All articles from November 6, 2017

Featured Image
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy


UK pro-lifers urged to act as Parliament begins debate to ban pro-life witness

Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

London,  November 6, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – The Society for the Protection of the Unborn (SPUC) is alerting pro-lifers in the UK that there will be a debate in Parliament tomorrow (November 7) aimed at shutting down public pro-life witness. 

Rupa Huq, a pro-abortion MP from Ealing, is holding a debate in Westminster Hall titled “Public order legislation related to family planning clinics.” 

For months Huq has been carrying out what pro-lifers say is a vendetta against the Good Counsel Network, a peaceful group of pro-life counsellors and witnesses who meet outside the Marie Stopes (Ealing) abortion business. Huq hopes to get pro-lifers banned, not only from the park across from the Ealing clinic, but from anywhere near a British abortion business, by setting up Canadian-style “buffer zones.” 

SPUC has asked British pro-lifers “If you know your MP is pro-life, or supports free speech, please contact him or her and ask them to attend this debate, and speak out in support of peaceful vigils outside abortion clinics. 

“Babies are saved because pro-life counsellors are able to offer women help outside abortion clinics. It is essential they are allowed to continue to do this,” said SPUC in a press release.​

In late October, Claire McCullough of the Good Counsel Network told LifeSiteNews that there was a “two-pronged” attack on the Ealing, London pro-life witnesses: both in the local council [government] and in Parliament. Not only has Rupa Huq has been photographed with a noisy band of pro-abortion demonstrators outside the clinic, she has praised the “Sister Supporters” 18 month harassment of pro-lifers. Meanwhile, she has repeatedly accused the Ealing pro-lifers of aggressive behaviour without offering any evidence. 

“The saddest thing is that all their activities are aimed at preventing us from helping (pregnant women),” McCullough told LifeSiteNews.

SPUC is advising British voters that “even a short message” to their pro-life or freedom-of-speech supporting MP would be good. 

“Pro-life MPs at this debate can make all the difference,” the group has written. 

SPUC is pointing pro-lifers to its "write to your MP" function on its website. Pro-lifers can also find their MP's contact details on the Parliament website


Sample Letter

Dear MP, 

I am a constituent and have lived in [your constituency] for nine years.  I am writing to ask you to attend a debate in Westminster tomorrow at 4:30 PM. 

Rupa Huq MP is holding a debate titled "Public Order legislation relating to family planning clinics."  She has been campaigning to shut down the freedom of people who disagree with her views on abortion to gather in public and offer alternatives to abortion to women in crisis pregnancies. If you have been following the news, you will note that she is particularly opposed to pro-life people in her own constituency of Ealing.

The Ealing protesters strike me as honest people who are deeply concerned about the lack of counselling and options offered to women in crisis pregnancy by abortion centres. (Rupa Huq has provided no evidence for the harassment of which she accuses the small group of pro-life volunteers.) Meanwhile, the Marie Stopes (Ealing) abortion clinic is rather notorious; a woman died from blood loss after being sent away by cab from the clinic in 2012.  

No matter what your views about abortion may be, I hope you are a firm proponent of the freedom of speech for everyone in the UK. It is freedom of speech that Rupa Huq is trying to take away from people whose views on abortion do not correspond with her own. 

She is also, incidentally, trying to prevent women from receiving disinterested counselling; naturally one does not expect an abortion business to dissuade women from using its lucrative services. Nevertheless, one would hope that women be permitted the opportunity to make an informed choice and know what ALL our options are. 

I hope that you will defend freedom of speech and freedom of information at Westminster tomorrow.

Yours sincerely,

Featured Image
Victor Penney


Student Union pres. impeached after scrapping handbook with illegal abortion info

Victor Penney
Katie Ascough Facebook

DUBLIN, Ireland, November 6, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- The president of the Student Union at University College Dublin in Ireland has been ousted from her post by a majority vote from students after she refused to let illegal abortion information be published in a student handbook.

Students at the university founded by Blessed John Henry Newman voted 69 percent in favor of impeaching pro-life Student Union president Katie Ascough. In a process that began on Oct. 25, a total of 6,611 students voted over a period of two days. Reports say some individuals lined up for close to half an hour to cast their ballots. 

The referendum to get rid of Ascough focused largely on her decision to remove illegal information about abortion access from the annual student handbook, which was titled “Winging It.” A section of the handbook outlined how students could purchase illegal abortive pills over the internet as well as the cost of having abortions in countries outside of Ireland.

Ascough defended her actions in a statement she released after her impeachment.

“After the books had arrived, a staff member informed me that some of the abortion information might be illegal. I sought legal advice from the Union’s solicitor, who confirmed in writing that distribution of the books was almost certainly illegal and that it would be prudent to avoid proceeding with the book, whether through redesign (if not too late) or cancellation,” she wrote. 

At that point, Ascough said it was too late to change the layout. “As chief executive officer of the union,” she wrote, “I could not avoid responsibility for the distribution of the books. I did the best that I could with the information I had.” 

The former student body president also used her statement to address accusations that she wasn’t living up to the union’s “pro-choice mandate.”

“I was unwilling to commit a criminal offense, risking conviction and fines for myself and anyone else involved in the distribution. Whether you agree with my decision or not, I ask you, please: place yourself in my shoes. I faced immense pressure for about a week to authorize the distribution of the books, but I did not feel comfortable doing this. I promised to respect a pro-choice mandate, but I never promised to break the law,” she wrote.

Ascough said that a university should be a “place of freedom of speech, of thought, and of association.”

“To wish to boot someone out from day one because their opinion differs from yours is not conducive to fostering a respectful and inclusive community. There must be room to respect those with different opinions,” she wrote. 

Ascough never abandoned her pro-life principles throughout the entire campaign to impeach her. She ran her own campaign to fight off the impeachment. A Facebook group was created to help her cause, which gained 3,000 followers, providing a platform where she could speak directly, and unfiltered, to her supporters with updates and videos. 

Amy Crean, who led the movement to remove Ascough, called the campaign “long and stressful.”

“We are delighted obviously with the turnout. We ran this on democracy, [and] student engagement,” she said in an interview with the University Observer, the school’s student newspaper.

The impeachment vote was called after a petition with some 1,200 names was submitted to the student union offices at the beginning of October. Earlier, a similar petition was put forward listing over 1,600 signatures, but it was apparently rejected over questions about its legitimacy. 

