All articles from February 11, 2019


Featured Image
Sandra Merritt and David Daleiden outside Superior Court room in San Francisco, CA, Feb. 11, 2019. Pete Baklinski/LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

News,

Names of aborted baby parts traffickers to remain secret in David Daleiden case: judge

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

Say NO to infanticide. Tell Congress to pass the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Sign the petition here.

SAN FRANCISCO, California, February 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – A California judge decided today that the 14 “secret” pro-abortion “Does” named as accusers in 15 criminal charges brought against pro-life advocates David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt in 2017 will remain sealed during the case. 

Judge Christopher C. Hite of the Superior Court heard arguments today regarding what kind of evidence will be allowed in an upcoming preliminary hearing for Daleiden and his co-defendant Sandra Merritt. Both Daleiden and Merritt attended the hearing today. 

Daleiden, 30, is the undercover journalist and director of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) who in 2015 released grisly videos (watch here) allegedly exposing Planned Parenthood’s illegal harvesting and sale for profit of body parts from aborted babies. 

The groundbreaking undercover videos showed Planned Parenthood executives and workers haggling over the prices of baby body parts, picking through bloodied arms and legs of aborted babies in a pie tray, and discussing how to alter abortion methods to obtain better body parts for sale.

Public outrage over the videos prompted congressional hearings and calls for the federal defunding of Planned Parenthood. Because of the damning evidence found in those videos, the CMP director now finds himself under attack by the abortion industry. The abortion industry is seeking to permanently bury the videos and put Daleiden and Merritt behind bars on charges that they illegally recorded “confidential communications” under California’s anti-eavesdropping law. 

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced in March 2017 that Daleiden and Merritt were criminally charged with 14 felony counts of illegal recordings under Penal Code section 632, and a 15th count of conspiracy to violate section 632. They were charged despite evidence that the video recordings were made in public places, such as restaurants and conference halls, where it would be a stretch to expect “confidentiality.”

The 14 individuals Daleiden captured in the videos as giving damning evidence of the abortion industry’s involvement in the sale of aborted baby body parts were named in the felony charges against the whistleblower anonymously, being listed in People of the State of California vs. David Robert Daleiden, Sandra Merritt as "Does" 1 through 14. 

At issue in today’s hearing was whether or not the 14 “Does” would be named. The first moments of court were tied up with the legal representative of the California Attorney General's office complaining that the names of the 14 “victims” had been made public over the weekend by being published on LifeSiteNews. 

While issuing no definite ruling, the judge indicated that the names of the 14 “Does” would remain sealed during Daleiden and Merritt’s prosecution.

LifeSiteNews published the names in a Feb. 9 report. While Daleiden and Merritt’s legal teams cannot use the names in court, and must refer to "Doe" 1 or "Doe" 14, etc., the names have been publicly available on the internet since 2017 and can be easily found through online searches. Many of these names have become infamous in pro-life communities across America. 

They are: 

  • DOE 1 - Dr. Carrie Ann Terrell, medical director of “Whole Woman’s Health” 
  • DOE 2 - Dr. Stephen Hindes, owner of “Healthy Futures for Women” and former abortion provider for Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains 
  • DOE 3 - Dr. Susan Robinson, third-trimester abortion doctor at Southwestern Women’s Options and abortion provider for Planned Parenthood Mar Monte
  • DOE 4 - Ms. Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO of “Whole Woman’s Health”
  • DOE 5 - Dr. Lisa Harris, medical director of Planned Parenthood of Michigan
  • DOE 6 - Dr. Mathew Reeves, medical director of the National Abortion Federation and abortion provider for Planned Parenthood Metropolitan Washington, D.C.
  • DOE 7 - Ms. Debbie Bamberger, non-physician surgical abortion provider for Planned Parenthood Northern California
  • DOE 8 - Dr. Norma Jo Waxman, abortion professor at taxpayer-funded UC San Francisco
  • DOE 9 - Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director of medical services for Planned Parenthood Federation of America
  • DOE 10 - Dr. Mary Gatter, medical directors’ council president for Planned Parenthood Federation of America
  • DOE 11 - Ms. Laurel Felczer, senior director of medical services for Planned Parenthood Pasadena & San Gabriel Valley
  • DOE 12 - Ms. Cate Dyer, CEO of StemExpress, LLC, longtime Planned Parenthood business partner in harvesting aborted fetal organs
  • DOE 13 - Mr. Kevin Cooksey, former VP of corporate development at StemExpress
  • DOE 14 - Ms. Megan Barr, procurement manager for StemExpress

Also at stake in the hearing was whether or not Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation can intervene in the case. The judge said it appears to be a “line crossed” to have the victims intervene to help prosecute the accused. 

Also discussed in the hearing was whether or not the videos filmed by Daleiden could be used as evidence, and if so, to what extent. 

Daleiden's and Merritt’s teams want the videos shown and for the public to be able to see them so they can see first hand the importance and necessity of these conversations being recorded on account of them exposing alleged criminal activity by abortion advocates. 

The judge is expected to issue a ruling regarding all these matters in the next couple of days. While the preliminary hearing was originally scheduled for Feb. 19, it is now moved to April 22-May 3 after the teams for the pro-life advocates asked for more time to prepare their case. 

Pro-life advocate David Daleiden decried what he called “collusion” that he said he witnessed in court today happening between California’s attorney general prosecutor and abortion organizations. 

“You can see the collusion in real time in the courtroom between Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation and the California Attorney General’s office weaponizing the law enforcement powers of the California Attorney General’s office to come after citizen journalism, attack the first amendment and try and cover up for their political buddies and their campaign donors of Planned Parenthood who are under current FBI and DOJ investigation right now for selling baby body parts against the law for profit,” he said in an exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews outside California’s Superior Court in San Francisco. 

He said it indicates just how unfair the proceedings are. 

“You can see in every break and sometimes not even during a break the attorney general is constantly going back to the lawyers for Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation, consulting with them, asking them how to proceed, plotting their next moves together,” he said. 

“This isn’t a fair proceeding right now,” he said.

Daleiden’s lawyers told LifeSiteNews that the case is “just a mess.”

“It’s not a case, it’s a political vendetta,” said Brentford Ferriera, who represents Daleiden. 

Featured Image
Porfirio Muñoz Ledo, the head of Mexico's Chamber of Deputies, introduced a bill to legalize abortion and same-sex “marriage” in the country. YouTube
Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin

News, , , , , ,

Mexico’s pro-life movement wins initial victory against abortion, transgenderism

Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin
By Martin Barillas

MEXICO CITY, February 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Pro-lifers made a stand against the government’s effort to amend Mexico’s constitution and allow abortion and same-sex “marriage.”

Porfirio Muñoz Ledo, who leads Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies, introduced a bill last week to reform the constitution that would not only legalize abortion throughout the largely Catholic nation but also permit same-sex “marriage” and euthanasia and also legalize narcotics.

The Morena party is currently in the majority in Mexico’s bicameral Congress, over which Muñoz Ledo currently presides. President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador had not been vocal about abortion and transgenderism during his presidential campaign last year, even while members of his Morena party have long signaled their support for that agenda.

Due to an online pro-life campaign, debate over the constitutional reform was tabled by two congressional committees. According to ACI Prensa, Rodrigo Iván Cortés of Mexico’s National Front for the Family described Muñoz Ledo’s legislative proposal as a “Pandora’s box” that “introduces into the constitution terms ‘free development of personality,’ ‘reproductive autonomy,’ ‘substantive equality,’ and others that will result concretely in things such as abortion rights, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, and the legalization of recreational drugs.”

Muñoz Ledo and the Morena party are proposing to modify Articles 1 and 4 of Mexico’s constitution so that “gender identity” and “substantive equality” are included as protected human rights. They propose to also modify Articles 3 and 123 in order to include “free development of personality” as a human right, and reform Article 29 to establish “reproductive autonomy,” “integral sexual rights,” and the the legalization of all forms of “families.”

According to Cortés, while López Obrador did not emphasize these issues during his electoral campaign, they are part of the agenda supported by Mexico Secretary of the Office of Domestic Affairs Olga Sánchez Cordero. Cortes said Muñoz Ledo met with members of radical transgender and anti-natalist groups last week, telling them to be patient and that he would be their champion by introducing a set of reforms that pro-life groups would not notice at first.

Cortés said Muñoz Ledo tried to push the reform on February 1 — on Super Bowl weekend — and to pass the abortion measure on February 5, which is the day that Mexico commemorates its national constitution. The pro-life leader that despite the precautions of Munoz Ledo and the Morena party, pro-life groups got together to use the hashtag #NoALaReformadePorfirio (No to Porfirio’s Reform) and made it trend nationally on Twitter.

