All articles from September 8, 2017

Featured Image
Baltimore Archbishop William Lori Lisa Bourne / LifeSiteNews
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug

News, , ,

U.S. archbishop rebukes Democrat senators for ‘anti-Catholic bigotry’

Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

Stand with Trump nominee attacked for her Catholic faith. Sign the pledge of support!

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 8, 2017  (LifeSiteNews) – The U.S. bishops point man for religious freedom has stepped in to defend a Trump judicial nominee who came under attack in the U.S. Senate for being an “orthodox Catholic.”

The episode is a sign that “anti-Catholic bigotry” still remains, Archbishop William Lori, chairman of  the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, said in a statement today.

At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein and Richard Durbin assailed University of Notre Dame law professor Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic mother of seven for her faith. Trump has nominated Barrett for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said in a now-famous line.

Lori, the archbishop of Baltimore, said that rather than examining Barrett’s professional credentials, the Democratic senators “challenged her fitness to serve due to her Catholic faith.”

“Such questions … sadly, harken back to a time in our country when anti-Catholic bigotry did distort our laws and civil order,” he said. “These comments are a reminder that we must remain vigilant against latent bigotries that may still infect our national soul.”

The archbishop then fired a pointed question directly at Senators Feinstein and Durbin: “Were the comments of the Senators meant as a warning shot to future law students and attorneys, that they should never discuss their faith in a public forum, if they have aspirations to serve in the federal judiciary?”  

Archbishop Lori’s statement on behalf of the USCCB joins a growing chorus of condemnation of the treatment of Professor Barrett.

Archbishop Lori’s statement can be read in its entirety here.

Featured Image
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire


Megan Fox lets 4-year-old son wear dresses: ‘There are no rules’

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire
By Claire Chretien
Megan Fox and her sons. YouTube screenshot

September 8, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Megan Fox's husband, Brian Austin Green, has defended the decision he and his wife made to let their four-year-old son Noah dress as a girl.

"If he wants to wear it, then he wears it," Green told TMZ. "If he wants to wear a dress, awesome." 

TMZ's Dax Holt praised Green for allowing his son to wear dresses, saying he thinks it's "cool" and "I don't understand the big deal of it."

"I don't care" what critics say, Green replied. "He’s four, and if he wants to wear it, then he wears it...If he wants to wear a dress, awesome. Good on him, you know?"

Fox began defending the couple's parenting in 2016, when it was revealed they let then-three-year-old Noah wear girls' clothes. The actress said because she was raised in an "oppressive" Pentecostal household, she leans "left of that now."

"Noah wears dresses so there are no rules – you can be whatever you want to be in my house," she told Jimmy Kimmel. 

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie let their daughter Shiloh wear boys' clothes

Featured Image
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire


Boy who ‘transitioned’ to female at 12 changes mind: ‘I was actually comfortable in my body’

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire
By Claire Chretien

September 8, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – A boy who began transgendering himself to be more like a girl when he was 12 has changed his mind just two years later. 

Patrick Mitchell's story will be on Australia's 60 Minutes on Sunday. He gave an interview to Women's Day explaining how being called a "girl" actually made him realize he was comfortable as a boy.

He will now be undergoing surgery to remove breast tissue that grew as a result of him taking estrogen.

"I felt like I was on the right track to becoming a girl," Mitchell told 60 Minutes

But earlier this year, being referred to as "one of the girls" made him realize "I was actually comfortable in my body."

"Every day I just felt better," he said. 

"I was a trans kid myself," Walt Heyer, founder of, told LifeSiteNews via email. "This story about Patrick is more proof the trans-activists doctors have no way to prove who the trans-kids are and who are not." 

But they have no problem going "recklessly forward with treatments."

"What we do know is through persistent, frequent affirmation by parents, doctors and schools we can make kids think they are transgender," said Heyer. "When there is overwhelming support of cross gender identities any child will eventually develop symptoms of gender dysphoria. Patrick was fortunate because he 'came out' and acknowledged he was comfortable in his boy body."

"I knew his thoughts had caught up with his body," the boy's mother said. She brought up transgenderism with him when he was 12 and he responded very positively to the suggestion that they see a doctor about it. 

"Your boy's got breasts," a 60 Minutes anchor says to her in a preview of Sunday's episode.

According to media reports, Patrick's mother was supportive of both his "transition" to female and now his embracing of his biological sex.

"Kids should not be subjected to constant affirmation or medically induced cross-gender treatments until age 18," said Heyer. "At that time then they should be required to undergo psychological evaluations to determine if untreated comorbid psychological disorders are causing the young person identifying as transgender." 

His said disorders like body dysmorphic disorder, bipolar disorder, dissociative disorder, depression, anxiety, and Asperger's Syndrome are "linked to cross-gender identities." But none of them "require hormone blockers or a change of gender as part of their treatment."

Great Britain's youngest-ever patient to undergo a "sex change" at just 15 "transitioned" back to living as a male when he was 18. Now 23, he is once more "transitioning" back to a woman.

"I hope I will finally be happy," he said in August.