The drive to dismiss the pro-life student president, however, started building its case well before then. In a September interview, once again with the University Observer, Crean suggested Ascough’s personal views were interfering with her duties.

“The issue isn’t that she holds any particular view, it’s that she’s letting it affect her position as a president,” wrote Crean. 

“She is mandated to support a union that actively voted to be pro-choice. She is saying she won’t go to the pro-choice march because it’s out of hours. She denied extra funding to UCD for Choice and didn’t want to be in the tent with them and she denied vital information on basic health care access to the entire student populace. If she had kept her views to herself and not let it affect her position as the president of the union it wouldn’t be an issue. So it’s not about her personal stance. It’s that she’s letting it affect her job negatively and that’s impacting students’ welfare,” she added.

Ascough’s dismissal comes amid growing concerns over efforts to liberalize abortion in the predominantly Catholic country. The government has scheduled a referendum, to be held as early as May, to see if voters want to dismantle Ireland’s laws that protect the unborn.

In the referendum, the people of Ireland will decide if they want to see changes to the Eighth Amendment of the constitution, which is meant to uphold the right to life for unborn children. As the law currently stands, an abortion in the country can only be permitted on the condition that the life of the mother is “in danger.” Any woman who is charged and found guilty of having an illegal abortion can face imprisonment for up to 14 years. With that penalty in mind, thousands of women are said to travel abroad, every year, to have their preborn babies killed.

Ireland’s upcoming referendum on abortion is set to take place ahead of a scheduled visit to the country by Pope Francis.

Featured Image
Joseph, now 13, is a recovering porn addict. He discovered pornography when he was nine.
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire


New documentary finds porn’s newest addicts are kids, and it’s devastating them

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire
By Claire Chretien
Brittni De La Mora

November 6, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – A new documentary called Over 18 examines the rise of pornography addiction in children as young as nine.

Over 18 details how hardcore pornography has become the norm in the age of the Internet. The pornography industry has undergone massive changes since the days of Playboy, whose images would fit in with today’s mainstream advertisements.

Gabe Deem, the founder of Reboot Nation, shared in Over 18 how he first discovered a pornographic magazine when he was eight, viewed softcore pornography on TV at age nine, and accessed digital pornography with high-speed Internet at age 12.

After a years-long battle with Internet pornography, Deem says he finally “can feel emotions again.”

After he quit pornography, it took him nine months to be able to be aroused without it.

Viewing pornography causes a 200% spike in the brain’s dopamine, the neurotransmitter that helps control pleasure, according to experts interviewed in the film. Porn causes its users’ brains to light up the same way heroin, gambling, and cocaine addicts’ brains do.

The film discusses the many ways in which the porn industry shapes sex, just as the food industry shapes food. For example, many men have been conditioned to think women want to be hurt during sex. This is because pornography increasingly shows women being abused.

Over 18 also notes the deafening silence from pediatricians and adults on this issue. It demonstrates the dangers of giving young children a smartphone, which provides them with “porn in their pockets.”  

Because the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for impulse control, isn’t fully developed until after the teenage years, porn is particularly dangerous for children to view.

Addicted to porn in third grade

One of the most harrowing stories in Over 18 is Joseph’s. He became addicted to pornography in third grade when he was just nine years old.

He accidentally discovered it while playing a game. Then, his life unraveled as he began viewing more and more graphic and hardcore materials.

Joseph became angry and began to beat his sister, who eventually became scared to be alone with him. His aggressive behavior toward females was one of the biggest changes in his personality.

After Joseph’s mom found the amount and types of pornography he was viewing, their family discovered the only way to protect him from it was to rid their house completely of electronics.

“Finally I was just free,” said Joseph, who is now 13.

Their family now has a policy that if someone wants to use a computer, another person must be alongside looking at the screen.

One of the ways in which Joseph has begun to recover from his exposure to extremely violent, misogynistic pornography is by humanizing the people in it.

His parents have also had to explain to him that the pornography he consumed is not at all a realistic representation of what sex is like.

“Having these conversations with our son is a little awkward, because it’s not like talking about, ‘well, a mom and a dad get together and then they make a baby,’” said Joseph’s mom. “Most parents don’t have to talk to their kids about orgies.”

‘I barfed my guts out all night’

Throughout Over 18, as former porn stars share their regret and the misery they experience doing porn, pornographer William Margold defends his industry to the documentary makers.

Margold is responsible for around “500 hardcore penetration scenes” and has won numerous awards for his pornography.

“I would die to protect this industry, because it’s given me my life,” said Margold.

“I’ve done lots of interviews in my life, and meeting with Bill was easily the most difficult interview I have ever done,” said Jared Brock, the film’s co-director. “I was actually supposed to go to Vegas the next day but we had to bump my whole schedule because I went back to my friends’ house and I barfed my guts out all night.”

“I was physically sick from spending two hours in Bill’s house,” he said. “Bill has believed the lie of pornography that says that people don’t matter, that they have no worth, that they have no value.”

Don’t believe those lies, said Brock. Bill “lives alone, in a rent-controlled apartment in downtown Los Angeles with his teddy bears and his cat.”

Margold died after the documentary was filmed. Margold and the documentary makers had exchanged numerous emails after Margold’s interview. Margold thought the film about porn’s harms was a waste of time.

“There are some people who will celebrate the fact that Bill is no longer with us,” said Brock. “But I grieve it, because Bill never got to experience real love.”

There is no pornography in the film, but the degradation of women is explicitly discussed, as are various genres and subgenres of pornography.

Although Over 18 is disturbing to watch, its interviews with former pornography addicts, former pornography performers, and heads of porn recovery ministries show that there’s hope for anyone negatively impacted by porn.

“There is a huge difference between fame and love,” said former porn star Brittni De La Mora. “When I was in that industry I thought that the fame that I was getting was love. Nobody truly loves you [in porn] because they’re praising you for all the wrong reasons.”

De La Mora eventually left the industry and got married. Her husband is someone who “saw her for more than just her body.”

Even though “he knows her past...he’s never Googled her name.”

Information about hosting a screening Over 18 is available here.

Featured Image
Donald Trump speaks at the 2016 Values Voter Summit. Andy Parrish / LifeSiteNews
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire

News, ,

Trump admin asks Supreme Court to ‘discipline’ lawyers for rushing teen’s abortion

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire
By Claire Chretien

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 6, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – The Department of Justice (DOJ) is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to punish the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for lying to the government about the timeline of an underage illegal immigrant’s abortion.

