All articles from February 19, 2021


News

Opinion

Blogs

Episodes

  • Nothing is published in Episodes on February 19, 2021.

Video

  • Nothing is published in Video on February 19, 2021.

The Pulse

  • Nothing is published in The Pulse on February 19, 2021.

News

Vatican-honored Catholic politician continues her pro-abortion advocacy

Lilianne Ploumen, a member of the Dutch House of Representatives, accused Donald Trump of making women seeking an abortion feel intimidated.
Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 8:30 pm EST
Featured Image
Minister Lilianne Ploumen visits Pope Francis May, 2015. Netherlands Government
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library. 

February 19, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) -- Lilianne Ploumen, the Dutch politician who received a medal as “commander” of the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great in 2017 despite her pro-abortion activism, has continued her fight for so-called “women’s rights” over the last four years and in her latest statement a few days ago touted abortion to left-wing daily Het Parool.

Asked whether it is still necessary to work for “women’s rights” in the Netherlands, Ploumen answered, “Yes. We’ve really made progress in the Netherlands. But women are still earning less than men for the same work. And I also see the consequences that four years of Trump in America have for the Netherlands: women going to abortion clinics are being intimidated more often. I’m worried about that.”

Henk Rijkers, former editor-in-chief of the Dutch Catholic daily Katholiek Nieuwsblad who now collaborates with Civitas Christiana, tweeted, “Dutch politician Lilianne Ploumen, decorated by @pontifex Francis with the Pontifical Equestrian Order St. Gregory the Great, is campaigning for abortion again. She now blames President Trump for the harassment of women at abortion clinics. (Which does not happen, by the way.)”

Since the award was presented by Ploumen in 2017 by the Vatican, the Holy See has had ample time to rescind the "prize." At the time, she had added insult to injury by boasting that the award given by Pope Francis was not only that of a “dame commander” of the Order but a “confirmation” of her advocacy “for girls and women, for abortion.” 

At the time of the gift, she was the co-founder of #SheDecides, a government-level European pressure group aiming to raise funds to compensate Donald Trump’s defunding of U.S. aid to abortion via the Global Gag Rule – and has helped raise hundreds of millions of dollars since then to do just that. 

Ploumen said the medal came with the explanation that it was for “services rendered to society.”

Once the scandal became public, a Vatican spokeswoman stated that giving the medal to Ploumen was merely a gift linked to normal protocol related to diplomatic visits. The Dutch politician happened to be a member of the 10-person delegation accompanying King Willem Alexander on his first unofficial visit to the Vatican in June 2017 at a time when she was the Dutch minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, and as such would naturally receive the same honorific memento – or title – as the other members.

The scandal actually broke because of a video in which Ploumen held up the medal before the camera, saying it was a “high distinction,” “commander in the order of St. Gregory,” which normally recompenses services rendered to the Church and the papacy. Austin Ruse of C-Fam warned that the Dutch abortion advocate “was not invested in Papal Order:” “to be a Dame in the Order, she would have gone through an investiture ceremony with a Bishop. This did not happen.”

What did happen is that the Vatican refused to vet the Dutch delegation – or didn’t care about what it found concerning the pro-abortion, non-believing cradle Catholic Ploumen. It did not react to her public statements interpreting the gift as approval for her stance on abortion beyond the verbal clarification described above. It never took the trouble to remove her from the list of Dame Commanders as circulated on Wikipedia.

— 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

Indeed, it took the Holy See press office some six months to come out with a statement clarifying that the decoration “cannot be by any way considered an endorsement to the pro-abortion and birth control politics advocated by Mrs. Ploumen” – and then only when asked to explain why she was given the medal in the first place.

If Pope Francis was not aware of the situation then, it cannot be said his staff is ignorant of it now. And still no retraction of the gift has taken place, although, if the Press Office’s statement in January 2018 was correct, Ploumen brashly and publicly lied in order to let the public believe the Vatican supported her high-priority commitment to legal abortion and other aspects of the culture of death such as support for access to contraception.

In 2010, for instance, she publicly protested against a priest who had refused communion to a man presenting himself as an active homosexual in the Cathedral of Saint John in Den Bosch, Netherlands.

Since receiving the Vatican medal, Ploumen has not only continued to lobby actively for abortion but very recently was chosen to lead the Dutch “Partij van de Arbeid” (PvdA, Labour Party) into the upcoming general elections on March 17.

Her latest anti-Trump tweet is just more of the usual as far as she is concerned.

Two years ago, Ploumen joined forces with the “Groenlinks” (Green Left) leader Corinne Ellemeet asking for family physicians to be allowed to prescribe abortion pills. She repeatedly presented motions with a view to put an end to “intimidation” by pro-life groups.
In 2019, she lobbied for the funding of the contraceptive pill in basic packages of all health insurance schemes, telling an interviewer that she herself only stopped using it during her two pregnancies, before replacing it with an IUD for 10 years.

In the summer of 2019, Ploumen toured American states such as Alabama and Georgia with restrictive abortion legislation in order to lobby American politicians and to give U.S. women a “shot in the arm.” 

That same year, she joined some 130 European politicians in writing an open letter to the first woman president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, asking her to put “safe and legal abortion” for all women in the European Union at the top of her agenda.

At the start of the COVID-19 crisis, Ploumen, now a member of the Dutch Second Chamber, pleaded for safe access to abortion all over the world as an “essential service” that would be especially needed because of lockdowns making women more vulnerable to rape and unwanted pregnancies.

Three months ago, she launched a petition asking to “end the Global Gag Rule Once and For All” that she called “atrocious legislation.” 

In January 2021, days before she was officially named as head of the PvdA list in view of the March elections, she talked about her Catholic upbringing in Maastricht, where she was born 58 years ago. She talked of her sympathy for the Catholic viewpoint that makes you “want to be there for other people,” saying every well-meaning person should find a spot in heaven, but adding that at the same time she does not believe that God exists.

On February 9, she supported Ellemeet’s initiative aiming to scrap the five-day mandatory cooling-off period for women asking for abortion in the Netherlands.


  abortion, catholic, holy see, lilianne ploumen, netherlands, pontifical order of st. gregory the great, pope francis, shedecides, vatican

News

Leftist countries call for UN procedure changes to usher in pro-abortion resolutions

The longstanding way UN negotiations come to agreement is with consensus rather than voting. Pro-abortion and pro-LGBT nations would like to change that.
Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 7:15 pm EST
Featured Image
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D. and Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
By Rebecca Oas Ph.D.

NEW YORK, February 19, 2021 (C-Fam) — The longstanding way UN negotiations come to agreement is with consensus rather than voting. Though consensus has changed over the years, it still allows a relatively small group of countries to block the political wishes of larger groups. This may be changing.

Progressive countries are increasingly frustrated that consensus has in some venues blocked both abortion and the LGBT agenda. This just happened in the Commission on Social Development.

The changes will be discussed in April at the next session of the Commission on Population and Development (CPD). The annual commission has been the scene of controversial negotiations on issues like abortion and sexual orientation and gender identity for decades. In three of the last four years, it has failed to reach an agreement. This is a source of frustration and embarrassment.

The written and unwritten rules of diplomacy require adoption of diplomatic agreements on the basis of unanimous consensus. This is considered the gold standard in all international proceedings. Agreements should be adopted without a vote and without objections. The simple threat of calling a vote and thwarting consensus is enough to stop a text from being adopted.

Diplomats preparing the next session of the commission asked for suggestions on how the working methods of the commission can be improved. Specifically, they were asked if the commission should move away from adoption of documents by consensus.

Socially conservative countries argue the deadlock on controversial issues is not because of longstanding UN procedures, but the inflexibility of progressive countries who promote abortion and LGBT issues and are unwilling to compromise.

The U.S. suggested that the commission stick to consensus-based adoption. It urged the commission to avoid “language on sensitive issues on which consensus has not been possible in previous years” and “always” include a “sovereignty clause” to safeguard national prerogatives. The exclusion of the sovereignty clause was a large contributing factor in the failure of the commission to reach an agreement in recent years.

Similarly, the Russian Federation blamed the failure to reach consensus on “persistent attempts by a part of the CPD membership to include in the draft resolutions terms/concepts not in line with and stepping aside from” previous UN agreements. This is understood as referring to notions such as “sexual rights” and “LGBT rights” by diplomats working on the commission.

— 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

Progressive countries on the other hand expressed a willingness to change the rules in order to get the controversial issues into agreements.

The Netherlands, a leading progressive nation, suggested “the Commission should consider voting as a way to not block discussions and progress.”

Denmark similarly called on diplomats to “be open to consider alternative methods of adoption when taking action, including by voting.”

Canada suggested “the Commission voting on selected paragraphs without requesting a vote on the resolution as a whole.” This could ensure that controversial language gets into agreements of the commission while trying to maintain a veneer of consensus.

International Planned Parenthood Federation also called on the commission to drop consensus. And they pushed back against suggestions that controversial issues could be dropped.

“The argument that contentious issues such as SRHR (sexual and reproductive health and rights) should not be included in negotiations is inherently flawed,” the abortion industry giant argued.

The abortion industry giant is a main participant in the commission each year. The policies adopted at the commission direct political and financial support to IPPF affiliates around the world who provide abortion, contraception, comprehensive sexuality education, and HIV/AIDS testing.

Published with permission from C-Fam.


  abortion, c-fam, homosexuality, united nations, voting

News

UN commission meeting decides against LGBTs’ favorite language

'Family diversity' is out, with the U.N. Commission on Social Development electing to use the 'compromise' term 'family-oriented' instead.
Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 7:07 pm EST
Featured Image
javirozas / Shutterstock.com
Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
By Stefano Gennarini J.D.

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news.  Subscribe now.

NEW YORK, February 19, 2021 (C-Fam) — It is increasingly rare for UN negotiations on social issues to escape controversies about abortion and homosexuality. This year, however, the UN Commission on Social Development managed to stay a quiet affair.

The annual commission concluded its work this week, adopting a resolution on technology, social inclusion, and economic development. The resolution includes several calls for social policies to be “family-oriented” but left out language that could be interpreted to include homosexual relations. The Biden administration was not happy about this.

“We regret that we could not include stronger language on individuals and families in all their diversity,” said the delegate representing the United States at the commission. “Family diversity” is used to expand the definition of the family to include homosexual relations.

In past sessions of the commission, and at the recently concluded General Assembly, the European Union complained about the absence of “family diversity” in UN resolutions.

“Family-oriented” is the compromise between those who want to mention “the family” and those who want “family diversity.” The EU will always block “the family” and conservative countries will always block “family diversity.” Conservatives tend to consider “family oriented” as a win, however, since “diversity” is considered an outright reference to homosexual and other couplings.

Another win is that the resolution also left out any reference to “sexual and reproductive health” which is used to direct political and financial support to abortion groups. It appears frequently in UN agreements on women and health. It has appeared only once, two years ago, in resolutions of the Commission on Social Development.

The relatively calm negotiation on social issues is unlikely to be repeated at the Commission on the Status of Women next month and the Commission on Population and Development in April.

Once U.S. President Biden’s appointees in the State Department and the U.S. Mission to the United Nations are in place, they are expected to make a strong push for abortion under the guise of “reproductive health” and LGBT rights. Biden signed executive orders instructing the U.S. State Department and other federal agencies to work on these as a priority efforts.

Biden’s nominee to fill the post of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations is Linda Thomas-Greenfield who formerly headed the U.S. State Department Bureau of African Affairs under the Obama administration. In that role, she oversaw the rollout of U.S. pro-LGBT diplomacy in Africa.

During her confirmation hearing in the Senate on January 27 Greenfield declared her intention to promote abortion. New Hampshire Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen asked Thomas-Greenfield if she would promote access to a “full range of sexual and reproductive health services.” The use of “full range” in this context is understood by international policy experts as implying abortion.

“I can commit to you that I will be a leader on this issue. In New York, it’s an issue that is personally a priority for me and I’ll look forward to working with you to advance our goals in this area,” Thomas-Greenfield responded.

Pro-lifers were deeply disappointed that no pro-life Senator pushed back on this promise.

Published with permission from C-Fam.


  abortion, c-fam, homosexuality, united nations

News

Canada’s top court won’t hear Mary Wagner’s challenge to law denying preborn babies’ humanity

Wagner's lawyer said that future generations will look back on these times where babies were denied their right to life by those with power as 'barbaric, selfish and unjust.'
Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 5:57 pm EST
Featured Image
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

OTTAWA, Ontario, February 19, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Canada’s top court will not hear a case involving a Charter challenge to Canadian law that currently denies the humanity of the child in the womb. The Supreme Court stated yesterday that it had “dismissed” pro-life heroine Mary Wagner’s case, providing no reason as is the custom.

Wagner’s lawyer, Dr. Charles Lugosi, said that while he maintains that their application to the court had “great merit and amply met the legal test for leave,” he speculated that there may be a few reasons why it was refused.

“Parliament retains the power to decide who is and who is not a human being,” he said in an email to supporters. “Parliament’s definition is based upon a political value judgment instead of biological and scientific reality.”

Wagner, who has spent nearly six years in jail for her peaceful attempts to save mothers and their unborn children from the violence of abortion and is the inspiration behind the burgeoning U.S. Red Rose Rescue movement, was challenging Section 223(1) of Canada’s Criminal Code. The code states that a “child becomes a human being within the meaning of the Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.”

Lugosi intended to argue that this violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 7 that guarantee an individual’s right to “life, liberty and security of person,” as well as the Charter’s Section 15 guarantee that “(e)very individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law.”

The lawyer also wanted the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling that in 2013 had quashed Wagner’s Charter challenge and rejected her legal defense. He had submitted his 155-page application to the Supreme Court in November.

— 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 was decriminalized in Canada in 1969 with the passage of Pierre Trudeau’s infamous “Omnibus Bill” that allowed a woman to abort her child with the approval of a hospital's therapeutic abortion committee. The Supreme Court struck down that law in 1988 as “unconstitutional” on the basis that it threatened a woman’s “security of person” — protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — because of the difficultly of her needing to go before a panel for her to obtain an abortion.

The Morgentaler decision, however, did not give women a constitutional ‘right’ to abortion. The court, in fact, left the “abortion question” to Parliament to “pronounce on and to direct social policy.” Abortion is now legally permitted throughout all nine months of pregnancy for any reason up to the moment of birth. Abortions are funded by taxpayer dollars in every provincial healthcare system. An estimated 100,000 surgical abortions are committed annually in Canada.