This summer, Pure Passion Media and Mastering Life Ministries released a documentary sharing the stories of people who experienced sex change regret. 

Featured Image
Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the UK Labour Party Chatham House, CC
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire

News, ,

Priest gives Communion to pro-abortion, non-Catholic politician at funeral

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire
By Claire Chretien

UNITED KINGDOM, September 8, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – A non-Catholic, abortion-supporting politician recently received Holy Communion at a Catholic funeral.

"Socialism may not be Jeremy Corbyn’s only religion," the New Statesman reported, asking if Corbyn is a secret Catholic. According to the report, Corbyn received Holy Communion, which the Catholic Church teaches is the literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, during the funeral of fellow politician Mary Turner at Sacred Heart Church in north London.

A spokesperson for Corbyn then said he hasn't become Catholic.

Only baptized Catholics may receive Holy Communion, according to the laws of the Church.

"At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood," the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches (CCC 1333). 

The Catechism explains:

"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: 'Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.'" (CCC 1376)

Dr. Joseph Shaw, an Oxford professor and the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society, said this incident shows priests need to properly explain the significance of the Eucharist and the Church's guidelines for receiving it.

"We should be charitable to Mr. Corbyn and assume that he didn't know any better, but his reception of Holy Communion at a Catholic funeral Mass underlines the need for priests to make clear that it is not just for anyone to go up for Communion," Shaw told LifeSiteNews.

"Indeed, the practice of all Catholics going up without thinking twice about it can create a sense of exclusion for non-Catholics at events like weddings and funerals which would not have arisen in earlier times, when the need for careful preparation was taken more seriously by Catholics," he continued. "The result can be events like this which turn out to be embarassing for everyone involved, as well as disrespectful to our Lord in the Sacrament."

Before receiving Holy Communion, Catholics used to be required to fast starting at midnight. Pope Pius XII changed the required fasting time to three hours in 1957; Pope Paul VI reduced it to one hour in 1964.

Corbyn belongs to the Labour Party. He's voted to allow abortions at 24 weeks, more than halfway through pregnancy. In 2015, Corbyn voted against an amendment banning sex-selective abortions. He's consistently voted in favor of keeping abortion legal, supporting international abortion organizations, and against a mandatory pre-abortion waiting period. 

Corbyn won't publicly say what his religious beliefs are, arguing that they are "private."

Featured Image
Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput Lisa Bourne / LifeSiteNews
Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa

News, , , ,

Archbishop rips Democrats for grilling Catholic judicial nominee on her faith

Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa
By Lisa Bourne

Stand with Trump nominee attacked for her Catholic faith. Sign the pledge of support!

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, September 8, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput assessed Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein’s now infamous anti-faith insult to judicial nominee Amy Barrett with a skillfully delivered retort in his latest column.

Responding to Feinstein’s “dogma lives loudly in you” smear of the Catholic law professor, the Philadelphia archbishop turned the tables on Feinstein and pointed to the California senator’s fervent abortion support.

“The day’s signature line came from Democrat Dianne Feinstein,” Archbishop Chaput wrote. “The senator worried to Barrett that “dogma lives loudly in you” – this, from a person whose dogmatic decibel level on abortion ‘rights’ could break windows.”

Feinstein stood out in a repetitive grilling session Wednesday of Barrett, a Trump nominee for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Feinstein and other Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee were fixated in the confirmation hearing on the Catholic faith of Barrett, a distinguished law professor at the University of Notre Dame and the mother of seven.

Senate minority whip Dick Durbin took issue with Barrett’s use of the term “orthodox Catholic,” asserting it unfairly impugns certain Catholics who hold more liberal views.

“Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” Durbin pressed Barrett.

Durbin is a Catholic who supports abortion.

But Feinstein’s statement, though, struck as the anti-Catholic chord heard across the media.

“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.”

The remark drew immediate criticism along with ridicule for its resemblance of a cryptic line from a Star Wars movie.

The concern for “big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years” Feinstein expressed presumably means so-called abortion “rights.”

She had similarly grilled Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch earlier this year, telling Gorsuch the Roe vs. Wade decision had “super precedent,” before she questioned him to determine if he agreed that was true.

Feinstein’s abortion advocacy has been evident throughout her time in Congress.

Her “dogma lives loudly in you” attempt to sully Barrett for her faith roused charges of violation of the constitutional prohibition of a religious litmus test for nominees to government posts.

Feinstein and Durbin “came perilously close to applying a religious test” to Barrett, Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in a statement.

Donohue wrote open letters to Feinstein and Durbin, telling Feinstein, “No one was fooled by your question. Why didn’t you come right out and ask her if she takes her judicial cues from the Vatican? That would have been more honest.”

In Archbishop Chaput’s column titled “Sex, sanity, and beliefs that ‘live loudly’ within us,” he addressed the current culture war on Christian morals.

He said there was a methodical effort playing out to “recast biblical truths as a form of “hate,” to reshape public opinion away from those biblical truths, and to silence anyone who stays faithful to Christian teaching on matters of sexual behavior, sexual identity, family and marriage.”