The DOJ is also asking the Supreme Court to throw out the lower court ruling that allowed “Jane Doe,” a 17-year-old in the custody of the U.S. government, to abort her baby.

According to the brief the DOJ filed with the Supreme Court, the ACLU moved Jane Doe’s abortion appointment to a day earlier than was originally planned and “kept the government in the dark about when Ms. Doe was scheduled to have an abortion.”

Jane Doe’s lawyers replaced a pre-abortion appointment with the actual abortion, according to the DOJ, and then informed the government after the baby had been aborted.

The ACLU “misled the United States as to the timing of Jane Doe’s abortion,” said DOJ spokesman Devin M. O’Malley. “After informing Justice Department attorneys that the procedure would occur on October 26th, Jane Doe’s attorneys scheduled the abortion for the early morning hours of October 25th, thereby thwarting Supreme Court review.”

“In light of that, the Justice Department believes the judgment under review should be vacated, and discipline may be warranted against Jane Doe’s attorneys,” said O’Malley.

The Trump administration initially lost its attempt to save Jane Doe’s baby.

On October 18, an Obama-appointed judge ordered that the teen be allowed to abort her baby “promptly and without delay” after it was revealed U.S. government officials wouldn’t facilitate the abortion.

But then in a brief victory for the pro-life side, another judge temporarily stopped the abortion on October 19.

On October 24, however, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 6-3 that the U.S. government must facilitate the abortion. On October 25, the baby was aborted due largely to the rushed effort of abortion activists.

The abortion lobby celebrated the abortion, saying they were “thrilled” and that it was “good news.”

“After the courts cleared the way for her to get her abortion, it was the ACLU’s job as her lawyers to see that she wasn’t delayed any further — not to give the government another chance to stand in her way,” said ACLU Legal Director David Cole.

Cole said the government subjected Jane Doe to “shaming as she waited” to abort her child.

“This administration has gone to astounding lengths to block this young woman from getting an abortion,” said Cole. “Now, because they were unable to stop her, they are raising baseless questions about our conduct.”

Kristan Hawkins, President of Students for Life of America, called the Court’s order that allowed Jane Doe to abort an attempt “to try and create Roe v. Wade 2.0 in the courts.”

“The abortion industry’s foundation, legal or moral, is built on obfuscation and lies,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, told LifeSiteNews. “Abortion has been sold to women as a liberating thing – a quick, easy solution to their problems. It is often after years of suffering that they realize the extent of the deception.”

“Norma McCorvey and Sandra Cano, the ‘Roe’ and ‘Doe’ of the two cases that legalized abortion on-demand through birth in this country, described [later] how they were taken advantage of by opportunistic lawyers who didn’t let facts get in the way of their agenda,” she explained. “The Department of Justice’s allegations do not surprise us at all. Truth is the abortion lobby’s number one enemy.”

Featured Image
Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau | Governor General Julie Payette
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne


Trudeau defends governor general’s attack on people who believe ‘divine intervention’ created mankind

Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

OTTAWA, November 6, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau defended his newly appointed governor general after she was lambasted in the press for mocking those who believe God created life.

Julie Payette, the 54-year-old engineer and former astronaut from Montreal who was installed as the Queen's representative in Canada last month, derided religious faith in a speech at an Ottawa science convention on Wednesday.

“Can you believe that still today in learned society, in houses of government, unfortunately,...we are still debating and still questioning whether life was a divine intervention or whether it was coming out of a natural process let alone, oh my goodness, a random process,” Payette said, in what Canadian Press reported as an “incredulous voice.”

She also ridiculed belief in astrology, homeopathy, and suggested the debate on climate change was done.

“Can you believe that...we’re still debating and still questioning whether humans have a role in the Earth warming up or whether even the Earth is warming up, period?” she asked.

Trudeau defended Payette when questioned by reporters the next day.

“We are a government grounded in science. Canadians are people who understand the value of science and knowledge as a foundation for the future of our country,” the prime minister said.

“And I am extraordinarily proud of the strength and the story of our Governor General, Julie Payette, who has never hidden away her passion for science and her deep faith that knowledge, research and the truth is a foundation for any free, stable, successful society,” added Trudeau.

“And I applaud the firmness with which she stands in support of science and the truth.”

Trudeau's response, “as per usual, is rather vague and inchoate,” says John Paul Meenan, assistant professor of theology and natural science at Our Lady Seat of Wisdom College, and editor of the online journal Catholic Insight.

That a government is “grounded in science” depends on “what you mean,” Meenan told LifeSiteNews in an email.

“Science is one path to truth, and therefore should be one of the primary and fundamental ways that governments set policy (e.g., public health, infections, the effect of drugs and incarceration, educational policies and such),” he said.

“If we substitute 'reason' for science, then we can use the distinction made by Pope John Paul II in Fides et Ratio, that science and faith are two pathways to the truth, complementary, dependent one upon the other. Faith, even at the natural level, in terms of trusting the evidence of others, and even that of our senses, is necessary for science,” explained Meenan.

“The question of supernatural faith is, of course, a controverted one, for by definition, what we believe transcends the senses and reason, but does not contradict them,” he added.

Meenan found Payette’s remarks are “more troubling” than Trudeau’s.

“She seems to think that the only path to knowledge is science, and mocks any other method. Faith she puts down there with astrology and horoscopes,” he said.

“It seems that the Liberals are removing faith as an access to truth, which would mean we are no longer a Christian nation, in a very clear and direct way. This would be secularism, wherein the only 'truth' is that limited to this world alone,” Meenan said.

“And that always has very, very bad consequences, as we have already seen in abortion and euthanasia. But more is on the horizon, unless we return to the faith,” he noted.

“As Pope Leo XIII wrote in Immortale Dei, 'a society without religion can never be well-governed',” Meenan pointed out.

“As we lose our religion, we will lose our society.”   

Meanwhile, Conservative leader Andrew Scheer responded to the controversy by denouncing Trudeau’s comments in a Facebook post as “offensive to millions of Canadians” who do believe in God.

“It is extremely disappointing” Trudeau “will not support Indigenous peoples, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Christians and other faith groups who believe there is truth in their religion,” wrote Scheer.

“Respect for diversity includes respect for the diversity of religious beliefs, and Justin Trudeau has offended millions of Canadians with his comments.”

And pundits blasted Payette for her remarks, pointing out the governor general’s office is apolitical.

“If this how Madame Payette feels about religion that is her business but as the Queen’s representative it is not her role to mock religious belief,” wrote conservative commentator Brian Lilley.