Lugosi said to supporters that future generations will look back on these times where babies were denied their right to life by those with power as “barbaric, selfish and unjust.”

“The inherent dignity of every human being in existence is violated daily by the greatest human rights abuse of all time: the mass killing of millions of innocent human beings who are at the mercy of those who hold the power of life and death over them,” he said.

“May God have mercy on those who silenced us and continue to ignore the muffled screams of the suffering dying unborn children. The guilt for the shedding of innocent blood falls upon not just those who directly participate in abortion, but upon all those who permit and perpetuate this horrific crime against humanity,” he added.

Wagner told LifeSiteNews that she was “saddened and disturbed” by the court’s refusal to “hear our plea for the most vulnerable members of our human family, whose own pleas are too weak to be heard.”

“Let us not lose hope, however,” she said.

“In reality, whatever any human court of law pronounces cannot change the truth of what the Supreme Judge has ordained. And, in his eyes, a thousand years are like one day ... The same One who listened to the cries of his people and freed them after 400 years of slavery will one day grant Justice for all who are oppressed,” she continued.

“Let us not lose sight of this truth as well: beyond the call to build a just society, ultimately it is not perfection in law that we seek but perfection of heart, which can only come through the love that is not of this world. It is this love that can change hearts even to the point where the law is no longer needed to influence our actions,” she added.

Wagner thanked all those who contributed to the LifeFunder campaign to raise money for her challenge. The campaign, which has now been suspended, had raised $90,000 of a $150,000 goal.

“I would like to thank each person who has so generously contributed to the LifeFunder account, or through other means, especially through your prayer, in support of our efforts,” she said.

Jeff Gunnarson, national president of Campaign Life Coalition, Canada’s national pro-life organization, called the court’s decision to dismiss the case “untenable and unjust.”

“We are perplexed by the fact that it was the Supreme Court that struck down the last vestiges of a law protecting some children in the womb while indicating Parliament ought to come up a law protecting the unborn at some stage of their life. Yet, 31 years later, Parliament hasn’t acted, and the Supreme Court seems to be comfortable with the idea that unborn children still have no state protection throughout all nine months of gestation,” he told LifeSiteNews.

Gunnarson pointed out that the court’s criteria to grant cases “leave to appeal” is that, in the words of the court, the “case involves a question of public importance or if it raises an important issue of law (or an issue of both law and fact) that warrants consideration by the Court.”

Commented Gunnarson, “What is it about the killing of 100,000 unborn babies per year that does not fulfill the Leave to Appeal criteria?”

“We will continue, on our knees, to appeal the case of justice for the unborn to the Supreme God in Heaven while we agitate for human justice by our political and spiritual leaders,” he added.

Gunnarson praised Wagner for being a “stalwart defender of children in the womb and their mothers.”

“She has spent most of her adult life trying to awaken the conscience of mothers and our society at large. Her efforts remain in our prayers.”

Josie Luetke, Campaign Life Coalition’s youth coordinator, called the court’s decision to toss the case a “bitter” loss.

“Just like how our Members of Parliament refused to re-examine our Criminal Code's unscientific, outdated definition of 'human being' when they voted against former MP Stephen Woodworth's Motion 312, our Supreme Court has similarly once again refused to reckon with Canada's inexcusable failure to legally recognize all human beings as human beings,” she told LifeSiteNews.

“This willful negligence is almost unparalleled in its evil and shamefulness,” she added.


  abortion, canada, canadian supreme court, mary wagner

News

Incognito health inspector asks for haircut amid lockdowns, then fines the hairdresser

The health inspector ticketed the hairdresser for $1,000, and shamed the salon by issuing ‘a notice to the public.’
Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 5:57 pm EST
Featured Image
Work in a hair salon during the coronavirus crisis Shutterstock
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news.  Subscribe now.

CALGARY, Alberta, February 19, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A Canadian hairdresser was slapped with a $1,000 COVID ticket after agreeing to give a haircut to a woman who had asked for the cut, but subsequently revealed her true identify and handed him a fine.

The incident occurred on December 27, when Amin Dagher, who with his family owns Hair Cru Salon in Calgary, Alberta, said he was paid an unannounced visit by an Alberta Health Services (AHS) inspector to his Salon.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), which is legally representing Dagher to fight the fine, said Dagher first heard a knock at the salon door. He proceeded to let a woman inside his Salon, “believing she was a genuine customer wanting to buy care products,” according to a JCCF news release.

Once the woman was inside his shop, the woman asked Dagher if “she could have a haircut.”

“Desperate for income, his business barely hanging on, and with a family to feed, Mr. Dagher said yes. The woman then announced herself as AHS health inspector Anne Hoang and told Mr. Dagher that he had broken the law by agreeing to cut her hair, and that he would receive a ticket,” said the JCCF in a news release.

Haircutting services in Alberta were banned on December 11, 2020, by an order by Alberta Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Deena Hinshaw. At the same time, hair salons were allowed to stay open and sell hair products.

The JCCF said that the AHS inspector not only ticketed Dagher for $1,000, but she also issued “a notice to the public” that his Salon was “providing hair cutting services to the public.”

According to the JCCF, this resulted in the public being misled “to think the Salon was regularly contravening public health orders and intentionally exposing the Salon to public contempt.”

“The notice was even posted on the door of the Salon, which Mr. Dagher was forced to keep in place because to remove it would have been an offence under the Public Health Act,” noted the JCCF.

The JCCF says that Dagher has pleaded not guilty to his ticket. No trial date has been set.

JCCF lawyer James Kitchen said the whole thing was a “set up,” and that the “oppressive orders of the Chief Medical Officer of Health” are “choking the life out of small businesses in Alberta and depriving people of the ability to feed their families.”

“For Mr. Dagher, to have an AHS inspector bait him into agreeing to give her a haircut is to kick him while he’s down. This was a set up,” said Kitchen.

“The actions of Ms. Hoang in requesting Mr. Dagher give her a haircut are repugnant and a gross abuse of power. In a time when the government seeks to justify its destructive lockdown policies and rights infringements by claiming that adhering to public health restrictions is the kind thing to do, the cruelty of AHS inspectors using the allure of much-needed income to target and ticket small business owners is especially hypocritical.”

Hair salons in Alberta were once again allowed to provide haircutting services under strict limits starting January 18, after an outcry from many in the public as well as from Salon owners, some of whom defied orders and opened up during the ban.

According to a Global News report about the incident, Dagher said that it was in his opinion that the AHS officer’s tactics to fine him were unfair.

“Normally, a person would come in and look around … She’s looking for a way to give me a ticket,” said Dagher. “We don’t make money … We have no savings … We live day by day.”

In a statement sent to multiple media outlets, AHS stated it had received a total of three complaints from the “public” that staff at the Salon were not wearing masks. However, as the JCCF said in their release, Dagher had the doors of the Salon locked.

AHS also said that Dagher’s claim of being duped into providing a haircut contrary to the health rules in place at the time is “inaccurate and false.”

“In this specific case, the inspector did not ask for a haircut, but instead asked if the business was offering haircutting services. Staff at the salon confirmed haircutting services were being offered,” claimed AHS.

— 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

Like many parts of Canada, Alberta has been under severe second COVID-19 lockdown restrictions since early December.

The JCCF is currently representing multiple businesses and churches who have been targets of government lockdowns, including jailed Edmonton area Pastor James Coates.

The group has called for an end to restrictions and respect for the Canadian constitution.

“We remind you, since it is apparent that you need a reminder: the Constitution is the supreme law in Canada, not the Orders of Dr. Hinshaw,” wrote JCCF President John Carpay in a recent letter sent to Alberta Premier Jason Kenney regarding the jailing of Coates.

“Once citizens are able to show that their Charter rights have been violated, the onus shifts to the government to justify its violation of those rights. Again, this burden is on the government — not the citizens — and is intended by the Charter to be an onerous one.”

Contact

Premier of Alberta Jason Kenney

Office of the Premier
307 Legislature Building
10800 - 97 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta  T5K 2B6

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 780-427-2251

To contact your local MLA, visit the link below:

https://www.assembly.ab.ca/members/members-of-the-legislative-assembly


  amin dagher, covid-19, jccf, justice centre for constitutional freedoms, lockdowns

News

Babies were aborted alive, placed in fridge to harvest cell lines used in some vaccines: researcher

'These babies were literally placed into the fridge alive and then stored between one and 24 hours until they could be dismembered.'
Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 5:12 pm EST
Featured Image
Model of unborn human baby.
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

February 19, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Cell lines derived from aborted babies used in the production or testing of various vaccines, including a number of COVID vaccines, most likely came from babies who were aborted alive, and according to the general practice as outlined in medical literature, may have been placed in a fridge while still living where they awaited dismemberment before having their organs harvested, a researcher has found. 

Biologist Pamela Acker, who has a master’s degree in Biology from the Catholic University of America and who recently authored a book titled Vaccination: A Catholic Perspective, related what the literature says about how babies were aborted to obtain cell lines used in a number of vaccines.

“A number of these abortions that were done in that way were termed ‘abdominal hysterectomies’ in the medical literature. So in some cases, the women were actually being sterilized in the process as well,” she said. 

“They had to maintain a sterile environment because you don't want any contamination of the tissue with any kind of foreign agents, any bacteria, or viruses, or anything like that. The babies were — and, in some cases, the uterus as well — removed from the woman and, without even puncturing the amniotic sac, placed directly into the refrigerator where it was kept for no more than 24 hours.”

“So these babies were literally placed into the fridge alive and then stored between one and 24 hours until they could be dismembered, basically. And this is right there in the scientific literature,” she said.

Acker made these comments during her Feb. 19 presentation at an online conference hosted by LifeSiteNews titled “Unmasking COVID-19: Vaccines, Mandates, and Global Health.”

Moral conflict

Acker spent about nine months in a lab a decade ago working on a project to develop an HIV vaccine with a grant provided by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It was when her team decided to use HEK-293 cells for the project that she began to question her involvement. 

— 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

“At this point, most people have heard of these (cell lines) because they are connected with the COVID vaccines, but at that time I hadn't. So I asked (my colleague) what ‘HEK’ stands for, and she told me, ‘Human Embryonic Kidney,”’ Acker said in an interview last month with LifeSite Editor-in-chief John-Henry Westen.

Acker said that it was after reading Dr. Alvin Wong’s paper titled “The Ethics of HEK 293” that appeared in the 2006 autumn issue of The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly that she was able to arrive at some moral clarity on the issue.

Wong, an oncologist and senior consultant at Singapore’s National University Cancer Institute who has an interest in bioethics, wrote in his paper that due to evidence that the cells were “obtained from the embryo of a willfully induced abortion,” there is “a moral duty on the part of any researcher to discontinue using this cell line.”

“That moral duty should be particularly clear to Catholic researchers and institutions. Even if it may be extremely difficult to stop or modify the experiments in progress, an immediate cessation of the use of the cell line is the correct and just action to take,” Wong added.

Acker said that when she “expressed my concerns to my primary investigator, it ended up being the end of my career in his lab.”

The baby girl behind HEK-293

Acker explained to Westen during her January 12 interview the meaning behind the letters and numbers HEK 293, the cell line developed by Dr. Frank Graham in the Netherlands in 1973.

“HEK stands for Human Embryonic Kidney. But 293 stands for the 293rd experiment that this particular researcher did to develop the cell lines.”

The kidney was taken from a “completely normal” preborn girl aborted in 1972 who, according to Alex van der Eb, the doctor leading the team to develop the cell line, had “nothing wrong” with her.

Acker said at the time to Westen that there were likely more abortions behind the final development of the cell line since “for 293 experiments you need far more than one abortion.”

“We're talking probably 100s of abortions,” she said at that time.

Graham, however, recently told Ian Jackson, who was conducting research in the HEK-293 cell line, that only one fetus was involved. 

"On my arrival at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands I kept lab books in which I numbered my experiments in the order in which I carried them out starting in 1970. None of these experiments used human embryo kidney cells (HEK) until very late in my studies in Leiden (1973) when I carried out 2 (two!) experiments that utilized kidney cells from 1 (one!) human fetus." 

“Since abortion was illegal in the Netherlands at that time except to save the life of the mother I have always assumed that that fetus resulted from a therapeutic abortion. However, the kidney cells I used had been prepared and frozen away before I even arrived in Leiden. Consequently, I do not have first hand knowledge of the circumstances relating to that single abortion. The second of the two experiments I carried out with these HEK cells was experiment 293 and resulted in the cell line of the same name. The bottom line is that the 293 cell line resulted from cells obtained from a single fetus,” Graham told Jackson, who forwarded the doctor’s statement to LifeSite.

Acker told LifeSite for this report that Graham's statement is “misleading at best.” 

“Dr. Plotkin tried to say something similar, that the cell lines involved in the creation of vaccines only came from two abortions. But that ignores the other 74 babies that were a part of the research he was doing. It's published in the literature that other HEK and HER (human embryonic retina) cell lines are attributed to Frank Graham. So his research definitely involved more than one abortion.”  

“When a cell line is developed, it is usually produced using a sample of tissue from a single individual unless it's a hybrid cell line. So on the one hand, it is technically correct to say that the cell line was developed using one aborted baby. However, this is not an accurate representation of how many lives were actually sacrificed in the whole process of developing an aborted fetal cell line," she continued. 

“If Graham wasn't just working on fetal cell lines during his time at the University of Leiden, it may not have been hundreds of abortions," she added, "but we would need to see his notebooks to know.”

Acker pointed out that there is every indication that the cells were derived from an “electively aborted” baby. 

“In particular, the fact that the cells were stored in the freezer lends further credence to the conclusion that HEK-293 was derived from an electively aborted fetus,” she said.

“The success and longevity of HEK-293 suggests that the specimen was remarkably well-suited for culturing, and anyone who has studied cell theory should know that you cannot derive a living cell culture from tissue that is already dead.  Because of the biological impossibility of creating a live cell line from dead tissue, and the practical and biological implausibility of obtaining live tissue from a spontaneously miscarried fetus, it is far more likely that the baby from whom HEK-293 was derived was electively aborted and alive at the time of tissue extraction,” she added.

Acker quoted Dr. C. Ward Kischer, an embryologist and emeritus professor of anatomy from the University of Arizona College of Medicine, who stated the following regarding the cells obtained for aborted fetal cell lines: “In order to sustain 95% of the cells, the live tissue would need to be preserved within 5 minutes of the abortion [...] within an hour the cells would continue to deteriorate, rendering the specimen useless.”

