All articles from October 13, 2020


News

Opinion

Blogs

Episodes

Video

  • Nothing is published in Video on October 13, 2020.

The Pulse

  • Nothing is published in The Pulse on October 13, 2020.

News

Barrett laments ‘cruel’ attacks that ‘are not only hurtful to me, but are hurtful to my children’

A far-left activist had suggested Barrett was a 'white colonist' for adopting black children.
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 8:43 pm EST
Featured Image
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) questions Judge Amy Coney Barrett during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing on October 13, 2020 C-SPAN / YouTube
Martin Bürger Martin Bürger Follow Martin
By Martin Bürger

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett defended herself from attacks she was using her two adopted children from Haiti as “props.” In the final hour of today’s confirmation hearings, Barrett said that “accusations like that are cruel.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) asked her about the accusations leveled most prominently by “some butthead professor at Boston University,” who said that “because you and your husband have two children of color, that you’re a white colonist. The implication is that you’re a racist and then you use your two children as props.”

“It was the risk of people saying things like that, which would be so hurtful to my family, that when I told Senator Graham this morning that my husband and I had to really weigh the costs of this,” said Barrett. “It was saying deeply offensive and hurtful things, things that are not only hurtful to me, but are hurtful to my children, who are my children, who we love, and who we brought home and made part of our family.”

“And accusations like that are cruel,” Barrett concluded.

“Yeah, they are,” Kennedy agreed. “How low can you go?”

The senator said he “didn’t want to ask that question when your kids were here. I’m sorry I have to go through that.”

While Barrett’s children were present at the beginning of the hearings, they left as the day progressed. Her husband Jesse was sitting right behind her throughout the almost 12 hours of hearings today.

— 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

Ibram X. Kendi, the director and founder of Boston University’s “Center for Antiracist Research,” had tweeted on September 26, the day Barrett was officially nominated by President Donald Trump, “Some White colonizers ‘adopted’ Black children. They ‘civilized’ these ‘savage’ children in the ‘superior’ ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity.”

“And whether this is Barrett or not is not the point. It is a belief too many White people have: if they have or adopt a child of color, then they can’t be racist,” Kendi added.


  adoption, amy coney barrett, confirmation hearings, ibram x. kendi, john kennedy, supreme court

News

Abby Johnson describes abortion’s brutality in letter to Senate supporting Amy Coney Barrett

'We want Justice Barrett simply because our country deserves better than abortion.'
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 8:18 pm EST
Featured Image
Abby Johnson. Focus on the Family / YouTube
Mary Werbaneth
By

ROUND ROCK, Texas, October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The founder of an organization dedicated to getting abortion facility staffers out of the business has publicly advocated for Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

“On behalf of the more than 550 abortion clinic workers we have helped quit the abortion industry,” Abby Johnson wrote in a letter to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, “we urge you to support the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court.” Johnson is the founder and chief executive officer of And Then There Were None, “a registered nonprofit organization that exists to help abortion clinic workers leave the abortion industry,” according the group’s website. She spent many years working for Planned Parenthood, the United States’ largest abortion chain, and resigned in 2009 after using an ultrasound machine to assist at the abortion of 13-week-old baby.

Like many Democratic senators, Johnson links Barrett’s nomination to the national controversy surrounding abortion and Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that imposed legal abortion on all 50 states. “We want Justice Barrett,” Johnson concludes, “simply because our country deserves better than abortion.

The letter talks about not only the brutal deaths that babies suffer in abortion, but also “the complete and utter disregard for women — they are solely a means of increasing revenue.” Additionally, “more than 2,300 abortions are done per day in the United States and ... an average abortion is around $500.” According to Planned Parenthood’s 2018–2019 annual report, total net assets came to almost $2 billion, while taxpayer funding equaled $616.8 million.

Johnson’s personal experiences within the abortion industry were brought to light in last year’s film Unplanned, which was based on her book by the same name.

— 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

The letter goes on to say that because of Johnson’s organization, 22 abortion facilities in 42 states and the District of Columbia have closed. Also mentioned is the Supreme Court case Whole Women’s Health vs. Hellerstedt, in which “the Court ruled in favor of allowing the shoddy practices of abortion clinics to continue unchecked.” The letter ends with a plea to senators to consider the facts when appointing Supreme Court justices:

Abortion clinics won’t just suddenly close with the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. We just know the truth about abortion and believe that our senators ought to know too. We do not want Justice Barrett because she will end abortion. We want Justice Barrett simply because our country deserves better than abortion.


  abby johnson, abortion, amy coney barrett, and then there were none, supreme court

News

Kamala Harris goes on long-winded rant about abortion at Barrett hearing

'Your record clearly shows you hold a different view [than Judge Ginsburg],' Harris told Judge Barrett Tuesday.
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 7:47 pm EST
Featured Image
Stephen Kokx Stephen Kokx Follow Stephen
By Stephen Kokx

October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — At Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday evening, pro-abortion Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris gave a nearly 10-minute long monologue on how the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a champion of “women’s reproductive healthcare” and how Barrett would be an opponent of “choice.” 

Harris, who was recently named the “most liberal Senator” in the entire U.S. Senate by GovTrack.us, also submitted to the congressional record three documents opposing Barrett’s nomination. Two were from the NAACP and one was from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the notorious abortion giant that has given Harris large amounts of campaign donations ever since she served as Attorney General of California.

During her allotted time, Harris lamented the fact that “[Justice] Ginsburg’s seat” was being filled by a president who has said his judicial nominees would overturn Roe v. Wade. Appearing annoyed by the possibility that a leader of “women's’ equality” would be replaced by someone who opposes abortion, Harris pointed out that Barrett had previously expressed disagreement with Roe. Harris suggested it was already a foregone conclusion on how Barrett would rule on future cases.

“Your record clearly shows you hold a different view [than Justice Ginsburg],” Harris said. “I would suggest we not pretend that we don’t know how this nominee views a women’s right to choose and make her own healthcare decisions.”

Unlike her Democratic colleagues who earlier in the day had extensive back-and-forth discussions with Barrett on Roe, Harris barely engaged her during her platitude-heavy remarks. Harris spent the first 20 minutes of her time repeating campaign themes and echoing claims marshaled by other Senate Democrats about how sick Americans may very well die if Barrett is confirmed.

Many conservatives expected Harris to take a more combative stance with Barrett, especially given her high-profile status as Joe Biden’s running mate, but that was largely not the case Tuesday night. Harris participated in the hearing virtually, and yesterday experienced technical difficulties during her opening statement.


  2020 election, amy coney barrett, kamala harris, supreme court confirmation hearing

News

Catholic bishop rebukes Biden for supporting ‘the ultimate child abuse’

'Will you tell God you supported the ultimate child abuse because of the American Constitution?'
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 7:22 pm EST
Featured Image
Bp. Richard Stika of Knoxville, Tenn. Knoxville News Sentinel / YouTube
Victoria Gisondi
By

October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Bishop Richard Stika of the Diocese of Knoxville, Tennessee is the latest of numerous Catholic clergymen to publicly take issue with Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden’s stated position on abortion. Joining Fr. James Altman, Cardinal Raymond Burke, Fr. Stephen Imbarrato, and others, Stika raked Biden for “support[ing] the ultimate child abuse.”

On Sunday, Stika tweeted:

A question for Mr. Biden. At your judgement before God, how will you explain changing your position about abortion ... Will you tell God you supported the ultimate child abuse because of the American Constitution? I wonder what God must have asked many leaders throughout the centuries? Government over human rights and the taking of innocent lives. Many Catholics will need to answer this the first of many questions about the poor, the starving etc.

Stika’s reference to weighing the emergency of abortion against the question of aiding the poor and hungry is a doubling down on the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ insistence on the pre-eminence of ending abortion first.

Another lesser known Catholic priest, Fr. Ed Meeks, former Episcopalian and Anglican and pastor of Christ the King Church in Towson, Maryland, has been exhorting his parish. In a Sunday homily, Meeks stated:

It’s not always easy to sift through the myriad of topics at play in presidential politics, so it becomes crucial, then, that we properly prioritize those issues because some are clearly more important than others. We can respectfully disagree … around issues like the economy, taxation, immigration, national defense ... and so on, but don’t get sidetracked by the spurious seamless garment theory espoused by many in the Church that asserts that issues like immigration and the environment are of equal weight with abortion. … There is a set of issues upon which Catholics must not disagree. Pope Benedict XVI specified ... in Sacramentum Caritatis non-negotiable values. … [T]he sanctity of life from conception to natural death, the sanctity of marriage and preservation of religious liberty[.] ... [These are] moral principles where the Church draws a clear line in the sand[.] … We must, as faithful Catholics, conscientiously vote in such a way that best upholds and protects these non-negotiable values.


  2020 election, abortion, joe biden, richard stika

News

Democrat senators attempt to bait Amy Coney Barrett on IVF

Barrett repeatedly corrected Sen. Leahy and said she would not 'express my personal view before the committee, because my personal views don’t have anything to do with the way I would decide cases and I don’t want anyone to be unclear about that.'
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 7:22 pm EST
Featured Image
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) Patrick Semansky-Pool/Getty Images
Michael Haynes
By

WASHINGTON D.C., October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett, has come under further attack for her pro-life positions, this time on the issue of ivitro fertilization, or IVF 

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) attempted to draw Barrett on the issue of IVF, by referencing a pro-life ad she signed in 2006That letter was presented to Barrett as she left church and affirmed the “right to life from conception to natural death.”  

However, Leahy continued by recounting that on the back of the signature sheet was an ad, sponsored by the St. Joseph County Right to Life, stating that IVF was tantamount to manslaughter. 

Leahy linked Barrett to the views of the ad and challenged her: “Do you agree that IVF is tantamount to manslaughter?” 

Barrett was quick to correct the senator, by pointing out that the letter affirming the right to life “was consistent with the views of my church. It took no position on IVF.” 

Not content with this, Leahy questioned further, asking if Barrett agreed with the ad that IVF equated to manslaughter.  

Once again Barrett corrected Leahy by observing“I don’t even think that the IVF view that you’re expressing was on that page.” 

As with previous questions regarding Roe. v. Wade and abortion, Barrett would not allow herself to be drawn into stipulating her view: “for the reasons I have already stated, I cannot take policy decisions or express my personal view before the committee, because my personal views don’t have anything to do with the way I would decide cases and I don’t want anyone to be unclear about that.” 

Later on in the proceedings, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D–CT) also attacked Barrett on the subject of the letter she signed and IVF. Blumenthal asked Barrett to express an opinion on recent statement by the St. Joseph County Right to Life which called for the criminalization of “discarding of frozen embryos or selective reduction through the IVF process.” 

Barrett pointed out that as she was not a member of the organization, she was not responsible for their views. However, she also observed that “it is not up to me to be in the business of expressing views...now I'm a judge so I cannot publicly express views.” 

The grilling continued, with Blumenthal demanding “a clear answer” from Barrett. She replied that nominees for the Supreme Court “can’t answer questions in the abstract...an off the cuff reaction from that would circumvent the judicial process.” 

IVF is the artificial process whereby eggs are fertilized by sperm outside of the womb and the thence created embryos are afterwards transferred to the womb. A great number of those smallest of humans die in the process, and many are deliberately killed if they are deemed unwanted or to be predisposed to a disability. 

Antonia Tully, of the U.K.-based Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), mentioned the staggering number of deaths involved in the IVF process: “Normally in every IVF cycle, tiny human embryos are discarded, with about one in 25 embryos created through IVF surviving to birth.” 

SPUC also presented the statistics regarding IVF in Britain, during the year 2017: “In 2017 alone, 174,622 embryos were discarded in the course of treatment, or after they had been taken out of storage.” 

Over 1 million embryonic humans are frozen in the United States. 


  abortion, amy coney barrett, catholic, in vitro fertilization, ivf, patrick leahy, richard blumenthal

News

Barrett defends pro-life ad she signed in 2006: ‘An affirmation of life’

‘I think that statement is an affirmation of life. It points out that we express our love and support for the mothers who bear them.’
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 6:19 pm EST
Featured Image
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) questions Judge Amy Coney Barrett during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing on October 13, 2020 C-SPAN / YouTube
Martin Bürger Martin Bürger Follow Martin
By Martin Bürger

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett during today’s confirmation hearings defended signing a pro-life statement published in a local newspaper 14 years ago. “It’s really no more than the expression of a pro-life view,” she said.

