All articles from October 10, 2020


News

COVID-19 panic more dangerous than the disease, say Catholic philosopher, doctor

In their three-part paper, Dr. Casanova and Dr. Zabiega examine the coronavirus crisis as a medical phenomenon, a political disaster, and a grave danger for the future of humanity.
Sat Oct 10, 2020 - 5:36 pm EST
Featured Image
shutterstock.com
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

October 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) ―  A Catholic philosopher and a Catholic neurologist have written an essay laying out the medical and the political effects of the coronavirus. Their conclusion is that the manipulation of public panic is, in all but a few cases, more dangerous than the disease.

Dr. Carlos A. Casanova, a professor of philosophy at the University of St. Thomas in Chile, and American neurologist Dr. Thomas Zabiega have written a paper outlining the grave harm that indiscriminate lockdowns and rejection of an effective treatment for COVID-19 is having and will continue to have globally. 

“This year has been marked by the ‘coronavirus’ phenomenon,” they write.  

“Towards the end of the first quarter, the World Health Organization (WHO), along with the mainstream media and many governments, succeeded in creating a panic situation in the population of the western hemisphere,” they continued. 

“This panic led to the adoption of disastrous public health measures (mainly, social distancing, confinement and lockdowns), encroaching on the freedom of the people and on the democratic institutions of the West and of other nations.”

The full paper can be accessed here in pdf format.

In their three-part paper, Casanova and Zabiega examine the coronavirus crisis as a medical phenomenon, a political disaster, and a grave danger for the future of humanity. It is not the disease that is the problem, as such, but the cynical encouragement and manipulation of widespread public panic. The endgame, they suspect, will be the coercive inoculation of millions of people with an as-yet-untested RNA vaccine. 

“Let us be clear: vaccines are a wonderful thing which have made humanity immune to very grave [illnesses],” they wrote.  

“But there is little doubt that nowadays vaccines are often mixed with substances which are harmful or unethical; and also there is little doubt that the lethality of Sars-CoV-2 does not justify lockdowns, extreme social distancing measures and much less forced vaccination.”

Early in their paper, the scholar and the neurologist examine the strange rejection of hydroxychloroquine as an effective treatment, the inexplicable rejection of professional medical advice not to impose house arrest on the elderly, let alone everyone else, and the catastrophic expulsion of elderly people from hospitals into nursing homes, where the vast majority of coronaviruss-linked fatalities have taken place. Lockdowns have led to an increase of social problems, like excessive drinking and drug abuse, as well as the neglect of people with other diseases, like cancer. The effectiveness of so-called social distancing and mask-wearing are in doubt, as is any need for panic. The idea that we do not have immune systems that can fight off a “novel” coronavirus is false, they say: “Of course we do! Every year there might be a new virus and for thousands of years we have fought them off.”

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Regarding the political nature of the coronavirus panic, Casanova and Zabiega stress that the lockdown is politically, not medically, motivated. They note the role the Communist Party of China has played, and China’s links to both the Director of the World Health Organization and Dr. Anthony Fauci of the White House Coronavirus Task Force. They argue the Hippocratic concept of medicine has been corrupted by a neo-Marxism that also threatens basic human liberties. In the months of the lockdowns, scholars have been unable to publish narrative-challenging coronavirus research, small and medium-sized businesses have been destroyed, freedom of assembly has been criminalized, religious worship has been suspended, anti-family laws have been passed, and the Soros-funded Open Democracy organization has openly sneered at the idea of the family home as a safe haven.  

“The point now is that we see the need to raise our voice and warn the world that behind the lockdowns a grim agenda is lurking and that agenda clearly includes the abolition of the family,” the authors write.  