By February 7, Muñoz Ledo did not include the constitutional reform he wanted among the issues to be discussed by the Committee on Constitutional Issues. Nevertheless, Cortés said he and other pro-lifers are not “letting down their guard.” He said he is calling on all pro-life and pro-family groups to hold their legislators accountable and reject Morena’s suggested constitutional reforms.

The suggested reform of Mexico’s constitution introduces the concept of “reproductive autonomy” and also allow all forms of family life, including same-sex “marriage.” According to the Morena, “Every person has a right to sexuality, and to decide upon and with whom to share it; to exercise it in a free, responsible and informed manner, without coercion or violence, and to receive a corresponding integral education.” The suggested constitutional reform also states that every person “has the right to free development of personality and reproductive autonomy, and also to decide in a free, responsible, informed and safe way whether or not to have children, with whom and the number or interval between them, as well as to receive services to attain the highest degree of sexual and reproductive health.”

Mexico’s Gaceta Parlamentaria also published a proposal introduced by Lorena Villavicencio, who represents Morena in the Chamber of Deputies, to reform the Federal Penal Code and eliminate criminal sanctions for abortions committed before 12 weeks of pregnancy. However, her proposal imposed three or six months in prison for any woman who aborts her child or consents to an abortion after 12 weeks of gestation.

Featured Image
Cheryl Sullenger

News,

Abortionist who went on satanic tirade to pro-lifers has died

Cheryl Sullenger
By Cheryl Sullenger
Image

February 11, 2019 (Operation Rescue) — Operation Rescue has learned that Robert J. Santella passed away unexpectedly last year at the age of 74. Santella was a long-time abortionist for the Family Planning Associates (now FPA Women's Health) abortion facility in San Diego County. He also operated a private practice where abortions were sometimes done near the campus of San Diego State University.

Santella was best known for an incident captured on video in June 2016, which showed him in a demonic rant against a pro-life activist outside the FPA abortion clinic office where he was working. Santella was seen in surgical scrubs hissing and growling in a demonic voice as he held scissors to a pro-life activist's throat while professing that he loved killing babies.

"I never listen to Christ," Santella snarled. "I do have a darkened heart. I do, I do. Very much so."

As a result of the video, which went viral and gained media attention, Santella was later dropped by Sharp Healthcare, a group of hospitals where Santella held privileges, and fired from the FPA abortion chain. The clinic where the incident took place closed in November 2017, but later resurfaced in the East County community of El Cajon.

Santella's firing from FPA ended a relationship with the California abortion chain that dated back nearly 30 years. Early in their business relationship, Santella provided emergency hospital care for FPA abortion patients who suffered serious complications from their procedures.

Santella was hired on full time by the abortion chain in the early 2000s after two previous abortionists quit or refused to work any longer at the San Diego office due to pro-life activism that exposed their misdeeds.

On December 31, 2017, Santella surrendered his California medical license to avoid license revocation based on allegations brought by the medical board that included wrongly prescribing controlled substances to six patients, while failing to perform a physical examination or document reasons for the prescriptions in medical records. He also ignored test results and symptoms of other serious conditions.

When asked why he prescribed opioids to one patient with a history of substance abuse, he callously replied, "In desperation I would refill her medications somehow just to get rid of her."

Santella was also charged with repeated negligent acts in his treatment of a woman who suffered a botched second trimester abortion at FPA Women's Health in San Diego on September 5, 2015, which was first reported by Operation Rescue.

During that abortion, the woman lost over a half gallon of blood when Santella's efforts to halt the hemorrhaging failed. Despite her deteriorating condition, Santella refused to transport her for emergency care. The woman's mother, who had accompanied her to the abortion facility, feared her daughter might die and called for an ambulance. That call saved her daughter's life.

The woman suffered hemorrhagic shock from bleeding that resulted from an incomplete abortion, perforated uterus, and other internal injuries. She underwent an emergency hysterectomy to save her life, according to the medical board's accusations.

Santella's unexpected death occurred on January 17, 2018. Less than five months later, on June 3, 2018, his wife, France L. Santella also "passed away unexpectedly." The couple left no children.

"We want to express our condolences to the surviving family members of Robert and France Santella," said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, which frequently protested Santella's abortion business in the 1990s though the early 2000s. "I hope that Robert Santella sought repentance before God prior to his passing. God can forgive every sin, no matter how bad, if one confesses, repents, and puts his faith in Jesus Christ for salvation."

Published with permission from Operation Rescue.

Featured Image
Cardinal Kasper and Pope Francis talking Rorate Caeli
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy

News,

Modernist cardinal, liberal theologian, and author attack Cardinal Müller’s ‘Manifesto of Faith’

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

Support Cdl. Müller's doctrinal manifesto amid Pope Francis' confusion. Sign the petition here.

February 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) ― The usual suspects have come out against a Catholic cardinal’s orthodox profession of faith.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, Dr. Massimo Faggioli, and author Austen Ivereigh have all responded negatively to Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s “Manifesto of Faith.”

Cardinal Kasper, whose dimming career was rekindled by Pope Francis upon the latter’s election, wrote that although there were professions of faith in the document that all Catholics could affirm, there were some “unacceptable blanket statements,” including Müller’s belief that the consciences of some Catholics have not been “sufficiently formed.”

Kasper was also disturbed that Müller had not emphasized the commonalities between the monotheistic world religions, particularly among Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Kasper disagreed with Müller’s defense of marriage and the celibate priesthood. He finished his critique by saying he was “totally horrified” by Müller’s assertion that failing to teach the truths of faith was “the fraud of the Antichrist.”

Citing Martin Luther, whom he stated “rightly criticized much in the Church,” Kasper suggested that Müller accused Pope Francis of being the Antichrist. He indicated that he believed Müller wanted to pursue “reforms behind the Pope’s back and enforce them in opposition to him.”

Müller stated that this “could only lead to confusion and division” and could “upset the Catholic Church.”

In response to Kasper’s statement, Deacon Nick Donnelly opined over Twitter that Kasper represented a conspiracy to corrupt Catholic doctrine.

“Cardinal Kasper's condemnation of Cardinal Muller's 'manifesto of faith' shows that he is no longer Catholic,” the English deacon tweeted.  

“He represents a conspiracy that is seeking to take over the Catholic Church and corrupt her beliefs and disciplines,” Donnelly continued. “(Kasper) is an enemy of Christ's Church.”

Faggioli, a professor of theology at Villanova University, indirectly attacked Cardinal Müller over Twitter, suggesting that he and other cardinals were spreading “dissent.”

“What cardinals and bishops says is not on the same level of what theologians says: it carries more responsibility towards the unity of the Church,” he tweeted yesterday.

“However, those who for decades tried to shut up dissenting theologians are now defending and spreading the public dissent of cardinals.”

Faggioli did not disclose which Church doctrines from which he believed theologians were dissenting and spreading cardinals' dissent.

The oft-tweeting professor also opined that “petty teachers” can make orthodox Catholic doctrine or theologians “look petty.”

“Petty teachers can make any text look petty, even the Catechism of the Catholic Church or  Augustine or Thomas Aquinas.”

To this, Catholic World Report editor Carl Olson acidly responded, “Just think what they can do with Twitter … ”   

Despite the remarks, Faggioli wrote that he would not write about Cardinal Müller’s manifesto or sign a petition against him. He indicated that he thought the document was an attack on both Pope Francis and the Congregation of which Müller was the head from 2012 until 2017.

“I fully support pope Francis but I am not writing or signing petition about cardinal Mueller's latest statement,” he tweeted.

“On the other hand, I am curious to see if the CDF is going to do or say anything, given that Mueller's move is an attack against pope Francis but also against the CDF.”

Ivereigh, an Englishman who wrote a biography of Pope Francis, called the cardinal’s manifesto “a naked power play.”

“A naked power play,” he wrote on Twitter.  “Declare a state of confusion, then promote yourself as the one to ‘resolve’ it.

“In implying that a former Vatican bureaucrat needs to step in to fill a supposed vacuum, you delegitimise the papal magisterium,” he continued. “And confuse the faithful.”

“Or maybe the pope is in error and needs fraternal correction,” Catholic screenwriter Barbara Nicolosi tweeted in response.

In The Catholic Thing blog post, Robert Royal of EWTN’s “Papal Posse” commended Cardinal Müller for his “sturdy clarity.”