The ad had stated, “We faculty and staff at the University of Notre Dame reaffirm our full support for our University’s commitment to the right to life, we renew our call for the unborn to be protected in law and welcomed in life, and we voice our love and support for the mothers who bear them.”

Asked by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) about what it means for the unborn to be protected by law, Barrett explained, “I think that statement is an affirmation of life. It points out that we express our love and support for the mothers who bear them. Again, it was a statement validating the position of the Catholic university at which I worked, in support for life, and to support women in crisis pregnancies, to support babies.”

Blumenthal had led up to his question by trying to elicit emotion and telling the story of a woman who was raped. “Samantha went out with a few friends and coworkers,” the senator said. “She woke up the next morning and a coworker’s home, confused, scared, covered in blood. She’d been raped. After she was raped, Samantha was, in her words, a zombie. She couldn’t change clothes, couldn’t shower, she couldn’t drink or think. She wanted this event to be erased from her memory.”

“Samantha’s attacker,” he continued, “also began stalking her, and she was struggling with depression and PTSD. In March [2017], Samantha took a pregnancy test, and then another, and another. It kept coming back with the same result: pregnant. After the horrible violence she faced, she simply couldn’t process that she was now pregnant. When Samantha shared her story with me, she said, ‘I knew if I couldn’t end this pregnancy, it would end me.’ So she decided to get an abortion.”

“Now, as you know, Judge, the landmark Roe v. Wade decision gave her that option. It gave women the right to decide for themselves whether and when to have a child. Roe didn’t compel Samantha to get an abortion, he didn’t tell her what she had to do. But it gave her that choice.”

Instead of giving her opinion on the issue, Barrett responded by summarizing the two main abortion cases that have come before the Supreme Court.

Roe v. Wade clearly held that the Constitution protected a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy,” she said. “Casey upheld that central holding and spelled out in greater detail the tests that the court uses to consider the legality of abortion regulations.”

The newspaper ad, she continued, “didn’t say anything about rape or incest or any of those things. It simply validated the teaching of my Church on the sacredness of life from conception to natural death.”

Rebecca Kiessling, whose mother was raped and subsequently placed her for adoption, told LifeSiteNews, “I’m curious as to whether Sen. Blumenthal would support a law which would authorized rape victims to pay someone to kill their rapist? Or just her innocent child? I did not deserve the death penalty for the crime of my biological father. He should focus on punishing rapists not babies.”

— 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 child who was conceived from rape and abandoned at birth I am thankful that back in 1972 the law protected my birth mom from making one of the biggest mistakes of her life,” said Monica Kelsey, who was also conceived in rape. “Today, I am the founder and CEO of Safe Haven Baby Boxes, a nonprofit that fights for babies who are at risk of abandonment and I help give their mothers hope.”

“This is something I would recommend for Senator Blumenthal, give women hope in their moment of crisis, not additional pain! Genesis 50:20 says it best: ‘You intended to harm me but God intended it for good, to accomplish what is now being done the saving of many lives!’”

Jennifer Christie was raped herself, and decided to keep her child. “Where is the empowerment in telling a woman she can’t?” Christie commented. “She can’t love her child from assault. She can’t move forward without abortion. Where is the outrage that the strength of survivors is so radically underestimated? Rape is evil. A child is not.”

“Senator Blumenthal purports abortion is necessary after rape,” she explained. “I have a joyful 6-year-old who fills my home with laughter and my heart with joy. He would disagree.”

“We are strong enough to not return violence for violence,” Christie is convinced. “We are strong enough to unearth love from the debris of hate. Life is not ‘a’ choice. It is the only choice.”

Several times today, Barrett explained that she was not going to comment on specifics of hypothetical cases that might come before the Supreme Court. Early on, she referred to pro-abortion Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said “with her characteristic pithiness” that a Supreme Court nominee during confirmation hearings should give “no hints, no previews, no forecasts” regarding potential future rulings.


  abortion, amy coney barrett, jennifer christie, monica kelsey, rape, rebecca kiessling, richard blumenthal, supreme court

News

Mazie Hirono loses it over Amy Coney Barrett’s use of the ‘offensive’ term ‘sexual preference’

‘I certainly didn’t mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBT community,’ Barrett clarified.
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 5:39 pm EST
Featured Image
Patrick Semansky - Pool/Getty Images
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Hawaii’s Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono raised eyebrows during Tuesday’s confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, with a particular line of attack focusing on Barrett’s earlier use of the term “sexual preference” to reference homosexuality.

“Even though you did not give a direct answer” on the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling (which made same-sex “marriage” the law of the land), Hirono said, “I think your response did speak volumes.”

“Not once but twice you used the term ‘sexual preference’ to describe those in the LGBTQ community,” she went on. “And let me make clear: ‘sexual preference’ is an offensive and outdated term. It is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not. Sexual orientation is a key part of a person’s identity. That sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable was a key part of the majority’s opinion in Obergefell, which, by the way, Scalia did not agree with.”

“So if it is your view that sexual orientation is merely a preference, as you noted, then the LGBTQ community should be rightly concerned whether you would uphold their constitutional right to marry.”

Hirono’s time expired before Barrett could respond, but the next questioner, Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, gave her a chance to do so. "I certainly didn’t mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBT community,” Barrett said.

The senator also asked Barrett whether, as an adult, she has made any unwanted requests “for sexual favors, or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?” She then asked, “Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?”

To both questions, the Supreme Court nominee responded, “No.”

— 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

One of the Senate’s most radical Democrats, Hirono has made a name for herself during judicial confirmation hearings. In 2019 she declared that the Catholic Knights of Columbus held an “alt-right” position on abortion and LGBT issues. The year before, she claimed that then-judicial nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s denial of sexual assault claims (for which no evidence was ever produced) lacked “credibility” on the basis of his assumed position “against women’s reproductive choice,” i.e., abortion.


  amy coney barrett, homosexuality, judicial nominees, lgbt, mazie hirono, sexual preference

News

Dems buzz about Biden possibly considering pro-abortion Andrew Cuomo for US Attorney General

The possibility is rumored to be strong enough that the National Governors Association is currently looking into contingency plans to replace Cuomo as chairman.
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 5:24 pm EST
Featured Image
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo Diana Robinson / Flickr
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – If former Vice President Joe Biden defeats President Donald Trump in next month’s presidential election, rumors abound that he will select New York’s Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo to head his Justice Department.

Axios reports that Democrats are pushing Cuomo for the position and Biden is open to the idea, according to Democrat donors. The possibility is rumored to be strong enough that the National Governors Association is currently looking into contingency plans to replace Cuomo as chairman.

"100% [Cuomo has] made zero outreach, has had zero conversations about this and has made his desire to stay in New York clear as day and be governor as long as people want him," Cuomo senior adviser Richard Azzopardi responded to the news. Cuomo himself added that he will help Biden “any way I can,” but has “no interest in going to Washington.”

Even so, the possibility of Cuomo being the man to enforce Biden’s vow to direct the Justice Department to “do everything in its power” to block state pro-life laws is noteworthy in light of Cuomo’s pro-abortion record, which includes legalizing effectively-unlimited abortion, and his willingness to lay the blame for COVID-19 deaths at the feet of religious New Yorkers.

“I have to say to the Orthodox community tomorrow, ‘If you’re not willing to live with these rules, then I’m going to close the synagogues,’” he threatened last week.

— 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

Cuomo would also be a controversial choice in light of his overall handling of COVID-19. For months New York was the hardest hit out of any state, due in large part to the virus spreading within the state’s nursing homes. Cuomo ordered that nursing homes cannot turn away patients diagnosed with COVID-19, despite the fact the virus is most dangerous to the elderly.


  2020 presidential election, abortion, andrew cuomo, coronavirus, covid-19, joe biden, justice department

News

Twitter censors Trump tweet about COVID-19 diagnosis, immunity

The White House physician confirmed the President was no longer infectious to others, but that didn't stop the tech company from slapping a disclaimer on the post.
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 4:36 pm EST
Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Twitter has labeled yet another tweet by President Donald Trump as “misleading and potentially harmful,” this time flagging a statement about Trump’s own health.

On Saturday, Trump tweeted that he has “total and complete sign off from White House Doctors yesterday” after his bout with COVID-19. “That means I can’t get it (immune), and can’t give it.” 

The next day, White House physician and U.S. Navy Commander Dr. Sean Conley confirmed in writing that the president “has tested NEGATIVE, on consecutive days, using the Abbott BinaxNOW antigen card.” This along with “additional clinical and laboratory data … in concert with the CDC’s guidelines for removal of transmission-based precautions, have informed our medical team’s assessment that the President is not infectious to others.”

However, Twitter has placed over the president’s tweet a disclaimer that it “violated the Twitter Rules about spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19.” It can still be viewed by clicking through the disclaimer, but it cannot be liked or replied to, and it can only be shared if accompanied by additional commentary.

Twitter, which has no inside information on what the president’s doctors told him, appears to be basing its decision on a handful of cases of individuals contracting COVID-19 after previously recovering from the virus. Such cases remain extremely rare, however, at five worldwide out of 38 million known infections.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, an ophthalmologist, assailed Twitter as “science illiterates” for the action, noting that even Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government infectious disease adviser who has been embraced as a COVID-19 authority by the mainstream media, has said reinfection is unlikely.

This is not the first time Twitter has flagged one of Trump’s COVID tweets for alleged misinformation. Last week, it censored the president for comparing the coronavirus with the flu, and has similarly restricted his tweets on other subjects.

The trend reinforces conservative distrust of Twitter, Facebook, and Google’s self-declared mission to police discussion of the coronavirus on their platforms. Critics allege that, between the tech giants’ history of left-wing bias and decision to hold up the embattled World Health Organization as an authority on the virus despite its pro-China bias, the mission is a pretext to stifle legitimate debate on the crisis and the government’s response.

In July, 72 percent of respondents told Pew Research that social media companies have “too much power and influence” over politics.


  big tech, censorship, coronavirus, covid-19, covid-19 immunity, donald trump, free speech, rand paul, sean conley, social media bias, twitter

News

Barrett: Roe not ‘super precedent,’ not entitled to automatically be upheld

The Supreme Court nominee told Sen. Amy Klobuchar that the abortion decision is 'not a case that everyone has accepted.'
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 4:09 pm EST
Featured Image
Amy Coney Barrett
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Judge Amy Coney Barrett rebuked the notion that Roe v. Wade was a “super precedent” entitled to stand without review Tuesday during cross-examination from Minnesota Democrat Sen. Amy Klobuchar over Barrett’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Klobuchar was grilling Barrett on her past writings on the subject of “super precedents.” For clarification, Barrett asked what definition of the term the senator was using, to which Klobuchar quipped, “ I might have thought someday I'd be sitting in that chair. I'm not. I'm up here, so I'm asking you.”

“Well, people use super-precedent differently,” Barrett explained. “The way it’s used in the scholarship and the way that I was using it in the article that you’re reading from was to define cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. 

“And I‘m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category,” she noted. “And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean Roe should be overruled, but descriptively it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted.”

“Is United States v. Virginia Military, is that super-precedent?” Klobuchar followed up.

“Senator Klobuchar, if you continue to ask questions about super-precedents that aren’t on the list of the super-precedents that I discussed in the article that are well acknowledged in the constitutional law literature, every time you ask the question I will have to say that I can’t grade it,” Barrett replied.

A former Notre Dame law professor and clerk for the late conservative stalwart Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett is widely regarded as a pro-life originalist. She was a member of Notre Dame’s Faculty for Life group; signed a number of pro-life letters and public statements in the past; and has taken the conservative and/or originalist stance in written positions on hot-button issues such as due process for sexual assault claims on college campuses, the right to bear arms, and immigration. Perhaps most encouragingly, Barrett has also written articles critical of the stare decisis doctrine, which grants weight to past rulings’ status as precedent, regardless of whether they were rightly decided.

— 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, amy klobuchar, judicial nominees, precedent, roe v wade, stare decisis, super precedent, supreme court

News

Hawley, Barrett dismantle religious tests for office at Supreme Court hearing

‘There are no religious tests for office,’ Hawley said, ‘and the attempt to smuggle them in … must be resisted on the basis of the Constitution itself.’
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 3:58 pm EST
Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri used his questioning of Judge Amy Coney Barrett as an opportunity to highlight the attacks levied by Senate Democrat against the Supreme Court nominee’s Catholic faith, and to remind the body what the Constitution says on the matter.