Acker said that if the baby used in the production of HEK-293 “had already been dead (through a natural miscarriage), the tissue would certainly have been of no use to Mr. Graham in making a cell line after it had been stored in a freezer.”

She speculated that the tissue from the baby used for the production of HEK-293 was likely procured by the surgical method of whole-fetus extraction, often referred to as a C-section abortion, which can include the removal of the uterus along with the living baby still inside.

Acker quoted a 1952 study from Dr. Thomas Weller and Dr. John Enders (among others), who were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1954 for their polio research involving growing cultures in various types of tissue, where they explained how “human embryonic tissues” were obtained for their experiments.

“This material was employed in most of the experiments. It was obtained under sterile precautions at the time of abdominal hysterotomy for therapeutic indications. Embryos of between 12 and 18 weeks’ gestation have been utilized. Rarely tissues were obtained from stillborn fetuses, or from premature infants at autopsy … In the experiments on prolonged propagation of virus, three sorts of embryonic materials were used: elements of skin, connective tissue, and muscle; intestinal tissue; brain tissue,” the researchers stated.

“Embryonic tissues were prepared in the following manner. Whenever possible the embryo was removed from the amniotic sac under sterile precautions, transferred to a sterile towel and kept at 5 C until dissected,” (bold added) they added.

Acker then quoted from Dr. Gonzalo Herranz, Professor of Histology and General Embryology at the University of Navarra, Spain, who described how abortions must be done to obtain uncontaminated fetal material in Italian scientist Pietro Croce’s book Vivisection or Science? first published in English in 1991.

“To obtain embryo cells, embryos from spontaneous abortions cannot be used, nor can those obtained by means of abortions performed via the vagina: in both cases, the embryo will be contaminated by micro-organisms,” wrote Herranz.

“The correct way consists in having recourse to Caesarian section or to the removal of the uterus. Only in this way can bacteriological sterility be guaranteed. In either case, then, to obtain embryo cells for culture, a programmed abortion must be adopted, choosing the age of the embryo and dissecting it while still alive to remove tissues to be placed in culture media,” (bold added) he added.

Commented Acker: “Because of the necessity of maintaining a sterile culture of tissue for developing a cell line, it seems reasonable to conclude that there would — at minimum — had to have been some pre-arrangement to obtain sterile, unmacerated tissue from the fetus used for HEK-293.  The easiest and surest way to do this is by the surgical method of whole-fetus extraction.”

Acker’s findings relate to the findings of U.S. pro-life investigator David Daleiden, who performed an undercover investigation of Planned Parenthood’s involvement in the illegal harvesting and trafficking of aborted baby body parts. Daleiden, who began to release videos of his sting operation in 2015, uncovered that biotech companies in the United States harvested numerous organs, including “live beating” hearts from aborted babies for research (see here, here, and here).

Multiple abortions behind various aborted fetal cell lines

Acker told LifeSite for this report that the formation of other cell lines derived from aborted babies and used for research purposes and in the development of numerous vaccines involved hundreds of abortions.

“Many aborted fetal cell lines and all the aborted fetal cell lines used in currently licensed vaccines are the culmination of a series of experiments that include multiple abortions,” she said. Acker listed the following examples:

  • The WI-38 cell line (used in MMR and shingles vaccines) came from the 32nd aborted baby that was used in a series of experiments. Other cell lines that came out of the Wistar Institute include WI-26 (from the 20th aborted baby) and WI-44 cell (from the 38th aborted baby).
  • The MRC-5 line (used in hepatitis A, measles, and shingles vaccines) required five abortions to develop.
  • WALVAX2, the most recent aborted fetal cell line, came from the ninth aborted baby in a series.
  • RA273, which is the virus used in the rubella vaccine, originated in the 27th baby that was aborted in search of the virus. Mothers who were infected with the rubella virus during pregnancy were actively encouraged to abort their children. Forty more elective abortions for rubella virus were performed after this, though RA273 was the strain that ended up in the final vaccine preparation.

Acker said that the use of aborted fetal cell lines in medical research, at any level, “fuels a growing acceptance of using aborted babies in other types of medical research.”

“This problem is irrespective of the original number of abortions performed to obtain a cell line, and will only be exacerbated by the acceptance of HEK-293-derived COVID vaccines,” she added.

‘New pro-life movement’

Kazakhstan Bishop Athanasius Schneider, during his presentation at today’s vaccine conference, called for the formation of a “new pro-life movement” that refuses to have anything to do with medicines or vaccines derived in one way or another from aborted babies.

Schneider said that until now, the pro-life movement has been “very meritorious” in raising a united voice against abortion. “But I think there now comes a new time, a new phase, a new period of all pro-life movements to protest, clearly and unambiguously, against abortion-tainted medicines, against the abuse of the body parts of the unborn.”

While the Catholic Church’s 2020 guidelines permit Catholics to receive abortion-tainted vaccines, the Bishop said that Christians cannot “simply resign” themselves to the fact that the production of various medicines is tied to the slaughter of preborn babies who are utilized for their body parts.

“The voice of the unborn children’s blood is crying to God from the abortion tainted vaccines, from the abortion tainted medicines,” he said. “This voice is crying all over the world, and we have to awaken.”

“No one who is really deeply concerned about the defense of life and the moral law can be silent or can be quiet and can resign to this situation,” he added.

Click HERE to register for access to replays of LifeSite’s Unmasking COVID-19 conference.


  covid-19 vaccine, fetal cell lines, fetal cells, hek 293, hek-293, pamela acker, unmasking vaccines conference, unmasking vaccines: ethics, mandates, and global health, vaccinations, vaccines

News

Vaccine specialist details which vaccines are really abortion-tainted

In vaccines given to young children or even infants, 'you’ve got aluminum at higher levels than what the FDA approves for that child at that age.'
Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 5:02 pm EST
Featured Image
Pregnant woman getting vaccinated Shutterstock
Piero Maresca
By Piero Maresca

Click HERE to register for access to replays of LifeSite’s Unmasking COVID-19 conference.

February 19, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — One of the many speakers at LifeSite’s recent virtual conference, Unmasking COVID-19: Vaccines, Mandates, and Global Health, said that some ingredients in vaccines can be toxic, deadly, and hazardous.

Dr. Marissa Brand is a specialist not just on health, but on vaccine ingredients and the ethical issues in vaccine production, including the use of aborted fetal tissues. She is a board-certified Doctor of Natural Medicine and Doctor of Humanitarian Services with a PhD in Natural Medicine. She began researching vaccines after dealing with and recovering from her own serious health issues and works with patients to recover from vaccine injuries and other chronic health issues. 

In her talk at the conference, Brand discussed in depth the various vaccines, not only the recent coronavirus shots, which either contain cell lines from aborted babies or have been tested on those cell lines. She also detailed several other ingredients that are included in some vaccines, saying, “here we are injecting into our children regularly” products which can be toxic, deadly, and hazardous.

Dr. Brand began by saying that although the two COVID vaccines, the Pfizer and Moderna shots, do not contain aborted fetal cells in the end-product, they are used “in the development and research.” At the same time, the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca shots do include the DNA of aborted children. 

Brand went on to list every single vaccine which includes fetal cell lines. Here are just some: MMR (mumps, measles, rubella), ProQuad (MMR plus chickenpox), Twinrix (combines vaccines for Hepatitis A and B), all the chicken pox vaccines, one of the rabies vaccines, and many more.

The doctor also said that babies who were manipulated in the lab for vaccine testing and manufacturing were not just aborted decades ago, but many fetal cell lines are from children aborted as recently as 2015. Brand highlighted that “if we keep using aborted fetal DNA in vaccines, we’re going to need more abortions to happen, which is really sad.” 

Moreover, Brand described the link between vaccines and autism. She described how the increasing rates of autism coincided with the introduction of several vaccines, including the two doses of the MMR vaccine and the chickenpox shot. The vaccine specialist said that studies show that “about 35 to 40 percent of [autistic children] have antibodies to human DNA,” which links to the vaccines which include fetal DNA from aborted 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

Brand also mentioned other ingredients that are in many shots. For example, in vaccines given to young children or even infants, “you’ve got aluminum at higher levels than what the FDA approves for that child at that age.” Many also contain thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, in amounts which even the EPA does not allow to be placed in water supplies. She says that some pharmaceutical companies also have animal DNA in their vaccines. 

Brand concluded that “it is vitally important” for everyone do their own research into abortion-tainted vaccines through organizations such as Children of God for Life.


  abortion, marissa brand, vaccine safety, vaccines

News

The anti-hydroxychloroquine campaign was based in politics, not science: biologist

'What is going on [in the banning of hydroxychloroquine] is the equivalent of denying everyone in America antibiotics,' Dr. Christina Parks said. 
Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 4:48 pm EST
Featured Image
Piero Maresca
By Piero Maresca

Click HERE to register for access to replays of LifeSite’s Unmasking COVID-19 conference.

February 19, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — At LifeSite’s virtual conference on COVID-19 earlier today, Dr. Christina Parks discussed the benefits of using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), talked about the real science behind it, and offered an analysis of the currently available vaccines. 

Parks received her PhD in Cellular and Molecular Biology from the University of Michigan. She is an expert on knowing which vaccines may cause injury to vulnerable immune systems. She is also an outspoken critic of the misinformation campaign against hydroxychloroquine. 

In the early months of the spread of the virus, hydroxychloroquine was immediately shut down as a cure by the media, Big Tech, government agencies, and the medical establishment, which mostly cited studies which linked high death rates to the drug. 

Parks explained that these studies took data from patients who were given too many doses. She says that “any reasonable doctor would know that this was basically trying to kill these patients.” 

Parks noted how several years ago, hydroxychloroquine was discovered in research and tests to be a drug which contains “strong antiviral activity.” Hydroxychloroquine’s level of effectiveness in combating malaria made it a wonder drug, she added. 

“What is going on [in the banning of hydroxychloroquine] is the equivalent of denying everyone in America antibiotics,” Dr. Parks said. 

Hydroxychloroquine functions together with Zinc, she explained, to enter “into the cells and stop the virus from replicating.” She also pointed to other products such as green tea, quercetin, or quinine in tonic water, which can have effects similar to hydroxychloroquine. If used at extremely low doses, HCQ may “help prevent transmission and infection,” and it will “stay in the body [for] fifty days.” 

Parks mentioned several studies, including one from the Henry Ford Medical System in Michigan, which have found the mortality rate of patients who have taken HCQ reduced by 50 percent or more.  

With all this scientific research out there, Parks asked, “Why hasn’t this information been disseminated?” She said “it was shut down for what I can only say is purely political reasons.” 

— 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

Parks emphasized that the main COVID injections from Pfizer and Moderna are “almost a form of gene therapy, except, instead of putting in a gene your body needs, they’re putting in a viral gene.” 

Parks said that one of the main adverse reactions to she shots are anaphylactic shocks, which are caused by liposomes which are “highly reactive.” She stated that in “various reports right now, there are over three thousand [cases of] anaphylactic reactions.” 

Another common reaction that occurs from the shots, Parks mentioned, are bruising and rashes, which is caused by the body attacking cells that are injected through the viral protein in the vaccines. Parks notes that when one receives a second shot and gets the virus again the body may produce antibodies which attack the body itself. 

Parks concluded that “there’s many different mechanisms by which [the vaccine] can potentially cause adverse reactions or long-term chronic disease.”


  christina parks, hcq, hydroxychloroquine

News

Doctors expose untested COVID vaccines, warn of ‘cascade’ of harmful effects and deaths

Pushing the potentially fatal vaccines, whilst enforcing lockdowns and forcefully quashing any physical or vocal dissent, seems to be part of a larger, globalist agenda, the panel concurred
Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 4:44 pm EST
Featured Image
shutterstock
Michael Haynes Michael Haynes Follow Michael
By Michael Haynes

Click HERE to register for access to replays of LifeSite’s Unmasking COVID-19 conference.

February 19, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – As part of LifeSiteNews’s “Unmasking COVID-19” conference, a panel of doctors has warned about the significant dangers of the experimental COVID vaccines, pointing to potential deaths, harmful or unknown side-effects, and describing the shots’ roll-out as a “clinical trial in the general population.”

Dr. Sheri TenpennyDr. Eric Nepute and Dr. Pam Popper joined Stephen Kokx of LifeSiteNews in a panel discussion focused on the science regarding the vaccines, and whether it is right to regard them as the chief protection against COVID-19. The medics decried even calling the injections “vaccines,” since they did not meet the standards necessary for the term, and warned about the risk of the experimental products themselves attacking the body’s immune response system.

What are the vaccine development origins?

Whilst countries around the world are busy rolling out the rapidly developed injections, Dr. Tenpenny warned that the experimental vaccines do not even qualify for the term “vaccine.” 

“I refuse to call it a vaccine because it doesn’t meet any of the standards by which a vaccine is supposed to work: to prevent the spread of infection, to keep you from getting sick, to keep you from being hospitalized, to decrease the amount of illness, to protect people from this contagion that’s out there. It doesn’t meet any of those standards.”

Even Pfizer and Moderna acknowledge this fact on the vaccine packaging, Tenpenny noted, before questioning why anyone would “take on all the risk of this injection, all the risk of what’s coming through the needle and in creating these adverse antibodies that literally are going to kill many people.”

The reason for such ineffectiveness, stems from a lack of proper testing and development, explained Popper, who questioned how one could even expect a vaccine to be effective in such circumstances. “It just defies logic that if, when they go through the charade of the clinical trials and there are no inert, placebo controlled clinical trials, they go through all of that, and the vaccine consistently is more harmful than useful. What would we expect with this ‘warp-speed’ thing that they just did?”

“They skipped all the steps that made the last batch of ineffective vaccines, that went on for decades. So thus we have no possible hope that this could actually be either safe or effective.”

— 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

Nepute added that whilst there are normally “17 points of criteria” to be met before giving emergency use authorization (EUA) to a vaccine, the current vaccines “came nowhere near close to doing that,” yet were still given EUA.

The few, limited trials which were carried out in the drug production, were performed on “perfect patients,” who are not representative of the population, since “nothing’s wrong with them,” Popper explained. Subsequently handing out such injections to the wider populace, thus becomes a “clinical trial in the general population with people who didn’t sign up to be enrolled in a clinical trial and don’t realize that that’s what’s happening to them.”

