All articles from March 29, 2021


News

Opinion

Blogs

Episodes

  • Nothing is published in Episodes on March 29, 2021.

Video

  • Nothing is published in Video on March 29, 2021.

The Pulse

  • Nothing is published in The Pulse on March 29, 2021.

News

New York rolls out ‘vaccine passports’ letting corporations regulate participation in society

While New Yorkers are not yet legally required to participate, business owners and venue operators have the option of denying entry to people without one.
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 9:52 pm EST
Featured Image
shutterstock.com
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

ALBANY, New York, March 29, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – New York has launched a so-called “vaccine passport” program, empowering various businesses and public entities to easily deny residents service on the basis of whether or not they have received a COVID-19 vaccine.

The “Excelsior Pass” program bills itself as a “free, fast and secure way to present digital proof of COVID-19 vaccination or negative test results” with either a smartphone app that displays a scannable QR code or a code printed on a sheet of paper. While New Yorkers are not yet legally required to participate, business owners and venue operators have the option of denying entry to people without one.

Notably, despite being billed as a way to return life to normal, the website says that “once you and your party enter an establishment, you will still be asked to follow State and CDC guidance regarding social distancing, face coverings and hand hygiene” despite verifying one’s immunity or negative coronavirus status.

“New Yorkers have proven they can follow public health guidance to beat back COVID, and the innovative Excelsior Pass is another tool in our new toolbox to fight the virus while allowing more sectors of the economy to reopen safely and keeping personal information secure,” Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo said, the Associated Press reports.

Officials of the Empire State claim that blockchain and encryption technology will ensure the security of users’ private data, but critics on both sides of the political aisle are warning that the passports may be the first step in a much broader encroachment of personal liberty:

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis announced Monday he will be taking executive action to ban the use of vaccine passports in the Sunshine State, and called on the legislature to enshrine a similar ban in state statutes.

“It’s completely unacceptable for either the government or the private sector to impose upon you the requirement that you show proof of vaccine to just simply be able to participate in normal society,” DeSantis declared.

— 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

Despite medical authorities’ endorsement of the various COVID-19 shots, concerns persist thanks in part to public health officials’ contradictory guidances on every aspect of the pandemic over the past year, from masks to lockdowns to social distancing, and partly due to the fact that they were developed and released in roughly a tenth of the time it usually takes to develop, test, and review vaccines.

Apart from health concerns, some of the COVID-19 vaccines carry ethical concerns for many, particularly religious and pro-life Americans, due to the use of cells derived from aborted babies in the development process. To help pro-lifers make an informed decision, the Charlotte Lozier Institute has released a detailed breakdown of all the various COVID-19 vaccines in development and which ones used or did not use abortion-derived cells at any stage of the process.

Yesterday the Washington Post reported that the Biden White House is working with private companies to launch vaccine passports. A recent meeting about vaccine passports featured more than 150 officials, including staff from the Department of Defense and NASA, according to the report. In January, Biden signed an executive order calling on top federal agencies to “assess the feasibility of linking COVID-19 vaccination to International Certificates of Vaccination or Prophylaxis (ICVP).” The order stressed that the government do so “in coordination with any relevant international organizations.” 

Similar initiatives are underway in Europe.

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


  coronavirus, covid-19, covid-19 vaccine, excelsior pass, florida, new york, public health, ron desantis, social credit system, vaccine passports

News

Biden regime is working with private companies to develop COVID-19 ‘vaccine passports’

The Washington Post reports that efforts are being coordinated with 'dozen of agencies,' but the White House claims passports 'will be driven by the private sector' and not mandated.
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 9:12 pm EST
Featured Image
Shutterstock
Raymond Wolfe Follow
By

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

March 29, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) -- The Biden White House is working with private companies to launch “vaccine passports” for Americans to prove that they’ve received abortion-tainted COVID-19 vaccines.

In a report released Sunday, the far-left Washington Post claimed to have spoken with five federal officials who said the administration has partnered with unnamed corporations to push COVID-19 vaccine credentials technology.