Royal addressed Müller’s warning that bad teaching has led to “a growing danger of missing the path to eternal life” and reflected that Christ Himself taught that hell is a possibility.

“I raise this point in full knowledge that the infernal propaganda machine long ago succeeded in making anyone who brings up Hell appear like the longhair kook on the street corner with the sign: The End Is Near. For many people, even Christians, God is just too Nice a Guy for such things,” Royal wrote.

“But the words are Jesus’,” he continued. As Mueller remarks, ‘We are to resist the relapse into ancient heresies with clear resolve, which saw in Jesus Christ only a good person, brother and friend, prophet and moralist.’”

Royal concluded his article with Müller’s recognition that “It is the shepherds’ very own task to guide those entrusted to them on the path of salvation. This can only succeed if they know this way and follow it themselves.”

Featured Image
Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro Shutterstock.com
Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin

News, , ,

Brazil’s new president to eliminate transgender, pro-gay ideology from schools

Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin
By Martin Barillas

BRASILIA, Brazil, February 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) -- Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro announced plans last week to revise textbooks in public schools and eliminate references to homosexuality, same-sex “marriage,” and violence against women.

There are also proposals to give the military control of some public schools. Once Bolsonaro took office, the Ministry of Education issued new guidelines for textbook publishers that erased references to gender ideology and sexism. The ministry also eliminated its diversity department.

On the eve of his Jan. 1 inauguration, Bolsonaro tweeted his intentions. “One of the goals to get Brazil out of the worst positions in international education rankings is to combat the Marxist rubbish that has spread in educational institutions.” Education Minister Ricardo Velez Rodriguez vowed in his inaugural speech to end the “aggressive promotion of the gender ideology.”

In a poll published Jan. 8 by Datafolha, 59 percent of evangelical Christians said they did not approve of sex education being discussed at school. The poll, conducted Dec. 18-19, was based on 2,077 interviews. Conservative Catholics and evangelical Christians are a key supporters of the Bolsonaro government.

Bolsonaro is already feeling some pushback from Brazil’s teachers unions, who resent the president’s opposition to the legacy of leftist Paulo Freire, whose books and philosophy about education have been influential around the world. Freire, who died in 1997, was a founder of critical pedagogy. His work has been criticized for challenging traditional institutions, such as church and family, that intermediate between the state and individuals. Critical pedagogy asserts that teaching is inherently political and that the goal of education is political action and social critique.

During Bolsonaro’s presidential campaign last year, he said he wanted to go into “the Ministry of Education with a flamethrower to remove Paulo Freire.” As inspiration for reforming education, Bolsonaro appears to be relying on a U.S.-based Brazilian Olavo de Carvalho, who is known for opposing socialism.

In contrast to Freire, who was imprisoned briefly during a dictatorship in the 1970s, de Carvalho sees an educational benefit from religious and private schools. In a video on de Carvalho’s YouTube channel, he said, “The government does not have to educate anyone; it is the society that has to educate itself.” He added that he will fight to the death any proposals that the federal government is “the great educator.”

Education Minister Velez Rodriguez has said that not only schools but family and church are threatened by what he called a “crazy globalist wave.” Last week, he denounced his countrymen’s misbehavior while traveling outside of the country, telling Veja magazine, “Our kids and teenagers must receive citizenship education, which teaches how to act according to the law and morality.”

Velez told the newspaper Folha de S. Paulo that the Education Ministry is encouraging local officials to allow the police or military to operate their schools. Currently, the country has 13 schools run by the military that are intended for the children of soldiers. Military-run schools accepted some non-military children on the basis of merit, and have a reputation of being better than other public schools.

Bolsonaro got a boost from powerful businessman Sergio Borriello, who told newspaper Folha de S.Paulo, "I think maybe Brazil needs a little less ideology and more pragmatism going forward. Employment is more important, the livelihood of various social classes is more important than the president's position on homosexuals."

Brazil ranked 63rd of the 72 countries and regions in the 2015 Program for International Student Assessment, conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

According to the group, Brazil has one of the largest shares of adults without secondary education. Schools are overcrowded, teacher salaries are low, and school buildings are often crumbling.

More than 5,800 schools had no water supply in 2017, nearly 5,000 had no electricity and 8,400 had no sewage, according to government figures.

Many Brazilians don’t appear convinced by Bolsonaro’s plans.

Caua dos Santos Borges, a 15-year-old public school student in Rio de Janeiro, said that in her experience teachers rarely spoke about politics in the classroom and gender had never felt like a core area of the curriculum.

“Once, a student asked the teacher if he supported Bolsonaro, but the teacher didn’t respond and changed the subject,” dos Santos Borges said.

Featured Image
Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin

News, ,

FBI told us it’s investigating threats against Covington students: pro-life group

Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin
By Martin Barillas

KENTUCKY, February 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – The FBI and local law enforcement are investigating threats against Covington Catholic High School and its students, according to the Ohio Christian Alliance (OCA).

The OCA was one of several pro-life groups that called on federal law enforcement agencies to investigate threats of violence made online against a group of Catholic high school students based on false reporting of a confrontation at the 2019 March for Life.

“OCA President Chris Long received a call from the Special Agent working in the Covington FBI office, confirming that the office was in receipt of our letter and confirmed that the FBI was working with local law enforcement to investigate the threats that were made against the school and its students,” Cleveland Right to Life shared in a press release February 8. “The indication was that charges will be filed in the coming weeks, if not days, against those who made threats against the students, their families, and Covington Catholic High School.”

“We are pleased that the FBI and law enforcement officials are taking this matter seriously. These Christian students did nothing wrong, but a hate campaign was waged against them as they stood for the unborn by participating in the Annual March for Life,” said Long. “While waiting for their bus at the Lincoln Memorial steps after the march, they became the target of counter protesters. We encourage the FBI and Justice Department to thoroughly investigate, utilizing the video tapes and the twitter statements from individuals who made threats against the students.”

“We have said from the beginning that this is a watershed moment,” he continued. “A message needs to be sent to the public at large that making threats against minors resulting in harassment and potential danger is not free speech, but is in fact criminal activity.”

READ: Nick Sandmann’s lawyer: ‘Nathan Phillips will be sued’ over lies against Covington boys

“The madness that followed the students from the encounter...put them at the center of a generated hate campaign, fueled by false media reports and social media,” Created Equal said in a press release during the initial call for an FBI investigation. “Known individuals have called for violence against the students and their Christian school.”

Law enforcement authorities confirmed in late January that they were investigating unidentified threats against Covington Catholic and its students. The school closed its doors on January 22 out of fear of leftist threats and protests.

L. Lin Wood, a nationally-recognized attorney, is representing Covington student Nick Sandmann, who became the focus of the ire of leftists, media outlets, and even conservatives and Catholic authorities. They attacked him for “smirking” at Native American activist Nathan Phillips, who it was later revealed has a violent criminal past and tried to storm and disrupt a Catholic Mass the day after the 2019 March for Life. Sandmann and his fellow students, accused of chanting “build the wall” and allegedly racist statements at Phillips, were completely vindicated by extended footage of the encounter showing them peacefully enduring verbal abuse from adults, and not mocking Phillips as they were falsely accused of doing.

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews.com

News, , ,

Catholic Medical Association ‘strongly opposes and condemns’ New York, ‘copy-cat’ abortion laws

LifeSiteNews.com
By LSN

Say NO to infanticide. Tell Congress to pass the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Sign the petition here.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, February 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – The Catholic Medical Association (CMA) resolutely condemns the Reproductive Health Act (RHA), signed into New York law by Governor Andrew Cuomo in January – as well as “copy-cat” states which have introduced similar legislation to legalize abortions up to the moment of birth.

“The Catholic Medical Association, along with all people of goodwill, has always upheld the dignity and sanctity of human life. We have always been opposed to abortion in every form. The extending of the possibility of abortion to term of pregnancy is an egregious violation of the moral law that’s written in our hearts. The CMA strongly opposes and condemns this,” said Dr. John Schirger, President of CMA’s Board of Directors.

Under the RHA, any health care practitioner is permitted to perform an abortion – using his or her “professional judgment” if “the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health.”

Additionally, the RHA amends the state penal code, no longer classifying babies killed against their mothers' wishes after 24 weeks as a homicide.

Sadly, New York is not the only state to attempt to justify the legal murder of babies over the last several days. More states, including Virginia, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, have passed or are looking to pass similar legislation in the wake of New York’s RHA.

“There is nothing reproductive about this Act. It is an assault on the most vulnerable and healthiest in our state. As healthcare professionals who live and work in New York, we are appalled,” said Dr. John O’Brien, New York State Director for CMA.