“Yesterday we were assured that you would not be attacked on the basis of your faith; I notice that that didn’t last 24 hours,” Hawley lamented. “But I’m not surprised because for three and a half years we have heard consistent attacks from the Democrat side on nominees on the basis of their faith.”

After a brief exchange about Barrett delivering speeches to Alliance Defending Freedom’s Blackstone program (which Democrats attacked over ADF’s Christian conservative values), Hawley asked Barrett to elaborate on a statement she signed in 2006 “oppos[ing] abortion on demand” and supporting the “right to life from fertilization to natural death.” 

“That was almost fifteen years ago, at the back of church there was a table set up for people on their way out of mass to sign a statement validating their commitment to the position of the Catholic Church on life issues,” Barrett explained, adding that she signed it “in my personal capacity as a private citizen. Now I am a public official, and so while I was free to express my private views at that time, I don’t feel like it is appropriate for me anymore because of the canons of conduct to express an affirmative view at this point in time.”

Responding to a question about religious tests for public office, Barrett explained that the Constitution “prohibits this body, prohibits the government generally, from disqualifying people from office because of their religious beliefs,” and noted that America’s Founders viewed free religious exercise as “central” to a free society.

“There are no religious tests for office,” Hawley agreed, “and the attempt to smuggle them in, even in the midst of this committee’s hearings today, must be resisted on the basis of the Constitution itself.”

— 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, josh hawley, judicial nominees, religious liberty, religious tests, supreme court

News

Wikipedia bans editor badges showing support for traditional marriage

Traditional marriage stickers deemed ‘inflammatory’ by Wikipedia
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 3:34 pm EST
Featured Image
Michael Haynes
By

October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Wikipedia has forbidden the use of “userboxes” denoting support of traditional marriage and opposition to homosexual “marriage” on editor profiles.

Userboxes are small badges that can be placed underneath an editor’s profile to give certain information about him, as well as his positions on various topics. Recently, Adam Cuerden, one of many editors on the online encyclopedia, proposed that a userbox stating “this user believes marriage is between one and one woman” should be deleted. 

“Most userboxes pre-dated a U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage and were used by hundreds of editors. This included one expressing a personal view favoring traditional marriage, but advocating for states to decide,” Breitbart explained in a lengthy article that described increased censorship at Wikipedia.

He added that “I honestly can’t see how this could possibly be anything but inflammatory, [sic] divisive political/religious advocacy, and is pretty explicitly homophobic.” 

Cuerden swiftly continued by providing a list of other userboxes to be deleted, all of which expressed their opposition to same-sex “marriage” or support for traditional marriage. 

The claim was made that pro-traditional marriage userboxes violated the code of conduct regarding userboxes, which states that “Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.”
One of the many users agreeing with Cuerden responded, “Wikipedia is no place for advocacy toward bigotry.” 

Another editor declared that pro-traditional marriage userboxes were excluding LGBT individuals from the site. “It’s clear they exist as reactionary impulse against LGBTQ rights and the existence of those userboxes would likely make LGBTQ editors feel unwelcome or substandard if encountered on other user’s pages.”

The discussion continued along similar lines in defense of removing the traditional marriage userboxes, with many voicing opinions such as “All these divisive userboxes advocating against other’s human rights and inclusive marriage need to be deleted.”

Opponents of the move to delete the userboxes pointed out that freedom of speech must be maintained. One contributor noted that the phrase “this user believes marriage is between one and and one woman” was not homophobic and merely a declaration of a personal belief. He mentioned that it “reflects nothing more than a personal belief and/or position towards family values and the institution of marriage, and it would be a stretch to say everyone who has that belief advocates for discrimination against same-sex couples.”

The user, termed as “Dps04,” further observed that the phrase “’This user opposes the legalization of gay marriage’ is a position that people in a free society should be able to take, and the sentence on its own, again, by no means incite hatred against people who hold the opposing view.”

Another critic of the change declared that “If an editor is in compliance with our core policies and guidelines when editing articles and discussions, why shouldn’t they be able to have a userbox displaying their personal political/religious beliefs, if it doesn't negatively affect their editing and discussions.”

Responding to these critics of the proposed userbox deletion, one editor under the username “Guy” described defendants of traditional marriage as “bigots,” and argued that as such they should not be welcome on the website. “As it turns out, some people are concerned that Wikipedia offer a welcoming and inclusive environment. But not to bigots.” 

Questioned as to whether he meant to drive away supporters of traditional marriage, “Guy” responded, “If they define themselves by bigotry, sufficiently strongly to add a userbox, then absolutely. They go to Conservapedia.”

The editor went further by relating the issue to the Black Lives Matter movement and claiming that a stance in defense of traditional marriage was equivalent to promoting racial inequality. 

Going under the name of “GorillaWarfare,” another editor stated that Wikipedia has already picked a side in the debate on same-sex “marriage.” She declared, “We have picked a side, which is that LGBTQ Wikipedians are welcome here.”


  homosexual 'marriage', homosexuality, lgbtq, traditional marriage, userbox, wikipedia

News

‘Life is in fact valuable’: Mike Lee defends the unborn at Barrett confirmation

Roe v. Wade placed abortion ‘beyond the realm of political debate within the federal judiciary, such that elected lawmakers were no longer in a position to be the primary drivers of policy.’
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 3:33 pm EST
Featured Image
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) at the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett on October 13, 2020 C-SPAN / YouTube
Emily Mangiaracina Emily Mangiaracina Follow
By

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 13, 2020 — During today’s confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barret, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) passionately defended legal protections for the unborn. He also argued that lawmakers, not unelected judges, should make decisions about abortion. 

“Life is in fact valuable. It’s not a religious statement to make that observation. In fact, it’s the foundation of basically all of our laws,” Lee said, “not just in this country, not just in in countries with Christian origins, but in basically every country that has ever existed anywhere in the world.” 

“The purpose of government is to protect life,” he added. “That’s what it’s about. 

Lee argued that decisions on abortion ideally should not be made by the Supreme Court, but by elected lawmakers, saying that “if we’re going to leave those things perpetually in the hands of the unelected, it might be really convenient for political fundraising within Congress. But it’s not good for the United States of America. It’s not good for a constitutionally limited government. It’s not good for our individual liberties.” 

“Disputes regarding abortion didn’t begin with Roe v. Wade,” the senator explained. “What did change with Roe v. Wade, however, was the federalization and the grasping of the issue and the taking it beyond the realm of political debate within the federal judiciary, such that elected lawmakers were no longer in a position to be the primary drivers of policy.” 

“As a result, over the last few decades, you’ve had all kinds of questions that have been put into uncertainty,” he continued. “You’ve got uncertainty by people at the state level who want to make their own decisions about certain things around abortion. They know they can’t prohibit it entirely. They know that there’s this undue burden standard that has to be addressed.” 

Lee mentioned that while “nobody’s completely sure in advance what that means,” many states “work around it” on issues like “health and safety qualifications for abortion clinics, how close an abortion clinic needs to be to an accredited hospital, how it needs to be staffed, and what the sanitation protocols are.” 

The senator also said that some states have passed laws in light of “abundant medical science showing that an unborn human can feel and respond to pain” as early as “10 or 12 gestational weeks.” 

“If we can’t agree on the fact that it’s reasonable that people ought to be able to have some say, at least at some limit, at least at some point beyond the moment when an unborn human can feel and respond to pain, then something’s wrong with us,” said Lee. 

“The legitimacy of those laws are [sic] thrown into the federal courts yet again — all because those were made federal issues,” Lee concluded. 

— 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

He also appeared to address concerns voiced by some Democratic senators that the confirmation of Barrett will lead to tightened abortion restrictions across the country. 

“You’d have the impression from Washington debates, and in protests outside the Supreme Court of the United States — you’d have the impression that if Roe v. Wade didn’t exist, that all of a sudden abortion would immediately become illegal in every state in America. That assumes a lot of facts not in evidence. In fact, that assumes a lot of things contrary to evidence,” Lee said. 

Lee pointed out that “the availability of an abortion or lack thereof” is not contingent “upon anyone’s confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States.” 

He pointed out that “the fate of health care in America” doesn’t turn “on whether or not someone is confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Nor is it a fact to suggest that the availability of an abortion or lack thereof” depends upon a Supreme Court nomination. 

According to Lee, the ongoing “personal” and “ugly” discussion about abortion proves that “we’ve tried to take a debatable matter beyond debate, and we’ve tried to take it outside the political branches of government, where people can elect their individual representatives, and have laws respecting and reflecting the views of their respective communities.” 


  abortion, amy coney barrett, mike lee, supreme court

News

Ted Cruz at Barrett hearing warns Democrats want to ‘erase’ religious liberty

‘Joe Biden has already pledged that if he is elected he plans to initiate again the attack on the Little Sisters of the Poor.’
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 2:42 pm EST
Featured Image
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. Washington Post / YouTube
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas used his time during Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings to highlight the confirmation’s importance for religious liberty, and to shame Congressional Democrats for their efforts to “erase” it.

“Religious liberty cases over and over again have been decided 5-4,” Cruz noted, with disputes ranging from crosses and Ten Commandments on public property to the forced subsidizing of abortion-inducing drugs and other contraceptives.

Cruz invoked the Little Sisters of the Poor, the Catholic religious community which, in his words, “devote their lives to caring for the sick, caring for the needy, caring for the elderly.” The Obama administration infamously attempted to force the Little Sisters to fund contraception under Obamacare.

Cruz called it “truly a stunning situation when you have the federal government litigating against nuns.”

The Supreme Court struck a blow against the previous administration’s efforts with its 2014 Hobby Lobby decision, which Cruz said “reflected the traditions of our country that you can live according to your faith without the government trampling on it.”

“You know what this body did, I’m sorry to say?” he continued. “Senate Democrats introduced legislation to gut the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” supported by “every Senate Democrat” despite “overwhelming” bipartisan support for the Clinton-era law.

“Joe Biden has already pledged that if he is elected he plans to initiate again the attack on the Little Sisters of the Poor,” Cruz noted.

Shifting gears, Cruz noted that Pope Francis enjoys a measure of popularity among secular media for his public statements on issues such as immigration and the environment.

“The press is happy to amplify those views,” he noted, but “somehow missing from that amplification is that when the Pope came to the United States, in Washington he went and visited the Little Sisters of the Poor. He went to their home in DC and the Vatican explained that he did so because he wanted to highlight their cause: that the federal government shouldn’t be persecuting nuns.”

“That’s what’s at stake in these nominations,” Cruz declared. “That’s why their base is so angry at your nomination, Judge Barrett, because they don’t believe you are going to join the radical efforts to erase those fundamental rights from the Bill of Rights.”

— 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, hobby lobby, judicial nominees, little sisters of the poor, religious liberty, supreme court, ted cruz

News

Pope Francis meets Cardinal Pell, whisks hand away

The Australian cardinal met the Argentinian pontiff in the library of the Apostolic Palace yesterday morning; the first time the two have met in person since Pell was acquitted and released from prison. 
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 2:10 pm EST
Featured Image
EWTN video screen grab
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

VATICAN CITY, October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Pope Francis and Cardinal George Pell have met together in person for the first time since the latter was acquitted of a crime and released from prison. 

The Australian cardinal met the Argentinian pontiff in the library of the Apostolic Palace yesterday morning, following Francis’ meetings with an ambassador, an archbishop, and a bishop. 

“It is a pleasure to see you again,” Francis told Pell, 79 

Little is known about this meeting, save that afterwards Pell, the Prefect Emeritus for the Vatican’s Secretariat of the Economy, told reporters that it “went well.”  

According to Roman newspaper, Il Messaggero, it may be significant that the coveted last spot on the agenda was saved for the Cardinal. 

The scheduled face-to-face meeting was scheduled for the end of the morning, probably to have more time available if the meeting went on longer than expected,” it said.  

However, the meeting lasted the allotted 30 minutes, including the photo session. 

As Pope Francis welcomed Cardinal Pell to the Apostolic Palace, he was filmed pulling his hand away from the cardinal before Pell could kiss his ringFor centuries, it has been customary for Catholics to kiss the rings of the pope and bishops as a sign of respect for their office. However, Pope Francis has shown a reluctance in allowing visitors to kiss his ring; after one incident he expressed a concern for the spread of germs.  

But despite the awkwardness of that particular moment, the return of Cardinal Pell to Rome is yet another sign of his vindication. In April, the Australian High Court unanimously acquitted Pell of convictions for historic child sex abuse and ordered his release from prison. The cardinal, who had always maintained his innocence and voluntarily went to Australia to clear his name, had been in prison for 14 months. 