“This is one more reason why the peoples of the Earth should rise against the arbitrary constrictions imposed to their freedom of movement and association.”


  coronavirus, coronavirus restrictions, coronavirus vaccine, dr. carlos a. casanova, dr. thomas zabiega, forced vaccination, lockdown, mandatory vaccination

News

Amy Coney Barrett updates Senate questionnaire to include two talks to pro-life groups

Some media outlets quickly speculated about the possible ramifications ahead of the confirmation hearings for the U.S. Supreme Court nominee.
Sat Oct 10, 2020 - 5:24 pm EST
Featured Image
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett Flickr
Martin Bürger Martin Bürger Follow Martin
By Martin Bürger

WASHINGTOND.C.October 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett supplemented her Senate questionnaire to include two talks she gave to pro-life groups at the University of Notre Dame, a Catholic institution, and some media outlets immediately speculated about potential fallout during the confirmation hearings beginning Monday.  

According to CNN, “Barrett’s initial failure to disclose the two events also raises questions about whether the questionnaire is complete or whether there will be any consequences from the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees her confirmation hearing.” 

Past chairmen of the powerful committee have halted the nomination process after judicial nominees omitted information in their Senate paperwork,” the article continued, “but under committee Chairman Lindsey Graham that scenario is unlikely.” 

In a letter dated October 9, Barrett wrote to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Lindsey Graham and ranking member Dianne Feinstein. “Since submitting my response on September 29, 2020 to the Committee’s Questionnaire regarding my nomination, I have been made aware of some items that you may have already seen.” 

Although it is not clear their disclosure is formally responsive to the Questionnaire, I enclose supplemental responses (with attachments) to the Committee’s Questionnaire out of an abundance of caution,” she added. 

CNN had first reported about the two pro-life events. 

In April 2013, Barrett gave a small hourlong seminar ‘for students on changes to law and life for women after Roe v. Wade’ entitled ‘Being a Woman After Roe.’” 

Roe v. Wade is the 1973 Supreme Court ruling essentially legalizing abortion across the country under the guise of a woman’s right to privacy. 

According to a copy of the Facebook event advertising the seminar, spots were limited to 15 students,” CNN continued. “A student publication promoted the event as an informal seminar, small group setting in which students can learn more from faculty members who oppose abortion. ‘The Right to Life Seminar Series was begun as an opportunity for students and professors to discuss a variety of issues related to human life and dignity,’ an advertisement for the event reads.” 

The conservative judge also did not disclose that in November 2013 she spoke to Jus Vitae, the law school's Right to Life club, on ‘The Supreme Court's Abortion Jurisprudence,’” CNN wrote. “The law school advertised the lecture as focusing on Roe v. Wade and the cases that followed it, including cases that were being litigated on the lower courts at that time.” 

The lecture Barrett did disclose was entitled ‘Roe at 40: The Supreme Court, Abortion, and the Culture War that Followed,’ taking place in January 2013 and open to the university community.” 

A YouTube video of the lecture had already been deleted in 2014, before Barrett was even considered for a position on a court. 

Last week, various media outlets had begun circulating a two-page newspaper ad from Indiana’s South Bend Tribune, taken out 14 years ago by St. Joseph County Right to Life (now Right to Life Michiana). 

The left-hand page is a list of names of people who signed onto the statement, “We, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and support the right to life from fertilization to natural death.” Among the signatories was Barrett, at the time a law professor at the University of Notre Dame. 

The right-hand page features copy declaring, “It’s time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade and restore laws that protect the lives of unborn children.” 

Barrett has never made a secret of her pro-life views. She was a member of Notre Dame’s Faculty for Life group, signed a 2015 letter expressing “solidarity with our sisters in the developing world against what Pope Francis has described as ‘forms of ideological colonization which are out to destroy the family,’” and is reported to have signed another letter published by Becket Law criticizing the Obama administration’s contraception mandate. 

She has also written multiple articles critical of the stare decisis doctrine, which grants weight to past rulings’ status as precedent, regardless of whether they were rightly decided. This could come in play during a Supreme Court case on abortion. 

New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, meanwhiledefended Barrett as a woman of faith. Referring to the 2017 hearings for her confirmation as a federal appeals judge, Dolan said, “There were some nasty comments: ‘We hear you take your faith seriously. We hear you really believe.’” 

When you look at some of that grilling in the past, it was like they were testing her on her faith,” Dolan said. “Well, that’s just out of bounds, folks.” 