“The message is simple,” Archbishop Chaput wrote. “Conform to the new herd dogmas or enjoy the consequences.”

He then noted how in the confirmation hearing “Senators repeatedly raised thinly veiled questions about Barrett’s suitability to serve linked to her Catholic faith,” before delivering the zinger assessment of Feinstein’s “dogmatic decibel level on abortion “rights.”

“Here’s the thought,” concluded Archbishop Chaput. “A great many faithful Christians still do let their convictions “live loudly” in their hearts and actions. It’s called witness. What it takes is a little courage. So maybe they — and all the rest of us who seek to follow Jesus Christ — should turn up the volume.”

Featured Image
Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips YouTube
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug

News, , , ,

Trump urges Supreme Court: Uphold right to refuse gay ‘wedding’ cakes

Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 8, 2017  (LifeSiteNews) – In a move that LGBT proponents are calling “shocking,” President  Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Colorado baker who was found to have violated the state’s anti-discrimination act for declining to bake a cake to celebrate a “gay wedding.”

In 2012, a gay couple visited the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, seeking to commission the creation of a cake for their gay wedding. Owner Jack Phillips declined to make the cake because same-sex “marriage” stands in opposition to his religious beliefs. The two men were not seeking to buy an off-the-shelf product; they wanted Phillips to use his talent to create a unique product – a work of art.

Phillips directed the two men to other shops that could provide such a service for them, which they eventually did. But the angered men later engaged the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to bring a punitive case against Phillips and his business that would compel him to act against his conscience.

Contrary to many news headlines and stories about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, this issue isn’t about refusing to sell a product to gay customers. It’s about whether or not a state government has the right to compel an artist, under penalty of law, to use his artistry in way that violates his conscience.

In order not to be in violation of the law, Phillips has ceased his custom wedding cake services and has had to release six of his 10 employees.

DOJ’s pro-religious liberty defense of Jack Phillips & Masterpiece Cakeshop

From the outset of the new administration, the Trump White House and the DOJ have pledged to uphold religious liberty.

“Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights,” wrote Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall, one of the authors of the Supreme Court brief.  “Weddings are sacred rites in the religious realm and profoundly symbolic ceremonies in the secular one.”

The brief, addressed to the nine Supreme Court justices, reminds them that even the majority opinion in the Obergfell case, which legalized same-sex “marriage” across the country, emphasized upholding First Amendment protections for religious objectors:

“[T]he Court has recognized that opposition to same-sex marriage ‘long has been held — and continues to be held — in good faith by reasonable and sincere people,’ and that “[m]any who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises.”

The brief goes on to point out an important irony of the case: “Indeed, when Phillips declined to create a custom wedding cake for Craig and Mullins [the gay couple seeking to commission a wedding cake] in July 2012, Colorado refused to recognize either same-sex marriages or same-sex civil unions ... In other words, the State itself did not acknowledge the validity of the union it sought to compel petitioners to celebrate. It was not until October 2014, after federal courts had ruled that Colorado’s same-sex marriage laws were invalid, that the State began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.”

The brief reflects statements made by Attorney General Jeff Sessions at an Alliance Defending Freedom conference in California in July: “The federal government will actively find ways to accommodate people of all faiths. The protections enshrined in the Constitution and our laws protect all Americans, including when we work together, speak in the public square, and when we interact with our government. We don’t waive our constitutional rights when we participate fully in public life and civic society.”

The Trump administration: moving forward, protecting religious liberty

Recently, the Trump White House has sought to prevent transgendered persons from serving in the military, undoing Obama-era pro-transgender military service policies.  

The administration, working through the Department of Education, has also eliminated Obama-era guidance on accommodating transgender students.

Pro-LGBT activists and organizations are unhappy with these moves perceived to be “anti-gay.”

“This Justice Department has already made its hostility to the rights of LGBT people and so many others crystal clear ... But this brief was shocking,” said Louise Melling, deputy legal director for the ACLU.

Members of Congress also file a brief in support of Masterpiece Cakeshop

In addition to the DOJ, at least 86 members of Congress have filed their own amicus (friend of the court) brief in support of Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop.

At a Capitol Hill press conference Thursday, Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah, a respected legal mind in his own right who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, said, “This is a compelled-speech case. The Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment, in addition to doing all the things that it does, prohibits the government from requiring individuals from making a particular statement with which they disagree. The government cannot force you to speak where you would choose to remain silent.”

Creating a cake — or any type of creative artistry — is a form of speech, which should be protected under the First Amendment.

Senator Lee pointed out, “This isn’t a case where someone refused to sell a pre-made good to someone else, based on their sexuality or their orientation. It is instead one in which the couple at issue requested the cake baker make a specialty cake, not a pre-ordered, pre-made, pre-designed sort of thing. But [they were] asking the baker to use the baker’s talents and specialty to craft a cake carrying a message with which the baker disagrees. So these cases are different than cases involving public accommodations.”