In December 2018, a jury found Pell guilty of two counts of sexual assault against a child after decades of anti-Pell sentiment in the Australian press and an investigation dubbed “Operation Get Pell” by critics of police in the Australian state of Victoria. Pell’s lawyers alleged that police set up their inquiry into the cardinal at least a year before they received any complaints about him. The trial, and Pell’s imprisonment, hinged on the uncorroborated testimony of one man. Later, the Victorian Court of Appeal, despite the objections of one of its three justices, upheld the guilty verdict. 

— 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

Before his arrest, Cardinal Pell was the Holy See’s Prefect for the Secretariat of the Economy, tasked by Pope Francis for reforming the Vatican’s finances. Last week Italy’s Corriere della Sera newspaper alleged that Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciù, then the Vatican’s high-ranking Substitute for General may have had a hand in removing Pell from his post: for some unknown reason, Becciù had deposited €700,000 ($821,453 US) into an Australian account. 

Becciù, known to have opposed Cardinal Pell’s attempts at reforming the Vatican’s finances, resigned from his post as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints and from his prerogatives as a cardinal, at the end of September. He revealed at a press conference that Pope Francis had accused him of embezzlementBecciù has denied the allegation and also that he had had any hand in Cardinal Pell’s arrest.


  cardinal pell, catholic, giovanni angelo becciu, pope francis, vatican finances

News

OREO partners with LGBT org to release limited-edition rainbow cookies

The rainbow OREO cookies are not available in stores and can only be obtained by sharing a photo on Twitter or Instagram demonstrating 'allyship' to the homosexual movement.
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 1:57 pm EST
Featured Image
OREO / Instagram screenshot
Victoria Gisondi
By

October 13, 20202 (LifeSiteNews– OREO has partnered with an LGBT organization to release a limited edition of its signature black and white cookies in rainbow colors. 

The rainbow OREO cookies are not available in stores and can only be obtained by sharing a photo on Twitter or Instagram demonstrating “allyship” to the homosexual movement using the #proudparent and #giveaway hashtags. 

The organization with which OREO is partnering is PFLAG.  

PFLAG came into existence in the early 1970s when a mother marched with her son in what some regard as the first homosexual “pride” parade, New York's Christopher Street Liberation Day March parade. The idea for more parents to come together in support of their actively homosexual children was born, and groups were started around the nationPFLAG originally stood for “parent flag” but evolved into an acronym for “Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. Now it's just simply known as PFLAG. 

OREO and PFLAG delivered an afeaturing a young and nervous lesbian couple traveling in car. They pull up to a house where older parents awaitIntroductions are made but a wary father hangs back. Another young couple – a heterosexual couple with a child – enters and both are warmly embraced by the fatherOne lesbian looks wistfully at her partner. In a later scene, the lesbians are cuddling on the couch and feeding each other OREOS when the father walks by. He has flashbacks of his daughter eating OREOS as a little girl. The next morning, the father surprises his daughter and her lesbian partner by painting his white picket fence in rainbow colors. His daughter is visibly moved and he embraces his daughter’s lesbian partner.  

The website promoting the rainbow OREO cookies says that “for over 100 years, OREO has been bringing families together.” 

“That's why we launched a partnership with PFLAG, the country's oldest LGBTQ+ ally organization, to create #ProudParent, a year-long initiative designed to shine a spotlight on the powerful impact love & acceptance can have on LGBTQ+ youth,” it continues. “Together we're committed to empowering and inspiring parents, families, and allies to come out in loud, public support.” 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

We’re PROUD to announce the first-ever Rainbow OREO Cookies made in honor of our partnership with @PFLAG. Help us create a more loving world by joining our #ProudParent campaign and you could snag a pack of Rainbow OREO Cookies!⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ��️‍����️‍�� ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Here’s how:⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 1️⃣ Join OUR #ProudParent campaign and share a photo of what allyship means to you. This can be you and your friends at last year’s Pride parade, your chosen family or how you show allyship for others! Whatever it is, we want to see it! ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 2️⃣ Post your photo on Instagram or Twitter using #ProudParent + #Giveaway and tag @OREO. Don’t forget to follow @OREO too. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ��️‍����️‍��⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 50 US, DC & PR, 13 years old +. Ends 10/31/20 or when all 10,000 Rewards are claimed, whichever occurs first. Terms & Conditions: www.OREOProudParent.com.

A post shared by OREO (@oreo) on

 


  homosexuality, oreo, pflag

News

UK Catholic priest uses heretical ‘creed’ at livestreamed ‘LGBT Mass’

Video footage of the Mass on September 20, shows the priest leading the congregation in a heretical 'statement of faith' in place of the canonically approved creeds.
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 1:27 pm EST
Featured Image
Fr. Richard McKay Robert von Hawrylak / Vimeo
Michael Haynes
By

BRISTOL, U.K, October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A recent Mass offered for an LGBT group in the U.K., has used a heretical profession of faith in place of the Creed. 

The Catholic Church of St. Nicholas of Tolentino in the Clifton diocese is one of many churches in the U.K. where “LGBT Masses” are taking place and has held a“LGBT+ Mass every third Sunday since March 2019. In the wake of COVID-19 restrictions the parish has been live-streaming the events. 

The parish website states that the Masses occur on the express wish of Bishop Declan Lang, and that their purpose is “not to isolate, but rather to ensure a warm welcome and to integrate this community into Church.” 

Video footage of the Mass on September 20, shows the priest leading the congregation in a heretical “statement of faith” in place of the canonically approved creeds. Fr. Richard McKay used a formula which seems to have been specifically made for the LGBT Masses. The “statement of faith” makes reference to “the rich diversity of all creation and the diverse identities of all human persons.”  

It mentions that Christ “listens to the cries of every human heart for acceptance and love” yet does not refer to the perennial teaching of the Church regarding persons with same-sex attractions. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “Homosexual persons are called to chastity”, and that whilst persons with such an attraction are to be properly cared for in the Church, “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and that “[u]nder no circumstances can they be approved.” 

Fr. McKay’s novel creed continues by referring to the “different paths to holiness and love, that the Holy Spirit calls each of us to walk.”  

Later in their profession the group “committed” themselves to building the Church into being One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. However, the Church teaches that She possesses these four marks, not by the actions of Her members building Her up, but through Christ. 

Further references are made regarding acceptance of LGBT ideology in the Church which they describe as a universal community of welcome for all people of every kind of diversity…a truly universal community where all humanity know they can flourish in their uniqueness and diversity.” 

The creed also implies that same-sex attraction, alluded to as “diverse identities of all human persons, has its origins in God. The text reads: “We believe that God has created each one of us without exception, in the Divine Image and likeness. Therefore we commit ourselves to recognizing that we all share our deepest identity as children of God. We rejoice with gratitude in the rich diversity of all creation and the diverse identities of all human persons.” 

The complete rejection of those creeds approved for Mass in favour of a self-made formula, is in direct opposition to the rubrics governing the celebration of Mass. In the 2004 document issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, Redemptionis Sacramentumparagraph §69 reads: “no Creed or Profession of Faith is to be introduced which is not found in the duly approved liturgical books.”  

This is a teaching also present in the Canon Law of the Church. Canon 846 §1 reads: “In celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully; accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one’s own authority.” 

— 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

Earlier in the Mass, Fr. McKay had also given a homily in which he made several comments which appeared to contradict the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. At one point Fr. McKay stated that “there is no one of us who Jesus and the Father do not find acceptable,” but failed to clarify the comment by explaining either the sinful nature of homosexual acts or the means given to fallen-man by the Church in order to become acceptable to God. 

Fr. McKay also spoke on the “non-acceptance of our LGBT community” which he called “even more scandalous when it comes from the Church.” 

He additionally implied that God and the Church had a duty to accept LGBT proponents, without condemning the sin of homosexuality: “You are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased, my favour rests on you…God says those words to you…And if the Church doesn’t do it, then the Church is sinful.” 

Details of the Parish Office and the Diocesan Office are found below, to respectfully make concerns known to Fr. McKay and Bishop Lang. The full text of the “statement of faith” is also found below. 

Parish Office 

Assisi Centre 

Lawford’s Gate , Bristol, BS5 0RE 

Tel: 0117 909 0419 

Email: [email protected] 

Diocesan Press Officer 

Tel: 0117 9733072 

Email: [email protected] 

***

The full text of the statement of faith from the LGBT Mass  

We believe in God, who is Love, creating all things in an explosion of love and affirming that everyone, everything and everyone created is very good. We believe that God has created each one of us without exception, in the Divine Image and likeness. Therefore we commit ourselves to recognizing that we all share our deepest identity as children of God. We rejoice with gratitude in the rich diversity of all creation and the diverse identities of all human persons.  

We believe in Jesus Christ, the Emmanuel, who reveals the God who walks lovingly with us in our human condition and in all the struggles we encounter in life’s pilgrimage. He listens to the cries of every human heart for acceptance and love.  

Therefore, we commit ourselves to making real His love for every human person of whatever identity; to walk alongside each other with compassion and care, protecting each other from all harm and discrimination.  

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the life giver, the love-maker, the source of all unity and community. We believe that we are each a dwelling place of this Holy Spirit of God’s loving, and that there is no genuine love that is not divine and holy. 

Therefore we commit ourselves to respect and to understand the different paths to holiness and love, that the Holy Spirit calls each of us to walk, and we will support each other as we journey together as a gifted people of mission. 

We believe that the Church is the body of Christ, a pilgrim people, the sacrament of Christ’s loving presence in the world; a universal community of welcome for all people of every kind of diversity. Therefore we commit ourselves to building the Church as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, one family where we all belong equally; a holy people where all help each other grow in holiness of loving; a truly universal community where all humanity know they can flourish in their uniqueness and diversity; a community of apostles and prophets, where each has the right and responsibility to speak their voice, to proclaim the Gospel, to serve the kingdom, and to protect the human dignity of every person in every place. 

As we believe, so may we live. Amen. 


  catholic, catholic church, church crisis, homosexuality, united kingdon

News

Medical freedom rally warns about vaccines derived from aborted baby cells, totalitarian COVID lockdowns

Governor Gretchen Whitmer has 'overstepped her ability to rule the people,' Maija Hahn said. 'She's taken our freedom. She's taken our liberties.'
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 1:00 pm EST
Featured Image
Maija Hahn, the Westside Regional Director for Michigan for Vaccine Choice Stephen Kokx
Stephen Kokx Stephen Kokx Follow Stephen
By Stephen Kokx

GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan, October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Families from across Michigan gathered at Millennium Park in Grand Rapids this past Saturday to raise awareness about persons injured by vaccines and to spread truth about the coronavirus. 

The joyful occasion, dubbed by organizers as the first annual “Into the Light: Vaccine Injury Awareness Walk,” was held under a sunny sky and warm temperatures. 

Maija Hahn, the Westside Regional Director for Michigan for Vaccine Choice, told LifeSiteNews the rally was important because the mainstream medical community regularly attacks their message.

“We have an epidemic of vaccine injury in this country, but this is a group of people that are censored. They’re marginalized. They're demonized. They can't even share their stories of their children that have died or have been permanently injured by a vaccine,” she said.

“We aren't anti-vax. We’re not pro-vaccine,” she later clarified. “We just believe in freedom, that we have a right to our own bodies to choose what goes into those bodies…we believe in informed consent.”

Image

Although the day's activities were scheduled from 11:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m., the enthusiastic, often-times high-energy health professionals and medical freedom activists who spoke at it caused it to go longer than planned. 

“This is such an important gathering,” one pro-Trump attendee told LifeSite. “The coronavirus has made vaccinations and all the issues surrounding them — what ingredients they contain, whether they’ll be mandatory or not, etc. — to be front and center. We need to make our voices heard.”

Some of the event’s speakers shared personal stories about their own family’s experiences with vaccines. Others addressed topics related to COVID-19 and bodily health more generally.

Image
Dr. Marissa Brand

“In 1979, the first vaccine was made that used aborted fetal cells,” Marissa Brand, a doctor of natural medicine, said during her remarks to the approximately 250 people who came. “There are 24 vaccines worldwide that use aborted fetal cells. In the U.S., we use 10 of them.”

Brand, who blogs at Dr. Scalar.com and who lives in West Michigan with her husband Colin and their son, also explained that aborted baby DNA that’s used in vaccines has been linked to multiple health issues, including autoimmune disorders, genomic instability, autism, and even cancer.