Barrett, whose hearings will begin at 9 a.m. Eastern time on Monday, emphasized in her letter on Friday that “(c)onsistent with the practice of prior nominees, I will continue to supplement the information provided to the Committee as appropriate.” 

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

  abortion, amy coney barrett, catholic, cnn, confirmation hearings, dianne feinstein, lindsey graham, notre dame faculty for life, pope francis, pro-life events, roe v wade, senate judiciary committee, timothy dolan, u.s. supreme court, university of notre dame

News

Senate Judiciary chair refuses COVID test, says Barrett hearings will be run in ‘medically compliant way’

Sen. Lindsey Graham will lead the confirmation hearings that start Monday for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.
Sat Oct 10, 2020 - 4:49 pm EST
Featured Image
Sen. Lindsey Graham
Martin Bürger Martin Bürger Follow Martin
By Martin Bürger

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Mere days before the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett are set to begin, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, refused to take a coronavirus test. Graham argued that he was going to run “the hearing in a medically compliant way, but I’m not going to live my life differently than you who have to live yours.”

Before a debate yesterday, Graham’s opponent for a Senate seat, Jaime Harrison, asked him to take a COVID-19 test in order for the debate to go forward. Since he refused, both candidates were being questioned for 30 minutes each.

Graham asked the viewers during his section of the debate, “How many of you are going to go to work tomorrow? How many of you are going to be around people tomorrow? If you’re a waitress and you go to the restaurant to earn your living, are you going to require of your employer that everybody be tested that comes into the restaurant? Are you going to require that all your co-workers be tested, whether they need to or not?”

“You can’t make that requirement,” the senator explained. “If you did, it would break our economy. So we’re going to run the hearing in a medically compliant way, but I’m not going to live my life differently than you who have to live yours.”

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Graham is responsible for conducting the confirmation hearings starting Monday.

President Donald Trump had nominated Judge Barrett, a Catholic mother of seven, to the Supreme Court two weeks ago. According to standard procedure, the Senate Judiciary Committee can ask the nominee any questions during the hearings, before the full Senate can vote to confirm.

Several positive coronavirus tests among senators and members of the administration in recent weeks have led Democrats to ask for delaying the hearings in an attempt to block replacing the late pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with the pro-life Barrett.

Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah announced last Friday that he started experiencing “symptoms consisted with longtime allergies” on Thursday morning. “Out of an abundance of caution, I sought medical advice and was tested for COVID-19. Unlike the test I took just a few days ago while visiting the White House, yesterday’s test came back positive.”

Lee said he was quarantining “for the next 10 days” until October 12.

In his brief statement, he made sure to emphasize that he had spoken with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Graham “and assured them I will be back to work in time to join my Judiciary Committee colleagues in advancing the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett in the Committee and then to the full Senate.”

Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina said just a few hours after Lee that he tested positive for COVID-19, as well. Like Lee, Tillis is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He also will be “self-isolating at home for 10 days,” but he didn’t comment on any implications his diagnosis might have on confirming Barrett as a Supreme Court justice.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Judiciary ranking member Dianne Feinstein released a statement after the two members of the committee were diagnosed with COVID-19.

“It is premature for Chairman Graham to commit to a hearing schedule when we do not know the full extent of potential exposure stemming from the president’s infection and before the White House puts in place a contact tracing plan to prevent further spread of the disease,” they wrote. “The unfortunate news about the infection of our colleague Senator Mike Lee makes even more clear that health and safety must guide the schedule for all Senate activities, including hearings.”

The statement was released after both President Donald Trump and Lee tested positive, but before Tillis had his test results.

“In addition,” the Democrats’ statement continued, “there is bipartisan agreement that a virtual confirmation hearing for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench is not an acceptable substitute. All circuit court nominees have appeared in person during the pandemic, and there is far more at stake for the American people with this Supreme Court nomination, including the Affordable Care Act being struck down and more than 7 million COVID survivors being denied health coverage.”