Religious believers are not bigots to be purged from the public square

“Marriage laws should not treat religious believers as bigots to be purged from the public square,” noted Ryan T. Anderson and Leslie Ford as same-sex “marriage” cases challenging religious liberty were beginning to fill court dockets. “Under the newer laws, family businesses — especially photographers, bakers, florists, and others involved in the wedding industry — have been hauled into court because they declined to provide services for a same-sex ceremony that they viewed as a violation of their religious beliefs.”

“Yes, Americans must be free to live and love how they choose, but we should not use government to penalize those who think and act differently,” continued Anderson and Ford. “Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. All Americans should remain free in the public square to act in accordance with their beliefs about marriage without fear of government penalty.”

Featured Image
Dr. Lisa Harris was seen in one of the undercover videos captured by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP).
Fr. Mark Hodges Fr. Mark Hodges

News, ,

20 state Attorneys General tell Supreme Court to release videos exposing Planned Parenthood

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

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 8, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Attorneys General in 20 states asked the U.S. Supreme Court release undercover videos exposing Planned Parenthood’s criminal activity.

The top law enforcement officers in those states filed a “friend of the court” brief with the nation’s highest court arguing that they should be privy to violations of law within their jurisdictions.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich authored the amicus brief, which argues for lifting an injunction by Judge William Orrick and upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stopping the release of the undercover videos made by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP).

Banning the videos “hampers law enforcement’s ability to effectively receive information and investigate possible civil or criminal wrongdoing,” Brnovich reasoned.

Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin are all part of the amicus brief.

A three-minute compilation of some of the banned videos was previously released, resulting in a contempt of court conviction and a $200,000 fine for CMP’s David Daleiden and two of his attorneys. The brief compilation shows Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation officials joking about illegally modifying abortion procedures and conceding that abortion is murder.

“Let’s just give them all the violence. It’s a person. It’s killing. Let’s just give them all that,” Planned Parenthood of Michigan’s Lisa Harris said on the video.

The Ninth Circuit court upheld Orrick’s ruling that CMP has no First Amendment right to release the videos because they allegedly signed a confidentiality agreement to attend the National Abortion Federation’s convention.

Brnovich pointed out that criminal activity is not protected by confidentiality agreements, and whistleblowers should be allowed to at least share their evidence with law enforcement authorities.

Life Legal Defense Foundation’s Katie Short, whose organization filed a petition to the Supreme Court on behalf of Daleiden, noted that no federal appeals court has ever upheld a ban based on a confidentiality agreement if the evidence obtained is of “significant public interest and concern.”

“The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the order without fully reviewing the case, as is required when First Amendment freedoms are at stake,” Life Legal’s petition stated.

“Even Judge Orrick acknowledged that the public ‘has an interest in accessing the NAF materials,’” Life Legal continued, “Yet he — and the Ninth Circuit in its affirmation of Orrick’s ruling — elected to protect the interests of the abortion industry over the interests of taxpayers who fund Planned Parenthood to the tune of $550 million annually.”

Daleiden also sought to disqualify Orrick for bias. Orrick is on the board of National Abortion Federation member “Good Samaritan Family Resource Center,” and his wife has publicly posted a picture of her husband with comments praising Planned Parenthood and denigrating the CMP.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has accused Daleiden and CMP’s Sandra Merritt of invasion of privacy in a 15-count indictment. Daleiden said he made the recordings in public places such as restaurants, that he made them to uncover illegal activities, and that Becerra, who received large campaign donations from Planned Parenthood, is biased against his pro-life organization.

“The abortion industry went after David Daleiden for one reason: to protect the reputation it carefully cultivated in four decades of public deception,” Life Legal executive director Alexandra Snyder charged. “Our hope is that the Supreme Court will agree that First Amendment freedoms must not be extinguished to remove from public scrutiny issues of fundamental social … importance.”

Life Legal’s petition stated, “At issue in this appeal is a gag order, a preliminary injunction imposed specifically for the purpose of hiding information from the public, precisely because the information is of such significant public interest and concern — the procurement and sale of aborted fetal body parts.”

Earlier CMP videos revealed Planned Parenthood officials illegally selling aborted baby parts for profit, including “intact” babies. Planned Parenthood’s defense against the damning CMP videos was to deny wrongdoing and accuse CMP of deceptively editing the videos. But several analyses concluded the videos were not deceptively edited.

Even Planned Parenthood-hired research firm Fusion GPS confirmed that comments recorded were spoken by the subjects depicted and admitted that their best “analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has the highest percentage of judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Orrick himself is an Obama appointee. Conservatives have long argued that the court is biased.

Featured Image
LifeSiteNews staff


America aborts 3K babies every day. On Saturday, pro-lifers across U.S. will honor them

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

CHICAGO, September 8, 2017 ­(LifeSiteNews) — The eyes of the nation turned to southern Texas in the wake of Harvey, last month's deadly hurricane and tropical storm. As the death toll passed 60, people sent help and talked about moving beyond the tragedy. Meanwhile, a tragedy not as visible is playing out across America, according to Eric Scheidler, co-director of National Day of Remembrance for Aborted Children.