Vaccines which pose a health risk

A key issue addressed by the panel, was the very real concern about the effects of the experimental vaccines upon the health of those who receive them. Already, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) data shows that at least 653 deaths and 12,044 total adverse events had occurred by February 4, following COVID vaccinations. Similar reports are emerging from across the globe, with, as of February 11, the U.K. government reporting that at least 240 people had died following the rececption of a COVID-19 vaccine. 

The panel explained that the spike protein contained in the injections causes the body to make antibodies in response, but in a way which is unknown. “It’s a whole different delivery system for genetically modifying your body,” said Nepute “We don’t know what cells in our bodies are affected with those five proteins, and that’s a scary thing. I mean, that affects heart tissue, that affects lung tissue, that affects everything in the body.”

He mentioned that “polyethylene-glycol” is contained in the vaccines, despite the fact that many people have a “hypersensitivity” to it, and added that the chemical had “never really been studied in a vaccine before.”

Tenpenny also warned of the danger posed by the antibodies resulting from the vaccine’s protein, saying that studies demonstrated how the antibody cross-reacts with “up to 27 different types of tissues.” A key problem was the reaction with the lining of the mitochondria, resulting in “absolutely profound fatigue.”

“I’ve mapped out seven different distinct pathways, seven different pathways on which this antibody to the spike protein is going to be detrimental to human health and is going to kill many people,” she revealed.

Whilst those advocating for vaccines want the injections to keep people immune, Tenpenny explained that the COVID injections don’t work in that way.  The antibody thus created in response to the injection, “instead of protecting you if you get exposed to that pathogen, what it does is it makes you sicker, turns on all of the autoimmune cascades that have been created by this antibody and starts to attack your liver, your lungs and your kidneys.”

“That antibody can literally go inside of your lungs and kill your lung tissue.”

With such results, Tenpenny predicted an “autoimmune cascade,” which would cause widespread illness and fatality: “everyone is going to be equally damaged now.”

Following on from the vaccine, she warned there would be an influx in people having difficulty breathing, or coughing blood. Those patients would then be declared as having a “mutant virus,” and vaccinations would increase, when “what these people are actually experiencing is the antibody created by the vaccine.”

Sinister motives behind the vaccine?

In the face of such results from the injection, which Tenpenny noted had been known about since animal studies in 2002, the question arose about whether there was some sinister motivation behind the vaccine roll-out. 

“This whole COVID thing, we’re going to bypass all those animal studies and go directly to humans because we already know what happens in animals. We don’t have to do that again. We know they all die. Let’s just go right to humans. And that’s exactly what’s happened,” Tenpenny declared, in explanation of the mentality behind the governing bodies approving the injection.

In fact, she suggested that the high fatality rate and adverse effects from the experimental vaccine, had motivated the U.K. to delay giving the second dose of the injection by around 8 weeks, in order to allay any suspicions people might have about the vaccine. 

“He who controls the gold, makes the rules,” said Nepute, pointing to the amount of lobbying performed by large pharmaceutical companies on governments and medical bodies, in order to promote their untested, and unsafe products. 

The panel also commented on the link between those who are heavily involved in promoting the vaccine, such as Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the self-confessed population control goals of such people. “The same people who would want to depopulate the planet, cause infertility…are the same people who supposedly care so much about you to develop this whole vaccine program to save you and make you safe.”

“It’s all about control,” Tenpenny warned.

Pushing the potentially fatal vaccines, whilst enforcing lockdowns and forcefully quashing any physical or vocal dissent, seems to be part of a larger, globalist agenda, the panel concurred. “It’s all a planned mechanism way to dehumanize us, to separate us, to not touch each other and not shake hands, not do any of those things…so that they can put us into an enslavement system of total control.”

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page.  View it here.


  coronavirus vaccine

News

Bp. Schneider calls for ‘new pro-life movement’ to protest ‘abortion-tainted’ medicines like COVID vaccine

The global pro-life movement must 'protest clearly and unambiguously against abortion-tainted medicines, against the abuse of the body parts of the unborn.'
Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 4:43 pm EST
Featured Image
Bishop Athanasius Schneider speaks at the Rome Life Forum in May 2018.
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

Click HERE to register for access to replays of LifeSite’s Unmasking COVID-19 conference.

February 19, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – An outspokenly pro-life Catholic bishop is calling for the formation of a “new pro-life movement” that refuses to have anything to do with medicines or vaccines derived in one way or another from aborted babies.

“We have to make a new pro-life movement,” said Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan, during his February 19 presentation at an online conference hosted by LifeSiteNews titled “Unmasking COVID-19: Vaccines, Mandates, and Global Health.”

Bishop Schneider said that until now, the pro-life movement has been “very meritorious” in raising a united voice against abortion. “But I think there now comes a new time, a new phase, a new period of all pro-life movements to protest, clearly and unambiguously, against abortion-tainted medicines, against the abuse of the body parts of the unborn.”

“This is a new phase, and we have to be courageous,” he added.

Schneider’s call to action comes in the wake of revelations about how researchers procure cell lines used in the development of numerous vaccines — including a number of COVID vaccines — from babies who were aborted alive in order to have usable tissue.

The Catholic Church’s 2020 guidelines permit Catholics to receive abortion-tainted vaccines, emphasizing that Catholics who receive a COVID vaccine connected in some way to abortion can do so in “good conscience” with “the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion” (italics in original).

While Schneider would certainly acknowledge that there is no formal cooperation (that is, a willing participation) on the part of a vaccine recipient in an abortion from which was procured a cell line to make vaccines, he also holds that Christians cannot “simply resign” themselves to the fact that the production of various medicines is tied to the slaughter of preborn babies who are utilized for their body parts.

“The voice of the unborn children’s blood is crying to God from the abortion-tainted vaccines, from the abortion-tainted medicines,” he said. “This voice is crying all over the world, and we have to awaken.”

“No one who is really deeply concerned about the defense of life and the moral law can be silent or can be quiet and can resign to this situation,” he added.

The bishop lamented Church leaders, especially those connected to the Holy See, “who, unfortunately, do not see the grievousness” of the matter.

Schneider pointed out that there is an “accumulation of crimes” involved in the creation of abortion-tainted medicines.

“The first crime is the murder, the assassination, of the unborn child. Then there is the extraction of the cells – it’s a crime, it’s horrible. And then there is the recycling of these body parts. And then there is the commercialization, and so on. And then there is the fabrication of medicines and the fabrication of the vaccines.”

“These are all connected. You cannot separate them,” he said. “When you take this medicine in your body or this vaccine, you cannot say, ‘Oh, all these evils disappear, and I am very far away [from them all].’ This is not true. You are entering this chain.”

“The hour has now come that all people of goodwill, especially believing Catholics, all pro-life organizations have to stand up and make a fiery protest with one voice and say, ‘We will never agree [with], we will never admit [into our lives] these evils.’”

Schneider quoted from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, citing the Russian author’s warning about the moral cost of creating a utopia of “peace and rest” that was, however, founded on the torture, death and “unavenged tears” of “only one tiny creature—that baby beating its breast with its fist.”

“So, we have to protest against this and start a new movement in pharmaceutics, in medicine, with no connection, not the remotest, to these crimes,” the Bishop said.

Schneider said that Christians in this new movement should be willing to face “prison” and even “death” rather than receive health benefits derived from the murder of unborn babies.

“How can you use for your temporal health benefit the murdering, and all these horrible crimes, of the most weak and innocent unborn children? The end never justifies the means. You cannot enter into this chain.”

He pointed to the example of the first Christians who, when facing times of persecution, chose martyrdom rather than save their lives, their families, their children by putting a pinch of incense in front of a statue of an idol.

“They refused any act of ambiguity or cooperation against the first command of God,” he said.

“I think we are approaching a time where the true Christians will approach a kind of time of persecution. The signs are already there. But we have not to be fearful because God is with us […] If Christ is living in us, we don’t have to be fearful,” he added.

“We have to be convinced that we belong to the winners. And, we have to look at eternity. What is a Christian? I would say a person of eternity. And because we are looking beyond only this temporal life, we are looking on the eternal, we are looking for God’s will. And when we do this, God will always give us Jesus’ strength, his consolation even, and his blessings.”

Click HERE to register for access to replays of LifeSite’s Unmasking COVID-19 conference.


  abortion-tainted vaccines, athanasius schneider, catholic, new pro-life movement, pro-life, vaccines

News

Masks ‘don’t work,’ are damaging health and are being used to control population: Doctors panel

'There’s no common sense to any of this. I am in control of my life. I’m going to do what my God given inalienable rights as an American and a human allow me to do'
Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 4:30 pm EST
Featured Image
Scene from a May 2020 Pennsylvania anti-lockdown rally Mark Makela / Stringer/ Getty
Michael Haynes Michael Haynes Follow Michael
By Michael Haynes

Click HERE to register for access to replays of LifeSite’s Unmasking COVID-19 conference.

February 19, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Masks “don’t work,” reveal a panel of doctors in LifeSiteNews’ recent “Unmasking COVID-19,” conference, who warned about how mask mandates are being used to bring about “Nazi-like” control of the populace.

As part of the LifeSiteNews unique event, Dr. Sheri TenpennyDr. Eric Nepute and Dr. Pam Popper formed a panel discussion dealing with the issues of masks and vaccines, in which they highlighted the errors in the mainstream narrative, which promotes the wearing of masks almost everywhere. 

Masks ‘don’t work’

“The only randomized control studies that have ever been done on masks show that they don’t work,” began Dr. Nepute. He referred to Dr. Anthony Fauci’s “noble lie,” in which Fauci “changed his tune,” from his March 2020 comments, where he downplayed the need and efficacy of mask wearing, before urging Americans to use masks later in the year.

 “Well, he lied to us. So if he lied about that, what else has he lied to you about?” questioned Nepute.

Masks have become commonplace in almost every setting, whether indoors or outdoors, but Dr. Popper mentioned how there have been “no studies” which actually examine the “effect of wearing a mask during all your waking hours.”

“There’s no science to back any of this and particularly no science to back the fact that wearing a mask twenty four-seven or every waking minute, is health promoting,” added Popper.

“There’s no data, there’s no research that supports that wearing a mask is beneficial. In fact, if you look at the data that’s been coming out, it’s quite the contrary,” stated Nepute.

— 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 mentioned by Nepute, a number of studies and demonstrations are now emerging, proving the inability of masks to prevent the passage of infection. In fact, Dr. Tenpenny commented how she had examined over one hundred peer reviewed articles, which all proved that “masks do nothing but make the wearer of the mask ill.”

Masks actually undermining physical health

But more worrying than the failure of masks to perform their supposed purpose, the panel drew attention to the detrimental effects which masks can have on those who wear them. Referring to a recent study of 25,000 German students, Nepute mentioned that 68% of them had “some kind of impairment” from mask wearing.

Tenpenny weighed in, warning of the psychological effects which mask mandates will have on children. “We are training them to be fearful to breathe, that oxygen is horrible for them and that anybody that they see that doesn’t wear a mask is dangerous to them,” she said.

“And instead of thinking of people that had masks in the past where you would be afraid of the masked person, that they might be there to kidnap you or harm you or do something like that, instead, now we’re seeing children who are like horrified that somebody doesn’t have a mask on.”

Aside from the mental effect of mask wearing, the panel also highlighted the danger which masks posed to the respiratory system. Nepute commented on the unusually large number of people having respiratory bacterial infections. 

“If you look at what’s happening right now and if you look at death certificates and you look at correlative deaths with COVID-19, what we find above all things is bacterial respiratory infections.”

In a similar vein to her comments on COVID-19 experimental vaccines, Popper described those who are “consenting” to the mask mandates, as taking part in “a clinical trial without their permission that they are not even aware of.”

Masks as a means of controlling the populace

As mask mandates have spread, so too, to some extent, has resistance. Such resistance has led to numerous instances of people without masks being confronted by other members of the public, shop employees and the police.

“This just reminds me of Nazi Germany, where, I mean, next they’re going to put a star on my arm right,” noted Popper. “And because where does it stop? It’s a sign of submission, it has nothing to do with health.”

People have been “brainwashed,” into thinking “it’s unsafe not to wear a mask,” she continued. “They are turning the population against each other…this is a very common tactic that’s been used by criminals and despots throughout history.”

The “efficacy” of masks, which politicians point to, is in reality efficacy in bringing about “encephalopathy,” Tenpenny said. “It will more effectively make their brains work less, which is what their goal is.”

So effective has the campaign been in promoting fear and mask wearing, that Tenpenny predicted it could take “years” for people to stop wearing masks, even if the mandates stopped. “There would be a huge sector of the population that’s going to keep wearing it for a long time because the fear based anxiety that has gotten embedded into their brain, they’re not going to give it up.”

Nor did she think it likely that globalist politicians would even release the mask mandates, suggesting the mandates would continue “as long as it’s convenient for them [politicians] and as long as it propagates their agenda.”

Tenpenny referred to the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset agenda, and how it is crucially linked to the unprecedented restrictions being imposed upon the world. “It’s all a planned mechanism way to dehumanize us, to separate us, to not touch each other and not shake hands, not do any of those things, to dehumanize us so that they can put us into an enslavement system of total control.”

Presenting hope

However, the panel also urged people to have hope and courage. Nepute called for a “collective decision,” where “millions of people” refused to comply, removed their masks and opened up their businesses again. Despite an initial period of “cognitive dissonance,” Nepute expressed hope that many would soon reject the restrictions being imposed on them.

“There’s no common sense to any of this. I am in control of my life. I’m going to do what my God given inalienable rights as an American and a human allow me to do,” Nepute declared. “And I hope that more people realize that and stand up for that. Will we get some pushback? Yes. Who are we going to get pushback from? The very small amount of people that want to control everyone else.”

“I’m telling you, now is the time to take action,” he said.

Popper supported her colleague, presenting the example of many thousands of businesses in Italy which opened in defiance of lockdown laws: “at some point in time this will gather enough momentum where it will be unstoppable.”

“The people who are behind all of this, the people who are controlling us and this whole situation, they are godless, soulless creatures. They are brains inside of functioning bodies, but they have no soul. And people like this, if you look at history, they have never prevailed,” Popper reminded.