“Anyone who has held a newborn must realize that this law allows any helpless baby to be murdered one minute prior to birth. Anyone who needs medical help must now question whether they will be the next group who is denied life-saving medical care in New York. Thank you to those representatives who tried to defend life,” added Dr. O’Brien.

The CMA is urging Catholics nationwide to contact their state lawmakers to express concern and demand action be taken to protect the lives of innocent babies.

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Caroline Farrow

News, , ,

UK police investigate transgender pronoun complaints, raising free speech concerns

Caroline Farrow
By Caroline Farrow

LONDON, England, February 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Members of the public in the United Kingdom are facing investigation by the police and criminal charges if they dare to challenge gender ideology on social media.

The week before last, Harry Miller, 53, a plant and machinery dealer and married father of four, reported on Twitter that he had been contacted by Humberside Police at his workplace. The police cited a series of 30 tweets which were deemed to be potentially “offensive.” Amongst them was a limerick written by a feminist which questioned whether transgender “women” are biological women.

Although the police force admitted that no crime had been committed, Police Constable Mansoor Gul informed Miller that his tweets would be officially logged as a “hate incident” and insisted on referring to the “victim,” telling Miller that “we need to check your thinking.”

Miller’s social media account contained no details pertaining to either his full identity or his place of work, but Humberside police still tracked him down to his business because the complainant had alleged that Miller’s comments made his workplace “unsafe for transgender employees.” PC Gul warned Miller that he needed to watch his words more carefully, for he risked being fired by the company for hate speech. Miller is, in fact, the owner of his firm.  

Over his Twitter account, Harry Miller reported that the policeman had spent over 20 minutes giving him a sound talking to. Miller noted incredulously that the officer “read me a limerick. Honestly, a cop read me a limerick over the phone.”

After Miller pointed out that he had not written the limerick, the policeman replied that Miller had “liked and promoted it.” He then informed Miller that, “I’ve been on a course and what you need to understand is that you can have a foetus with a female brain that grows male body parts and that’s what a transgender person is.”

Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, PC Gul confirmed that he had spoken to Mr. Miller for 20 minutes and made the comment about the fetus, stating that he had “learned it on a training course [run] by a transgender person last summer.”

Gul defended his position, saying, “Although none of the tweets were criminal, I said to Mr. Miller that the limerick is the kind of thing that upsets the transgender community. I warned him that if it escalates we will have to take further action. If someone comes forward and says: ‘I’m the victim of a hate incident and it’s really upsetting me,’ then we have to investigate.”

The Chief Constable of Humberside Police, Scott Young, defended this officer’s actions, saying that “the actions taken by the individual and his comments around transgender caused someone distress.”

“The correct decision was made to record the incident as a hate incident and to proportionately progress by making contact with the individual concerned to discuss the actions taken on social media,” the Chief Constable continued.

“There is evidence to show that hate incidents are already under-reported with people feeling they won’t be taken seriously and not having confidence in the police.”

‘It’s designed to intimidate.’

Harry Miller remains defiant over his tweets criticizing proposed amendments to the Gender Recognition Act that would allow males into currently female-only spaces. Miller intends to challenge Humberside police over their actions.

“I’m not in any kind of mood to let it go,” Miller told LifeSiteNews. “They are not in possession of 30 transphobic tweets. How can [they] be, when there is no workable definition of transphobia? That a high-ranking officer has claimed this is simply unacceptable. It’s designed to intimidate.”

In a similar incident last week, Suffolk police telephoned 74-year-old Margaret Nelson to tell her that some people had found offensive a blog post she had written in January 2018. Mrs. Nelson is a humanist celebrant and former journalist who writes a blog about death rituals. In a post entitled “Death does not misgender,” Nelson stated the following:

“If a transgender person’s body was dissected, either for medical education or a post-mortem examination, his or her sex would also be obvious to a student or pathologist. Not the sex that he or she chose to present as, but his or her natal sex; the sex that he or she was born with. Even when a body has been buried for a very long time, so that there is no soft tissue left, only bone, it is still possible to identify the sex. DNA and characteristics such as the shape of the pelvis will be clear proof of the sex of the corpse.”

Nelson told the Spectator that “the officer said she wanted to talk to me about some of the things I’d written on Twitter and my blog. She said that some of the things that I’d written could have upset or offended transgender people. So could I please stop writing things like that and perhaps I could remove those posts and tweets?”

“I asked the officer if she agreed that free speech was important,” Nelson continued.

“She said it was. I said that in that case, she’d understand that I wouldn’t be removing the posts or stopping saying the things I think. She accepted that, and that was the end of the conversation.”

Nelson has confirmed that her blog post was written last year and told LifeSiteNews that transgender rights activists have been “trawling through” her tweets. She explained that they had seen the link to her blog on her profile and added that she “hasn’t blogged much for a while.”

Suffolk police initially defended their actions, saying that they had called Mrs. Nelson in order to raise awareness of the complaints. However, they later admitted that they had made a mistake.

“We accept we made a misjudgement in following up a complaint regarding the blog,” said a spokesman.

“As a result of this we will be reviewing our procedures for dealing with such matters. We are sorry for any distress we may have caused in the way this issue was dealt with, and have been in contact with the woman who wrote the blog to apologise.”

Suffolk police are not the only constabulary to back down. In 2016, London’s Metropolitan Police was forced to pay £2,750 after breaching data protection laws by publicly outing a Twitter user’s private details and falsely accusing the user of an LGBT-related “hate crime.”

A growing number of people, including celebrities, being interrogated

These are not isolated cases. A growing number of people are finding themselves subject to police charges should they dare to tweet any criticism of the transgender movement, as an army of activists relentlessly scour social media to report any posts they find offensive.

Kellie-Jay Keen Minshull a.k.a. “Posie Parker” of Standing for Women, a group fighting for biological women’s rights, was twice interrogated by police because of her public criticisms of Susie Green, head of the controversial transgender charity Mermaids.

Green, a public figure who frequently appears on British television to describe how she took her son for full sex reassignment surgery in Thailand on his sixteenth birthday, claims that Keen-Minshull’s comments about her advocacy for cross-sex hormones and surgery for minors amount to “harassment.” Keen-Minshull, a mother of four, is still waiting to hear whether or not she will face charges.

Graham Linehan, creator of the comedy TV show Father Ted, was also visited by police after a transgender blogger complained about his Twitter comments.  

In another incident, a mother of two was arrested at her home by three uniformed officers following complaints by the same transgender blogger about her social media activity.  

The mother, Kate Scottow, was arrested in front of her 10-year-old autistic child and wrenched away from her breastfeeding infant. She was kept in a jail cell for over seven hours where, despite being on her monthly cycle, she was denied sanitary products.

Scottow has reported that as a result of this incident, both she and her children experience trauma every time someone comes to the door. Her entire family is on tenterhooks to hear if she will be charged.

Feminist activists Linda Bellos and Venice Allen were subject to a private prosecution by a transgender activist after live-streaming a meeting discussing the Gender Recognition Act on Facebook, a case which was eventually thrown out of court. A popular blogger who believes that men cannot be women is also due to appear in court in March, following allegations about comments and behavior on social media.

Featured Image
Wikimedia Commons
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News, ,

Actress Ellen Page attacks Chris Pratt for ties to ‘anti-LGBTQ’ evangelical church

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

February 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Lesbian actress and left-wing activist Ellen Page accused actor Chris Pratt of belonging to a church that “hates a certain group of people” over the weekend, despite the Guardians of the Galaxy star’s church being largely silent on homosexuality.

Last week, Pratt appeared on Stephen Colbert’s Late Show, where he discussed attempting the Daniel Fast, named after the prophet Daniel and consisting of 21 days of prayer, drinking only water, and eating only fruits, vegetables, and grains. “I was inspired by my pastor to do it. It’s kind of like our Lent, you know, you give something up,” he said. “So, for 21 days I had no meat, no sugar, no alcohol, and it was actually amazing. It was really cool.”

Page, who starred in the life-affirming 2007 film Juno as well as Inception and two of the X-Men films, subsequently took to Twitter to slam Pratt for not addressing that “his church is infamously anti lgbtq” and “belong(ing) to an organization that hates a certain group of people,” and declaring that “there aren’t two sides” to “LGBTQ.”

In response to someone who asked why Page couldn’t simply respect Pratt’s beliefs, she suggested he was guilty of “complacency.”