"There are over 3,000 babies aborted daily in the United States," he explained. "If 3,000 people had been killed by flooding, daily life would come to a halt, as concerned citizens pulled together in relief  and recovery efforts. Abortion is a silent, unpublicized killer, wiping out schools full of children each day." 

The Fifth Annual National Day of Remembrance for Aborted Children on Saturday, September 9, is intended to memorialize these aborted babies.

"The day's solemn ceremonies, held at gravesites and memorial markers across the country, tell the stories of the recovery and burial of the broken and discarded little bodies of abortion's victims," stated Scheidler. "Tens of thousands of these aborted children have been retrieved and buried at over 50 gravesites, and their lives are honored at hundreds of other memorials throughout the country."

Prayer services for this year's National Day of Remembrance will be held at 172 different locations. The Pro-Life Action League, of which Scheidler is executive director, has organized this National Day of Remembrance for Aborted Children, along with Citizens for a Pro-Life Society and Priests for Life, since 2013. These three pro-life groups have come together to humanize the unborn victims of abortion by raising awareness of their burial places, and the sometimes shocking stories of how their bodies were retrieved from trash bins, landfills and other disposal sites.

In the media and in private conversation, abortion is often viewed as strictly a political issue or a matter of personal choice.

"We are too late to save the almost 60 million American children who have lost their lives to abortion since 1973," Scheidler remarked, "but we can cut through the political rhetoric and acknowledge that these children existed. We will never know their names, but we cannot forget them nor will we ever stop fighting to restore legal protection to those unborn children now at risk of abortion."

The stories at record what information is known about the babies interred at each site: how many children were killed, how their bodies were discovered, and how the details of their burial. The website also lists hundreds of memorial sites dedicated to the victims of abortion throughout the United States and gives the locations, times and details of over 170 events marking the National Day of Remembrance for Aborted Children.

The first annual National Day of Remembrance for Aborted Children was held in September 2013 on the 25th anniversary of the burial of 1,500 abortion victims in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Now an annual event, the Day of Remembrance is held each second Saturday in September.

Featured Image
Peter LaBarbera Peter LaBarbera Follow Peter


Twitter suspends Christian mom after she criticizes Teen Vogue for pushing anal sex

Peter LaBarbera Peter LaBarbera Follow Peter
By Peter LaBarbera

September 8, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Twitter suspended and then reinstated Christian pro-family activist Elizabeth Johnston, the "Activist Mommy" and pro-family activist whose bold, dramatic stances against feminism, political correctness and the LGBT lobby have gained her a growing online following.

Johnston’s “Activist Mommy” Twitter account was shut down August 31, with the demand that she take down two tweets in which she tangled with Phillip Picardi, a homosexual activist and digital editor of Teen Vogue and Allure magazines. She removed the tweets and is back on Twitter.

“Activist Mommy” has led the pro-family charge against Teen Vogue’s recent article “Anal Sex: What You Need to Know,” promoting rectal sex to girls — which Picardi aggressively defended. In a recent video, Johnston called on parents to demand that stores pull Teen Vogue from their shelves, calling it a “piece of trash” as she tore pages from the magazine and threw them into a burning fire pit.

Teen Vogue’s target audience is girls ages 11 to 17.

Teen Vogue’s top homosexual journalist

Johnston’s banned tweets were responding to an August 16 tweet by Picardi in which he said he was “Honored to be named to @TheAdvocateMag's 50 Most Influential LGBTQ People in Media.” The Advocate is the nation’s oldest and largest publication for homosexuals, according to Wikipedia.

On June 27, the same LGBT magazine published an incendiary article attacking Elizabeth Johnston and her husband, Dr. Patrick Johnston. It contained numerous falsehoods and distortions, including that the Johnstons support the death penalty for homosexuality, favor arresting “gay” activist leaders, and believe that a man should be allowed to rape his spouse.

Johnston ripped into the Advocate “hit piece” on her Activist Mommy website and challenged its many inaccuracies in a July 5 letter to Advocate editor Lucas Grindley. That led to the magazine publishing both a “Correction” and a “Clarification” at the end of its screed blasting Johnston and conservative women. It also published an “Editor’s Note” pointing out that in her response, Johnston said, "The LGBT gestapo is the most intolerant and hateful 'community' in our country.” 

‘Teaching kids sodomy’

Teen Vogue’s sodomy-promoting article by New York City “sex educator” Gigi Engle shockingly declared, among other things, that “Expecting to do anal play and see zero poop isn’t particularly realistic … Yes, you will come into contact with fecal matter.” It flippantly ended, “It’s NOT a big deal. Everyone poops. Everyone has a butt.”

But rather than deal with its extreme and crude content, which outraged mothers worldwide, Picardi tweeted that the backlash to the article was “rooted in homophobia,” a familiar mantra of LGBT activists.

In one of her banned August 16 tweets, Johnston said, linking to Picardi’s tweet about his “Top 50” recognition: "Congrats, Phillip! A sodomite mag just awarded you for teaching kids sodomy. Way to recruit there @TheAdvocateMag! #PullTeenVogue @pfpicardi."