The first of four scheduled days of hearings will begin at 9 a.m. ET on Monday.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

  amy coney barrett, chuck schumer, covid-19, dianne feinstein, donald trump, jaime, jaime harrison, lindsey graham, mike lee, mitch mcconnell, ruth bader ginsburg, senate judiciary committee, south carolina, u.s. supreme court

News

Biden: ‘You’ll know my opinion on court packing when the election is over’

'It is becoming more clear every single day that the reason Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will not answer the simple question on court packing is because the answer is "yes."'
Sat Oct 10, 2020 - 2:06 pm EST
Featured Image
Alex Wong / Getty Images
Mary Werbaneth
By

PHOENIX, Arizona, October 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews– “You’ll know my opinion on court packing when the election is over,” former vice president Joe Biden said Thursday, only adding to speculation that he indeed would do that if elected president. 

He said: 

 You’ll know my opinion on court packing when the election is over. Now look, I know...it’s a great question, we all, and I don’t blame you for asking. But you know the moment I answer that question, the headline in every one of your papers will be about that. 

 The term court packing” traces back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration. The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 attempted to add more justices to the Supreme Court to get New Deal legislation put into place after the Court originally rejected it(It was the Judiciary Act of 1869 that established the composition the Supreme Court as one chief justice and eight associate justices.) 

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

“It is becoming more clear every single day that the reason Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will not answer the simple question on court packing is because the answer is ‘yes,’” commented Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List. “It is the latest example of Joe Biden being completely beholden to the most extreme elements of the Democratic Party, the same radical activists he caved to when he endorsed taxpayer-funded abortion. It is time for Joe Biden to show transparency and admit he’s once again caved to the leftist pro-abortion extremists and will pack the Court if elected.” 


  2020 election, abortion, court packing, joe biden, kamala harris, supreme court

News

Canadian provincial cabinet member ousted for pro-life Facebook post

‘I wonder how many Black ladies go through abortion and at what stage of the gestation? Are they not lives too?’
Sat Oct 10, 2020 - 10:43 am EST
Featured Image
MLA Patterk Netser Nunavut Arctic College / YouTube
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

CORAL HARBOUR, Nunavut, October 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The premier of the Canadian province of Nunavut stripped a cabinet member of his portfolios this week for making a comment on Facebook that referenced Black Lives Matter and opposed abortion.  

In his post, Patterk Netser had stated: “All lives matter.”  

“Just thinking out loud,” he wrote. “I wonder how many Black ladies go through abortion and at what stage of the gestation? Are they not lives too?” 

Now, Netser, a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) for Aivilik, is no longer the minister responsible for Arctic College and the Nunavut Housing Corporation, CBC reported. 

Nunavut Premier Joe Savikataaq announced his decision in a statement Thursday, saying he had been made aware of the MLA’s “unacceptable social media post.”  

“There can be no tolerance for disrespectful, hurtful remarks or actions, and we must uphold our government’s principles and values,” he said.  

Savikataaq gave Netser the option to resign or lose his portfolios, a spokesperson from the premier’s office told CBC.  

However, Netser was clear in interviews with local media as well as the CBC that he does not regret his post and that he has a Charter right to express his views.  

A Christian, Netser was also adamant that he did not intend to target any group, but was expressing deeply held convictions on the sanctity of human life.  

Netser clarified his post in a statement to Nunatsiaq News.  

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

“As a member of a group of people who survived attempted genocide, my comments were an attempt to highlight the extent to which systemic racism exists by highlighting the plight of the black unborn baby who statistically has been targeted in the womb,” he wrote.  

“As someone who is pro-life, I felt I needed to highlight this specific issue that is dear to my heart and asked questions why these lives are less valued than other unborn babies,” Netser continued. 

“My comments were not aimed at any movement for equality nor targeting black women who I believe are also victims of a system that devalues them, even in the womb.”   

Netser believes the premier overreacted, he told Nunavut News

“It’s been on my mind for many, many months now. I just thought, well, since everybody’s talking about Black Lives Matter, then everybody’s life matters. I just put it out there. Don’t these little lives matter too?” he said.  

“I’m a father of six, grandfather of 19 grandchildren and now I have two great-grandchildren and I have often thought if they had been aborted I would not know their unique personalities,” Netser added.  