Pratt attends Zoe Church in Los Angeles and has publicly credited the writings of its lead pastor, Chad Veach, for helping reinforce his faith. Page appears to be basing her attack on Veach’s former affiliation with LA’s Hillsong Church, after which Veach says he modeled Zoe Church. “We are a gay welcoming church, but we are not a church that affirms a gay lifestyle,” Hillsong global senior pastor Brian Houston wrote in 2015.

“I do believe God’s word is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. The writings of the apostle Paul in scripture on the subject of homosexuality are also clear,” he elaborated at the time, adding that Hillsong does not “knowingly have actively gay people in positions of leadership.”

Zoe Church has not taken a similar stand, however. No statements about homosexuality appear on its website, and Veach has suggested in the past that he actively avoids public discussion of controversial issues.

“We’re here to bring hope to humanity. We’re here to talk about God. This is not the place for a political agenda,” he told The New York Times last year. “This is the last place. When I come to church, you know what I need? I need encouragement.”

In a 2014 interview with the Christian Post, Veach said that “as long as we keep pointing people to Jesus, he's gonna deal with the heart issues, he's gonna deal with lifestyle stuff (...) I don't even think it's our job to go off on tangents and get ourselves in trouble over what could be trivial things."

Pratt, who also stars in the Jurassic World and Lego Movie franchises, has gained something of a following among conservatives and Christians for publicly espousing his faith and celebrating America, as well as poking fun at political correctness. He and ex-wife Ana Faris have a six-year-old son, and Pratt is currently engaged to lifestyle blogger Katherine Schwarzenegger.

Page is an atheist who announced she was a lesbian in 2014. Despite Juno being the story of a pregnant teen who chose life, she and fellow cast member Jennifer Garner hosted a reading of its script in 2017 to raise money for Planned Parenthood.

Featured Image
New York's Empire State Building lit in rainbow colors for LGBT "pride," 2015. Wikimedia Commons
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News,

Lesbian couple wins contest to ‘marry’ atop Empire State Building on Valentine’s Day

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

NEW YORK CITY, February 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – A lesbian couple is among the winners of the Empire State Building’s annual contest to hold a “wedding” ceremony atop the iconic New York landmark on February 14.

For 25 years, the building’s owners, Empire State Realty Trust, have held a Valentine's Day Wedding Contest, for the opportunity to hold fifteen-minute ceremonies on the 86th floor Observatory. Fabiana Faria and Helena Barquet, the female owners of Lower East Side home design store Coming Soon, were one of the two pairs to win this year out of more than 1,000 entries, according to the Trust’s press release. New Jersey couple Chitra Pathak and Nachiket Patel also won.

Winning brides get a dress from Kleinfeld Bridal's Big Apple location, and potentially a prize package from Grand Hyatt New York, STATE Grill and Bar, Turkish Airlines, and Boca Raton Resort & Club.

"With over 1,000 entries from both near and far, it's evident that the storied history and romance surrounding the Empire State Building continue to touch lives around the globe," the Observatory’s senior vice president Jean-Yves Ghazi said. "I'm excited to officiate at the weddings for Helena and Fabiana as well as Chitra and Nachiket, and continue this tradition for its 25th year."

Faria and Barquet “exemplify a true NYC love story,” the press release claims. “With a shared fascination in the Empire State Building and the meaning behind its nightly tower lightings, Fabiana and Helena are excited to celebrate their love story and marry on the landmark's 86th floor Observatory.”

The news is being celebrated across the pro-LGBT blogosphere, with coverage from LGBTQ Nation, New Now Next, and PinkNews.

“I feel like we wanted to be together all day, too, which was a big reason to open a store and do it together,” Faria told Racked in a 2016 interview. “We treat this a little bit like our own apartment.” Barquet added that “We don't live together, so this is our home. We live in the store!”

The Empire State Building’s first homosexual “wedding” took place in 2012. Phil Fung and Shawn Klein “married” seven months after Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a law recognizing same-sex “marriages.”

The iconic building has previously been lit in rainbow colors to recognize “Pride Week,” a socially-liberal counterpart to Cuomo directing the World Trade Center spire to be lit in pink last month to commemmorate a state-level “right” to virtually-unlimited abortions.

Featured Image
shutterstock.com
Rep. Mark Walker

Opinion, ,

I’m a member of Congress. Here’s why I’m pushing Democrats to ban infanticide

Rep. Mark Walker
By

Say NO to infanticide. Tell Congress to pass the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Sign the petition here.

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – I just left the House floor where, for the fourth straight legislative day, House Democrats blocked a vote on a bill that would protect babies who survive abortions from being murdered. I just asked for “unanimous consent” to bring Rep. Ann Wagner’s (R-MO) Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act to the House floor for a vote. Democratic leaders, supporting the abortion industry agenda, refused to even consider the legislation, fearing the thought of allowing their members to vote their conscience and what they know to be morally straight.

In the wake of Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s comments endorsing infanticide and abhorrent legislation in Virginia and New York that lifts essentially all limits on abortion, my GOP colleagues are making it clear that we stand firmly with both the born and the unborn, protecting the fundamental right to life. Though not news to many, Governor Northam laid bare the startling and sickening reality of the pro-abortion lobby – they want abortion on-demand, in the last moments of pregnancy, and even after birth.

Though they refuse to go on the record and vote on the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, the new House majority has already showed where it stands on these atrocities.

Last Congress, the Republican majority boldly led the way in protecting life, passing a permanent ban on taxpayer-funded abortions, preventing abortions after the child can feel pain in the womb, and supporting the Trump Administration as they protected life around the world.

But our new Congress – comprised of the most pro-abortion majority in history and led by Nancy Pelosi – wants to deny the rights of children and the unborn. On day one, the new Democratic majority passed a bill to force taxpayer dollars to fund abortions in foreign countries. Their legislation would also have given $37.5 million to the United Nations Population Fund, which supports wide-scale, coercive abortions, involuntary sterilization, and unjust eugenic programs around the world.

Even further, a number of House Democrats joined with abortion giants to push for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment – a move that would force every American to pay for abortions. These positions are radical and out of touch with what we know to be true and right as Americans.

Now, it is imperative that we talk about the importance of life and what it means to conservatives. Two events in the early part of the year remind us why it’s important to fight for life.

The first is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Dr. King understood that to “sacrifice the future of his children for immediate personal comfort” was a recipe for failure. He also professed the value and hope of every single human life. The second is the March for Life. Every year, since the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, pro-life advocates have flooded our nation’s capital to boldly speak for those who can’t speak for themselves. They march to remember the more than 58 million unborn children who have had their futures stolen by abortion.

Both events were just a few weeks ago. Each was a celebration of life, justice, and human potential. But, as my friend Benjamin Watson put it, in the middle of these events, we saw a “sad and evil day.” Mr. Watson recently retired from the NFL and spoke last year at a Historically Black College and University Conference I hosted with Senator Tim Scott (R-SC). His conviction to speak up on issues of faith and life makes him a bold example for all of us. Last week, he said, “it is a sad and evil day when the murder of our most innocent and vulnerable is celebrated with such overwhelming exuberance.” He was responding to the image of cheers in the legislative chamber to celebrate a new law in New York.

The law allows for abortion up to birth – practically without limits. It authorizes the legal murder of a fully viable human baby. This is what was being celebrated. This was why the Freedom Tower was lit bright pink.

New York already faces a cataclysm. In New York City, more than 500 abortions are performed for every 1,000 births. The numbers are even more staggering for African-American babies – more of whom are aborted than born.

This is the greatest injustice of our time.

I support federalism and the idea that New York can make its own laws for New York. My question is not a legal one, but a moral one. How long will our American society allow this? Can we expect the new House Democratic majority to continue down this path?

To revive the American Dream, we must reclaim America’s soul. That means standing with the majority of the American people to reject federal funding of abortion. That means putting the life and health of women ahead of the desires of abortion giants like Planned Parenthood. That means valuing every single human life and the potential he or she has – both 20 weeks before birth and 20 weeks after.

This is what House Republicans are dedicated to doing. We are dedicated to the value of all human life. We will not stop fighting. For those of you fighting on this issue, there’s no more noble cause than to fight for those who are defenseless. For these children who have no voice, never stop raising yours.

Tomorrow, and as long as it takes, we will continue to ask the Democratic House leadership to bring the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act to the floor. They will have another opportunity to save babies from murder during their most vulnerable moments. The question is whether they will continue to silence their members and the voice of the unborn, or if they will allow the House Democratic rank-and-file to speak for themselves and the majority of the country.