In Johnston’s other banned tweet, she said, "@TheAdvocateMag just looooves that @pfpicardi recruits teens to sodomize each other [&] join the ranks of their LGBT readers! Perfect union."

Soon the “Activist Mommy” of 10 received a notice from Twitter informing her that her account had been locked and that to unlock it she needed to remove the tweets that violate Twitter's rules, which prohibit:

— "harassing other users

— "threatening other users

— "disclosing other users' private information; and

— "violating our other rules”

Johnston deleted the two tweets and 12 hours after the initial Twitter suspension notice her account was restored.

Facebook censored her, too

This is hardly the first time that Johnston has battled against politically correct, tech-giant censorship. In February, Facebook froze her “Activist Mommy” account after she used Old Testament and New Testament verses to show that the Bible condemns homosexuality. As LifeSiteNews reported, “once she was unfrozen, she complained about censorship and restored the original blog. Facebook removed it again. She was frozen for another seven days and cut off from her 70,000 followers.”

The story of Facebook’s “Big Brother” meddling with “Activist Mommy” went viral and was widely covered by conservative media, causing Facebook to issue a rare apology to Johnston, which she called insincere. And like Twitter’s, Facebook’s clumsy “content discrimination” (as Johnston calls it) only made her more popular: the “Activist Mommy” Facebook page now has more than 277,000 followers.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews, Johnson recognized the importance of conservatives ultimately acquiring their own social media platforms to avoid the leftist “tech censorship” that plagues the Right. She decried the “monopoly” that “Silicon Valley leftists” hold over social media and said it would be wonderful if conservatives could build competitive platforms where she and fellow conservatives would not have to deal with the ongoing intolerance of self-styled “progressives” — especially the threat of being blocked.

But for now, she said, it is important for Christians and social conservatives to remain on platforms like Twitter and Facebook to “expose the liberals’ bias” and to “push back harder when they push back against us.”

“We could cloister ourselves off onto other, way smaller conservative platforms,” she said. “But that’s what they want: to marginalize and silence us.”

Featured Image
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire

News, ,

Hillary Clinton’s book of devotionals pulled from shelves: ‘riddled with plagiarism’

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire
By Claire Chretien

September 8, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – A book compiling devotionals sent to Hillary Clinton every morning during her campaign is being pulled from the shelves less than a month after its release because her spiritual advisor plagiarized parts of it.

The Washington Post reported that Strong for a Moment Like This: The Daily Devotions of Hillary Rodham Clinton is "riddled with plagiarism."

Strong for a Moment Like This, for which Clinton wrote the forward, was supposed to be a compilation of Rev. Bill Shillady's emails and advice to Clinton throughout her campaign.

"I deeply regret my actions," Shillady told The Washington Post via email. "I was wrong and there is no excuse for it. I apologize to those whose work I mistakenly did not attribute. I apologize to those I have disappointed, including Secretary Hillary Clinton, Abingdon Press, and all the writers and others who have helped me publish and promote this book. I ask for everyone’s forgiveness."

Shillady's statement to PEOPLE was slightly less apologetic: "I deeply regret the situation. I apologize to those whose work I mistakenly did not attribute...I ask for everyone’s forgiveness as we work to set things straight."

Abingdon Press said its "extensive review of the book" following "the discovery of unattributed passages in the November 9 devotional" uncovered "other content unattributed by the author." 

Shortly before the book's release, CNN broke the news that Shillady "borrowed heavily" from a blog post by another pastor. 

The company has stopped selling the book and "will remove existing copies from all sales outlets, and will have them destroyed along with our existing inventory."

In August 2017, Shillady told The Atlantic he thought Clinton "would make a great pastor" and that she was considering becoming a Methodist pastor or lay preacher.

Clinton has written a soon-to-be-released book of her own, titled What Happened

"There were plenty of people hoping that I, too, would just disappear" from public life after losing the 2016 election, she wrote. "But here I am."

Featured Image
Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa

News, ,

Catholics blast Democrats for ‘reprehensible attack’ on Trump nominee’s faith

Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa
By Lisa Bourne

Stand with Trump nominee attacked for her Catholic faith. Sign the pledge of support!

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 8, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein’s assailing of a Catholic judicial nominee for her faith continues to draw fire from Catholics and others.

Despite the Constitution’s prohibition of religious litmus tests for judicial appointments, Feinstein attacked University of Notre Dame law professor Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic mother of seven and nominee for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, during Barrett’s confirmation hearing Wednesday with the now infamous statement, “The dogma lives loudly within you.”

“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.” 

Feinstein’s comments, widely presumed to reference the Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion, came after Barrett had already stated in the confirmation hearing that “It is never appropriate for a judge to apply their personal convictions whether it derives from faith or personal conviction.”

Other Democratic senators joined Feinstein in making an issue of Barrett’s Catholic faith, a National Review report said.

Senate minority whip Dick Durbin disapproved of Barrett’s use of the term “orthodox Catholic,” claiming it unjustly maligns Catholics who do not hold certain stances on abortion or the death penalty. 

“Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” questioned Durbin, a Catholic and an abortion supporter.

Hawaii senator Mazie Hirono also pointedly told Barrett, “I think your article is very plain in your perspective about the role of religion for judges, and particularly with regard to Catholic judges.”’s Cortney O’Brien noted  how Feinstein stood out from the repetitive grilling from some Senators on the Judiciary Committee with “by far the most inappropriate line of questioning.”

O’Brien noted as well that Feinstein had similarly singled out Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Feinstein also told Gorsuch the Roe vs. Wade decision had “super precedent,” then questioned him on whether he believed that to be true.

“Feinstein has once again gotten away with her rude religious litmus tests,” O’Brien wrote. “Would that be the case if Barrett was of a different faith?”

Lachlan Markey, White House correspondent for The Daily Beast, was among those pointing out that this type of religious questioning would likely never have been tried with a nominee from other faith traditions.

Lay Catholic advocacy group CatholicVote called Feinstein’s questioning of Barrett regarding her faith “a reprehensible attack on a Catholic judicial nominee” and said Feinstein displayed anti-Catholic bigotry.

“It is said one of the biggest mistakes a politician can make is to accidentally tell people what you really believe,” the group said. “Senator Feinstein and Durbin made clear once again the deep-seated bias and bigotry within the Democratic Party when it comes to people of faith — especially against Catholics in public life.”

“What these Senators did today was truly reprehensible,” the CV statement continued. “We urge Senator Feinstein and Senator Durbin to apologize for their shameful attack on Professor Barrett, a superb and eminently qualified nominee.”

Representatives from advocacy group The Catholic Association also weighed in.

"Senator Feinstein's shockingly illegitimate line of questioning sends the message that Catholics need not apply as federal judges,” Ashley McGuire, senior fellow for the group, told LifeSiteNews. “Rather that unconstitutionally discriminating against Amy Barrett on the basis of her faith, Senator Feinstein should focus on her exceptional qualifications for the job."

Maureen Ferguson, senior policy adviser for The Catholic Association, slammed Feinstein and Durbin as well.

"Senators Feinstein and Durbin know full well that the Constitution prohibits any religious test for office, yet they proceeded with an offensive grilling of a highly qualified judicial nominee asking inappropriate questions about her Catholic faith,” Ferguson said. “Senator Durbin asked directly, 'Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?' Imagine the universal outrage had a nominee of a different faith been asked the same questions; there is clearly a double standard at work."

The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights said in a statement that Durbin and Feinstein “came perilously close to applying a religious test” to Barrett, which is unconstitutional.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, wrote open letters to the two senators regarding the matter.

“No one was fooled by your question,” Donohue told Feinstein about her “dogma living loudly” comment to Barrett. “Why didn’t you come right out and ask her if she takes her judicial cues from the Vatican? That would have been more honest.”

Donohue quizzed Durbin, “Have you ever probed the faith of a non-Catholic for the federal bench? If so, please share the information with me. If not, try treating Catholics – especially orthodox ones – as equals.”’s Shelley Henderson wrote in an editorial that “Senator Feinstein just about says flat out that an “orthodox” Catholic is unfit to be a judge.”

“Mrs. Feinstein might consider the demographics of sitting Supreme Court justices: six are Roman Catholic, three are Jewish,” she continued. “She might also usefully review the text of the First Amendment” (for the free exercise of religion clause).

“Incredible times we live in,” stated Henderson. “A religious test for bakers, florists, photographers, nurses, doctors, and judges. Catholics need not apply!

The Canada Free Press ran author Dan Calabrese’s column on Barrett’s confirmation questioning in which Calabrese reasoned that Feinstein berated Barrett for her Catholicism because of its likelihood to conflict with the Democrats’ line on abortion policy.

He also pondered the apparent weak spot in enforcing the constitutional prohibition against a religious test for service in government. 

“Democrats are discovering that much of what the Constitution says you can’t do, you can do, if only in the sense that there’s no practical way for anyone to stop you,” Calbrese wrote. “The more they try this and pay no price, the more ballsy they’re going to become about pushing it further. Then what?”

Featured Image
Jacob Rees-Mogg 
Society for the Protection of Unborn Children

Opinion, , , ,

Media bash pro-life Catholic politician as ‘extreme’, give a pass to radical abortion advocates

Society for the Protection of Unborn Children
By Society for the Protection of Unborn Children

September 8, 2017 (SPUC) — Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg has been branded "extreme" and "out of touch" after saying that he is completely opposed to abortion. But is he really the extreme one?

A rather strange media storm erupted yesterday after Jacob Rees-Mogg, an MP well known for his Catholicism and social conservatism "revealed" yesterday that he is "completely opposed" to abortion. 

"Life begins at conception"

Mr. Rees-Mogg, who has recently gained a large social media following (known as Moggmentum)," was a guest on Good Morning Britain. When asked about his views on abortion he said: "I am completely opposed to abortion", and when questioned if this extended to cases of rape, he replied: "I'm afraid so" and when pushed said "my personal view is that life begins at the point of conception and abortion is morally indefensible". He also said that, in line with Church teaching, he is opposed to same-sex marriage.