Brand was just one of the many, mostly female voices to address the rally, which was live-streamed by volunteers working on behalf of We Are Vaxxed, a non-profit group that produced the popular Vaxxed and Vaxxed II: The People’s Truth documentaries. The films feature testimony from persons who claim there’s a link between a number of vaccines and autism. Dr. William Thompson, a whistleblower who worked at the Centers for Disease Control, is also interviewed in the movies. 

Image
Angelic Johnson and her husband with a photo of their grandson.

Others who addressed the gathering included Michigan attorney Katherine Henry and Dr. Christina Parks, a molecular and cellular biologist who graduated from the University of Michigan in 1999.

Henry’s passionate speech highlighted the efforts she’s been making to curtail the emergency powers of Michigan's Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Whitmer has been widely criticized for what many conservatives have called “authoritarian” measures taken during the coronavirus outbreak. Henry is the founder of the Restore Freedom Initiative and has previously argued in front of the Michigan Supreme Court.

Dr. Parks is seen as one of the most brilliant medical minds involved in the fight for vaccine choice, although she now dedicates most of her time to being a full-time mom for her disabled daughter. She told LifeSiteNews that she believes the coronavirus came from China and that it’s a form of “biological warfare.”

“The mainstream media is controlled by Big Pharma…even Fox News…everything is now propaganda instead of truth.” There’s no need for mandatory vaccines and mask-wearing, she said. “Hydroxychloroquine has some of the strongest science I have ever seen…the severity of coronavirus is also very highly correlated with deficiencies in vitamin D...but the media doesn’t talk about this.”

Watch the full remarks of the speakers below: 

Despite the serious nature of the rally, the family-friendly atmosphere it provided allowed attendees to have a variety of opportunities to enjoy themselves and get to know other like-minded people. James Williams, an autistic man in his 30s who travels the country spreading awareness about his life story, talked with passerbys and sold music CDs and a book he wrote. Local chiropractors and natural health doctors had booths of their own. A nearby pavilion featured photographs of infants who were injured and in some cases even killed by vaccines. Several rally goers wore hats that said “Make Vaccine Companies Liable Again.”

Sadly, the upbeat nature of the walk was marred by vandals who later in the day defaced several of the signs displayed at the event.

Image

Hahn concluded the rally by urging attendees to make their voice heard this election season and beyond.

“I ask you to not go silent into this night. And I ask you to fight for our children and the future of our country. Do not stay silent anymore. The time has come to end the madness, to end the slaughtering. Acknowledge the vaccine injured! Rise up. Make the change that we need. God Bless you.”


  aborted fetal cell lines, aborted fetal tissue, coronavirus, coronavirus vaccine, covid-19, medical freedom, vaccines

News

World Health Org. flip-flops again, calls lockdowns a ‘ghastly global catastrophe’

In an interview hosted by the British magazine The Spectator, special envoy of the WHO Dr. David Nabarro, said lockdowns 'just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.' 
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 11:59 am EST
Featured Image
Dr. David Nabarro Matthew Lloyd / Stringer / Getty Images Europe
Patrick Delaney Patrick Delaney Follow
By

October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The World Health Organization (WHO)whose credibility has been considered by many the ultimate authority justifying severe coronavirus mitigation policies—and even zealous high-tech censorship—has reversed another position, this time on lockdowns. 

In an interview hosted by the British magazine The Spectator, special envoy of the WHO Dr. David Nabarro, laments the “terrible ghastly global catastrophe” of lockdowns and discourages world leaders from using them since they “just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer. 

As early as April, despite the grave economic results of such policies, WHO officials supported lockdowns and warned against lifting them too early, while in July, these same officials alerted that “total lockdown” may have to be resumed, or newly imposed in some regions, due to an increase in the detection of positive COVID-19 infections. 

But Nabarro’s statement indicates an effective reversal of such an approach on the part of this agency of the United Nations. 

“We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Nabarro stated. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it. 

“Just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry, for example in the Caribbean, or in the Pacific, because people aren’t taking their holidays … Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition because children are not getting meals at school and their parents, in poor families, are not able to afford it.  This is a terrible ghastly global catastrophe, actually. 

Nabarro concluded these comments appealing to world leaders to “stop using lockdown as your primary control method. 

President Donald Trump celebrated this recognition by the WHO tweeting that they “just admitted that I was right. Lockdowns are killing countries all over the world. The cure cannot be worse than the problem itself. Open up your states, Democrat governors. Open up New York. A long battle, but they finally did the right thing!”

It’s not the first time that the WHO has reversed their position on significant coronavirus policies.  In late March they strongly recommended against the general public wearing face coverings. 

"There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit,” said Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies program. “In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly.” 

Yet in early June, this position was updated in support of wearing masks for a host of non-scientific reasons, even while maintaining in the fine print that the widespread use of masks by healthy people … is not … supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence." 

According to reporting by the BBCthis change in their recommendation, favoring the wearing of masks, was not the result of scientific evidence, but “political lobbying.” 

Also, though the WHO’s “initial assumption” was that asymptomatic individuals were as contagious as those with symptoms, they later admitted that asymptomatic transfer of the coronavirus is “very rare.”    

— 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

This revelation alone called into question the necessity of devastating lockdown measures across the globe which were implemented largely to prevent asymptomatic individuals from unknowingly spreading the virus. 

Despite such significant inconsistencies, big tech giants have been using the WHO as their standard for censoring the voices of scientific experts, and others, who challenge the latter’s recommendations.  YouTube CEO Susan Woicicki affirmed“Anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy, and so (to) remove (content) is another very important part of our policy.”   

Facebook’s head of global policy management, Monika Bickert, confirmed the same for the social networking giant: “We decided we would remove content that directly contradicted [the WHO] and could contribute to risk of imminent physical harm. 

In May, President Donald Trump responded to this new intensification of censorship by these companies regretting that “The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google,” and affirming that, his administration “is working to remedy this illegal situation.”  

Related 


  coronavirus restrictions, coronavius, david nabarro, donald trump, lockdowns, masks, world health organization

News

Supreme Court refuses to consider letting states cut Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid

There is no indication of where individual justices fell on the question.
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 11:52 am EST
Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The United States Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from South Carolina to reinstate its ability to exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funds, the court’s second abortion-related action since the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In 2018, South Carolina Republican Gov. Henry McMaster issued an executive order disqualifying abortion facilities as Medicaid providers in the state. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued to block the order and received a preliminary injunction. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction, leading the state to appeal the case to the nation’s highest court.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court denied the state’s appeal in an order list that gave no indication of where individual justices fell on the question. Four justices are sufficient to grant a writ of certiorari, however, indicating that while Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito likely agreed to hear the case, only one of the other “conservative” justices – John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh – did the same.

Abortion advocates insist that tax dollars to abortion-involved facilities for other purposes don’t support abortions, but pro-lifers warn that such subsidies ultimately enable abortion groups to commit more abortions by freeing up money from their other revenue services. Duke University healthcare analyst Chris Conover estimated in 2015 that taxpayers ultimately cover almost 25 percent of all abortion costs.

Additionally, legitimate providers of women’s health services dwarf abortion-involved facilities across the country. As of 2015, federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics outnumbered Planned Parenthood facilities 268 to two in South Carolina. Today, Planned Parenthood still has just two locations in the Palmetto state.

Senate confirmation hearings are currently underway for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s choice to replace Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. It is widely believed that Barrett would be another pro-life vote.

— 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, baker v. planned parenthood south atlantic, medicaid, south carolina, supreme court, taxpayer funding of abortion

News

Barrett on gay ‘marriage’: I would ‘not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference’

Barrett, who is Catholic, said that 'like racism, I think discrimination is abhorrent.' The Catholic Church teaches, however, that there is such as thing as 'just discrimination'
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 11:07 am EST
Featured Image
Supreme Court justice nominee Amy Coney Barrett testifies on the second day of her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in Hart Senate Office Building on October 13, 2020 in Washington, DC. Tom Williams-Pool/Getty Images
Martin Bürger Martin Bürger Follow Martin
By Martin Bürger

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — During today’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Judge Amy Coney Barrett refrained from expressing a position on whether she agrees or disagrees with her mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, on so-called homosexual “marriage.”

Asked by Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) if she agrees with Scalia that “the U.S. Constitution does not afford gay people the fundamental right to marry,” Barrett responded, “If I were confirmed, you would be getting Justice Barrett, not Justice Scalia.”

“So I don’t think that anybody should assume that just because Justice Scalia decided a decision a certain way, I would, too,” she added. “But I’m not going to express a view on whether I agree or disagree with Justice Scalia for the same reasons that I have been giving.”

Barrett referred to pro-abortion Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said “with her characteristic pithiness” that a Supreme Court nominee during confirmation hearings should give “no hints, no previews, no forecasts” regarding potential future rulings.

“I’m sorry to not be able to embrace or disavow Justice Scalia’s position, but I really can’t do that on any point of law,” Barrett added.

— 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

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the majority had argued that homosexual “marriage” was constitutional, based on the 14th amendment.

In his dissent, Scalia countered, “When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases.”

Barrett, who is Catholic, said during today’s confirmation hearing: “I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference, and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. Like racism, I think discrimination is abhorrent.”

The Catholic Church teaches that same-sex inclination is “objectively disordered” since male and female sexuality, including inclinations, are ordered toward marriage and procreation. Those with same-sex inclinations must be "accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” the Church teaches, and “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

The Church’s distinction between just and unjust discrimination is relevant here. A 1992 document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith provided examples where such discrimination is permissible. “There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment," the document stated.


  amy coney barrett, discrimination, gay 'marriage', homosexuality, obergefell, obergefell ruling, obergefell v. hodges

News

Senator who badgered Barrett about Catholicism in 2017 presses her on abortion at confirmation hearing

‘If I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say I love it or I hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case,’ Barrett said. 
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 10:16 am EST
Featured Image
YouTube / screenshot
Martin Bürger Martin Bürger Follow Martin
By Martin Bürger

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Abortion quickly came up on the second day of the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett. 

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, directly asked Barrett if the 1973 pro-abortion ruling Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. 

I think on that question, you know, I’m going to invoke Justice Kagan’s description, which I think is perfectly put,” Barrett began. “When she was in her confirmation hearings, she said that she was not going to grade precedent or give it a thumbs up or thumbs down.” 

“And I think in an area where precedent continues to be pressed and litigated, as is true of CaseyI would be particularly — it would actually be wrong, and a violation of the canons, for me to do that as a sitting judge.” 

Casey refers to another pro-abortion ruling, Planned Parenthood v. Caseydecided by the Supreme Court in 1992. 

If I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say I love it or I hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case,” she concluded. 

Feinstein pressed Barrett, repeating her question, but Barrett only explained she was not “going in with some agenda, because I’m not. I don’t have any agenda. I’ve no agenda to try to overrule Casey. I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.” 

Previously asked by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) whether she would listed to both sides in an abortion case, Barrett simply said, “Of course. I will do that in every case.” 

Graham also asked her if she could set aside her Catholic faith to rule according to the Constitution in any given case. “I can,” Barrett said. “I have done that in my time on the Seventh Circuit. If I stay on the Seventh Circuit, I will continue to do that. If I’m confirmed to the Supreme Court, I will do that still.” 

Judges can’t just wake up one day and say, I have an agenda,” Barrett explained. “I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion, and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world. You have to wait for cases and controversies — which is the language of the Constitution — to wind their way through the process.” 

When Barrett was being confirmed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Feinstein famously attacked her Catholic faith and told her, “the dogma lives loudly within you.” 

— 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, dianne feinstein, dogma, roe v. wade

News

Voice of the Family launches new, free, online Catholic catechism course

The easily accessible lessons of Our Lady of the Rosary Family Catechism are presented by Fr. Anthony Pillari with the view that all children and families commit the Baltimore Catechism to memory, as generations of Catholics used to do in order to really know and love our faith. 
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 9:04 am EST
Featured Image
Fr. Anthony Pillari
Voice of the Family
By

October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Voice of the Family is delighted to present Our Lady of the Rosary Family Catechism, an entire online video catechism course which provides children and their families, completely free of charge, with the unique opportunity to learn the timeless truths of the Catholic Faith according to the classic Baltimore Catechism.  