Rep. Mark Walker represents North Carolina’s 6th District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Reggie Littlejohn

Opinion

New York’s new abortion law is more barbaric than China’s. Here’s how

Reggie Littlejohn
By Reggie Littlejohn

February 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – When I testified before Congress the first time in November 2009, I presented a shocking document I titled “Best Practices – Infanticide.” It is an email chain from April 2009 discussing the topic, “What if the infant is still alive after induced labor?” It was downloaded from the official Chinese website for obstetricians and gynecologists. At the time, “Best Practices – Infanticide” constituted a compelling testimony against the brutal enforcement of China’s One Child Policy.

Never did I imagine that 10 years later, a law in New York, and a proposed law in Virginia, would allow procedures more extreme even than those required by the Chinese Communist Party under the One Child Policy.  

If you have ever wondered how a late-term abortion is performed, “Best Practices – Infanticide” will inform you. It is not for the faint of heart. Here is an excerpt (emphasis added):

Usually the induced labor is for the out-of-plan pregnancies. In my hospital we do induced labor under the population and family planning official documents. This is something about the population and family planning policy. This is a state policy! If the infant comes out alive after induced labor, it will violate the policy. Also if the infant's family finds out that the infant is alive, it is a failure to us, and a medical accident. If we just throw the infant alive to a trashcan and it dies there, we will be sued by its family when they see it. My point is that for induced labor, no matter how many months the infants are, we can never let infants come out alive, nor should any signs of life of the infants be shown to their families. For infants that are over 38 weeks, we need to listen to their embryocardia. If they do have embryocardia, don't tell their mothers or family members first. Instead, prepare 95% absolute alcohol to inject into the infant's fontanelle and postpone the labor [to make sure the infant is dead]. This can also protect ourselves. However, if the pregnant woman is about to give birth and already has uterine contractions when sent to hospital, there is nothing we could do. They will have to take the infant alive back home as well.

The context of the abortions in “Best Practices – Infanticide” is that they are generally forced – a human rights atrocity of the first degree. Of course, in the United States abortion is elective. Obviously, we don’t have family planning police to drag us out of our homes, strap us to tables, and force us to abort babies that we want. Nevertheless, even in the context of forced abortions of “illegal pregnancies” under the former One Child (now Two Child) Policy, the laws in China acknowledged that once a woman was in labor, such procedures could not be used. The infant must be born alive.

I never thought I would see the day that I would be holding up “Best Practices – Infanticide” for any reason other than to condemn such barbaric practices. But that day has arrived.

New York’s new law, the “New York Reproductive Health Act,” allows abortion “at any time” to protect the “health” of the patient.  

There is no restriction stating that an abortion cannot be performed during labor. The term “health” in the New York law is undefined. Under Doe v. Bolton, “health” includes “all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman’s age – relevant to the well-being of the patient.” This expansive definition of “health” has been interpreted to allow abortion at any time for any reason.

Accordingly, New York’s new law allows unrestricted abortion up until birth, including during labor. When the law passed, some observers in the New York Senate Chamber cheered and offered a standing ovation. The One World Trade Center was lit pink at the direction of Governor Andrew Cuomo.

The proposed law in Virginia would be similar. In this now viral video, Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran admits that the “Repeal Act” would allow abortion as a woman is dilating. The bill was defeated in subcommittee, but it is disturbing how much support it received from lawmakers. Several other states are considering expanded abortion laws amidst concern that Roe v. Wade may be overturned.

Never discussed are the details of how these abortions-during-birth are to be performed. “Best Practices – Infanticide” provides a ghastly blueprint.

How can it be that in the United States an abortion law exists that is even more barbaric than that of the Chinese Communist Party? How did we reach this point, and what does it mean for our future? If we can learn anything from the agony of China’s One Child Policy, it is that such brutality must be stopped before it spreads. Aborting a baby who is in the process of being born is an act of barbarism that should not be enshrined in the laws of our land.

Reggie Littlejohn is the Founder and President of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers.

Featured Image
shutterstock.com
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

Blogs, , ,

Mom arrested, interrogated for disagreeing with transgender about pronouns

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

February 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Last month, a docker in Northern England was informed by the police in Humberside that he would be the subject of a formal investigation for tweeting out a limerick about transgender people. Several weeks after that, the police in Suffolk contacted a 74-year-old woman, and an officer asked her to stop tweeting comments critical of transgender ideology, and to perhaps consider deleting some of her previous social media posts. And now, the Daily Mail reported over the weekend, it turns out that a 38-year-old mother was arrested in front of her children and locked up in a cell at the police station by the Hertfordshire Police back in December for having an argument with a transgender activist on Twitter.

Kate Scottow’s story is truly chilling. Three police officers showed up at her home and detained her, carting her off to the station and then interrogating her for having an argument with a transgender activist about “deadnaming,” and for referring to a biological man who identifies as a woman as a man. For this supposed offence, Scottow was arrested, photographed, had her DNA and fingerprints taken, and was locked up for seven hours on December 1 of last year. The arrest took place in front of her ten-year-old autistic daughter and 20-month-old son, who is still breastfed. She is still apparently under investigation, and the police have not returned her cell phone or her laptop, which she needs for her ongoing studies pursuing a Masters’ degree in forensic psychology.

Unbelievably, the Hertfordshire Police has not only confirmed to the media that the arrest took place, but has defended their actions, stating that they “take all reports of malicious communication seriously.” The communications the cops are referring to are an argument between Stephanie Hayden, a “transgender woman” and Scottow, who objected to the idea that people could simply self-identify as another gender. Hayden, who is a biological male, claimed that being referred to as a male was “defamatory,” and reported Scottow to the cops. Scottow has been served with a court order that bans her from referring to Hayden as a male. There is no such thing as free speech in England. Transgender activists are using the cops as their own personal militia.

Scottow, of course, denied that she had harassed or defamed Hayden in any way, and pointed that it is a “genuine and reasonable belief” to point out that human beings “cannot practically speaking change sex.” Despite the fact that this is true, Deputy Judge Jason Coppel banned her from referring to Hayden’s “former male identity.” To sum up: A young mother in England was arrested in her home and in front of her children by three police officers and then “detained for seven hours in a cell with no sanitary products,” which she told them she needed, all for highlighting scientific truths that were accepted even by gay rights activists as recently as a decade ago. It is breathtaking to consider how quickly the state has moved to enforce an ideology that is quite literally still being worked out and revised as we speak by trans activists.

The Daily Mail noted that Scottow’s arrest is “the latest where police have been accused of being heavy-handed in dealing with people who go online to debate gender issues” and highlighted the recent instance of sitcom writer Graham Linehan being given a “verbal harassment warning” by the West Yorkshire Police for also “misgendering” and “deadnaming” Hayden. But even that comment assumes that there is an even-handed way for the police to use the force of the law to bully private citizens into getting into line with the latest insanities of transgender activists. Trans activists insisted that men like Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, who warned that trans activists were totalitarian and wanted to control speech, were transphobic liars. But the fact that British cops are entering the homes of young mothers and contacting old ladies to warn them that the state does not approve of their opinions should send a shiver up every spine.

Transgender activists do not possess an internally coherent philosophy that they can defend in public. Science does not confirm a single one of their claims, and that is why they need to use the police to cow ordinary people into calling biological men women and vice versa. They will not be satisfied with simply living their delusions and letting everyone else get on with their lives, because their make-belief world only works when everybody is playing along, and they want men with guns to make sure that all of us do just that. Not only must we all pretend that the emperor is wearing clothes, we must all pretend that he is a woman—even though anyone with eyes to see can see that he is quite obviously a dude.

Featured Image
Franco Origlia / Getty Images
Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike

Blogs,

Bishops applaud Cardinal Müller for ‘prophetic’ Manifesto of Faith

Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike
By Maike Hickson

Support Cdl. Müller's doctrinal manifesto amid Pope Francis' confusion. Sign the petition here. Sign the petition here.

February 11, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – At least three bishops so far are publicly supporting Cardinal Gerhard Müller after he issued a “Manifesto of Faith” on Friday in the hope of clearing up the growing doctrinal confusion in the Church.

Bishops Joseph Strickland, Thomas Tobin, and Marian Eleganti all expressed their gratitude to Cardinal Müller, the former head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for reaffirming the essential tenets of our Catholic Faith.

“Thank God for Cardinal Müller's strength and fidelity to Christ and his Teaching,” says Bishop Strickland.

Bishop Strickland, of Tyler, Texas, responded only half an hour after the publication of the Manifesto, in the late afternoon on February 8. He wrote on Twitter: “Let us embrace this joyful challenge with new vigor..............Cardinal Müller Issues ‘Manifesto of Faith’.”