“The passports are expected to be free and available through applications for smartphones, which could display a scannable code similar to an airline boarding pass,” the Post said. “Americans without smartphone access should be able to print out the passports, developers have said.”

The Post’s report added that the Biden regime has been “working to coordinate across dozens of agencies and a variety of experts” on the effort. A recent meeting about vaccine passports featured more than 150 officials, including staff from the Department of Defense and NASA, according to the report. 

Joe Biden had signed an executive order in January calling on top federal agencies to “assess the feasibility of linking COVID-19 vaccination to International Certificates of Vaccination or Prophylaxis (ICVP).” The order stressed that the government do so “in coordination with any relevant international organizations.” 

So far, the Biden regime has identified at least 17 vaccine passport initiatives, like one led by the disgraced World Health Organization and another called the Vaccination Credential Initiative (VCI), The Washington Post said. More than 225 organizations, including Microsoft, already have pledged to use the VCI’s forthcoming app.

“The White House this month took on a bigger role coordinating government agencies involved in the work, led by coronavirus coordinator Jeff Zients, with a goal of announcing updates in coming days, said one official,” the Post related. 

Zients has faced criticism for his tenure on Facebook’s board of directors and for helping to host a White House meeting with Chinese business elites linked to Hunter Biden during Joe Biden’s vice presidency. The White House has been working with Facebook and other Big Tech companies for weeks to suppress so-called COVID-19 “misinformation,” a source revealed last month.

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

“(A)s we increase the number of people vaccinated, we know some people may have a need to demonstrate that they are vaccinated. The private sector and not-for-profit coalitions are already beginning to work on this,” Zients said at a briefing three weeks ago. 

'This is wrong'

Vaccine passports nevertheless have drawn heavy scrutiny from ethics experts and medical professionals alike. 

“Mandates, ‘passports’ or any effort to intimidate Americans into taking a vaccine for a virus with a 99.7 percent survival rate not only is damaging to individual liberty, it also contradicts safe medical practice,” America’s Frontline Doctors declared last month. “Yet state governments, along with powerful private interests, are moving in the direction of requiring inoculations for large segments of our society as a condition to return to a ‘normal’ life. This is wrong.”

“What if we start barring people from essential goods and services?” Professor Melinda Mills of Oxford University told the BBC. “There is a risk of unjustly discriminating in hiring, attending events, insurance, housing applications, you can think of many examples.”

The White House did not comment on The Washington Post story. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said during a press conference on Monday that the Biden regime “will more be focused on guidelines” for the technology. “A determination or development of vaccine passports, or whatever you want to call it, will be driven by the private sector,” she continued. 

Joe Biden previously vowed that he would not seek to mandate COVID-19 vaccination. “I wouldn’t demand it to be mandatory, but I would do everything in my power,” he said at a press conference in December. Dr. Anthony Fauci, Biden’s top COVID-19 adviser who may be linked to the origin of the virus itself, likewise has publicly rejected a government vaccine requirement. 

Federal law indicates that medical products that lack full authorization from the Food and Drug Administration, like COVID-19 vaccines, cannot be mandated. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated in August that COVID-19 vaccines “are not allowed to be mandatory.”

All of the coronavirus vaccines approved for emergency use in the United States have connections to aborted babies’ cells and have been denounced by a coalition of high-ranking Catholic prelates. Medical experts also have flagged the novel technology used in COVID-19 jabs made by Pfizer and Moderna, in particular, for possible links to severe health effects, including “systemic inflammation,” genome issues, and blood disorders.  

More than 2,000 deaths after COVID-19 vaccination have been reported to the vaccine injury tracking system of the federal government as of March 22. Those figures may well be a major undercount, as some experts have warned.

New York state already has begun to roll out a COVID-19 vaccine passport system for arts, entertainment, and other events, which will be fully implemented next month, scandal-plagued Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced

Democrats have been working to mandate vaccine credentials as a precondition for returning to normal life alongside their radical push for near-total bans on voter ID requirements, despite hundreds of incidents of election-tainting fraud last year.