“I should also point out that the Queen herself is the head of a religion, the Anglican Church, that believes in this idea Payette just mocked,” he added.

“It seems that our esteemed vice-regal has a simplistic view of the interplay between science and religion, that they cannot co-exist. You meet these people all the time, they yell about Galileo but ignore hundreds of years of fides et ratio [faith and reason] working side by side.”

Trenchant commentator Rex Murphy’s skewering of Payette also served as a rebuttal of Trudeau’s defense of the embattled one-time space explorer.

The “observations on the origins of life and the religious understandings of that most profound of subjects are not in contest, as evidently [Payette] thinks they are, with scientific understandings,” Murphy wrote in the National Post.

“They can, and in fact often do, co-exist. There is physics, and there is also metaphysics; facts are indeed truth, but truth is very often more than just facts,” he wrote.

“Faith has its ‘knowing’ and it is not the same as the ‘knowing’ of science, and to make science with a capital ‘S’ the singular aperture by which we may know all of life and the world is itself a secular heresy, which we know as Scientism,” Murphy pointed out.

And a “backhand dismissal of the ‘truths’ of religion, and the clear implication that they are the products of credulousness and ignorance,” he added, “is a sophomoric indulgence.”

Featured Image
Diane Montagna Diane Montagna Follow Diane


Truck honoring Dubia Cardinal stopped by police while circling Vatican

Diane Montagna Diane Montagna Follow Diane
By Diane Montagna

According to the organizers, a police officer said Cardinal Caffarra “wasn’t in line with Pope Francis.”

ROME, November 6, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Today in Rome, a publicity truck carrying billboard-size images of Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, the dubia Cardinal who passed away two months ago, and Pope John Paul II made its way through the streets of Rome before being stopped by police for two hours of questioning near St. Peter’s Square.

The “campaign to remember Cardinal Carlo Caffarra” was organized by the Italian pro-life and pro-family groups, Vita è [Life is], ProVita Onlus [Pro-Life non-profit], and Fede&Cultura [Faith and Culture]. According to reports, after being stopped on the Via della Conciliazione (the central road leading to St. Peter’s) this afternoon, the organizers were ordered to report to a local police station for further questioning tomorrow.

Photos of the “campaign to remember Cardinal Carlo Caffarra” publicity truck emerged this afternoon on Twitter. A first tweet read: “Police in Rome stop truck in honor of Cardinal #Caffarra because 'he isn’t in line with the Pope.'"

A second tweet followed: “Organizers of the initiative expected tomorrow at the police station to explain the reasons for the action… Are we still in a democracy?”

The top billboard (pictured below) features an image of Pope John Paul II greeting a large crowd from the popemobile, with words he delivered during Holy Mass at the Capital Mall in Washington, D.C., on Sunday, October 7, 1979. During that historic visit to the United States, he said: We will stand up: When the institution of marriage is abandoned to human selfishness or reduced to a temporary, conditional arrangement that can easily be terminated, we will affirm the indissolubility of the marriage bond.”​

The lower billboard, dedicated to the archbishop emeritus of Bologna, reads: "Thank you, Cardinal Caffarra/ September 6 – November 6, 2017, in memoriam."  It also features the “Vita è”, “ProVita”, and “Fede e Cultura” logos.

This evening in Rome, news of how the truck was stopped by police appeared on the ProVita website:

ProVita, Vita è, e Fede e Cultura wanted to pay tribute to the memory of a staunch defender of life and the family like the late Cardinal [Caffarra], by having a publicity truck with the poster travel through the streets of Rome.

On Via della Conciliazione — incredible but true — the publicity truck was stopped by the undercover police as well as those in uniform. A superintendent of the Borgo precinct asked Toni Brandi (the head of ProVita) by telephone what the aim of the initiative was, since to quote: “Cardinal Caffarra wasn’t in line with Pope Francis.”

Brandi responded by saying they were commemorating a holy man, a prince of the Church, not at all a heretic or separated from the reigning Pope.

The truck was stopped for two hours. An interrogation followed that will be continued tomorrow at 12 noon at the police station, where Brandi has to go to explain his reasons for the initiative. The superintendent on duty said he was concerned about public order and would not allow any more photos to be taken.

Here is the incriminating poster: What subversive message does it contain? How does it disturb public order? It is possible that in a civil and democratic country where freedom of expression and thought exists, that one cannot commemorate a holy man who together with the then-reigning Pope, John Paul II, spent his life to defend life from conception, and the family founded on marriage? 

Judge for yourselves, dear Readers.


LifeSiteNews also obtained the press release from Vita è [Life is] announcing the event:

Today, on November 6, 2017 we wish to remember, 2 months after his death, the Cardinal of Bologna, Carlo Caffarra. This faithful servant of Christ and of the Church, he was a close collaborator of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, with whom he shared a deep care for the family, an image of the Trinity willed by God for the good of mankind.

On May 13, 1981, the day when we celebrate the anniversary of the Fatima apparitions (May 13. 1917), and when John Paul II was almost mortally wounded by a gunshot, the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family was created. At the request of the Pope, Cardinal Caffarra was its first president.

Years later, still courageously committed to the defense of life and the family against abortion, artificial insemination, wombs for rent, and every other aberration, Caffarra recalled a letter sent to him by Sr. Lucia of Fatima, in which the visionary said: “The time will come when the decisive battle between the kingdom of Christ and Satan will be over marriage and the family.”

During the last part of his life Caffarra fought, with his wisdom, humility and gentle resolve, for the “sound teaching” of which the Apostle Paul speaks (cf. 2 Tim. 4:3): The “sound doctrine” which alone, together with true charity, will put an end to the deep “division” into which the Catholic world today is heading. For, as Cardinal Caffarra said in his final interview with Il Foglio, “only a blind man can deny that there is great confusion in the Church.”

Thank you Cardinal!

Featured Image
Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Follow Matthew


German Catholic archdiocese promotes fornication, abortion, to 15-year-old girls

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

November 6, 2017, ( – German Catholics are protesting a program endorsed personally by the archbishop of Berlin that gives “practical tips” to Catholic sex educators on how to teach children about their “sexual rights,” advising them that adult sex with a minor is permitted, as long as it’s “consensual,” and outlining the process of obtaining an abortion.