On Saturday morning, Bishop Thomas Tobin, of Providence, Rhode Island commented on Twitter: “I just read Cardinal Mueller's ‘Manifesto of Faith’. I really appreciate his clear, concise, and ordered approach. Highly quotable, and an excellent summary of the faith. 'May Mary, the Mother of God, implore for us the grace to remain faithful.'”

Additionally, Bishop Marian Eleganti, the auxiliary bishop of Chur, Switzerland, sent an appreciative comment to LifeSite. “I am very grateful to Cardinal G.L. Müller for his prophetic statements concerning questions of the Faith and of the proclamation at a time of confusion and of bewilderment among many faithful and those who are seeking. The Holy Spirit may enlighten us and turn us into credible witnesses of the Gospels and of the Catholic Faith!”

READ: Cardinal Müller issues Manifesto: A quasi correction of Pope Francis’ pontificate

Cardinal Müller, who has issued his Manifesto of Faith in the capacity of the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, explicitly states that he had been asked to do so by many clergymen and laymen alike. He says: “In the face of growing confusion about the doctrine of the Faith, many bishops, priests, religious and lay people of the Catholic Church have requested that I make a public testimony about the truth of revelation. It is the shepherds' very own task to guide those entrusted to them on the path of salvation.” He further states that this Manifesto “was written with the aim of strengthening the Faith of the brothers and sisters whose belief has been massively questioned by the 'dictatorship of relativism.'”

The support for Cardinal Müller comes as some have tried to characterize his Manifesto as an “attack” on Pope Francis. For example, Cardinal Walter Kasper, a high-profile liberal admired by Pope Francis, accused Müller of sowing “confusion and schism.”

Cardinal Müller based his Manifesto fully on the teaching of the Catholic Church's 1992 Catechism and restates the Church's basic teaching on the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation; the Catholic Church as founded by Jesus Christ as an “instrument of salvation”; the Church's sacramental order, to include the teaching on the Holy Eucharist according to which only those in the state of sanctifying grace may receive Holy Communion fruitfully unto salvation; the moral law which interdicts acts like adultery, homosexuality, contraception, and abortion; as well as the danger of the eternal loss of one's soul.

Cardinal Müller ends his text with a call, reminding all the “workers in the vineyard” to preserve the entire Catholic Faith and to pass it on loyally to the faithful: “As workers in the vineyard of the Lord, we all have a responsibility to recall these fundamental truths by clinging to what we ourselves have received. We want to give courage to go the way of Jesus Christ with determination, in order to obtain eternal life by following His commandments (CCC 2075).”

The cardinal released his manifesto to a worldwide audience, in seven different languages, thus allowing for a widespread affirmation of the orthodox Catholic faith.

To this end, LifeSite is hosting a petition at its LifePetitions platform so the Catholic clergy and faithful of the world, in all language groups, can make a visible sign of their support for the full and unvarnished faith and for the Cardinal’s initiative.

Support Cdl. Müller's doctrinal manifesto amid Pope Francis' confusion. Sign the petition here. Sign the petition here.

Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

Blogs,

There’s no social justice without protecting unborn lives

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

February 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — As my friend Sam Sey noted recently, the easiest way to tell that the so-called social justice movement is more concerned about trendiness than justice is the fact that they do not seem to care at all about abortion, a common brutality against the youngest and weakest members of our society. In fact, they are generally enthusiastic about partnering with those who champion abortion as an essential right, claiming that common ground is worth far more than the babies they have buried there alongside the hatchet. Progressive evangelical Rachel Held Evans, for example, who has successfully progressed her way out of Christianity entirely, responded to the outrage at Democratic politicians championing late-term abortion legislation by noting that if she were pregnant with a non-viable son or daughter, she might consider abortion, too. She’s already dying, so might as well kill her appears to be compelling logic to a disturbing number of people.

Social justice warriors of the pseudo-Christian variety, who usually enjoy loudly heaving themselves onto any passing bandwagon, have fallen as silent as a butchered baby with the non-stop news stories detailing the willingness of Democrats to legalize abortion right up until birth. In fact, more than a few have fallen back on tut-tutting that it isn’t infanticide, per se, because the infant is still in the uterus, so conservatives should be careful about spreading fake news, which they consider to be a more important thing to fight than banning stabbing small children in the skull to ensure a dead delivery. The abortion cabal and their Democratic lackies, on the other hand, are doing damage control, hunting about for a euphemism that will disguise the atrocities they have been referring to as “healthcare.” They have decided on “later abortion” as an alternative to “late-term abortion,” apparently assuming that their replacement is less evocative of the sort of baby-crushing involved.

There are other stupid arguments being utilized to defend the indefensible practice of preying on the defenseless, as well. The thing is, the vampiric abortion activists say smoothly, hardly any late-term abortions happen, anyway. Interestingly, this defense concedes the point that there is something repulsive about late-term abortion to begin with, but does not explain why the rarity of an atrocity is somehow a justification for it. Democrat U.S. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington objected to Sen. Ben Sasse’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would provide strict protections for babies born alive after attempted abortions, on the grounds that such protections already existed. She did not explain, before storming off the Senate floor, why she and her colleagues are so opposed to protections that apparently already exist.

It is one thing to say that late-term abortion is necessary. That already is a lie — no abortion is necessary, and every single abortion ends the life of a precious and unrepeatable human being. The arms being suctioned from the tiny body of a baby in the first trimester are smaller and more delicate, and the corpse of a child at that age collapses far more easily, but there is no moral difference between killing babies of different sizes. But the stone-faced Democratic women sitting as silent as an abortionist’s conscience while President Donald Trump condemned abortion and infanticide during the State of the Union last week was quite something to behold. They reminded me of something Peter Kreeft once wisely observed: Feminists are feminine like cannibals are chefs. Chuck Schumer’s leering grin at Trump’s call for protections for babies in the womb was sickening enough. The carnivorous cabal of women, some of whom are mothers and have felt babies kick within them, was tragic in a particularly ugly way. They, of all people, should know better.

On the other hand, it was truly heartening to hear the President of the United States describe the evil of abortion in clear language and demand that legislators step up and pass more protections for the beautiful children created in the image of Almighty God. It was also wonderful to hear the roar of cheers and applause that greeted his words, because it was a reminder that in this epic battle between good and evil, between those who support babies being suctioned, poisoned, and dismembered from their earliest stages until just before birth and those who see children as America’s most precious heritage, there are many men and women who rejected the empty and ugly lies of those who call for social justice while applauding infanticide. For too long, so-called social justice warriors and progressive politicians have twisted language in order to claim that they are the champions of compassion and of justice, and these past few weeks have exposed them for who they are.

Those who say that we must vote for the Democrats because they get more things right than the Republicans do on other policy issues can no longer pretend that they are not voting for a party that champions the greatest carnage in human history. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi brought the CEO of Planned Parenthood, which commits hundreds of thousands of abortions a year, as her guest to the State of the Union address. Those who embrace these people because of policies on climate change or border walls while ignoring the millions of corpses that have resulted from their wicked policies are morally schizophrenic. And those who cast their lot in with the men and women who trample the children will share in their judgment.

Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement. In his third episode, he interviews Carol Everett, who worked in the abortion industry for six years and revolutionized the way it operates. She is now a pro-life activist. You can subscribe here, and listen to the episode below:

Featured Image
Cardinal Walter Kasper Catholic Church of England and Wales / Flickr
Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike

Blogs,

Cdl. Kasper accuses Cdl. Müller of promoting ‘confusion and schism’ with Manifesto

Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike
By Maike Hickson

Support Cdl. Müller's doctrinal manifesto amid Pope Francis' confusion. Sign the petition here.

February 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – On February 10, Cardinal Walter Kasper responded to Cardinal Gerhard Müller's recent Manifesto. Katholisch.de, the website of the German bishops, published Kasper’s full statement, which accuses Müller's text of containing “half truths” and merely “personal theological views,” and therefore promoting “confusion and schism.”

Kasper even compares Cardinal Müller, the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to Martin Luther, insinuating that he tries to bypass the Pope in his push for various reforms. Katholisch.de published only a very short report about Müller's text, but published Kasper's entire statement.

At the beginning, Cardinal Kasper says, “without doubt,” the Manifesto contains “many doctrines which can only be approved full heartedly by any upright Catholic.” However, he says that there are “some truths” that are being presented “in such a pointed way that the other half is being blocked.” As an example, the German cardinal presents Cardinal Müller's reiteration of the teaching on the Holy Trinity, “which presents, without doubt, a fundamental difference” to other religions.