The easily accessible lessons of Our Lady of the Rosary Family Catechism are presented by Fr. Anthony Pillari JCLMCLSTB with the view that all children and families commit the Baltimore Catechism to memory, as generations of Catholics used to do in order to really know and love our faith. 

By taking up this delightful challenge, we are invited to join the mission given by Our Lady at Fatimato work for the salvation of souls by striving for holiness in our daily lives. You can sign up for the course today! 

Launching this Catechism programme, John Smeaton, the co-founder of Voice of the Family, said: 

The truths of Catholic teaching are simply presented by a priest whose words and delivery exude the love of God. Fr Pillari’s crystal clear teaching is reinforced with wonderfully well-chosen sacred images and music. Parents with children of all ages – from young children to mature adults who may be struggling to believe – will feel greatly empowered by this series of short videos which, with all the arts of the gifted film-maker, capture the viewers’ imagination, increase their knowledge, and deepen their faith in Catholic truth.” 

The deep crisis in the Church and in the world today can only be overcome by a renewed commitment to our Catholic Faith, in its full integrity. Knowing the catechism well will lead the faithful to truly live the Faith and rebuild our Christian society. We particularly hope that this programme will be a real asset to Catholic parents, called to be the primary educators of their children, especially in the most important area of education, namely, forming their children in the Faith. 

Fr Pillari explains: 

“I’m looking forward to guiding you through your study of the entire Baltimore Catechism. I would strongly urge you to join the Catechism Crusade and to log weekly there the progress of each of your children, as well as your own! From years of working with children, teenagers, and adults, I have found that it makes a great difference in one’s spiritual life or in one’s study of the faith, if one has weekly accountability. Without that, very few persevere in studying the faith well or in key aspects of their spiritual life. But with that accountability, and with the recognition and levels that are thereby attained at appropriate times, even those who are usually undisciplined can make great progress. Furthermore, by logging your progress weekly you will be encouraging other children and families throughout the world, because they will know that they are not alone in this effort.” 

The Programme 

The key teaching of the programme takes the form of 41 online videos; 3 introductory videos, 37 videos of lesson content and 1 closing video. The content for the 37 lessons follows the structure of the Baltimore Catechism, which has been covered in its entirety. The videos will be released on a weekly basis, starting from 20 October.  

Each video lesson begins with the prayer taught by Our Lady to the children of Fatima and a brief Bible story, normally taken from the Gospel. This is followed by presenting the questions and answers from Baltimore Catechism 1 and 2, drawing also on the teaching provided in Baltimore Catechism 4. Each lesson finishes by introducing the children to the life of a saint or another miracle from the history of the Catholic Church, such as a Eucharistic miracle. 

Drawing on the message of Our Blessed Mother and following the example of the three children at Fatima, Our Lady of the Rosary Family Catechism has been created for the whole family to deepen their knowledge of the Catholic Faith and encourage the daily living of the truths of our faith. 

All children, younger and older, are encouraged to participate in the course. Adults, who may wish to learn the basic teachings of the Catholic Faith, are also invited to follow the course.  

This course is truly a crusade of learning thoroughly the essentials of the Catholic Faith. 

Filled with beautiful sacred art and music, as well as the stories of countless miracles from the lives of the saints, we hope this online video course will enable your family to learn more fully, and to internalise, the truths of the Catholic Faith, and help you in living more deeply the unchanging truths that God has revealed. For “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” (Heb. 13:8) 

We are most grateful to H.E. Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who has graciously recommended the programme. 

John-Henry Westenco-founder and editor-in-chief of LifeSiteNews.com, has said: 

“I am so excited about the Catechism series with Fr. Pillari giving our children the treasure of the Baltimore Catechism in a format suited to busy parents and a method designed to ingrain the teachings of the Church in the minds and hearts of our little ones. What greater gift can there be in these days when the Faith is so little known and loved? May this offering of love, given freely and without cost, spark a renewal of the faith making soldiers for Christ in the years to come. This effort has been a work in honour of and in union with Our Lady of Fatima, and we pray that She may keep all these children and families brought to Her in Her Immaculate Heart.” 

And Virginia Coda Nunziante, President for the Italian March for Life, added:  

“In our society where children, in most cases, receive only disinformation, where their minds and hearts are easily corrupted by the internet and social media networks, Our Lady of the Rosary Family Catechism produced by Voice of the Family must be welcomed with great joy. Our Lord taught that children are the closest to the throne of God because of their innocence and simplicity. However, these gifts must be safeguarded; children must be protected from what could corrupt them and encouraged to grow in virtue by showing them the beauty of Truth and the strength of Good. This is what Fr Anthony Pillari does in this catechism course, making it a great gift for all souls but especially for children and their families.” 

Our Lady of the Rosary Family Catechism is offered completely free of charge to families and children all over the world. However, there are significant costs involved in the production of the course, including the creation of the videos and the ongoing maintenance of the programme. If you would like to make a gift to support this initiative, you can do so via this donate pageWe are deeply grateful for whatever you can give. May God reward your generosity! 

What greater gift there is than our Catholic faith? Sign up today!


  anthony pillari, athanasius schneider, catechism of the catholic church, john smeaton, john-henry westen, virginia coda nunziante, voice of the family

Opinion

Literally zero spectators at joint Biden-Harris campaign appearance in Arizona

Who are you going to believe — the polls or your lying eyes?
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 8:33 pm EST
Featured Image
Drew Angerer / Getty Images
Thomas Lifson
By Thomas

October 13, 2020 (American Thinker) — Who are you going to believe — the polls or your lying eyes? With apologies to Groucho Marx, we now have the answer to the question: "What if they held a Biden-Harris rally and nobody showed up?" The answer is a shocked TV street reporter:

Image

Twitter video screen grab.

With nobody visible on the street outside, the reporter said, "Pretty much all the people we saw who pulled into the parking lot about 45 minutes ago were with the Biden-Harris campaign or the pool reporters." And she noted that because both halves of the ticket were appearing, it was "technically, a big event."

Not big enough to draw a crowd.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.


  2020 election, american thinker, joe biden, kamala harris

Opinion

Where are the Catholics? Nowhere to be found on the ground near Barrett hearings

I didn't see a single visible Catholic – clergy or lay – all day long.
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 5:08 pm EST
Featured Image
People pray for Judge Amy Coney Barrett outside the U.S. Supreme Court Danielle Zuccaro / LifeSiteNews
Danielle Zuccaro Danielle Zuccaro Follow
By

Author’s note: The author has been made aware after publication that there were Catholics present in the crowd outside the Supreme Court during the ACB hearings (though the author did not see them). That being said, efforts on the part of the local Catholic Church as a whole were negligible, especially in comparison to the magnitude of organization exhibited by the Evangelical Christians in attendance.

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Song and prayer filled the air on the ground at the Supreme Court and at the U.S. Senate buildings as Judge Amy Coney Barrett embarked on day one of her confirmation hearings in D.C. Faithful Christianbussed in from all up and down the East Coast; one woman we met even drove from Arizona—just to be here in support of Judge Barrett. After a rally in front of the Senate Office building where the hearing was to take place, a prayer hour was scheduled for 12:00 noon in front of the Supreme Court. LifeSite’s Jim Hale and I went over to report on it and what I saw there stunned me.  

About a dozen evangelical faith leaders of various Christian organizations from all across the United States gathered with about 75 prayer warriors to pray for Amy Coney Barrett and her family and to ask God to bring this country back to Him. These prayers were so heartfelt and passionate, they left many nearly in tears.  

Then Cassie Pfitzmeier prayed and spoke. She said that for four years she and many of those in her group, Justice House of Prayer D.C. have been praying specifically for Judge Barrett, that she would make it to the Supreme Court. They have been praying for years for this powerhouse woman, who as we all know, is a devout Catholic. That was when I was struck. These non-Catholic Christians were the only Christians I witnessed on the ground and were the most “pro-Amy” people I had seen.  

By all accounts, Barrett is a devout Catholic, a pro-life stalwart, and a prayer warrior herself. These Christians see that in her and they know she is on their side.  

So, though surrounded by a chorus of “How Great Thou Art,” to me, the silence was deafening. I had not seen a single visible Catholic – clergy or lay – all day long. No rosary-praying groups. No Catholic churches from the area, never mind from across the country. “Barrett is one of our own,” I kept thinking to myself, and yet the Church was nowhere to be found to cheer her on and pray her to the finish line. 

On the one hand, it surprised me because the laity have taken it upon themselves in their defense of the Church during these unspeakable times when the hierarchy has shortchanged us. But then, on the other hand, I was not surprised. Sadly, the example of the hierarchy has made it so that Catholics have become all too comfortable in their own spheres of influence, in their own homes, afraid to speak up. This is such that, at time like this when one of our own fellow Catholics gets nominated by the most pro-life president to the highest court in the land, we’ve completely missed the boat.  

— 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

We Catholics must take this as our wakeup call. Our evangelical brothers and sisters know that this is our time to get out in the public sphere and stand for our common Christian faith and values. Our Lord said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.” Fellow Catholics, let us arise from our slumber. 


  2020 election, amy coney barrett, catholic, justice house of prayer dc, supreme court confirmation hearing

Opinion

Protecting the right to life is the overriding human rights issue of all time

For all American citizens of good will, the choice to make this November has never been clearer.
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 12:35 pm EST
Featured Image
Photograph of 26-week-old baby in womb. Lennart Nilsson
Maria Parker and Michael Cretella
By Maria Parker and Michael Cretella

October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The Democrat Party has long facilitated the deaths of 1.5 million unborn American children annually. Today, the Democrat Party not only embraces abortion on demand throughout nine months of pregnancy, but also promises to make all American taxpayers fund it, and promotes the infanticide of babies who survive abortion.

At the urging of his party, presidential nominee Joe Biden reversed his onetime opposition to taxpayer funded abortion, and also promised to enshrine Roe v. Wade in federal law to prevent its reversal. Biden’s choice of Kamala Harris as running mate signals that a Democrat win in November will unleash not only a radical expansion of unrestricted abortion on demand, but also a rabid persecution of pro-life advocates.

Kamala Harris was California’s Attorney General when David Daleiden, director of the Center for Medical Progress, presented evidence that Planned Parenthood was illegally selling aborted baby body parts. Rather than investigate Planned Parenthood, Harris ordered law enforcement to raid Mr. Daleiden’s home and investigate him. Kamala Harris’s political career has long been funded by Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider. Daleiden has since sued Harris alleging that she conspired with Planned Parenthood to violate his civil rights.

Protecting our inalienable right to life is the overriding human rights issue of all time because the right to life is the foundation of all other human rights. Reason, Scripture and Apostolic Tradition agree that it is always and everywhere wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human life. There is no greater crime.

Mother Teresa, a living saint who embodied social justice and the Beatitudes, understood this. She often decried the evil of abortion stating, “A child is a gift of God … And if we accept that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.”

— 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

Similarly, the US Catholic Bishops document entitled Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship states, “The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many.” Pope Benedict XVI elaborated, “Not all moral issues have the same weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics about war, the death penalty, immigration … but not with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

Increasingly, Americans also recognize that the Democrat Party’s radical abortion stance is part of its march toward socialism. Socialism is a Marxist form of government that violates human dignity and destroys individual rights. Since the Democratic Party first removed God from its party’s platform in 2012, it has increasingly promoted an atheistic socialist form of government that promises a man-made “equality for all” including free education and free healthcare.

As Margaret Thatcher once quipped, “The problem with socialism is that you always run out of someone else’s money,” and the results are fatally disastrous. Socialism is recognized as the leading man-made cause of misery and death across human history.

The current administration, in contrast, has fought for and continues to promote an America rooted in the Judeo-Christian heritage of our Constitution; an America governed by the rule of law based upon our God-given inalienable rights. President Trump has fought for the protection of the unborn, appointed justices faithful to God’s natural law, stood for parental rights and school choice, strengthened our military, secured our borders while working to improve legal immigration procedures, and negotiated fair trade agreements to improve our economy. Most importantly, our President has fought to protect our right to conduct our affairs in the Public Square and workplace without discrimination against our religious faith.

For all American citizens of good will — especially those who are faithful Christians — who value our God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the Bill of Rights, particularly our First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech, Religion and Association, the choice to make this November has never been clearer.

Maria Parker, MBA, DM, is a former United Nations Representative for World Union of Catholic Women’s Organizations, Director of Public Policy for MA Catholic Conference and Respect Life Coordinator for the Diocese of Providence. Michael Cretella, MD, is a member of Catholic Medical Association’s Health Policy Committee.