You can add your name to LifeSite’s petition against vaccine passports here


  abortion, biden regime, coronavirus, covid-19 vaccine, joe biden, the washington post, vaccination credential initiative, vaccine passports, world health organization

News

Rutgers University mandates students be ‘fully vaccinated’ to be on campus

The New Jersey school is believed to be the first college in the United States to require a coronavirus shot for attendance.
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 6:33 pm EST
Featured Image
Shutterstock
David McLoone David McLoone Follow
By

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

NEW BRUNSWICK, New Jersey, March 29, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Rutgers University announced that students hoping to begin classes there in autumn 2021 must have taken an experimental COVID-19 vaccine if they wish to learn on campus, making Rutgers possibly the first college in the United States to introduce a COVID vaccine mandate.

In a letter released Thursday, the president of the university, Jonathan Holloway, along with two other senior management figures demanded that “all students planning to attend in the Fall 2021 semester must be fully vaccinated.”

Although the university maintains that “(b)road immunization is critical to help stop the current pandemic and to protect our University community,” they have admitted there are a few, limited exceptions to the rule: those who object “for medical or religious reasons,” and anyone studying remotely.

Rutgers informed students of privileges exclusively to those who receive one of the jabs, forcing anyone who does not get injected to forgo the normal university experience. 

An “expedited return to pre-pandemic normal” is promised, along with “additional face-to-face course offerings and academic experiences, opportunities for a wider range of events and activities offered at our campuses, expanded dining and recreation options at Rutgers, greater interpersonal collaboration among faculty, students, and researchers.”

On the other hand, even after being vaccinated, the school will still require students to participate in a gruelling testing program, consisting in taking an invasive PCR test (the effectiveness of which is highly disputed) every week, in addition to wearing a face mask and maintaining physical distancing measures.

— 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 university will be policing the vaccine requirement by seeking proof of vaccination before students arrive on campus.

As things stand, the vaccine mandate does not extend to staff and faculty members, who are able to remain employed by Rutgers without being vaccinated at this time. Instead, staff are strongly urged by the university “to get immunized against COVID-19 at the earliest opportunity.”

Whether or not employers can legally require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 remains a contentious topic. The currently available jabs against the virus have all been approved under “emergency use authorization” (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), meaning the three experimental shots are still in trial phases and have not qualified for licensing from the FDA.

The FDA states that as EUA products, each vaccine is “an investigational vaccine not licensed for any indication” and the agency requires that all “promotional material relating to the COVID-19 Vaccine clearly and conspicuously … state that this product has not been approved or licensed by the FDA, but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA.”

Federal law states, “to protect public health,” that all manufacturers of products authorized for emergency use are required to provide “(a)ppropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”

It seems, then, that while the Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are under investigation by the FDA, pending licensing, it may not be licit to be required to take the jab. 

The FDA, in a 2017 document on guidance related to EUAs, stated that recipients of EUA products “have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product and of any consequences of refusing administration of the product,” caveating that the President of the United States may waive this regulation for members of the armed forces “under certain circumstances.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in August also stated that COVID-19 vaccines “are not allowed to be mandatory.”

Furthermore, the Nuremberg Code of 1947, regarding medical experimentation, states that the “voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” On account of this, attorney Anna Garner, who is currently representing corrections officer Isaac Legaretta in the country’s first legal challenge against COVID-19 vaccine mandates, said that “experimenting on humans” with COVID jabs is “a crime against humanity.”

According to the Rutgers President's statement, vaccination with one of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or the more recently introduced Johnson & Johnson experimental COVID shots will protect the individual against “serious illness, hospitalization, and death from the virus.” 

However, contrary to Holloway’s assertion, doubts about the effectiveness and, indeed, the safety of the vaccines have been raised by numerous scientists working in the field of immunology.

As early as November 2020, Dr. Mike Yeadon, the former vice president and chief scientist at Pfizer, flatly rejected any need to vaccinate the population against COVID-19.

Writing for Britain’s Lockdown Sceptics, Yeadon said there was “absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic … you do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease.” “You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on humans,” he said.

