s got the baby,” Kunis admitted. So she says “everybody’s got a baby in their belly.”

Except for Ashton Kutcher, that is.

When people ask her, “What’s inside papa’s belly?” Wyatt simply answers, “beer,” Kunis joked.

Reprinted with permission from News Busters.

Featured Image
Alex Schadenberg Alex Schadenberg Follow Alex

The Pulse,

Court case filed to protect Vermont physicians and patients from coercion in assisted suicide

Alex Schadenberg Alex Schadenberg Follow Alex

July 21, 2016 (Alex Schadenberg) -- The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has filed a lawsuit to protect the conscience rights of healthcare professionals in Vermont and prevent physicians and patients from being coerced into assisted suicide.

According to the ADF media release the case was filed on July 19 in federal court on behalf of health care professionals in Vermont who refuse to refer their patients for death by assisted suicide and against the officials in the Vermont Board of Medical Practice and the Office of Professional Regulation.

The ADF Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden states in the media release:

“The government shouldn’t be telling health care professionals that they must violate their medical ethics in order to practice medicine,” 

“... The state has no authority to order them to act contrary to that sincere and time-honored conviction.”

The Vermont assisted suicide law requires physicians to inform patients about all palliative care options. The ADF states that the Vermont Department of Health expanded the definition of palliative care to include assisted suicide. The ADF release quotes a Vermont Department of Health document that states:

“Do doctors have to tell patients about this option? Under Act 39 and the Patient’s Bill of Rights, a patient has the right to be informed of all options for care and treatment in order to make a fully-informed choice. If a doctor is unwilling to inform a patient, he or she must make a referral or otherwise arrange for the patient to receive all relevant information.”

The complaint filed as Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare v. Hoser states:

This is nothing but the redefinition of ‘palliative care’ to mean providing assisted suicide, an intolerable position for Plaintiffs and other conscientious physicians and healthcare professionals." 

“Plaintiffs, state and national associations of conscientious healthcare professionals whose personal and professional ethics oppose the practice of assisted suicide, bring this action on behalf of their members against the operation of Act 39 to force them to counsel and/or refer for the practice.”

A similar case was filed in Canada by physicians in Ontario who are being coerced by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons to refer patients to die by euthanasia or assisted suicide, even if the physician morally or ethically opposes killing patients.

Reprinted with permission from Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Featured Image
Katharine Britton

The Pulse, , ,

40 Days for Life will spread pro-life message at World Youth Day

Katharine Britton

July 21, 2016 (40 Days for Life) -- Sarting on July 26, an estimated two million young people from around the world will gather in Krakow, Poland for World Youth Day.

This is an opportunity to be inspired by the magnitude of the crowds gathered to celebrate their common faith in the Lord Jesus. It is a chance to set the world on fire with love for God and his people, so that they will be inspired to do His holy will.

I am excited that 40 Days for Life will be participating in this incredible event and pilgrimage!

I will be leading a team of six young women to Krakow to spread the pro-life message. Our goal is to inspire the hearts and minds of young people to build a culture of life in their own communities.

There are many dedicated Christians who do not realize that the abortion situation is at crisis level. It is estimated that more than 50 million unborn babies are aborted each year globally. Life is a precious gift, and it is critical that Christians unite in prayer and fasting to end the greatest threat to human life that the world has ever known.

It is the young people who can do it; we are the pro-life generation. We are the target of the abortion industry and we need to flatly reject their offer to fix our “problems.” We must embrace the cross, not abort it.

World Youth Day is a unique international setting to communicate the dire need to act locally in support of all human life. 40 Days for Life has continued to grow internationally and it is my hope that through our presence we will encounter many more people at World Youth Day who will take the first step to ending abortion in their communities … and the world.

As we enter into this time of prayer and pilgrimage, please pray that through our speaking events, information booth, and presence at large gatherings we will touch the hearts and minds of many young people who attend this global Christian gathering.

If you or someone you know is attending World Youth Day, you are invited to stop by at our booth or speaking events! Please see below for our schedule:

Tues., July 26 9am-5pm Booth at the Vocations Center
2pm-2:30pm “The Pro-Life Generation” Family Academy
Wed., July 27 9am-10pm Booth at the Vocations Center
Thurs., July 28 9am-5pm Booth at the Vocations Center
Fri., July 29 9am-5pm Booth at the Vocations Center
3-3:30pm “El Aborto en Latinoamérica” (Spanish) Family Academy

The Vocations Center and Family Academy talks will be held at Krakow Stadium (ul. Józefa Kałuży 1, 30-962). The Vocations Center will be at the Plac Wschodni Stadionu Cracovia (East Square of Cracovia Stadium) – a covered area on ul. Józefa Kałuży.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

There’s more information to come on our exact booth and speaking locations.

You are welcome to stop by at our events at any time. If you would like to contact me to coordinate, please email me at [email protected].

Reprinted with permission from 40 Days for Life.

Print All Articles
View specific date