  2020 election, abortion, david daleiden, donald trump, joe biden, kamala harris

Opinion

NY Times laments ‘unfairness’ of maskless Trump, forgets about maskless rioters

The paper didn’t call out maskless protestors for months, but complained about Trump’s carelessness regarding virus prevention.
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 8:47 am EST
Featured Image
President Donald Trump takes off his face mask at the White House on October 5, 2020 NBC News / YouTube
Clay Waters
By Clay Waters

October 13, 2020 (NewsBusters) — Now they notice. The New York Times efficiently channeled the hypocritical left-wing rage over President Trump’s late-September Rose Garden ceremony introducing his Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, which may have helped spread coronavirus among White House staff and others who have since tested positive.

Tuesday’s edition of “The Interpreter,” a column and newsletter from Max Fisher and Amanda Taub, quoted aggrieved leftists on how they have had to cancel weddings and funeral services while the president holds White House functions without masks: “The Unfairness Toll.

The “Interpreter” certainly wins points for audacity. Ever since the protests against police brutality and racism began after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in late May, conservatives have pointed out the unfairness of lockdown restrictions being utterly ignored when masses gathered in the streets to protest and often riot.

Meanwhile, people who actually followed the rules were unable to visit their dying relatives or attend funerals or weddings, church services or graduation ceremonies, any of the rituals of ordinary life.

— 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

The paper blithely ignored that inconvenient ideological angle for months. But now that the shoe is on the other foot and it’s the left complaining about Trumpian carelessness regarding virus prevention, the issue of unfairness is suddenly resonant.

The piece began with quotes of liberal Twitter outrage after the White House marked the president’s Supreme Court nomination with a Rose Garden ceremony, under the heading “What Do You Think When You See This?”

“We cancelled our wedding.”

“I had to have a Zoom memorial for my son.”

“I had to tell my Mother goodbye over the phone.”

“I think about my autistic cousin who died alone in his apartment of covid a few days before Passover.”

“My ten-year-old niece broke down crying this summer, asking whether she could please hug my mom, her grandmom, if they both wore trash bags over their heads.”

These are some of the hundreds of Twitter responses to a video of maskless administration officials embracing at a White House celebration that is thought to have spread Covid-19 to President Trump and others. Many of the stories are in response to a question posed by Georgetown University political scientist Don Moynihan, “What do you think when you see this?”

Public outrage has channeled not just a sense of loss but, tellingly, of unfairness.

Where were those voices shouting “unfairness” when it was conservatives seething of being locked away while protestors and rioters were free to roam in mass packs, often maskless?

Millions of Americans have sacrificed dearly to comply with guidelines meant to curb the virus’s spread. Meanwhile, administration officials overseeing the highest death toll on earth appear, in the video, to be living free of such burdens

One could say the exact same thing about the protestors and rioters who took to the streets this summer after George Floyd.

That Mr. Trump had exposed a number of people who did not have access to daily rapid testing seemed to underscore the sense of a separate set of rules and risks for the elite versus everyone else.

It makes you feel like a sucker,” Charlie Warzel, a New York Times opinion columnist, wrote on Twitter.

Welcome to the club.

Published with permission from NewsBusters.


  donald trump, mask mandates, masks, new york times, newsbusters, riots

Opinion

To understand the importance of man-woman marriage, look at where marriage comes from

Every man, woman, and child who has ever lived has longed for true, faithful, permanent, unconditional love.
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 8:02 am EST
Featured Image
JanVlcek / Shutterstock.com
Hugh Owen
By

October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Are you not looking for true love?

Every man, woman, and child who has ever lived has longed for true, faithful, permanent, unconditional love. That is the deepest desire of every human heart.

For most men, this longing includes a longing for the exclusive love of one woman. For most women, this longing includes a longing for the exclusive love of one man. But today, throughout the world, there is widespread confusion, as many men and women doubt that it is possible, or even normal, to be happily united to one man or one woman for life. This, in turn, has led to endless misery — since people who do not believe that a thing is possible rarely invest enough time and effort to do that thing, even when it is perfectly feasible. The purpose of this series of articles is to show that the ideal of “one man for one woman united in love for life” is feasible and that the first step to attaining that ideal is to believe in it.

Origins of the Marriage Ideal

In examining any subject, it is good to start at the beginning. Where did the idea of one man being united to one woman for life originate? Was it a man’s idea? A woman’s idea? Or something else?

In most schools all over the world, children are taught that human beings and apes evolved from a common ancestor somewhere in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago. According to this view, the union of man and woman is not very different from the union of a male and female monkey or chimpanzee. It is something that developed as part of the struggle for survival. And people who hold this view are quick to point out that there are many places in the world where it was normal for one woman to have many men or for one man to have many women, providing evidence, so they say, that “one man for one woman” is one of many arrangements that have been tried in the struggle for survival, and not necessarily better or worse than any of the other arrangements. People who hold this view often determine what is normal or natural for human beings by studying what is normal or natural for animals in the world today. If baboons practice homosexual play, then that must be normal for humans. If a male seahorse takes care of the baby seahorse, then that must be a normal role for a male human being — and so on.

In the future, people will look back at these ideas in amazement that intelligent human beings could have placed such faith in them. Yes, it is a matter of faith — because, in reality, there is no proof whatsoever that man has evolved from a common ancestor with apes. All of the evidence that has been touted for human evolution has failed to prove any link between human beings and sub-human ancestors. Since this is an article about true love and not about evolution, I will not be able to present all of the evidence against the hypothesis of human evolution here.[1] Instead, for the time being, I have included a link to an article that exposes the fatal flaws in the hypothesis of human evolution so you can examine the evidence and judge for yourself. But what can be stated unequivocally here is that according to virtually all of the cultural traditions in the entire world, the idea of one man for one woman for life was not a human invention. It was God’s idea.

— 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

Male and Female He Created Them

The most accurate account of the creation of the first man and woman can be found in the book of Genesis, the first book of the Holy Scriptures of Christians and Jews. But the idea that the first marriage was made in heaven is not unique to Christians and Jews. All over the world, countless cultures have handed down accounts of the creation of the first human beings. Although they differ in details, most of these agree in recounting the creation of one man and one woman who became the ancestors of all of mankind. Under normal circumstances, the integrity of a packet of information will deteriorate during transmission. In the light of this truth, it is all the more remarkable that many accounts of the origins of man and the universe that agree substantially with the Genesis account have been preserved until recent times without Jewish or Christian influence. For example, one of the first Christian missionaries to modern-day Myanmar (formerly Burma) was a Baptist named Adoniram Judson. According to one account:

Judson canoed down the Salween River back into the jungle to a tribe called the Karen, whose pagan traditions were strangely amenable to the gospel — they had a Creator of man, and woman from his rib; an ancient temptation and fall; expectation of a white man’s appearance with a sacred parchment[.] ... When Adoniram Judson died, there were 8,000 believers and 100 churches in Burma, which today, known as Myanmar, has the third-largest population of Baptists in the world, mostly the Karen and Kachin tribe. (Andree’ Seu, “Gospel Cyclone,” World (May 31/June 7, 2008).

The idea of one man and one woman united in love forever is God’s idea, not man’s (or woman’s) idea. And, because it is God’s idea, and He created us, we reject it at our peril.


[1] J.C. SANFORD and ROBERT CARTER, “God, Family, and Genetics” in the proceedings of “The Two Shall Become One,” a Symposium on the Special Creation of Adam and Eve as the Foundation of the Church’s Teaching on Holy Marriage (Rome: Human Life International, 2015) https://kolbecenter.org/god-family-genetics-bible-perspective/

 


  book of genesis, christianity, evolution, marriage, pro-family resources

Blogs

‘Pro-life’ voters get sucked into believing skewed data to justify backing Joe Biden

A highly respected researcher debunked claims of a connection between declining U.S. abortion rates and Democrat presidents holding the office.
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 7:05 pm EST
Featured Image
shutterstock.com
Jonathon Van Maren Jonathon Van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon Van Maren

October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) -- Every four years, there are people who declare that they are pro-life but plan to vote for a political party dedicated to preserving the so-called right to kill children in the womb. It is always jarring to hear it, because it is difficult to understand how someone who believes that abortion kills a human being would also state that they are planning to vote for a party that sees abortion as a fundamental plank in their platform. This year, for example, the group “Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden” is claiming to be … well, both “pro-life” and “for Biden.” Biden, of course, is “for abortion.”

To justify this, some pro-lifers voting for pro-abortion candidates will claim that the abortion rate goes down under Democrat presidents. This argument is thrown out so often it has become something of a trope, and this election year is no different. I’ve seen the argument making the rounds on social media, and I’ve seen it used by pro-life people who really badly want to believe that a vote for Joe Biden can be morally neutralized by this alleged fact. As you might imagine, it isn’t true. At least, not in the way that those using it intend.

Listen to this full interview here:

To debunk this assertion, I turned to pro-life researcher Dr. Michael New, a visiting assistant professor of Political Science and Social Research at the Catholic University of America, as well as an associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute and a fellow with the Witherspoon Institute at Princeton. He has a Ph.D in political science and a Master’s degree in statistics from Stanford, and has served as a post-doctoral fellow at the Harvard-MIT data center and as a lecturer at the University of Massachusetts. He is one of America’s foremost experts on abortion rates. Here’s what he had to say.

Where does the claim that the abortion rate goes down under Democrat presidents originate?

There are several online memes which claim that there have been considerably larger abortion rate declines during Democratic Presidential administrations than during Republican Presidential administrations. It is interesting, as pro-lifers have made gains in the court of public opinion, some of our opponents have changed their strategy. They do not like to argue that pro-lifers are wrong, they instead they have changed their approach and instead argue that pro-life policies are ineffective. Here are some other examples from recent elections.

In 2004, there was an article written by Glen Harold Stassen which claimed (using preliminary data) that abortions were going up in the early years of the George W. Bush administration. However, more complete data showed abortion rates continued to decline during George W. Bush's Presidency.

In 2008, Catholic in Alliance for the Common Good published a study which purportedly showed that welfare and other social programs were a more effective strategy for reducing the abortion rate than enacting pro-life laws. However, their study contained methodological errors. When the errors were corrected, welfare spending had inconsistent impact on the incidence of abortion across time.

In 2012, Stephen Schneck of the Catholic University of America claimed that Mitt Romney's proposed cuts to Medicaid would increase the abortion rate, but provided no actual data or research to support that argument.

In 2016, Rachel Held Evans wrote a widely circulated column encouraging pro-life voters to support Hillary Clinton. She claimed that pro-life laws are not effective at reducing the abortion rate -- even though there is plenty of evidence that the incidence of abortion is sensitive to its legal status.  Evans also claimed that more spending on social programs would reduce the abortion rate – but failed to provide any evidence or research to support that argument.

Finally, she also said that efforts to make contraception more available would reduce the abortion rate. However, research shows that few sexually active women forgo contraception because of the high cost or lack of availability. Finally, many efforts to increase the contraceptive use are either ineffective at best or counterproductive at worst.

Overall, these memes are misleading. They do not mention the fact that the U.S. abortion rate increased under Democratic President Jimmy Carter. These memes often do not mention that California quit reporting abortion data to the CDC in 1997. This exaggerates the abortion rate decline that took place during the Clinton administration. Some memes use the overall number of abortions instead of the abortion rate. This is misleading because it allows them to report an increase in the number of abortions that took place during the Reagan administration. However, the abortion rate actually decreased during the Reagan years -- the reported rise in the number of abortions is due to the fact there was an increase in the population of women of childbearing age between 1981 and 1989.

Is there any truth to this claim?

It is true in the sense that since 1980, there has been a long-term, durable decline the U.S. abortion rate that has persisted through both Republican and Democratic Presidential administrations.

In percentage terms, there have been somewhat larger percentage declines in the abortion rate during Democratic Presidential administrations than during Republican Presidential administrations. However, it is by no means clear that these declines are due to any policy change enacted or legislated by these Democratic Presidents. It should also be noted that policy changes at the state level likely have a larger impact on the incidence of abortion than policy changes at the federal level. Furthermore, in both 1994 (during the Clinton administration) and in 2010 (during the Obama administration), Republicans made significant gains in many state legislatures.  This led to an increase in the number of state level pro-life laws, many of which were upheld by judges appointed by Republican Presidents.

Do robust social policies (such as in Hungary and Israel) have an impact on the abortion rate?