“It was a post on little babies that get aborted. Do not their lives matter too? I was not picking on any special interest groups or anything.”  

The CBC quoted Stephanie Bernard, president of the Nunavut’s Black History Society and Black Lives Matter Committee, stating that her reaction to the post was “extreme horror.” Her group lauded the premier’s action in a statement.  

Sileema Angoyuak, president of Qulliit Nunavut Status of Women Council, was also “enraged” by Netser’s Facebook post.  

But Netser reiterated to Canada’s state broadcaster that he had a right to express his beliefs. “It’s unfortunate. People get offended, people lash out at me because I have this point of view.... People are so insecure these days, you have to have duct tape over your mouth,” he said.  

Although the premier can remove portfolios, only MLAs have the power to eject a colleague from the cabinet, Nunatsiaq News pointed out.  

Savikataaq intends to bring up the matter at the MLA caucus on October 21 “for consideration around appropriate next steps as a consensus government,” the premier said.  

“I’ll make my case before the house and let them decide my fate. There’s always two sides to every story,” Netser told Nunatsiaq News.  

Whatever the decision, he won’t sacrifice his morals, he said.  

“I’m willing to take the judgement on what they give me, but I stand by my convictions and I refuse to compromise my values.” 

Campaign Life Coalition, Canada’s largest pro-life, pro-family political lobbying group, tweeted its support for Netser and urged pro-life Canadians to support him.    

The MLA “should be praised for defending the sanctity of human life. It’s appalling that the premier is punishing him for defending the human rights of innocent, black children, whose lives are being snuffed out by abortion,” Jack Fonseca, Campaign Life director of political operations, told LifeSiteNews.  

“It appears Premier Savikataaq has never heard of free speech before, and doesn’t realize that elected officials are not exempt from this constitutional right,” he said.  

“All pro-lifers should stand behind this pro-life Nunavut MLA and contact the premier to demand that he immediately restore Netser’s cabinet roles and apologize for this discrimination against his moral and religious beliefs on the matter of abortion,” added Fonseca.  

“We cannot allow the left to continue cancelling pro-life political voices. This mob madness and cancel culture must stop.”  

To respectfully express your views, contact:  

Premier Joe Savikataaq  
P.O. Box 2410  
Iqaluit, NU  
X0A 0H0  
Phone: 867-975-5050   
Email: [email protected]  

To express your support, contact: 

MLA Patterk Netser

Constituency Office:
General Delivery  
Coral Harbour, NU  
X0C 0C0  
Phone: (867) 925-9890  
Email: [email protected]  

Legislative Office:   
Phone: (867) 975-5070  
Email: [email protected] 


  abortion, black lives matter, joe savikataaq, nunavut, patterk netser

Blogs

Ver el video: Kamala Harris, amante de la ciencia, afirma absurdamente que el feto es el “propio cuerpo” de la mujer embarazada

Durante su debate con el vice-presidente Mike Pence, Harris promocionó su creencia en la ciencia antes de defender al aborto como un "derecho de la mujer a tomar una decisión sobre su propio cuerpo."
Sat Oct 10, 2020 - 3:49 pm EST
Featured Image
Jonathon Van Maren Jonathon Van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon Van Maren

Read this article in English here.

10 de octubre de 2020 (LifeSiteNews) - Kamala Harris quiere que sepa que ella y Joe Biden están muy, muy interesados ​​en la ciencia. Durante el debate vice-presidencial de anoche, lo convirtió en un elemento central de la plataforma Harris-Biden: “Joe cree en la ciencia. Te diré algo, Susan, serví, cuando llegué por primera vez al Senado, en el comité responsable del medio ambiente. ¿Sabía que esta administración eliminó la palabra "ciencia" del sitio web? ¿Y luego quitó las palabras "cambio climático" del sitio web? Hemos visto un patrón en esta administración que es que no creen en la ciencia."