“They have never prevailed. They’re evil enough to use their brains to construct something like this and carry you off. But they never, ever win in the end. And so I think we can take our lessons from that and have a lot of hope for the future.”


  coronavirus restrictions, covid-19, masks

News

Historic vaccination case has troubling ties to eugenics: Attorney

The Supreme Court's upholding of mandatory vaccines in Jacobson v. Massachusetts led to another case, Buck v. Bell, in which the Court defended and upheld forcible sterilization, writing: 'Three generations of imbeciles are enough.'
Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 4:30 pm EST
Featured Image
Tasos Katopodis / Getty Images
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

Click HERE to register for access to replays of LifeSite’s Unmasking COVID-19 conference.

DENVER, Colorado, February 19, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A 116-year-old legal decision about vaccines led to one of the most shameful decisions in American legal history.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews’s Gualberto Garcia Jones at today’s “Unmasking COVID-19" conference, pro-life attorney Rebecca Messall drew a direct line from the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts decision upholding the state’s mandatory vaccination law to the infamous decision in the 1927 case of Buck v. Bell which allowed forced sterilizations.

Messall said she was “shocked” when she listened in on a recent case in Kentucky about a drive-in church service when the state’s attorney, arguing that the service violated the executive order, cited the 1905 vaccine case.

“That was a shocking piece of authority that I heard them arguing for,” Messall said.

The Colorado attorney was already concerned about all of the “hype” for vaccines that didn't yet exist, and it seemed to her that some kind of political extortion was going on because the U.S. had had unprecedented severe lockdowns and the promotion of vaccines using a 1905 case.  As a pro-life lawyer, she had read up on eugenics, and the year 1905 both rang a bell with her and made her think about Buck v. Bell.

— 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

“1905. Well, that's right: the year after [Francis] Galton established his Chair in Eugenics at the London School of Economics,” Messall said.

“But I wondered what that had to do with Buck v. Bell, the sort of epitome of that horrible eugenics movement disguised as public health,” she continued.

“So sure enough, I looked up the horrible Buck versus Bell case, and the very citation that everyone knows […] was enunciated in that case: ‘Three generations of imbeciles are enough.’ You know what the direct cite was? It was to the vaccine case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts.”

Oliver Wendell Holmes, the U.S. Supreme Court justice who wrote the 1927 ruling allowing the state to sterilize the unfortunate Carrie Buck, believed that the “sterilization of the unfit” was in society’s best interests.

“The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11,” Homes wrote. “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

The 1905 decision upholding states’ rights to vaccinate residents over the objections of a Cambridge pastor, Henning Jacobson, who had had (and whose son had had) a vaccination injury also led to the justification of putting Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps, Messall believes.

“What springs to mind right after Buck versus Bell is the horrible Korematsu case [1944]," the attorney said.

“Korematsu was the relocation of all the Japanese Americans out of their homes and put into camps for four years. No due process, no nothing. It was an executive order.”

Messall said that the influence of Jacobson on eugenics and the Japanese internment was ironic in that the Jacobson was not a forcible sterilization or forcible vaccination case, but “just a state statute.”

“And the man who objected [Jacobson]...brought a poor case,” she continued.

“It was thrown out because the claims were not properly stated, and also the statute in Massachusetts did not require you to be vaccinated. So that's what happened. And yet from that opinion came Buck v. Bell and a horrible history of eugenics.”

The Jacobson v Massachusetts case has been interpreted as the state having the power to vaccinate people against their will, but fortunately that reading is not universal and has lately fallen into disfavor.

“It's been tempered down in the last few cases that I've seen come through, including the United States Supreme Court,” Messall said.

“[However] Justice Roberts referred to it obliquely—and it was not a binding opinion or anything—but in the first couple of cases that came their way on the court, they were referring to Jacobson as if it were authority,” she continued.

“And in the next few cases that came their way, they didn't do that anymore. There was one line by Justice Gorsuch to the effect of ‘When we just uphold these executive orders blindly, things don't turn out well.” And he, I know, has a background in eugenics because he wrote a book about physician-assisted suicide [citing Carrie Buck].”

The pro-life attorney said that she hopes the courts will stop relying on Jacobson and start thinking about executive orders in the context of World War II.

“We already been there, done that," she said.

“That was Germany. That was the Eastern Bloc. We just don't do these things, although we're suffering through them right now.”

Messall also thinks that the courts should formally “denounce and overrule” both the Buck v. Bell and the Jacobson decisions. She takes hope from the fact that the Korematsu decision depriving Japanese-Americans of their liberties was eventually denounced.

“That was a very refreshing and hopeful sign,” she said.

Attorneys Brad Bergford and Thomas Renz were also part of the interview. Bergford, who with Messell has been defending church congregations in Colorado, discussed the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion as enshrined in the First Amendment. Renz discussed how “emergency measures” should not be used during chronic situations. As experts say COVID-19 is here to stay, there is no longer a coronavirus “emergency,” he believes, but a chronic situation. Regulations and laws related to masks and other anti-COVID measures should be put “through the legislative process, the regulatory process that’s laid out in the law, just like they would in any other law,” Renz said.

“And then they can deal with the political fallout for destroying businesses and shutting down the country.”


  coronavirus vaccine, forced vaccination, sterilization, unmasking vaccines conference, unmasking vaccines: ethics, mandates, and global health, vaccines

News

Czech cardinal says COVID-19 is Chinese bioweapon escaped from lab

‘And now, in this situation, it’s a Chinese virus, a biological weapons leak,’ said Cardinal Dominik Duka.
Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 3:56 pm EST
Featured Image
Dominik Duka Konzervativní Noviny / YouTube
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news.  Subscribe now.

PRAGUE, Czech Republic, February 19, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In a stirring Sunday homily, a Czech cardinal expressed his opinion that COVID-19 is a Chinese bioweapon that escaped from a lab.

Cardinal Dominik Duka, 77, made the remark in early February when commenting on the human fear of death. Noting that babies scream and cry after they are born, but find comfort when they are laid under their mother’s breast, the cardinal stated that human beings are just as afraid of death but find comfort in the parental love of God.

“The coronavirus situation brings us back to that,” the cardinal said, and mused over the kind of death one might usually expect in old age — a broken hip and then pneumonia.

“And now, in this situation, it’s a Chinese virus, a biological weapons leak,” he said. “Military specialists around the world are convinced of this. Or they are afraid to say it, or they must not say it.”

The cardinal also reflected that although the Czech Republic is one of the most atheist nations in the world, its churches had never closed to worshipers during the coronavirus crisis. He also noted that although atheist societies say with Nietzsche “God is dead,” they have discovered that they are not themselves gods and that an invisible virus can get the better of them.

Duka encouraged his congregation not to be afraid and to consider the examples of saints who lived in the Roman Empire during a terrible twenty-year plague. St. Cyprian (200-258 AD), the bishop of Carthage, had to admonish his flock for its terror, Duka said, but the Christians proved their faith by taking care of the sick and the dying. He noted also that the modern world has already dealt with pandemics, like the Spanish Flu, which originated in China, and the Hong Kong flu of 1968.

To further bolster their courage, the cardinal archbishop of Prague retold the story of a man who meets Plague on its way to a city, intending to kill 5,000 people. When the man meets Plague again, he upbraids it, pointing out that 20,000 had died. But Plague refused responsibility, saying, “I killed 5,000. 15,000 died of fear.”

“And we must avoid that fear,” Duka said. “We must be an example of those who follow that path of [Saints] Agnes, Agatha, those who have passed these trials … They knew what it means to be a Christian.”

The cardinal’s remark about the origins of the COVID-19 coronavirus was criticized in the Czech secular press and by China.

According to the Global Times, which is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese Embassy in the Czech Republic launched a complaint and “urged” the cardinal “to immediately correct his mistakes.” The Global Times said that the Chinese embassy had called his characterization of COVID-19 as a Chinese biological weapons leak “groundless slander.”

“China is firmly opposed to anyone politicizing the pandemic and stigmatizing China,” the Embassy stated. “The Chinese Embassy in the Czech Republic urges Czech Cardinal Dominik Duka to immediately correct his mistakes and eliminate the adverse influence.”

According to La Croix International, the Czech military denied believing COVID-19 is an escaped Chinese bioweapon.

“We have no such evidence, nor have we ever presented it anywhere,” a spokesman for the Ministry of Defense told Czech media.

A Czech immunologist named Vaclav Horejsi told Czech media that the cardinal’s take on COVID-19 was “absolutely scandalous” and accused him of spreading fake news.

“As a Catholic, I am ashamed and embarrassed that this man heads our church,” he 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

Nevertheless, there have been numerous reports that there is evidence COVID-19 was made in a lab, probably the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In May 2020, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that there is “enormous evidence” that the coronavirus first came from a Wuhan lab.

Earlier this year, the head of the Population Research Institute and China expert Steven Mosher told Fox News host Tucker Carlson, “I think the evidence is obvious to anybody who looks at it. Tucker, we have not, in the past year, found a natural analog to the China virus. That is, we have not found a coronavirus … that looks at all like the China virus. It looks like a lab creation.”

He went on to discuss the testimony of Chinese virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan who fled to the U.S. and claims that COVID-19 was manufactured in a China lab. With three colleagues, Yan issued a research paper in September which casted doubt on the commonly held position that COVID-19 originated naturally. The paper stated that “the natural origin theory, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support.”


  bioweapons, covid-19, dominik duka

News

California school board caught on hot mic mocking parents who demand reopening

‘They want their babysitters back,’ one school board member said about parents.
Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 3:15 pm EST
Featured Image
Class room Shutterstock
Patrick Delaney Patrick Delaney Follow
By

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news.  Subscribe now.

OAKLEY, California, February 19, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Members of a northern California school board were caught on a hot mic belittling parents who urgently want their schools to reopen.

“They want their babysitters back,” said Lisa Brizendine, an Oakley Union School District trustee, during a pre-meeting session they thought was private, yet was already open to the public online.

In discussing a contentious interaction with a frustrated parent, board member Kim Beede, communicated her own attitude, “B-tch, if you are going to call me out, I am going to f-ck you up,” she said, to much laughter.

Trustee Richie Masadas theorized that parents wanted their children back in school so they could get high during the day. “My brother had a delivery service for medical marijuana. The clientele were parents with their kids in school,” he said, eliciting more jovial affirmation.

A brief discussion was led by Superintendent Greg Hetrick on how the board might institute a hard time limit to public comments, requiring them to be prerecorded with the system cutting off citizens at precisely three minutes.

In response, upset parents initiated an online petition calling for the board to “resign immediately due to their egregious behavior,” or be recalled.

One comment on the petition website stated, “I am speechless. They all should resign … These people should never be around children!” Another wrote, “The assumption that I would rather do drugs over care for my children is awful.”

Another parent from Oakley, Ashley Stalf, who was featured on The Ingraham Angle last night, said that many “moms and dads were so appalled” at this behavior believing the board members “were advocates as much as we were for our children. And after yesterday’s comments, and jokes, and laughing, and just genuine insincerity, it really makes me question what their true motives are.”

In a written statement, Hetrick apologized for the “unfortunate and truly inappropriate comments made that were heard by many. These comments, are not typical and more importantly they are not what the community should expect from our school district … The comments made were not in alignment with our vision and are definitely not what any of us stand for as leaders. I know that we lost trust with the community."

According to one member of Open Schools California, a volunteer-run group that wants school campuses to reopen safely, the larger issue is the growing number of parents who want to see the schools opened again, following the guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control.

Many school districts in California have kept their schools closed to in-person learning for almost a year now, causing even, in one case, the city of San Francisco to file a lawsuit against its own school district in order to force its full opening.

The data provided in the lawsuit includes evidence of a “mental health crisis among school-aged children.” The University of California San Francisco (UCSF) hospital “has seen a 66% increase in the number of suicidal children in the emergency room, and a 75% increase in youth who required hospitalization for mental health services,” according to KTLA.

“The medical evidence is clear that keeping public schools closed is catalyzing a mental health crisis among school-aged children in San Francisco,” said Dr. Jeanne Noble of the UCSF Emergency Department.

— 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

Given that the threat of a COVID-19 infection remains essentially irrelevant to school-aged children due to their 99.997% survival rate, and for those under 70 this virus remains less of a threat than influenza, former White House Coronavirus Task Force member Dr. Scott Atlas explained last December, “The point about the schools is really critical because this is the most irrational public policy probably in modern history. Children have virtually zero risk of getting a serious complication, virtually zero risk of dying … You don’t lockdown the children because you are personally afraid. That’s totally outrageous.”

When Laura Ingraham asked Stalf if she at least believed Beede should resign due to her profane comments, she declined to say so directly but did affirm “I don’t want that kind of person dictating my child’s education.”

Ingraham responded, “Ashley, I appreciate it, I’ll be the one that calls for it. Someone who speaks that way about parents who are worried about their kids not learning should go into a different line of work.”

According to news reports, Brizendine, who made the “babysitters” remark, tendered her resignation on Thursday. Whether other resignations will be forthcoming remains to be seen.


  california, covid-19, school boards, schools

News

Biden restores $200 million to scandal-ridden WHO, admits ‘deep concerns’ remain

Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 2:46 pm EST
Featured Image
World Health Organization Shutterstock
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news.  Subscribe now.

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 19, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The Biden administration has notified the World Health Organization (WHO) that it will contribute $200 million by the end of the month, restoring the foreign aid the Trump administration had canceled in response to the scandal-plagued international body’s handling of COVID-19.

"Today, I’m pleased to confirm that by the end of the month, the United States intends to pay over $200 million in assessed and current obligations to the WHO,” U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said at a UN Security Council meeting Wednesday, Fox News reports. “This is a key step forward in fulfilling our financial obligations as a WHO member, and it reflects our renewed commitment to ensuring the WHO has the support it needs to lead the global response to the pandemic, even as we work to reform it in the future.”

The announcement follows President Joe Biden’s move to formally rejoin the WHO on his first day in office, claiming in a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres that the organization “plays a crucial role in the world’s fight against the deadly COVID-19 pandemic as well as countless other threats to global health and health security.”

Last April, former President Donald Trump announced a temporary suspension of the more than $400 million the United States sends the pro-abortion UN entity every year, pending a review of its “role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus.”

A month later, he notified WHO general-director Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus that the administration’s review “confirmed many of the serious concerns I raised last month” as to the international body’s “repeated missteps” and “China centric” nature, and that withdrawal would be permanent if the WHO didn’t “commit to major substantive improvements,” including “demonstrat[ing] independence from China.” 

The Trump administration announced it would cut ties with the WHO for good later that month, and submitted its formal withdrawal notice in July.