“But are there not also things we have in common, especially with the Jews as with the Muslims, in the belief in one God?” Kasper asks, adding they are fundamental for the “peace in the world.”

“The half-truth is not the Catholic truth!” he exclaims.

Furthermore, Kasper accuses Müller of presenting “a manifesto of private theological views.” Here, Kasper refers to his fellow cardinal's statement that both “remarried” divorcees and non-Catholic Christians – just as all who are not properly disposed – cannot “fruitfully” receive the Holy Eucharist “because it does not bring them to salvation.” Here, Cardinal Müller makes reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which teaches, “Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion” before receiving an absolution in the Sacrament of Penance (CCC 1457).

But Cardinal Kasper claims that, in this specific number of the Catechism, he cannot find Cardinal Müller's own sentence: “I have looked it up twice and did not find this sentence this way.” Moreover, he adds, “I also do not know any other dogmatically binding statement which contains this sentence in this form.”

Cardinal Kasper also tries to argue that one cannot find in the Church's teaching that “remarried” divorcees and non-Catholic Christians cannot receive the Holy Eucharist fruitfully, unto salvation.

Further adding to the spreading confusion, Kasper argues against Müller's using the expression “whose sacramental marriage exists before God,” saying that this sentence implies that there are, indeed, some sacramental marriages that do not exist before God.

“Who can decide about this, and what is with them?” Kasper asks.

Further questioning Cardinal Müller's doctrinal document, Kasper claims that his words about celibacy are incomplete since the 1992 Catechism states that priests “normally” choose celibacy, but that there are also exceptions to this general rule, such as in the Eastern rites and with converts from Protestantism and Anglicanism. Cardinal Müller had stated: “Therefore, priests voluntarily opt for celibacy as ‘a sign of new life’ (CCC 1579).”

While Müller had not mentioned the “viri probati” (morally proven married men) as such, Kasper comments: “Even if I am of the personal opinion that one should reflect once again anew and in a deeper fashion about the freely-chosen celibacy of the priests, at least the discussion on the viri probati may not be forbidden.”

Moreover, Kasper says he is “totally appalled” about the end of the Müller Manifesto and its words on the Antichrist. Müller wrote: “To keep silent about these and the other truths of the Faith and to teach people accordingly is the greatest deception against which the Catechism vigorously warns. It represents the last trial of the Church and leads man to a religious delusion, ‘the price of their apostasy’; it is the fraud of Antichrist.”

Here, Cardinal Kasper feels “reminded, and nearly verbatim, of Martin Luther's argumentation. Also Luther at the time rightly criticized much in the Church. But the Antichrist-accusation was even then inappropriate – as today also our Lutheran partners of dialogue say. Is there behind the manifesto a Luther redivivus [reborn], one who rightly works for reforms in the Church, but then wishes to impose them while bypassing the Pope and working against him?”

“I do not wish to believe this, that could only lead to confusion and schism,” Kasper adds. “This would unhinge the Catholic Church.”

Here it might be worthwhile to remember that, in 1993, then-Bishop Kasper was one of three German bishops who issued his own guidelines permitting some “remarried” divorcees access to Holy Communion. The bishops issued these guidelines without first asking for the Pope's approval. Subsequently, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had to intervene. It rejected the statement of these three German bishops – Kasper, Karl Lehmann, and Oskar Saier.

Peter Winnemöller, a German Catholic journalist writing for the Austrian website Kath.net, says that this Kasper intervention is “manipulation.” He says: “It was only a question of time until someone from St. Gallen would enter the ring.”

Of Kasper accusing Müller of half-truths and Kasper presenting himself as “the defender of full truths,” Winnemöller comments: “Great, the whole truth, for example the one that the Africans should not participate in the discussion on the level of the Universal Church because they do not understand the problems of Europe, he once explained to us.”

This is a reference to the incident when Kasper, during the 2014 Synod on the Family, told some journalists demeaningly that Africans “should not tell us too much” with regard to the question of homosexuality: “I think in the end there must be a general line in the Church, general criteria, but then the questions of Africa we cannot solve. There must be space also for the local bishops’ conferences to solve their problems but I’d say with Africa it’s impossible [for us to solve]. But they should not tell us too much what we have to do.”

Cardinal Kasper at first denied having spoken these words and then, after Edward Pentin published the audio file proving the cardinal did in fact say them, he apologized.

Winnemöller also points out that, “because one cannot attack the Manifesto of Faith of Cardinal Müller in its substance, Kasper plays the game indirectly and presents peculiar aspects of truth which are in the current context completely irrelevant,” such as the reference to the monotheistic belief of all three world religions.

“Kasper does not explain to us why this is important with regard to [the] strengthening of the Catholic Faith,” the German journalist says.

Kasper, according to the German journalist, “manipulates” readers by twisting the words of his fellow cardinal when speaking about “remarried” divorcees and non-Catholic Christians.

While Müller spoke “from the inner logic of the Sacrament” of the Holy Eucharist and thus explained why such persons cannot fruitfully receive Holy Communion, Kasper reduces the sentence to a reference to a specific number of the Catechism.

“Kasper accuses his fellow brother in the College of Cardinals of misquoting the Catechism. This is a worst form of manipulation,” the German journalist comments, and then presents the two statements on the matter by both Kasper and Müller.

“Here, one can clearly see how Cardinal Kasper manipulates the readers,” Winnemöller adds. He also notes that Katholisch.de published only a very vague presentation of Müller's Manifesto but published the whole statement by Kasper.

“The manipulation will take its course,” Winnemöller continues. “It is to be hoped that many priests display it [the Müller Manifesto] and distribute it [in their parishes].”

Featured Image
Stock photo.
Cassy Fiano-Chesser

The Pulse

Infant who survived abortion screamed for an hour while left alone to die

Cassy Fiano-Chesser
By Cassy Fiano-Chesser

Feb. 11, 2019 (LiveActionNews) - The abortion industry doesn’t want to admit that babies can survive abortion. They call it a myth and pretend it doesn’t happen — but it does. And what happens when babies do survive abortions is chilling. Too often, the babies are left to die, with no comfort or compassion, but alone and cold and in pain. This is exactly what just happened in Poland, where a baby with Down syndrome was the victim of a botched abortion, and was then left to die, crying for nearly an hour while doctors did nothing.

 

Doctors and medical staff at Holy Family Hospital in Warsaw, Poland, left a child to die after a botched abortion, according to local media reports detailing the horrific scene.

The baby was born on March 7, 2016 at 24 weeks, after an abortion failed. The child cried and screaming for an hour before dying, according to witnesses, as reported on Republika Television.

Medical personnel did not try to help the child in any way.

Hospital spokesperson Dorota Jasłowska-Niemyska explained that a patient at the end of the 23rd week of pregnancy came to the hospital, and her medical tests suggested that the baby had Down syndrome. The hospital claims that everything that happened thereafter was according to the law and medical procedures. The dignity of the patient and the dignity of the fetus were respected, she continued.

In Poland, abortion is illegal — except to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape in the first trimester, or if the baby has a “severe and irreversible handicap or an incurable and life-threatening disease.” In the third option, the baby can be aborted until the point of viability. But viability is not explicitly defined, so late-term abortions can happen, as long as the baby is considered to be disabled. It’s a despicable law that discriminates against people for the “crime” of having a disability.

A baby at 24 weeks gestation is also indisputably at the point of viability. It is at 24 weeks that a baby reaches the 50% mark of surviving, but babies younger than 24 weeks have survived. A recent study found that more and more babies were surviving at 23 weeks, and a study before that found that babies as young as 22 weeks could survive with proper treatment. And at least two babies have survived at 21 weeks. Amilia Taylor and James Elgin Gill were both born at 21 weeks and survived, and are both now healthy and thriving.

Sadly, the abortion industry doesn’t care much about science and viability. They also don’t care about their legal requirement to offer medical care to babies who survive abortion, even here in the United States. Live Action’s Inhumaninvestigation uncovered the truth: that late-term abortionists across the country would leave babies to die if they survived the abortion, without offering any medical care whatsoever.

 

What happens when a baby survives an abortion? Live Action’s undercover cameras reveal what late-term abortionists would do with a baby struggling for life. Watch their shocking admissions from our “Inhuman” investigation.

Posted by Live Action on Saturday, June 20, 2015


As for Poland, a Catholic priest, Ryszard Halwa, is calling for the hospital to be charged with a crime. If a baby survives an abortion and is born, then he is legally considered a child and should have been given the life-saving medical care that was needed.

Hospital staff failed to do so, and should be held accountable.

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.

Print All Articles
View specific date