"Abhorrent" views

His honest stating of his views has lead to howls of outrage in the media, and to him being branded a bigot, with abhorrent views, who could set the Tories back for decades. The Evening Standard ran with the headline Jacob Rees-Mogg faces angry backlash over 'extreme' and 'out-of-touch' views on gay marriage and abortion.

But who thinks this? If you read the article, you'll see that most of the quotes are from ... abortion providers. Katherine O'Brien, head of policy research at BPAS, one of the largest abortion providers in the UK said: "Rees-Mogg's stance on abortion is quite simply extreme, and extremely out-of-touch." Laura Russell, Policy Manager for the Family Planning Assocation, said the comments are "massively out of step with the vast majority of the public’s opinion, including people of faith". Marie Stopes, another major abortion provider, also commented.


Mr. Rees-Mogg said that he based his opposition on abortion on the fact that life begins at conception - an indisputable scientific fact. Is this extreme? Opposing abortion in the case of rape may not be popular, but as a rather bemused Julia Hartley-Brewer pointed out to Kerry Abel of Abortion Rights on Talk Radio this morning, it is a perfectly logical, morally defensible position for someone who believes, as he does, that abortion is the killing of an unborn child.

BPAS, on the other hand, believe that there should be no limits on abortion at all. They believe abortion should be completely decriminalised. If anyone was in doubt about the implications of that, it was made clear a few weeks ago, when BPAS CEO Ann Furedi shocked the panellists on Loose Women by confirming she believes abortion should be allowed up until birth and for any reason a woman chooses, including on grounds of gender.  

Out of touch? 

These views make it laughable that BPAS can accuse Mr Rees-Mogg of being out of touch with popular opinion. The most recent survey of British views on abortion found that 89 percent of the general population and 91 percent of women agree that gender-selective abortion should be explicitly banned by the law. It also revealed that 99 percent of the public oppose the abortion limit being raised to birth. 

Here are two interviews, one with Jacob Rees-Mogg, and one with Ann Furedi. You can decide for yourself who the "extreme" one is. 

​Reprinted with permission from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.


Featured Image
Cardinal Carlo Caffarra with Pope Francis. ANSA
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete


Cardinal Caffarra begged Pope Francis to end confusion in Church prior to his death

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

Pray for the souls of the deceased dubia Cardinals. Sign the pledge here.

September 8, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- A few months before he died, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra begged Pope Francis in a letter made public in June to end the “confusion and disorientation” within the Church after the publication of the Pope’s April 2016 Exhortation Amoris Laetitia

But Pope Francis never answered the Cardinal’s April 25 plea, just as he never answered the September 19, 2016 plea of Caffarra along with three other cardinals to confirm that his Exhortation conformed to perennial Catholic teaching. 

Now the Pope of "dialogue" will never have the chance to respond to Caffarra. But this does not make the letter any less relevant. 

In the letter, Caffarra asked the Pope for an audience for himself and the other three dubia signers, Cardinals Joachim Meisner (now deceased), Walter Brandmüller, and Raymond Burke to “resolve uncertainties and to bring clarity” to “some objectively ambiguous passages” in Amoris Laetitia

The Cardinal clearly outlined the devastation the Exhortation was already causing in the Church in the first year of its publication. 

“During this time, interpretations of some objectively ambiguous passages of the post-synodal Exhortation have publicly been given that are not divergent from but contrary to the permanent Magisterium of the Church,” he wrote. 

“Despite the fact that the Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith has repeatedly declared that the doctrine of the Church has not changed, numerous statements have appeared from individual Bishops, Cardinals, and even Episcopal Conferences, approving what the Magisterium of the Church has never approved,” he added. 

Caffarra wrote that it was “painful” for him to witness the Exhortation’s effect upon the Church. 

“Not only access to the Holy Eucharist for those who objectively and publicly live in a situation of grave sin, and intend to remain in it, but also a conception of moral conscience contrary to the Tradition of the Church,” he wrote. 

“And so it is happening — how painful it is to see this! — that what is sin in Poland is good in Germany, that what is prohibited in the archdiocese of Philadelphia is permitted in Malta,” he added. 

The Cardinal hoped that an audience with the Pope would be a good occasion for “clarification of the five points indicated by the dubia” and to address the “situation of confusion and disorientation, especially among pastors of souls.”

“Faced with this grave situation, in which many Christian communities are being divided, we feel the weight of our responsibility, and our conscience impels us to ask humbly and respectfully for an Audience,” he wrote. 

But Pope Francis, unfortunately, did not see matters the same way. 

Yes, Caffarra’s life has ended. But, the “confusion and disorientation” within the Church which pained him so much has not. 

Yes, Caffarra has passed. But, his parting words to the pope in his last letter now take on the dimension of an unfulfilled prophecy that will haunt the Francis papacy until the Pope addresses his concerns. 

Print All Articles
View specific date