¿Lo captó? Joe Biden y Kamala Harris creen en la ciencia. Donald Trump y Mike Pence no. De hecho, quienquiera que dirija el perfil de Twitter de Joe Biden está tuiteando constantemente sobre creer en la ciencia y por qué la ciencia es importante. El punto que Biden y Harris están tratando de probar, por supuesto, es que Trump y Pence son tan increíblemente estúpidos y estancados en la Edad Media que ni siquiera creen en el mecanismo básico que los humanos usan para comprender la realidad. Eso, nos dicen, es increíblemente alarmante.

Pero el apoyo de Harris a la ciencia se desvaneció repentinamente cuando llegó el momento de abordar el tema del aborto. En la discusión sobre Amy Coney Barrett y la Corte Suprema, Harris señaló que tanto ella como Joe Biden están firmemente dedicados a la promoción del feticidio: “Siempre lucharé por el derecho de la mujer a tomar una decisión sobre su propio cuerpo. Debería ser su decisión, no la de Donald Trump o Mike Pence."

Cabe señalar aquí que durante el procedimiento de aborto, no es el cuerpo de la mujer que se está abortando. El aborto es un procedimiento que se dirige por completo a un cuerpo diferente, el cuerpo del niño antes de nacer dentro del útero de su madre. Hablando científicamente, Harris sostiene que debería ser un derecho poner fin a la vida de un ser humano vivo, único y completo. Esto tampoco es un tema de debate, al menos no entre científicos. Como Steve Jacobs señaló recientemente en Quillette, el 96% de los 5.577 biólogos encuestados "afirmaron la opinión de que la vida humana comienza en la fertilización."

No es controvertido decir que la vida comienza con la fertilización. Nuevamente, científicamente hablando, por supuesto. Es posible que Harris no sea consciente de este hecho (y considerando lo entusiasmados que están ella y Biden por la ciencia, alguien debería informarla), pero tiene implicaciones reales para su cosmovisión. Después de todo, si la ciencia nos dice cuándo comienza la vida y apoya un procedimiento que envenenaría químicamente, desmembraría físicamente o decapitaría brutalmente a esos seres humanos vulnerables (y con el dinero de los contribuyentes), seguramente esto es algo que debería discutirse. Si creemos en la ciencia, por supuesto. Lo que ella nos ha asegurado que lo hace.

La semana pasada, Kamala Harris ofreció sus condolencias a Chrissy Teigen y John Legend por la pérdida de su hijo a las 20 semanas, y señaló que ella y su esposo estaban "profundamente arrepentidos por su pérdida." Esto es completamente apropiado: después de todo, acababan de perder trágicamente a su hijo. Pero luego, en un debate en el que afirmó su fe en la ciencia, de repente adoptó un lenguaje eufemístico y no científico que va directamente en contra de su muy reciente reconocimiento de la humanidad de los niños en el útero. ¿Qué pasó con seguir los hechos?

Porque aquí están: los científicos están de acuerdo en cuándo comienza la vida humana. Ahora tenemos la capacidad sin precedentes de mirar dentro del útero. Podemos ver al ser humano crecer allí. Podemos realizar cirugías en niños en el útero. Podemos verlos chuparse el pulgar, responder al sonido y al tacto, e incluso agitar los brazos y las piernas. Y cuando ocurre un aborto, ese niño debe ser destruido físicamente antes de que pueda ser succionado o sacado del útero. Ésos son los hechos.

El hecho de que Joe Biden y Kamala Harris se nieguen a reconocerlos será mortal para millones de niños no nacidos.

El nuevo podcast de Jonathon, The Van Maren Show, está dedicado a contar las historias del movimiento pro-vida y pro-familia. En su último episodio, entrevista a Marjorie Dannenfelser de Susan B. Anthony List, quien le dice a Van Maren que esta elección es crucial para el movimiento pro-vida. Dannenfelser advierte a los oyentes que si los demócratas ganan, tendrá un impacto generacional, ya que la izquierda luchará para eliminar los principios fundamentales de la fundación de nuestra nación.

Puedes suscribirte aquí y escuchar el episodio a continuación:
 

 

Read this article in English here. 


  2020 election, abortion, español, jonathon van maren, kamala harris