The program also seeks to eliminate “taboos,” “prejudices,” and “stereotypes” regarding various forms of sexual deviation, including homosexual behavior and masturbation, treating such impulses as part of a person’s identity. At the same time, it seeks to resolve the “tension” between such behaviors and the Catholic Church’s “official” doctrines on human sexuality.

“A church that tries to impose people's opinions today is crazy,” writes Berlin archbishop Heiner Koch in his introduction to the program. “We need to take note of the diversity of ideas about sexuality in our society. However, in the company of young people, we also need to be in a position to make a profound statement that the Christian faith and its image of man can free themselves to self-realization, to true relationship and intimacy.”

The program’s “Practical tips for the use of methods in sexual pedagogical work with youth groups,” posted on the archdiocesan website, addresses the question, “When is it normal to have sex?” It gives a list of hypothetical “situations” regarding minors involved in out-of-wedlock sexual activity and then provides “answers” to those situations regarding the minors’ “right” to engage in the behavior. Catholic doctrine on sexual morality in the document is left unmentioned. 

In hypothetical “Situation 2” a 22-year-old man has a 15-year-old girlfriend with whom he wishes to have sexual relations. The archdiocese writes, “In principle, persons of legal age may sleep with minors, provided it is consensual sexual acts/intercourse. It gets difficult, however, whenever sexual acts or intercourse are forced.” 

In “Situation 6,” a girl named “Milena” has an “unwanted pregnancy.” While the document discusses options for receiving state support for her as an unwed mother, or for adopting, it adds, “In the context of pregnancy conflict counseling Milena can be advised on the possibility of abortion.”

“In the consultation, the father of the expected child or even her parents can be present if she so wishes. She even has to show that she took part in a consultation should she decide to terminate. In the consultation, the father of the expected child or even her parents can be present if she so wishes. No matter how Milena decides, she can get advice and has the right to psychological support,” the document continues.

The “tips” even explain how minors can obtain contraceptives without their parents finding out, and implies that those under 14 years of age can obtain contraceptives to facilitate their sexual activity, despite the fact that it is illegal.

In “Situation 5,” readers are told, “Laura (15) would like to sleep with her boyfriend and considers different contraceptives.” However, she’s afraid her parents will find out. The archdiocese notes that, as “Laura” is under 16 years of age, her doctor can inform her parents that she wants oral contraceptives. However, “Laura” can “try to convince the doctor that she is mature enough to make that decision.” 

The archdiocese notes that “for under-14s it will be difficult to get a prescription for contraceptives since intercourse for under-14s is prohibited by law.” However, it adds that “in principle, adolescents can buy over-the-counter contraceptives such as condoms and a diaphragm at any pharmacy. If you are uncomfortable asking for it in a pharmacy, you can also buy condoms anonymously in a drugstore.”

Other “situations” include teenage girls in lesbian relationships and a boy who wants to be tested for venereal diseases without being detected by his parents. Both are within the legal “rights” of minors, the archdiocese states.

German Catholics respond with a petition

A group of German Catholics outraged by the archbishop’s apparent endorsement of pro-abortion materials has organized a petition to ask him to remove them from the archdiocesan website, entitled “The Archdiocese of Berlin should finally stop giving teens tips on abortion!”

“Incomprehensible! The Archdiocese of Berlin gives 15-year-old pregnant women tips on how to kill their child. . . . This exposes the archbishop of Berlin, Heiner Koch, as a follower of the feminist pro-choice ideology, which gives the right to life of unborn children to the arbitrariness of their mothers. Pro-Choice is not opinion, but murder!”

The petitioners ask the archbishop to “take the unspeakable abortion tips immediately from the website of the Archdiocese of Berlin. The church has the right to defend the right to life of the unborn and a moral obligation to act as the protective power of innocent children in public.”

However, the petitioners make no mention of other material on the site that normalizes and legitimizes out-of-wedlock and homosexual sex acts.

Archbishop seeks 'conversation' with adolescents about their values

The materials were originally presented by the Archdiocese of Berlin at a conference called “In ‘Freedom and Responsibility’: Sex Education Work in Catholic Institutions” in February of 2016. 

According to Archbishop Heiner Koch, the conference sought to “trace the tensions between Catholic sexual morality, one's own attitude, life-world and the sexual pedagogical requirements in the workplace and to get into conversation about it.”

“Abortion, Homosexuality, Masturbation: The spectrum on the topic of ‘sex’ is as far-reaching in Catholic education and care facilities for children and adolescents as society dictates,” states the archdiocese on its webpage regarding the event, “But the taboos are also big, as educators and social workers admitted at a conference.” Conference materials seek to help adolescents clarify their own values in a dialogical manner.

Archbishop responds to complaints, but protesters not satisfied

Following an outcry from German Catholics over the abortion “tips” given in “Situation 6,” the archbishop ordered a paragraph  be added to that section noting that it is “difficult” to teach about the law “completely detached from moral issues,” and that the “ecclesiastical context” “offers the topic of ‘protection of life.’” According to the archbishop, this makes it “clear” that Christian values are to be taught along with the material. Other statements were added affirming that girls can’t be pressured to have abortions.

However, the petitioners were not satisfied with archbishop’s response. “The document still states (supplemented by a few remarks):  ‘Even girls under the age of 18 have the opportunity in principle to be able to terminate a pregnancy without penalty in the first twelve weeks. (...) No matter how Milena decides, she can seek advice and has the right to psychological support .’”

“Unfortunately, this is only a half-hearted appeasement by the archdiocese, but not a true commitment to a culture of life!” add the petitioners. “We must therefore maintain our protest and continue to apply pressure. The document should completely disappear from the site of the archdiocese!”

The material represents a long-established tendency of extreme laxity regarding sexual morals among German-speaking Catholic clergy and laity. German-speaking bishops, Such as Walter Kasper and Christoph Schönborn, have provided the principal impetus for the acceptance of adulterous second marriages in the Catholic Church. The permanent council of the German bishops’ conference has approved giving Holy Communion to those who are living in such marriages.

In recent years the German bishops, in particular, have promoted the notion of “diverse family types” and have even published an article defending same-sex “marriage.” Some German bishops, however, are resisting this tendency.

Featured Image


U. of Ottawa student union votes to ban pro-life clubs, affirm abortion support

OTTAWA, Ontario, November 6, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- A pro-life student group at the University of Ottawa has been censored and stripped of club status because their mandate promotes human rights for all human beings. In a follow-up recent decision, the Student Union on November 5th has now voted to have the Student Union be a "pro-choice" entity only supporting groups that support legalized abortion.