Critics have faulted the organization for, among other offenses, opposing bans on travel from China that could have limited the reach of COVID-19, and for legitimizing the false claims coming out of the Chinese government that initially downplayed the gravity of the situation and covered up the Communist regime’s mishandling of it.

“In December, the WHO refused to act on or publicize Taiwan’s warning that the new respiratory infection emerging in China could pass from human to human,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) wrote. “In mid January, despite accumulating evidence of patients contracting what we now know as COVID-19 from other people, the organization repeated the [Chinese Communist Party’s] lie that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission. In January, the WHO, at Beijing’s behest, also blocked Taiwan from participating in critical meetings to coordinate responses to the coronavirus and even reportedly provided wrong information about the virus’s spread in Taiwan.”

— 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

Population Research Institute head and China expert Steve Mosher added that Ghebreyesus and his senior adviser, Dr. Bruce Aylward, have been “carrying water” for the Chinese regime, from backing claims that the virus didn’t originate in China to praising the regime’s handling of the outbreak.

Even while restoring support for the WHO, the Biden administration has tacitly acknowledged that suspicion of the organization is not unfounded, expressing last week “deep concerns about the way in which the early findings of the [WHO’s] COVID-19 investigation were communicated and questions about the process used to reach them. It is imperative that this report be independent, with expert findings free from intervention or alteration by the Chinese government.”

Nevertheless, the WHO appears to have reciprocated Biden’s long-running support by changing its criteria for recording a positive COVID-19 test the same day Biden was inaugurated, resulting in sharp declines in the official worldwide COVID-19 numbers.


  coronavirus, covid-19, donald trump, foreign aid, joe biden, united nations, world health organization

News

Poland’s most important opposition party now in favor of abortion on demand

The party supports offering free contraception, including the abortifacient morning after pill, IVF treatment, and legal abortion up to 12 weeks.
Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 1:39 pm EST
Featured Image
Pro-life protest in Poland Shutterstock
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news.  Subscribe now.

WARSAW, Poland, February 19, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Poland’s primary opposition party will seek not only to reinstate eugenic abortion, but to introduce abortion on demand. Yesterday Poland’s center-left Platform Obywatelska (PO, Civic Platform) presented its new “Pact for Women” which would offer free contraception, including the abortifacient morning after pill, IVF treatment, and legal abortion up to 12 weeks.

In difficult circumstances and after medical and psychological advice, a woman should be supported in her decision to abort her baby, according to the PO.

The position paper, which the PO party hopes to develop into a bill, also includes more financial assistance to families raising disabled children.

Civic Platform has been trying to sell their position as a form of “security” for women. “We are proposing an essential assurance of rights to women; that’s why we have adopted the ‘Pact for Women,’ which gives a feeling of security to women at every stage of their lives,” said the PO’s Agnieszka Pomaska.

The leader of the PO, Borys Budka, said that his party believes that the state should take “special care of Polish women.”

“We are convinced that women must feel safe, and the state should guarantee comprehensive care, so that women can consciously and safely make decisions about their future, including motherhood,” he said.

However, few people in Poland actually want abortion on demand, says Kaja Godek of Poland’s Life and Family Foundation.

“In my opinion, PO has started a march towards self-annihilation," Godek told LifeSiteNews via email. “Voters in favor of abortion on demand are scarce [in] Poland.”

“Even in December 2020, after the feminist strikes, only 18-20% of Poles said they would welcome abortion due to a difficult situation of the mother. Additionally, there are 4 or 5 parties which are interested in those pro-abortion voters.”

Politically, backing abortion does not pay in Poland, Godek added. “Anyone who wants to win elections has to take into account that Poland has become a really pro-life country in recent years.”

“We do understand that killing an innocent child is a horror.”

— 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

Until January, Poland’s relatively strict abortion laws, which were passed after the fall of communist rule, forbade all abortions except when a mother’s life or health was endangered by the unborn child, when the unborn child was conceived in an illegal act, and when the child had a serious disability, Down Syndrome, or an incurable disease.

Last October, Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal ruled that aborting a child on eugenic grounds was contrary to the constitution.

As a result, protests began to erupt across Poland, led by the country’s foreign-funded, decade-old “Strajk Kobiet” abortion movement. The Catholic Church bore the brunt of the rage as pro-abortion protestors interrupted Mass and desecrated churches. The activists also vandalized patriotic monuments.

As a result of the furor, the Polish coalition government delayed changing the abortion law. The President of Poland, Andrzej Duda, even proposed a bill that would allow for the abortion of terminally ill babies, though not for babies with Down Syndrome or disabilities. However, the elimination of all the eugenic grounds for abortion came into effect in late January, 2021.


  abortion, agnieszka pomaska, borys budka, civic platform, kaja godek, poland

News

In fight over new law, Facebook blocks all Australian news websites

Tech companies would be forced to share some of the profits they make from advertising those news sites, according to the bill.
Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 1:17 pm EST
Featured Image
Facebook logo and Australian flag Shutterstock
Michael Haynes Michael Haynes Follow Michael
By Michael Haynes

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news.  Subscribe now.

February 19, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Facebook has banned Australians from accessing or sharing any news on its platform, as well as preventing users worldwide from accessing Australian news. The move by the social media giant is due to a dispute over proposed new laws.

On February 17, Facebook blocked Australians from either seeing or sharing news on the platform, and additionally blocked users around the world from seeing Australian-based news outlet’s posts. The ban was so widespread that it even affected a number of official government pages, charity pages, the opposition leader for Western Australia, as well as pages for various state departments of health.

Facebook even blocked its own page in the country, in a move which was described as highlighting the irony of the situation.

The latest development in the ongoing dispute between the Australian authorities and Facebook is an act of retaliation in view of a bill introduced last year which would regulate the money social media companies can make. Under the terms of the code, Facebook and Google would have to draw up contracts and pay Australian news media sites which use the platforms.

The tech companies would be forced to share some of the profits they make from advertising those news sites, and if the tech giants were found to be in breach of the code, they could be fined up to AU$10 million (almost US$8 million).

Australia’s Treasurer Josh Frydenburg, from whose department the bill originated, previously wrote in The Australian that it was “only fair that the search ­engines and social media giants pay for the original news content that they use to drive traffic to their sites.”

Frydenburg stated that for “every $100 spent by advertisers in Australia on online advertising, excluding classifieds, $47 goes to Google, $24 to Facebook and $29 to other participants.”

The proposed bill was approved at its third reading by the Australian House of Representatives on February 17, and has now to pass through the Senate, where it is expected to be approved.

Responding to Facebook’s move, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison issued a statement, saying that Facebook had moved “to unfriend Australia today,” accusing the company of “cutting off essential information services on health and emergency services,” in actions that “were as arrogant as they were disappointing.”

In a press conference the day after the Facebook news bans, Frydenburg dubbed the Big Tech company’s move as “wrong … unnecessary … heavy-handed,” adding that it was “completely unrelated to the media code, which is yet to pass through the Senate.”

However, Facebook’s director for Australia and New Zealand William Easton attacked the proposed bill, saying it “fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between our platform and publishers who use it to share news content.” Easton claimed that Facebook was being forced to comply with the law, or cease allowing news on the social media site: “With a heavy heart, we are choosing the latter.”

Some of the Facebook pages originally banned, relating to official government accounts and charities, have since been restored, and Frydenburg stated he had a “constructive” conversation Thursday morning with Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Frydenburg also revealed that Zuckerberg had given the treasurer no indication of Facebook’s possible move to ban pages when they had last spoken a few days earlier.

However, Facebook’s ban on news sites has caused outrage across the world, and the number of calls to abandon the site has rapidly grown. Western Australia’s premier Mark McGowan said that Facebook was “behaving like a North Korean dictator.”

Meanwhile, the Australia director of Human Rights Watch (HRW) declared, “It’s not only news sites, but health department pages that share essential COVID-19 updates, emergency services and small Indigenous community pages are affected. This is an alarming and dangerous turn of events. Cutting off access to vital information to an entire country in the dead of the night is unconscionable. Mark Zuckerberg has publicly stated that he doesn’t think it’s right for a private company to censor the news and Human Rights Watch agrees.”

A New York Post op-ed stated, “The extent of Facebook’s power allows it to threaten a country’s government by holding hostage massive amounts of its social infrastructure. What we are witnessing is hardly a contractual dispute, but a power struggle between a sovereign self-government and a private corporation so dominant it exists as a hegemon in its own right.”

— 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 recent event highlights the sharp contrast between this latest act of censorship and how the unprecedented banning of former President Donald Trump from social media was received.

Just hours after the January 6 protests at the Capitol building, Facebook and Instagram removed the sitting president from the social media platforms “indefinitely,” blaming Trump for inciting violence that day.

A day later, Twitter banned Trump also, having previously suspended his account and deleted a number of the president’s tweets, alleging that he was inciting protests and violence. The increasing censorship leveled against Trump and numerous other conservative and pro-life voices since the November 2020 election has served to draw attention to the unique power which tech companies wield, almost without limits.

Yet despite the de-platforming of the president of the United States, the main-stream media coverage at the time hailed the decision, in contrast to the current reporting on the situation in Australia. In fact, at the time, Deborah Brown, a researcher for HRW, applauded the social media ban, saying: “I do agree with the decision.”

Facebook’s move in Australia also clearly demonstrates the amount of power which the social media company wields, as well as the manner in which society has become reliant upon it to such a large extent.

At the same time, some countries are taking measures to fight back against the tech giants, with Poland and Hungary unveiling plans to regain freedom of speech on the internet. Commenting on her country’s plans, Hungary’s Justice Minister Judit Varga stated: “Tech companies thus violate all those fundamental democratic legal norms that form the basis of Western-type culture.”

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has also recently revealed an extensive legislative plan, in an attempt to curtail the power of Big Tech, pointing to the “increasing decisive role” that the platforms play in elections, and stating that the plan would help Americans who have been “negatively impacted Americans who dissent from orthodoxies favored by the Big Tech Cartel.”

Newsmax’s White House Correspondent Emerald Robinson tweeted about how Big Tech had moved from canceling Trump, to an entire country: “Big Tech monopolies now threaten the autonomy of nation states.”


  australia, facebook, josh frydenburg, mark zuckerberg, william easton

Opinion

Vaccine expert answers critics, exposes horrific nature of abortion-tainted vaccine research

Pamela Acker lays out what goes into developing a cell line, along with the macabre practices scientists and doctors engage in to harvest human children's organs for research.
Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 6:52 pm EST
Featured Image
sutlafk / Shutterstock.com
Pamela Acker
By Pamela Acker

February 19, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A number of questions have been directed to LifeSiteNews about an interview I gave with John-Henry Westen on Jan. 12, 2021. I have been asked to address some of those questions, beginning with concerns about the origin of the HEK-293 cell line, which has been used in the development of many of the current COVID vaccine candidates.

Frank Graham, the researcher who developed this line, derived its name from its origin (human embryonic kidney) and also from the method he used to number his experiments (it was his 293rd). In the interview with LifeSite, I made the speculative statement that this cell line could have been the fruit of hundreds of abortions. There are some who have called this supposition into question, claiming that Frank Graham himself has stated that the cell line was based on a single abortion and two experiments. Therefore, it is alleged, the statement that only one abortion was involved is the correct one, and this affects the moral nature of the decision whether to use these abortion-tainted vaccines. 

There are several facets of this line of reasoning that should be addressed. The first is what is involved in developing a cell line.

When a cell line is developed (whether it is a human cell line or an animal cell line), it is usually produced using a sample of tissue from a single individual (exceptions are hybrid cell lines). Thus, on the one hand, it is technically correct to say the cell line was developed using one aborted baby.  However, this is not an accurate representation of how many lives were actually sacrificed in the whole process of developing an aborted fetal cell line. 

An analogy may be helpful here. Suppose I bake a cake for a friend’s birthday party. I’m not a terribly good baker, so the first attempt flops because I included the wrong amount of flour. Then I try a second time to bake a cake and forget to add the baking soda; this cake doesn’t rise, and I have to throw it out. Perhaps the third attempt gets knocked onto the floor by a toddler. Finally, on the fourth try, I manage to produce an edible confection. Now, it would technically be true if I said the cake required exactly the amount of ingredients that I put into the fourth cake, but it would be more accurate (especially if I was having to account for things in the family budget) to admit that the raw materials required included those of the three failed cakes as well.

Unfortunately, as John-Henry Westen so recently documented, it is not uncommon for vaccine researchers to dissimulate in a similar way on the use of aborted fetal tissue in their research. Dr. Stanley Plotkin, who gave a nine-hour deposition on his work with aborted fetal tissue in vaccines, has publicly claimed that only two abortions were involved in the creation of the cell lines that are used in vaccines. While not technically an overt lie, the assertion ignores the other 74 aborted fetuses who were used in the experiments conducted by Dr. Plotkin himself as he worked on developing aborted fetal cell–derived vaccines. In essence, he is counting only the abortions that went into the “finished product” and not those that were involved in the research and development that made the cell lines possible. This misleads those who are trying to make evaluations of the gravity of using these cell lines. 

The assertion that HEK-293 was developed using only one aborted baby is equally imprecise. Frank Graham’s notebooks from his time at the University of Leiden are not published, but there are clues in other published research papers that his work involved more than just the final specimen from whom HEK-293 was derived. A paper from 2002, for example, discusses experiments done in HEK-218 and HER-224 (human embryonic retina), both of which were attributed to Mr. Graham and follow his naming scheme. At this time, it is unknown exactly how many babies were aborted for his research, and it will likely remain unknown to the public unless Mr. Graham decides to release his notebooks.

The use of multiple aborted babies to develop cell lines (due to multiple failed attempts to produce something viable and sufficiently robust) has been routinely documented.  Many aborted fetal cell lines (and all the aborted fetal cell lines used in currently licensed vaccines) are the culmination of a series of experiments that included multiple aborted fetuses. This information is published in full on the Children of God for Life website, but a brief list will suffice for our purposes:

  1. The WI-38 cell line (used in MMR and shingles vaccines) came from the 32nd baby who was used in a series of experiments. Other cell lines that came out of the Wistar Institute include WI-26 (from the 20th baby) and WI-44 cell (from the 38th baby).
  2. The MRC-5 line (used in hepatitis A, measles, and shingles vaccines) required 5 abortions to develop.
  3. WALVAX2, the most recent aborted fetal cell line, came from the 9th aborted baby in a series.
  4. RA273, which is the virus used in the rubella vaccine, originated in the 27th baby that was aborted in search of the virus. Mothers who were infected with the rubella virus during pregnancy were actively encouraged to abort their children. Forty more elective abortions of rubella-exposed babies were performed after this, though RA273 was the strain that ended up in the final vaccine preparation.