The research on the impact of social policies on the abortion rate is mixed. However, the Hungarian government should be lauded for their efforts to reduce the incidence of abortion in Hungary. They have invested money in educational efforts encouraging women to carry pregnancies to term. They have increased the maternity benefit and the child care allowance. They have also offered free or reduced cost services for children. Between 2010 and 2019 the abortion rate in Hungary fell by over 35 percent. There was also a study in the journal "Labour Economics" which showed that increased maternity leave benefits reduced the probability of abortion in Romania.

These sorts of policies are not a substitute for enacting pro-life laws. Pro-lifers want to see a world where all unborn children are protected in law and welcomed into life. However, the policies that have been enacted in Hungary and Romania certainly merit attention from pro-lifers.

What, in your view, is actually bringing the abortion rate down?

An important reason for the decline in the U.S. abortion rate is because a higher percentage of unintended pregnancies are being carried to term. According to data from the Guttmacher Institute, 54 percent of unintended pregnancies were aborted in 1981. In 2011 (the most recent year for which we have data), only 42 percent of unintended pregnancies resulted in an abortion.

I often present this statistic to pro-life audiences because it nicely demonstrates that the efforts of pro-life activists have been effective at reducing the abortion rate. If more unintended pregnancies are being carried to term that means that 1) hearts and minds are being changed, 2) there are more resources available to assist pregnant women or 3) protective pro-life laws are now in place.
All of this nicely shows that pro-life educational, service, and legislative efforts have all been effective.

Is it true that the most recent data shows a slight uptick in the abortion rate?

— 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

A recent analysis published by the Charlotte Lozier Institute found that abortions in the United States increased by 1.78 percent between 2017 and 2018. This is partly due to an increase in chemical abortions.  There is some preliminary data from Florida which may indicate that the incidence of abortion may be increasing this year.

There are also anecdotal reports from abortion facilities and abortion funds which indicate that the incidence of abortion has increased during the pandemic.

These reported increases in the incidence of abortion certainly do not undo the impressive, long-term progress that pro-lifers have made reducing the abortion rate. However, as always, pro-lifers should continue to be vigilant.

Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement. In his latest episode, he interviews Marjorie Dannenfelser from the Susan B. Anthony List who tells Van Maren that this election is crucial for the pro-life movement. Dannenfelser warns listeners that if the Democrats win, it will have a generational impact, as the left will fight to take away the core principles of our nation's founding.

You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below: 


  abortion, abortion rate, charlotte lozier institute, democrats, evangelicals, michael new, presidential election, pro-life, republicans, unintended pregnancies, witherspoon institute

Blogs

Thousands demonstrate against France law that erases fathers from some children’s lineage

The draft bioethics law is best known for its aim to legalize access to medically assisted procreation (“PMA”) for lesbian couples
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 5:33 pm EST
Featured Image
Marchons Enfants, France, Oct. 10, 2020. La Manif Pour Tous / Twitter
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits

October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Thousands and thousands of demonstrators joined over 60 rallies in France’s major cities and towns on Saturday, asking for the withdrawal of a bioethics law presently under discussion in Parliament, or at the very least the indefinite postponement of discussions as long as the COVID crisis and its severe economic and social consequences should require all the government’s attention. 

The draft bioethics law is best known for its aim to legalize access to medically assisted procreation (“PMA”) for lesbian couples and single women, including a full refund of the procedure by the French Social Security, but it also affirms the principle of embryo research, which would only be subject to an official declaration of projects instead of needing to obtain prior approval if the text becomes law. This would later inevitably lead to the legalization of surrogate motherhood in the name of “equal rights” for male homosexuals. 

The bioethics law also allows genetic engineering of human embryos, the creation of chimeras and the selection of “medicine babies” conceived in test tubes and chosen for implantation if their genetic make-up allows them to be “used” later on for a marrow transplant for a severely ill older sibling. 

When the law was adopted in its second hearing by the National Assembly, only a handful of deputies being present, an additional monstrosity was included: the possibility to perform “medical” abortions up to nine months of pregnancy because of “psychosocial distress” of the mother. 

The demonstrations were organized by the “Manif pour tous” which played a major role in the fight against the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in 2013, putting up to a million – predominantly youthful – opponents in the streets of Paris. 

They were joined by other groups, including the “Veilleurs” (the “Wakers”) and the “Sentinelles” whose actions focus on silent witness or the reading of cultural texts. 

COVID restrictions precluded a national march this year. In Paris, only 1,000 people were allowed to join the static demonstration on place Vendôme which besides being the address of the most expensive jewelers in Paris also houses the Ministry of Justice. 

In other cities, restrictions are of varying severity in order to stave off a so-called “second wave” of the Wuhan coronavirus which to date, is causing ten times less hospitalizations and deaths than in March and April. Despite the government-fuelled paranoia, scrapping public events altogether has proved impossible, and “protest rallies” are legal. In Versailles, 20 km from Paris, 1,700 demonstrators joined the local static demonstration. In Toulouse, Dijon, and many other towns, demonstrators marched through the streets with the red and green flags of “Marchons enfants” – “Children, let us walk.” Their banners read: “Liberty, Equality, Paternity,” in protest against laws that are effectively erasing fathers from children's’ lineage. 

An exceptionally large rally was held in Lyon, with the presence of the National Assembly member Xavier Breton who has been on the frontlines of the fight against this “barbaric” law. As in Versailles, the demonstration included the presence of young girls wearing the characteristic red “Phrygian bonnet” of the French Revolution, another regrettable wink to the “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” slogan of the 1789 revolutionaries. 

In many places, counter-demonstrations were held by LGBT groups. In La Roche-sur-Yon, where a group of youths including students from the Catholic university ICES was targeted by the university authorities in May 2019 for having created a rumpus against an LGBT exhibition in town and later acquitted of all charges by the French courts, the LGBT activists carried signs saying: “Crève l’ICES:” “Die, ICES.” 

— 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

In Rennes, Brittany, where I was invited to speak to the hundreds of people gathered in a large modern square after having been refused their intended meeting place in front of the town hall, the LGBT activists were allowed to approach the official rally of “Marchons enfants,” separated only by a line of riot police, shouting hateful slogans and trying to cover the legal meeting’s speeches and music with their noise. This was despite the fact that the LGBT counter-demonstrators had obtained permission from the local “prefecture” to gather in the town hall square in the city center where the pro-lifers originally intended to demonstrate. As far as can be known the LGBT activists were not fined for their illegal demonstration. 

They did attack one of the speakers at the “Marchons enfants” rally shortly after he left the official platform to catch a train to Nantes, further south, where he was also expected to speak: Guillaume Bernard, a respected law historian and university lecturer at the ICES, was carrying a demonstration flag that was stolen by LGBT activists. Luckily there was no further harm done as he was escorted by young men of the demonstration’s security force. 

Bernard had set the tone of the rally by underscoring that it is useless to complain about embryo research and late-term abortion if one is not prepared to oppose abortion. The official “party line” of the “Marchons enfants” demonstrations was to insist on fighting artificial procreation “without fathers” and surrogate motherhood. The full pro-life stance is seen as potentially divisive and many more mainstream opponents against the latest transgressions are prepared to campaign for a return to the more stringent conditions of the original 1974 abortion law named “loi Veil” after the woman politician who defended it in Parliament as Health minister at the time. 

Guillaume Bernard underscored that we should not submit to what is called the “ratchet effect” in France: combatting each new transgression but taking the existing culture of death laws as a given against which it would be too late to campaign. 

This was also the stance taken by French philosopher Thibaud Collin who observed, days before Saturday’s demonstrations, that the Veil law was adopted as a “lesser evil.” “But killing the innocent can never be a lesser evil,” he wrote. 

In fact, the addition of the nine-month abortion exception in the bioethics law, plus the recent adoption of a law extending free access to abortion from 12 to 14  weeks gestation, put the abortion issue at the center of French politics, and will hopefully lead to a more conscious and coherent expression of its convictions by the pro-life movement in France. 

Having also been invited to express my views on the remodeling of the bioethics laws, I was also careful to insist on this aspect, noting that it is not only paternity that is being negated, but that our very language is emasculated by the current refusal to affirm that “abortion kills an unborn child” out of a desire not to seem cruel. Man is being accused of “ransacking” nature, but it is in fact human nature that is being ransacked. 


  france, manif pour tous, medically assisted procreation

Blogs

Catholic wife of Judge Robert Bork breaks silence: Joe Biden ‘is not somebody that would make a good president’

Mrs. Mary Ellen Bork also said that believes Judge Amy Barrett would be an excellent Supreme Court judge. 
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 4:06 pm EST
Featured Image
John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry
By John-Henry Westen

October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The confirmation hearings of Amy Coney Barrett brings back for some memories of the despicable treatment Judge Robert Bork received in 1987 from liberal Senators Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden.

You may recall that at that time, Judge Bork would have given the more conservative side of the court a majority. Pro-abortion Ted Kennedy was having none of it.

He organized a full-court campaign with all sorts of wild accusations and claims about back-alley abortions. The slander he and Joe Biden did to Judge Bork was so bad that the verb “Borked!” has since become a popular saying that means to totally smear someone’s reputation with falsehoods so as to destroy their public image.

I wanted to learn if there were comparisons that could be made between Judge Bork and Amy Coney Barrett so I reached out to the wife of Judge Bork, Mary Ellen Bork, a former nun.

During our conversation today, Mrs. Bork explained that she and her husband would pray every morning during those hearings.

“We would pray a psalm every morning. And I remember Bob really liked the end of Psalm III, which is, ‘I will break the teeth of the wicked.’”

She said that her husband was really “taken aback” by Senator Kennedy’s claims because they “didn't reflect any of his judicial philosophy.” She also said her husband wasn’t impressed with Joe Biden at all.

“[Biden] said before Bob was nominated that if [he] came up, he would have to support him. And then once Bob was actually nominated, [Biden] immediately changed his mind and said he had to vote against him because he was completely under the control of Teddy Kennedy.”

“I was not impressed with his knowledge of constitutional law. Not that I am not a lawyer, but my husband said he really didn't know what he was talking about. And I think he has shown over the years to be somebody who just goes with whatever the popular political truth is out there. And that is not somebody that I think would make a good president.”

I asked Mrs. Bork if the Catholic Church reached out to express any sort of support for her or her husband during the whole ordeal. Given that Judge Bork was a conservative, that she was a former nun, and that Biden and Kennedy were Catholics, I expected her to tell me that some priest or bishop reached out to them. 

“No, not much at all,” she said to my shock. “Friends were supportive but…there wasn’t any particular thing that I recall [from the church]. I do know that a lot of people wrote to us and said they were praying for us.”

Wow! It’s astonishing to me that the Church didn’t aid Mrs. Bork and her husband in any way at that time. I hope that Judge Barrett is receiving some sort of support from Catholic clergy as she endures her own confirmation hearings.

Mrs. Bork said that she believes Judge Barrett would be an excellent judge. 

“I think she is very prepared. She knows her own mind. She knows her legal philosophy very well. And I'm sure she's been informed about some of the tactics of the left. If she has some good advisers and they practice, you know, some of the questions that will be coming up.”

She also detailed how the left views the Supreme Court and how that vision is at odds with the way her husband understood it.

“There's more at stake [now] because the Supreme Court has taken several decisions out of the hands of the American people. For example, the abortion decision. It should never have been decided by the court. That is something for the American people in their state legislatures to decide.”

“And so the problem now is that the left really sees the court as the place to get their political gains. And that is never the way the Supreme Court was intended. And Bob used to say, ‘you know, our republic, if you start to change the shape of the republic, it can't withstand that.’ So if you make the court into something more political, this is not good for our country.”

The John-Henry Westen Show is available by video on the show’s YouTube channel and right here on my LifeSite blog.

It is also available in audio format on platforms such as SpotifySoundcloud, and ACast. We are awaiting approval for iTunes and Google Play as well. To subscribe to the audio version on various channels, visit the ACast webpage here.

We’ve created a special email list for the show so that we can notify you every week when we post a new episode. Please sign up now by clicking here. You can also subscribe to the YouTube channel, and you’ll be notified by YouTube when there is new content.

You can send me feedback, or ideas for show topics by emailing [email protected].

Subscribe

* indicates required

By clicking subscribe, you are agreeing to receive emails about The John-Henry Westen Show and related emails from LifeSiteNews.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please visit our website.

We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here.


  amy coney barrett, joe biden, judge amy coney barrett, judge bork, judge robert bork, robert bork