The section reads that Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) will “affirms a person’s right to choose. No SFUO resources, space, recognition, or funding will be allocated to enhance groups/individuals with the primary/sole purpose of pro-life activities.”

A SFUO vice-president confirmed the results of the two motions, conducted by secret ballot.

The group, University of Ottawa Students for Life (SFL), has been a registered campus club for ten years, fostering respectful dialogue and hosting events to discuss human rights issues, especially abortion. SFL members are committed to upholding the respect and dignity of every human being, before as well as after birth.

On Thursday, September 28, 2017, SFL was ordered to shut down a tabling event by Leila Moumouni-Tchouassi, VP Equity of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO). Ms. Moumouni-Tchouassi failed to cite or produce any university policy which SFL had violated. She also declared that University of Ottawa Protection Services would be called if the pro-life students did not leave the area. The students understood that they had university approval for the time and location of this tabling event.

Two weeks later, on Friday, October 13, SFL received an email signed by Linda Lacombe indicating that they were approved as a campus club for the 2017-2018 academic year. One week later, on Friday, October 20, SFL received an unsigned email from the SFUO, indicating that their club status had been revoked.

The UOSFL stated: “This decision was made due to the ways in which your mandate is in contention with the SFUO’s principles.”

Ruth Shaw, NCLN Executive Director, commented: “It is not the role of a student union to take sides in educational engagement. It is only their job to represent all their members and allow for open dialogue between them. Every student must pay dues to the student union- pro-life students are essentially now paying someone to discriminate against them. That is abhorrent."

Peter van Dyken, third-year biochemistry student and SFL President, said: “All we want to do is talk to people about abortion on campus because it is a decision that will greatly affect their lives. With no law on abortion in this country, we want to educate our peers on the violent nature of this procedure. We hope the SFUO will re-commit to upholding student rights on our campus, and we will continue to be vocal on this issue."

Featured Image
giulio napolitano /


The Filial Correction has been a huge success. Just not in the way you’d think

By Dr. Joseph Shaw

November 6, 2017 (LMS Chairman) -- Hard on the heels of the distinguished theologian Fr Thomas Weinandy publishing a letter to Pope Francis strongly criticising his government of the Church, Dr. Gregory Popcak has published a remarkable article on the Patheos site, calling for critics of those who say they are 'confused' by Amoris laetitia Ch 8 need to 'repent' of grossly patronising clericalism.

Not all readers may understand the significance of this, so allow me to fill in the background.

Dr Popcak, as he explains in the article, is not only a 'pastoral counsellor', but is head of a major centre of pastoral counselling, and trains pastoral counsellors. The Church in the United States has the resources (and of course the needs) to maintain an entire industry of pastoral counselling. Maybe I'm too English, or too traditional (I'd rather talk to a priest), but this kind of thing isn't really my kind of thing. But that's just the point. This industry of pastoral counselling going on over the pond has got absolutely nothing to do with an interest in the Traditional Mass, which some people are now trying to suggest is the common factor in opposition to liberal interpretations of Amoris laetitia. Well, they couldn't be more wrong. This guy is from the centre of the 'conservative', Pope St John Paul II-focused, mainstream, establishment Catholic world, and the Patheos platform, which has hosted a good many attacks on traditional Catholics over the years, is this world's in-house magazine.

Charles Collins, writing in Crux, wanted to play down the significance of the Filial Correction, observing (with some justice) that its language and signatories lean towards the traditionalist end of the spectrum of opinion. He continues:

Instead of presenting a unified front to the pope, the filial correction has highlighted the differences among conservatives in the Church under Francis.

Not just between the Weinandys and the Shaws, but also the numerous conservative Catholics who are confident Amoris Laetitia should be read in a way that doesn’t change the Church’s practice on sexual ethics and position on communion for the divorce-and-remarried.

But this is where he is wrong. The purpose of the Filial Correction wasn't to garner support for the Filial Correction. The purpose was to raise the level of debate about Amoris laetitia and to encourage those with misgivings about the liberal interpretation of Amoris to come forward. In this it has been staggeringly successful. Perhaps it is a coincidence, but the 'Overton Window' of criticisms of the policies and (apparent) personal attitudes of a reigning Pope seems to me to have shifted more in a couple of months than it had in the previous century and a half. Whereas on the eve of the publication of the Correction I was wondering if the signatories would be able to show their faces in public afterwards, I now find myself in the company of a roll-call of distinguished figures. Something important has changed.

The number of academic theologians (and philosophers etc.) who'll sign up to any 25-page theological commentary on any subject is limited, because academics spend their lives using their own words to express their own nuanced positions and teasing open differences of opinion. But the differences between those who signed the Correction and those who've put their reputations on the line to criticise the liberal interpretation of Amoris, using their own words, is hardly a source of comfort for the proponents of that interpretation, because it demonstrates precisely the breadth of the coalition ranged against them.

I have explained before on this blog that it is far easier to assemble a coalition against something than for something, and this explains why progressives often appear more united than conservatives. Well, in this case the boot is on the other foot. The progressives are trying to defend something, admittedly something rather unclear, and the criticisms of it are coming from a wider and wider range of places. Listen to Dr Popcak. He writes with a calm fury:

Deacon Bill, I have no doubt you are a good and faithful man. I am also quite sure you mean well, but I call you to repent of the incipient clericalism that infects your position that the only possible explanation for asking Pope Francis for clarification of chapter 8 of AL is childish obstinacy. I challenge you, and others like you, to repent of the idea that the voices of the thousands of people gracefully striving to live the gospel in their difficult marital circumstances should be discounted. I challenge you to respond with a more authentic approach to both pastoral ministry and evangelization; namely, one that listens to the lived experience of those who are faithfully striving to live the teachings of the Church instead of one that patronizes the laity with the soft clericalism of low expectations.

Why is this happening? People like Fr Weinandy and Dr Popcak have built careers, reputations, even livelihoods, on a positive relationship with the ecclesiastical establishment. For the past 150 years people in that position have not openly criticised the Pope. Now they are. What has brought about this change?

The progressives have no idea what forces they have unleashed. What they have done is pushed these good people into a corner. They have reached their non-negotiable principles. To give up on the indissolubility of marriage, the consequences of mortal sin on the life of grace, and all the other things now being thrown into the air by progressives would be worse than losing their careers, reputations, and livelihoods. This reality can be expressed either in terms of human psychology, or in terms of supernatural Faith, but whether you prefer to think of it as being about their entire self-understanding as Catholics, or what their Faith just will not allow them to do, they have reached the end of the rope.