Though the number of abortions involved in producing these cell lines should appall us, it deserves some emphasis here that a single abortion is all that is required to make a cell line’s origin illicit. We should not delude ourselves that fewer abortions make something more acceptable. As I am not a moral theologian, I refer the reader to the statements issued by Father Phil Wolfe, Father Chad Ripperger, Father Michael Copenhagen, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider on this subject. This is a point of immense importance with Catholics —– it is insufficient to claim that participation in the abortion process is “material” and “remote” when the byproducts of these abortions are accepted and used.

Another issue that has been raised with the use of aborted fetal cells in COVID vaccines is the idea that this will somehow not cause sufficient scandal for the use to be prohibited to the faithful, and it certainly will not engender expanding use of aborted fetuses in vaccine research. Regrettably, this simply is not the case. 

The use of aborted fetal cell lines in medical research, at any level, fuels a growing acceptance of using aborted babies in other types of medical research — both in terms of the amount of research being done and in the escalation of its monstrosity. This problem is irrespective of the original number of abortions committed to obtain a cell line and will only be exacerbated by the acceptance of HEK-293-derived COVID vaccines. 

A few examples should suffice, though many more could be noted:

  1. There is a long history of new aborted fetal cell lines that have been developed to replace older, senescing cell lines (aborted fetal cell lines do die out and are not truly immortal). IMR-90 and IMR-91, developed in the late ’70s and early ’80s, are designer cell lines that were obtained from abortions in order to mimic WI-38 and MRC-5. WALVAX2, which was developed in 2015, aimed to offer researchers a replacement to these same two cell lines, which were now either dwindling in supply or hard to obtain internationally. 
  2. The growing use of aborted fetal cell lines leads to interest in embryonic stem (E.S.) cell research, which involves the continued creation and destruction of human life. An article in Scientific American reported: “[O]ff-the-shelf fetal cell lines are of limited use for scientists because they do not faithfully mimic native tissue and represent only a subset of cell types: WI-38 and MRC-5, for example, were derived from fetal lungs. The lines can also accumulate mutations after replicating in vitro over time.” In 2018, after one federal contract for human fetal tissue was terminated, 64 medical and scientific institutions signed a plea to Congress to not disrupt their fetal tissue supply.
  3. Legislation allowing research with aborted fetal tissue and E.S. cells has expanded significantly in recent decades. In 1993, President Clinton overturned a five-year ban on aborted fetal tissue research. In 2001, President Bush opened up the field of embryonic stem (E.S.) cell research by allowing experimentation with “already existing embryos.” In 2009, President Obama loosened restrictions on E.S. cell research even further, allowing researchers to purposefully obtain more E.S. cells. The executive orders of both Bush and Obama permitted federal funding for E.S. cell research; in the meantime, universities were already finding ways around governmental legislation that restricted the research and were using E.S. cells regardless of the federal regulations. 
  4. Gallup polls indicate that the percentage of the U.S. population that thinks E.S. cell research is morally acceptable has risen by 14% from 2002 to 2020 — with now almost a third of all Americans having no problem with the research. 
  5. Planned Parenthood has repeatedly been accused of trafficking tissue from abortions conducted at its facilities, and regardless of whether the corporation is “profiting” from such tissue, it is certainly supplying it to researchers under the guise of “tissue donation.”
  6. Aborted fetal tissue is now being used in experiments that would be unethical to perform on living human beings and can only be described as monstrously grotesque: making “humanized” mice to conduct experiments on long-term organ damage in disease models.  According to a 2015 report in Scientific American, “Every month, Lishan Su receives a small test tube on ice from a company in California. In it is a piece of liver from a human fetus aborted at between 14 and 19 weeks of pregnancy.” In research published by Yash Agarwal, et al. in 2020, aborted fetal skin, scalps, liver, thymus, and spleen are being harvested and grafted onto mice. The images of baby hair on the animals’ backs, which were published as part of the research paper, are deeply disturbing. 

There are two other points regarding Mr. Graham’s reported testimony on HEK-293 that deserve mention: the fact that the cells he used for his experiment were in the freezer at the time of his arrival in the lab and that it was his understanding that the abortion had been performed for “therapeutic purposes” because abortion was not legal in the country at the time. Neither of these facts changes the nature of the HEK-293 cell line or its questionable moral status

In particular, the fact that the cells were stored in the freezer lends further credence to the conclusion that HEK-293 was derived from an electively aborted fetus. The success and longevity of HEK-293 suggests that the specimen was remarkably well suited for culturing. Because of the biological impossibility of creating a live cell line from dead tissue, and the practical and biological implausibility of obtaining live tissue from a spontaneously aborted (miscarried) fetus, it is far more likely that the baby from whom HEK-293 was derived was electively aborted and alive at the time of tissue extraction — or at most just moments deceased. In an interview given for ALL, Dr. C. Ward Kischer, an embryologist and emeritus professor of anatomy from the University of Arizona College of Medicine, stated the following regarding the cells obtained for aborted fetal cell lines: “In order to sustain 95% of the cells, the live tissue would need to be preserved within 5 minutes of the abortion[.] ... [W]ithin an hour the cells would continue to deteriorate, rendering the specimen useless.”

Finally, I know there have also been a number of questions directed to LifeSite about the C-section abortions, and this ties into Mr. Graham’s statement about therapeutic abortions. I will quote directly from an article from Children of God for life that includes sections of scientific articles describing how these “therapeutic” abortions are performed:

[T]he scientists noted that these were intact fetuses (not embryos by the way since most were well beyond the embryonic stage of development).  As in the NY abortions that were obtained via C-section, so were those performed in Boston’s Lying-in/Women’s Hospital in the late 1940s to early 1950s.

According to Drs Enders and Wells, who won the Nobel Prize for their polio research:

It was obtained under sterile precautions at the time of abdominal hysterotomy for therapeutic indications. Embryos of between 12 and 18 weeks gestation have been utilized. Rarely tissues were obtained from stillborn fetuses, or from premature infants at autopsy…In the experiments on prolonged propagation of virus three sorts of embryonic materials were used: elements of skin, connective tissue, and muscle; intestinal tissue; brain tissue. Embryonic tissues were prepared in the following manner. Whenever possible the embryo was removed from the amniotic sac under sterile precautions, transferred to a sterile towel and kept at 5 C until dissected. [11]

To further explain, the type of abortion performed — “abdominal hysterotomy” — which is a type of C-Section — not a hysterectomy — was a dead giveaway as to what these doctors were doing. According to the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, because abdominal hysterotomy is considered a major surgery and not a routine method of terminating an early pregnancy they noted, “It is only done in special circumstances such as when sterilization is required in addition to the termination of pregnancy, as in the case of cardiac disease, diabetes, TB or mental disease. [emphasis added] Otherwise it is employed after the second trimester.”

Dr. Gonzalo Herranz, Professor of Histology and General Embryology at the University of Navarra, Spain, who is a staunch pro-life advocate and adamantly opposes such research, describes how the abortions should ideally be done when fetal material is utilized:

“The correct way consists in having recourse to Caesarian section or to the removal of the uterus. Only in this way can bacteriological sterility be guaranteed. In either case, then, to obtain embryo cells for culture, a programmed abortion must be adopted, choosing the age of the embryo and dissecting it while still alive to remove tissues to be placed in culture media.” [12] 

Citation 11: Thomas H. Weller, John F. Enders, Frederick C. Robbins and Marguerite B. Stoddard; Studies on the Cultivation of Poliomyelitis Viruses in Tissue Culture : I. The Propagation of Poliomyelitis Viruses in Suspended Cell Cultures of Various Human Tissue; Journal of Immunology 1952;69;645-671

Citation 12: Pietro Croce, MD, Vivisection or Science — a choice to make, Fetal Experimentation-Over the top; Part 1, p. 99-108.CIVIS, 1991, Hans Ruesch Foundation

Because of the necessity of maintaining a sterile culture of tissue for developing a cell line, it seems reasonable to conclude that there would — at minimum — had to have been some pre-arrangement to obtain sterile, unmacerated tissue from the fetus used for HEK-293. The easiest and surest way to do this is by the surgical method of whole-fetus extraction I described in my interview that is referenced and cited above. 

As Catholics, we must hold fast to the instruction that we have an obligation to oppose the moral evil of aborted fetal cell lines in vaccines. I will close with the words of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which so clearly teaches what our response should be to aborted fetal vaccines in its explanation of the petition to “deliver us from evil” given to us in the Our Father (emphasis added):

The faithful should be encouraged to use this salutary manner of praying and to imitate the example of the Prophet.  And at the same time their attention should be called to the marked difference that exists between the prayers of the infidel and those of the Christian.

The infidel, too, begs of God to cure his diseases and to heal his wounds, to deliver him from approaching or impending evils; but he places his principal hope of deliverance in the remedies provided by nature, or prepared by man.  He makes no scruple of using medicine no matter by whom prepared, no matter if accompanied by charms, spells or other diabolical arts, provided he can promise himself some hope of recovery.

Not so the Christian.  When visited by sickness, or other adversity, he flies to God as his supreme refuge and defense.  Acknowledging and revering God alone as the author of all his good and his deliverer he ascribes to Him whatever healing virtue resides in medicines, convinced that they help the sick only in so far as God wills it.  For it is God who has given medicines to man to heal his corporal infirmities; and hence these words of Ecclesiasticus: The most High hath created medicines out of the earth, and a wise man will not abhor them.  He, therefore, who has pledged his fidelity to Jesus Christ, does not place his principal hope of recovery in such remedies; he places it in God, the author of these medicines.

Hence the Sacred Scriptures condemn the conduct of those who, confiding in the power of medicine, seek no assistance from God [2 Chron 16:12]. Nay more, those who regulate their lives by the laws of God, abstain from the use of all medicines which are not evidently intended by God to be medicinal; and, were there even a certain hope of recovery by using any other, they abstain from them as so many charms and diabolical artifices. [Emphasis added]

It should require no special pleading to establish that God did not intend the bodies of murdered babies to be used for medicine. So let us abstain from these abortion-tainted vaccines and not be guilty of refusing to follow the laws of God.


  abortion, baby parts, bioethics, coronavirus, coronavirus vaccines, hek-293, modern medicine, pamela acker, planned parenthood, vaccines

Blogs

Remembering the pro-life wit and wisdom of Rush Limbaugh

The conservative talk-show host addressed the injustice and politics of abortion on a number of occasions.
Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 4:29 pm EST
Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library. 

February 19, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – As the conservative movement mourns the passing of conservative talk radio pioneer Rush Limbaugh, LifeSiteNews has collected a sampling of Rush’s abortion commentary to remember his commitment to advocating the right to life.

Limbaugh died Wednesday morning at age 70 after a battle with Stage IV lung cancer. He had announced his diagnosis in February 2020, vowing to “come here every day I can and to do this program as normally and as competently and as expertly as I do each and every day,” a promise he kept going into the last month of his life.

Rush left no political subject untouched during his illustrious career, including abortion. The following is a selection of quotes applying his trademark wit and wisdom to pro-life issues.

Radio Show Monologue, January 9, 2007:

If they give up, if the Democrats, the liberals ever give up on their push for embryonic stem cell research, what happens? By definition, it weakens their case for abortion, because to give in to the less wretched alternatives, such as adult stem cells or amniotic fluid stem cells, the Democrats are, in an implied way, conceding that we ought to try to limit the death option, and they thereby imply there’s something morally wrong with that kind of research — and they can’t do that [...] And, I’ll tell you what, if tomorrow there were a cure discovered for, say, Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s in any kind of stem cell research other than embryonic, they would try to discount it — and I am not exaggerating and I’m not making it up. That’s how important this is.

Radio Show Monologue, August 8, 2012:

So they say now in the Huffing and Puffington Post that Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital — way, way back when it was originally founded — was seeded with money from Latin American death squads [...] Let me ask you a question: What’s the difference in that and the Democrats being underwritten by Planned Parenthood and NARAL? If they’re not death squads, I don’t know what is.

Radio Show Exchange, January 16, 2013:

CALLER: I think it does. It’s just terrible that 26 people died in Sandy Hook and 20 of them were children. Terrible. Very sad, coming up to Christmas. Hopes and dreams the young children had, their parents and weddings and congratulations that will never occur. However, on any given day in America, more than 3,000 children are killed from abortion, and we have no problems with that. We’re okay with that; it’s not an issue [...]

RUSH: Well, it’s a good point. You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun.

Radio Show Monologue, November 6, 2013:

— 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

Look at what [Democrats are] doing. They destroyed the black family. They’re destroying minorities’ families. Look at what they’re doing to women with their policies. I mean, they’re demeaning them. They’re turning ’em into nothing but abortion machines. I mean, there’s so much that we could be doing if we just fight back, but the Republican Party, even if they had all the money in the world right now, doesn’t seem inclined to do any of this.

Radio Show Monologue, July 30, 2015:

I don’t know. It’s clear that these people at Planned Parenthood have something other than a soul. They’re operating on something clearly foreign to most of us, to be able to clinically discuss the harvesting of organs from newborn babies, the way they’re talking about it in here in a detached way. I don’t know how you do that. 

Radio Show Monologue, January 24, 2019

We’re talking murder here, folks. Now, that’s what makes this different from the way they’ve always approached this. There has been a significant, fundamental change in the way they are describing what they are supporting here, because it’s always been killing. They’ve known it, we know it, everybody knows it. They have sought to massage the language so that it wasn’t seen as that. And the primary way they did that was to cloak it in a woman’s right to choose [...]

Rape and incest, another reason why we can’t force women to… But now, folks, all that’s gone now, and it’s changed — and you know, the big change is, they are giving standing ovations in the New York state Senate chamber to the killing of children! Now they are acknowledging that that’s what’s happening, and they’re applauding it! And they’re codifying it and making it constitutional in New York. They applaud it. There was a standing O for the provision that if an attempted abortion fails, you can go ahead and finish the job after birth.

Radio Show Monologue, January 28, 2019:

I don't know how many times I've told you... I was telling somebody earlier today, "There are so many times... I can't count the number of moderate Republicans that came up to me, 'You gotta get these Republicans to stop talking about abortion! We're gonna never win election again!