And you know what? There are lots more people like that out there. Not as many as would be nice, to be sure: there are many time-servers in the Church, and it was ever thus. But there are lots of good people, whose intelligence and integrity will not allow them to - as they see it - acquiesce in apostasy. And this, my friends, may be what the indefectability of the Church looks like in the 21st century.

This is going to run and run.

Editor's note: Reprinted with permission from Joseph Shaw. View original here

Featured Image
Jeff Christie
Jeff Christie

Opinion, ,

My wife became pregnant after rape. Surprisingly, the baby helped us both heal

Jeff Christie
Jeff and Jennifer Christie.

Note: Jennifer Christie's own account of her ordeal can be read here: After a brutal rape, I became pregnant. Doctors told me to abort. My husband and I did this instead.

November 6, 2017 (Save the 1) -- I understand what women mean when they say that men don’t have as much of a right to talk about abortion after rape as it doesn’t have anything to do with them. That statement has some truth to it. Sometimes. But when it happened to my bride of 22 years, when she was raped, I was deeply affected. Our amazing 3-year-old was conceived on that horrific day. He is a gift that helped us both recover.

I’ve read the comments. I’ve heard the opinions. I agree that you don’t know what you’ll think or feel in such a situation unless it happens to you. That’s a terrible, stark reality and one I live with. I know that I can’t take away the trauma that my wife went through no matter how much I try. I recognize that I can’t and won't ever comprehend the depth of her pain.

She also won't understand mine. I’m supposed to be her protector. I’m the one who stood in front of our families and friends and, along with "for better, for worse...", silently vowed to make sure her heart and body stay safe. So where was I when she needed me the most? I live with constant “what-ifs” and “Why didn’t I” thoughts. 

I saw, before anyone else could, that the woman I knew from the time she was a bubbly, outgoing 14 year old whose quick wit made everybody laugh, that she was never going to be the same. I also recognized that our son had nothing to do with the horror she went through. I knew she would never forget what was done to her, regardless of whether he existed or not. It’s ignorant arrogance that brings about comments like “With a child, a victim of rape has to live with that reminder every day of what that monster did to her.” She doesn’t need a reminder. That kind of violation is forever imprinted in her memory.

What are children conceived in rape if not these terrible “reminders”? I can tell you from personal experience.

They are chances at redemption. They are opportunities for healing and a way to find meaning from nightmarish, meaningless actions. Isaiah 61:3 says that He provides those who mourn with “…beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness.”

My wife likes to say that our son gave her hope. A purpose. I SAW that spark light up in her heart, and I knew then that without having a purpose come from all the violence, without another soul to protect and nurture, she would forever feel alone in her victimhood. She might always wonder why this happened to her, a loving child of God. This evil rapist left behind two victims: The woman he violated, and the life that began with his heinous actions.

Full disclosure: I, too, began to heal with the news of our son’s conception. (I did say our son. My beloved and I are one. If she is pregnant, then WE are having a baby.) I spent the first few weeks after the rape, while being the bastion of strength and solidity that my bride needed, slamming my fists into the wall in the shower. In two decades of marriage, I hadn't ever questioned my effectiveness as her knight and protector. I was in anguish, not able to see past the pain that I couldn't help but feel responsible for...turmoil over what I couldn't protect her from. I am in no way trying to compare my experience with her torment, her loss of self, but I would be remiss to not speak up on behalf of men who have been tangentially impacted by sexual assault through a woman they love. We are wounded. The collateral damage is great. 

But the child...

He heals. He teaches. He encourages us. He forces us to focus on something outside of ourselves. He is an opportunity for us as parents to bring another loving, compassionate soul into the world. He is a blank slate, and the wonderful and humbling burden for his impact on the world is on us. He’s not our only child. He’s the youngest of five. Just like the others, he was placed in our lives by a God who entrusted all of them to our care. As with all our children, our love for him started the moment we knew he existed. We welcomed him into our fold with the same devotion and reverence as his brothers and sister. They all love each other-usually-as siblings, and none of them consider him different or lesser, they are all equal partners in their mission to survive our parenting . They know how he came about but it's evident that they just don’t think about it when they look at him. This child-like acceptance that their brother is just here in the world and he is innocent of how, encourages us as parents. Our kids have reinforced the mindset that a child’s life and impact start at conception-not a second sooner.

To the women who have aborted after rape, I tell you unequivocally that we cast no judgment. We understand more than most that the decision you are faced with in the early months after such a trauma, when you are still trying to make sense of the world, is overwhelming. The pressure to feel animosity towards the child you’re carrying is horrendous. We lived through that. We know how the future can feel so unstable that you want more than anything to reduce the turmoil in your head in any way that you can. In our case there really was no decision. Without discussion we knew we'd honor God and our beliefs and protect this little soul from harm. You may not have had such support. All we offer is the knowledge that God forgives and allows us to learn. It’s the beauty of human experience that we can continue to make changes throughout our lives. He can make us new. All we have to do is ask.

To those who have been assaulted and find yourself in the position of carrying new life, we offer comfort & support. Prayers and love. Reach out to us. We know that you will not forget, but over time you will heal. My wife likes to say ,“There is no going back, but there is moving forward.” There is acceptance of a new reality and learning how to live every day. I stress the fact that the person growing inside of you is unique. You are not alone. Yes, your life is different now, but that normalcy was stripped away by your assailant, not the child now growing inside of you. That child is also a victim of evil intentions. In almost 4 years, my wife’s body has not completely healed from the attack. You,too, may have long-lasting physical and emotional scars. A woman’s body should never suffer that kind of violation. But when you get down to the basics, that body WAS miraculously designed to protect and grow life.

What happens after birth is completely up to you; there are always options. ALWAYS people to help.  

I finish with a tribute to my amazing wife and the incredible women she has found along her journey since we began sharing this part of our life. True heroines. Hearing their inspiring stories of grit and courage always leave me speechless. I have to shake my head when I hear people say that not all women are strong enough to carry a child in this circumstance or after that trauma. I don’t agree.  I’ve seen my wife give birth five times. I’ve watched her hold her head high in situations that would make iron men crumble. The strength of women should never be underestimated. 

I didn't become pregnant after rape.. but my wife did. My life also changed forever that day. So don't tell me my opinion doesn't matter. It does. Don't tell me I can't argue for life in the womb. I will. And please don't tell me I have no idea what a woman goes through.

Because I do. 

Editor's note: Reprinted with permission. 

Featured Image
Jeffrey Sachs at the Vatican in November 2017.
John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry

Blogs, ,

World-renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs yells at Vatican reporter: ‘You’re disgusting’

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

ROME, November 6, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – “You’re disgusting, you’re disgusting, disgusting,” yelled world-renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs in the hallowed halls of the Casina Pio IV in the heart of the Vatican Gardens. Sachs, the Columbia University professor whose monthly newspaper columns appear in more than 100 countries, was in a full rage, threateningly pointing his finger in the face of this reporter during his outburst. I sat there rather stunned but also, I must admit, somewhat intimidated since this man marches in echelons of power far above the top one percent he is so fond of disparaging.

A collaborator with George Soros, Sachs is known around the world as a guru on climate change, sustainable development -- and to pro-lifers -- population control and abortion. It is this pro-life concern that was the source of his rage. He was railing against me because of an article I wrote the previous day in which the headline referred to him as a “pro-abortion globalist.”

I believe he would have been fine with a label of ‘pro-choice,’ but I didn’t get to ask him despite trying a couple of times to speak to him after the fireworks. He vehemently resents being called pro-abortion, he let me know in rather uncivil terms.

From the pro-life perspective, the “choice” of abortion is murder and today’s abortion holocaust with some 60 million innocent victims per year is a global catastrophe very much like what Sachs claims will happen with unchecked global warming. If someone believes that abortion is an acceptable “choice”, that person is indeed pro-abortion.

Imagine someone who approved of men raping women, even lobbied for it, didn’t insist on it mind you, just supported its legalization. Would Mr. Sachs be faulted for referring to that person as pro-rape even over their objections that they should be called ‘pro-choice’ instead?

It seems we are speaking a different language, and that the terminology of the pro-life movement is so foreign that it is completely misunderstood. Language is an important thing when it comes to trying to make convincing points in the public square, and it appears Mr. Sachs refuses to be labeled by what in his mind must be antiquated terminology.

Another interesting exchange illustrates the point. I spoke with Professor Partha Dasgupta, a member of the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences. Since he himself was on the Pontifical Academy I wanted to ask him about the oddity of having so many population control advocates at a Vatican conference.

I asked about differences of the attendees at the conference from those involved at the Academy for Life, wondering how the participants at the Academy for Sciences conference reconcile their differences with the Vatican.

“I’m not so sure about all the differences because I’m not an expert on the Vatican,” replied Professor Dasgupta. “I’m here as a social scientist in the Academy and we speak about common problems that humanity faces. As you observed that is what we’re doing. I don’t know about differences at all. We come with whatever knowledge we have and we put forward ideas to see how they conform to the evidence. That’s it.”

I proposed that one of those differences centered around limiting population growth. I asked if that remained a focus for many of the participants or if they were perhaps moving away from that focus. “I don’t know what you mean. I don’t know that there was any discussion on population growth,” Dasgupta replied. Population was not on the agenda, but the issue nevertheless surfaced during a question-and-answer session a few hours later.

When I clarified that I meant historically many of the speakers have been advocates of limiting population, he responded, “I wouldn’t be able to tell you. I wasn’t involved in any of that.”

It is interesting to see Prof. Dasgupta’s past involvement in what pro-lifers would refer to as population control in light of his comments above.

In 1995 Prof. Dasgupta wrote an article titled, “The Population Problem: Theory and Evidence.” In this article, he looked for ways to lower the desire of couples to have children. “The analysis presented here suggests that the way to reduce fertility would be to break the destructive spiral where such a spiral is in operation,” he wrote. “Because parental demand for children, rather than an unmet need for contraceptives, in great measure explains reproductive behavior in poor countries, we should try to identify policies that would so change the options men and women face that their reasoned choice would be to lower their fertility.”

Nope, no population control here.

Later in the same article he speaks of shifting economic policies so as to give the impression that children are a financial burden to be avoided. “Providing infrastructural goods, such as cheap fuel and potable water, will reduce the usefulness of extra hands.  When a child becomes perceived as expensive, we may finally have a hope of dislodging the rapacious hold of high fertility rates."

Professor Dasgupta could perhaps be forgiven for forgetting about a single article promoting population control over 20 years ago. However, in 2013, Dasgupta wrote an article for Science Magazine titled, “Pervasive Externalities at the Population, Consumption, and Environment Nexus.” In the article, Dasgupta argues that population growth is placing an undue burden on available resources, decrying the lack of availability and use of contraception. He says: Family planning is not subject to the play of ‘free markets’; it is biased by restrictive laws, widespread misinformation, and rules not based on evidence. The unmet need for family planning is substantial.”

Later in the same article he adds, “When the barriers,” to acquiring contraception, “are numerous, as in the Philippines, the poor both have more children and a greater unmet need for family planning.”

“The aggregate demand for environmental resources is, in part, a function of humanity’s population size,” he wrote. “Whether world population reaches 8 billion or 10 billion in 2050 and whether it reaches 15 billion or 17 billion in 2100 will depend on small differences in average family size, which could be highly influenced by rebuilding the focus on family planning.”

Prof. Dasgupta seems not to have changed his views on population control, but he has developed euphemisms to conceal his intentions from the developing nations which would balk at his proposals otherwise.

He explains his vision to LifeSiteNews as nothing controversial at all. “We are discussing human impact on the biosphere, and that’s all,” he said. “Climate change is a symptom of a problem of over-extraction of the biosphere. I suppose the evidence is pretty compelling that we are and we’re trying to find ways to reduce it. To reduce our demand on the biosphere. That seems to me to be uncontroversial.”

Sachs too employs euphemisms to mask his intentions, but has in the past been more forthcoming.

In his 2008 book Commonwealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet he promoted legal abortion. “In countries with legal abortion services, households have a lower-risk and lower-cost option,” he wrote. “Legalization of abortion reduces a country’s [total fertility rate] significantly … and also reduces maternal mortality.”

More recently Sachs was one of the driving forces behind the passage of the Sustainable Development Goals. Target 3.7 of the SDGs explicitly calls for “universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services.” But in order to understand what that means, one has to look at the definition of those terms which were defined at the 1994 Cairo conference to mean providing women with “modern contraception” for “family planning” and with “safe abortion” where it is legal.

With research files from Michael Hichborn of the Lepanto Institute


Print All Articles
View specific date