"We're -- we're -- we're -- we're social liberals and fiscal conservatives, and you gotta get them to shut up!" I mean, everywhere I went, whenever the Republicans lost an election, it was assumed that was why. I always said to them, "Let me tell you something. If we're not willing to stand up for life, what the hell else are we gonna be able to have any value in?" I tried to tell 'em that it was about so much more than abortion.

If you don't have a government that is willing to stand up for life wherever it is, particularly of its own citizens -- and if you have a population that is not oriented in the same direction -- then you're gonna watch the slow devolution of anything of value. If life is not worth fighting for... We all only get one, and if we're not gonna even engage the battle to snuff out life -- if we're not even gonna be able to engage the people that want to get rid of "undesirable lives" -- then what else is gonna fall by the wayside?

Rush’s most comprehensive treatment of the subject of abortion was the sixth chapter of his first book, The Way Things Ought to Be (1992):

Suffice it to say that to me the issue is simple. I believe that life begins at conception and that killing that human life is justifiable only when it’s necessary to save the mother’s life.

But I am also pro-life because I am a human being who feels a sense of duty to civilization. I think it is incumbent upon us all to be concerned about the world we will leave behind. We also should be concerned about the values we transfer to succeeding generations. When we take actions that cheapen life, we are contributing to an overall decline in our society’s moral values. By allowing abortion (in situations other than where the mother’s life is in jeopardy) we are indirectly promoting values that encourage crime, illegitimacy, the dissolution of the family, and callousness toward the living, especailly the elderly. Abortion cheapens the sanctity of human life. We are now making decisions as to who lives and who dies on the basis of whether it is convenient for the LIVING. That’s dangerous.

* * *

Why should it matter to the pro-choice radicals if a woman is talked out of an abortion? Say a woman is on her way to Planned Parenthood to have an abortion. Outside their offices she’s stopped by Operation Rescue and told that they have a shelter she can go to where she will be taken care of. She can have the baby, and it will be put up for adoption. But at least it will live. So why are the radical feminists so furious when that happens? What agenda is being harmed? Why get so mad when a woman who planned to have an abortion is talked out of it, if choice is really the objective?

One reason they get upset is that abortion is the fuel running their entire political agenda. It is the sacrament of their religion of feminism. Here then is the definition and real agenda of the feminazi: radical feminists whose objective is to see that there are as many abortions as possible. That is their primary mechanism of asserting their power. The second reason some abortion activists get upset is that there is money involved. Always follow the money on any public issue. Elsewhere in this book, i’ve said that the desire for money tells us a great deal about why people hold certain views. Abortion is a huge business in this country. Think about 1.5 million abortions a year at, say, $300 each. That’s $450 million a year. There’s a lot of money being made on abortions.

* * *
Most people who favor abortion view it as a matter of a woman’s individual rights. I, however, cannot escape viewing it as an issue of life. If the fetus is human life, that trumps any argument you can make about the individual freedom of the mother. I believe human life begins at conception. It can begin nowhere else.

* * *

I have asked the feminists who disagree with a democratic resolution on this issue what they are afraid of. If there is such massive support for the pro-choice point of view, pro-choicers should win in a breeze. They vehemently disagree. They know in their hearts that the majority of the American people are not in favor of unlimited abortion on demand. Liberals fear the democratic process because they don’t think the people will agree with their agenda. They love an activist Supreme Court for that reason, because it gives them political victories they cannot gain in our democratic, accountable institutions.

* * *

I’ve had women call me on the show and say that they were almost aborted by their parents. You can’t imagine the emotional wallop that packs. Think about your feelings if you were to shake the hand of someone who was almost sucked out of her mother’s womb. Someone who almost didn’t experience the joy and wonder of life, the thrill of being part of this great world.

Perhaps Rush’s most unique contribution to the abortion debate was his radio stunt known as “caller abortions,” which The Way Things Ought to Be describes as follows:

I have long thought that arguing with people about abortion doesn’t have much of an impact, because people are so entrenched on the issue. So, I decided I somehow had to illustrate the moral tragedy of abortions. That’s how I came up with the caller abortion, the most controversial thing I’ve ever done [...]

One day I asked my audience if any of them wanted to volunteer to be the first aborted call in the history of radio. A lady called in and said that she would be willing. Ladies and gentlemen, I said, I’m going to demonstrate what happens during a caller abortion. I asked the caller to start saying anything she wanted into the phone. She agreed, and began asking me my opinion on something. She was suddenly caught off by a loud whoosh with background sounds of a choked scream. And then there was silence. I paused for several seconds. Then, I slowly leaned forward and asked the broadcast engineer, Jim McGuire, the critical question: ‘Jim, did we get it all?’

[...] The reaction was incredible. Some people caught on to the message I was trying to send, and complimented me. But many others protested. They were outraged that I was doing this. I was getting hundreds of letters from people who normally would never have written or called in [...]

What’s the commotion about? None of what I did was real. Yet, in this country an abortion happens 4,000 times a day. For real. The screams are real, the vacuum cleaner is real. There is real emotional distress. There is physical harm and there’s death. And you are calling a guy on the radio and telling him that he poses a threat to society? You’re telling him that he is cruel and heartless? He is harming no one. He’s just telling you what’s really going on in your neighborhood. He is forcing you to deal with the pain of thinking about the realities of real life abortion. We are so far removed from it that we don’t think of it in graphic terms. Perhaps if more people did consider the horrors of ending life, they would be much less persuaded by their arguments of convenience. To the extent that I may have heightened awareness out there, I believe I have done a service, regardless of how distasteful it may have been to some.

Where is the outrage against those who do it for real just down the street from where they live? It’s not there. They reserve it for calling a guy on the radio to complain about sounds he plays. I think some of them have their priorities mixed up. If you didn’t know in your heart of hearts that abortion was a savage, violent act, what I did wouldn’t have bugged you so much. I took you inside an abortion mill, and some of you couldn’t take it. You can’t handle it when it was only dramatized. Yet, you’re not bothered by abortion when it happens for real. Is there not a contradiction here? Think about it.

Even more examples of Rush Limbaugh’s pro-life commentary from over the years can be found in LifeSite’s archives.


  abortion, conservatism, conservative media, pro-life arguments, rush limbaugh, talk radio

Blogs

Western nations claim to protect the vulnerable, but attack them more than ever

Canadian politicians look at the disabled, and seek to provide them a way to kill themselves; medical professionals look at the disabled, and add DNRs to their files; and more.
Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 10:41 am EST
Featured Image
Politics Shutterstock
Jonathon Van Maren Jonathon Van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon Van Maren

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news.  Subscribe now.

February 19, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — It is an ugly irony that while Western nations lock down entire populations in their attempt to “protect the weak and vulnerable” from COVID-19, our growing eugenic mindset has been starkly highlighted in near-weekly news stories.

Most prominently, there is the revelation that — as many conservatives both suspected and reported — New York Governor Andrew Cuomo hid the true numbers of nursing home deaths in his state. Cuomo had ordered nursing homes to admit or readmit COVID patients, and the virus felled thousands as a result. As Cuomo scrabbles angrily to control the damage to his career, New York Democrats have been stunned to realize that the death count is at least 50% higher than Cuomo’s government reported, with nearly 13,000 dead.

Cuomo’s irritated response to persistent questions about the parents and grandparents who died on his watch and because of his policies: “Who cares [where they died]? They died!”

More chilling still is news from the United Kingdom that, despite protests by disability groups, people with learning disabilities have been given do-not-resuscitate orders — DNRs — during the COVID-19 pandemic in a callous analysis of their worth. According to the Care Quality Commission, this has likely caused avoidable deaths. The disabled and those with learning disabilities have been particularly hard hit, with the Office for National Statistics reporting that this constituency makes up 60% of the COVID death toll.

According to The Guardian, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care stated: “It is completely unacceptable for ‘do not attempt CPR’ decisions to be applied in a blanket fashion to any group of people. This has never been policy and we have taken action to prevent this from happening.” These DNRs should prompt difficult questions about how we value those with disabilities and how this decision came about in the first place.

Across the Atlantic, Canada’s Senate has passed Bill C-7, a massive expansion of euthanasia and assisted suicide. The legislation (which will return to the House of Commons for a debate and vote on Senate amendments) would permit, for the first time, euthanasia for people with mental illness and incompetent people who use an advanced directive to request death.

Euthanasia for those with mental illness was not originally included, but Liberal Justice Minister David Lametti had already stated last fall that he intended to work on providing this lethal service to the mentally ill. Even Canada’s homogenously progressive media has been sounding the alarm at this legislation. It has made no difference.

But perhaps the most horrifying example comes from India, where a judge has ordered a 15-year-old girl to get an abortion despite the fact that she had initially stated she did not want one. Due to her refusal, the girl’s aunt had asked a court to allow the abortion to proceed, and the court had ruled against her.

On appeal, Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court overturned that decision, ruling that the forced abortion could proceed because “[i]f a choice is given to the foetus now in the womb of the minor, it would definitely proclaim that it would not wish to be born.”

— 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 repellant as the judge’s statement is, his words are a perfect encapsulation of a view we see taking root everywhere: That some lives are worth less than others because some lives are less worth living. Canadian politicians look at the disabled, and seek to provide them a way to kill themselves; medical professionals look at the disabled, and add DNRs to their files; a judge looks at a young, pregnant girl and speaks for her child, imaging that death would be preferable to a life he cannot imagine living.

All of this says so much more about us than it does about those we refuse to value — and it makes a mockery of our claims to care about the weak and vulnerable.


  abortion, do-not-resuscitate orders, euthanasia

Blogs

New note: Vatican employees might not be fired for COVID vaccine refusal, after all

A decree signed in early February had indicated otherwise.
Fri Feb 19, 2021 - 5:53 am EST
Featured Image
Coronavirus vaccine in front of Vatican flag Shutterstock
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news.  Subscribe now.

VATICAN CITY, February 19, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Following the publication, on Wednesday, of LifeSite’s story about the Vatican’s employees being threatened with losing their jobs if they refuse the COVID-19 experimental vaccine without a valid health reason, many major online media including Reuters and the BBC, as well as Italian sources such as RAINews, came out with headlines this Thursday confirming that “anti-vaxxers” faced being fired.

The news triggered many negative reactions on social media — so much so that cardinal Giuseppe Bertello, governor of the Vatican City State who signed the decree ordering compliance with anti-pandemic measures was compelled to publish an official note on Thursday in response.

The note said that for those who simply refuse the (experimental) vaccine, the new measures will “allow to find alternative solutions for the performance of work by the person concerned.”

As a matter of fact, the decree signed February 8 by Cardinal Bertello did not provide for anything of the sort. It only said that alternative tasks would be found for workers who “for proven reasons of health” could not receive the jab.

In its article 6 regarding employees, §1 provided for those who refuse the vaccine for valid health reasons, while §2 referred those who “without proven health reasons” would refuse to undergo vaccination to article 6 of a previous Vatican City State law of November 18, 2011, that reads (in full):

The refusal to undergo required preventive or periodic assessments and mandatory health checks, as well as the refusal to undergo the continuation of preventive, periodic or mandatory health checks that have already begun, entail different degrees of consequences for employees, which may extend to termination of employment. For candidates for employment, this is equivalent to the renunciation of the establishment of an employment relationship.

It can be argued that receiving a vaccine cannot be considered as a “preventive assessment” or “health check,” but why, then, explicitly refer to these provisions in relation with those who refuse the experimental vaccine if they did not apply? And if they do, “termination” of the work contract was clearly in the cards, and there was no mention at all of finding ways to protect the Vatican workers’ — some 5,000 individuals — personal liberty and freedom of choice.

Cardinal Bertello’ note looks very much like a form of damage control. Hopefully, his backpedaling will ensure that Vatican employees will not be deprived of their livelihoods for saying no to the “vaccine.”

Vatican News in Italian quoted at length from cardinal Bertello’s tortuous response here. LifeSite’s translation is here below:

This Decree was issued to provide an urgent regulatory response to the primary need to safeguard and guarantee the health and well-being of the working community, citizens and residents of Vatican City State. The presupposition, therefore, is that of the individual protection of the worker and the collective protection of the working environment in the case of an event that could be configured as a public health emergency. In particular, the provision concerns all the appropriate measures aimed at preventing, controlling and responding to exceptional situations of public health emergency, and all the instruments for an adequate and proportional response to the health risk are indicated extensively.

The necessity to take into account the risk of a possible refusal

Among these measures specified by the State Health Authority, it may be deemed necessary to resort to vaccination in certain contexts: in work activities related to service to the public, in dealing with third parties, or in activities that pose a risk for the safety of the working community. Voluntary adherence to a vaccination program must, therefore, take into account the risk that any refusal of the person concerned may pose a risk to himself, to others, and to the working environment. For this reason, the protection of the community may require, for those who refuse the vaccination in the absence of health reasons, the adoption of measures that on the one hand minimize the danger in question and on the other allow to find alternative solutions for the performance of work by the person concerned.

No repressive intent, but protection of the community

The reference to the pre-existing Norms for the protection of the dignity of the person and his fundamental rights to be observed in health checks in view of the recruitment of personnel and during the employment relationship and Norms for the protection of employees with particular serious diseases or in particular psychophysical conditions of November 18, 2011, must therefore be considered as an instrument that in no case has a sanctioning or punitive nature, but rather that is intended to allow a flexible and proportionate response to the balance between the health protection of the community and individual freedom of choice without putting in place any form of repression against the worker.

However, article 6 of the 2011 law mentioned once again by Cardinal Bertello only speaks of “different degrees of consequences” that may be entailed by refusal to comply with health requirements, “up to the termination of the employment relationship” — being fired, in plain English. “Freedom of choice” and the “absence of repression” are nowhere to be found in the 2011 text.

The eventuality of being fired was certainly not set aside by the cardinal’s COVID-19 decree (because that is what it essentially is), whose general form is that of a repressive, if not penal text, in that it provides for administrative fines for all other transgressions of COVID-19 measures, and refers to possible job loss regarding the refusal of the experimental jab.

Cardinal Bertello’s note of clarification is reassuring — but it is merely a note, and would not measure up to the strict interpretation of Vatican State norms and the February 8 decree as they stand.

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page.  View it here.


  coronavirus vaccine, covid-19, giuseppe bertello, mandatory vaccinations, vatican city state