In fact, mounting evidence suggests that COVID-19-related mRNA therapy is responsible for seriously injuring vast numbers of people who have taken the jab in the hope of avoiding illness from the virus. The CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which collates self-assessed reports from individuals who record side effects after getting a vaccine, displays some 44,606 reports of injury after use of Pfizer and Moderna’s jabs.

The latest data on the system, taken from December 14, 2020, up to March 19, 2021, shows 2,050 deaths have been recorded. A further 826 recordings of permanent disabilities were submitted after taking the shots and 4,442 hospitalizations.


  coronavirus, emergency use authorization, food and drug administration, immunizations, jonathan holloway, mandatory vaccines, pcr tests, rutgers university, wuhan virus

News

Cardinal Burke: Blowback to ban on same-sex blessings reveals ‘aggressive, homosexual agenda’ within Church

Burke said that bishops who openly defy the decree should voluntarily 'renounce' their office.
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 5:33 pm EST
Featured Image
Cardinal Raymond Burke on EWTN March 25, 2021. EWTN / Youtube screen grab
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.

ROME, March 29, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Raymond Burke said that defiance to the Vatican’s “no” to blessings for homosexual couples by various priests and bishops from different parts of the world — and even suggestions that the Pope did not approve of it — make it necessary for the Holy See to state clearly that Pope Francis approved the declaration and he stands by it.

“The blowback is simply an expression of a worldliness, a mundanity, which has entered into the Church by which the aggressive homosexual agenda is now dominating even in certain ecclesial circles and even among certain bishops,” the Cardinal, who is the former head of the Vatican's highest court and one of the world’s foremost canon lawyers, told EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo last week.

Earlier this month, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a decree stating that the Catholic Church does not have the “power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex.” Pope Francis “was informed and gave his assent to the publication” of the decree, according to the CDF document.

The Congregation stated that it is “not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex.”

God “does not and cannot bless sin,” the decree stated.

Vatican observers speculated that Pope Francis was distancing himself from the CDF decree in his March 21 Angelus Address, where he said that Christians must sow “seeds of love, not with fleeting words but through concrete, simple and courageous examples, not with theoretical condemnations, but with gestures of love.”

— 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

Cardinal Burke said in his interview with EWTN that it’s not “unreasonable” to interpret the Pope’s Angelus address, as the Jesuit-run America Magazine did, as a reaction to the CDF’s declaration, but it remains, nevertheless, “unclear” what the Pope meant.

“I think it should be made clear that, you know, the Holy See, seeing that the official Jesuit journal in the United States of America makes these claims, the Holy See should make clear that the Pope, indeed, approved this declaration and that he stands by it,” he said.

Earlier in the interview, Burke praised the CDF statement as “most welcome and necessary.”

“It simply states what the Church has always taught and practiced with regard to same-sex attraction and when it leads then to acts which are intrinsically disordered, not according to God's plan. And so, from that point of view, there's nothing in it about which to be surprised.”

Burke said that one phrase in the decree that speaks about “positive elements” in such relationships requires a necessary clarification.

“When it speaks about ‘positive elements’ in a same-sex relationship, this has to be properly understood. If the ‘positive elements’ are having to do with something apart from the same-sex union, or, in other words, the same-sex liaison, then it's understandable that the persons remain good persons, even though they are living in a life which is disordered and sinful. But if it's interpreted that the relationship itself has ‘positive elements,’ that, of course, would be problematic.”

Burke went on to say that bishops who openly defy the decree, specifically mentioning at one point Belgian Bishop Johan Bonny, should voluntarily “renounce” their office.

“The bishop, if he's pained by what's declared by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, then he must examine himself with regard to his own coherence with the Catholic faith. And, if he is not holding to the Catholic faith, then he should renounce his office. He has to be relieved of his office as diocesan bishop, because this is simply unacceptable. It can’t be,” Burke said.


  blessing for gay couples, blessings, catholic, congregation for the doctrine of the faith, ewtn, homosexuality, johan bonny, raymond arroyo, raymond burke

News

Our greatest weapon against the coronavirus is Vitamin D: Board-certified pathologist

‘We don't just have a viral pandemic, we have an international Vitamin D deficiency pandemic – 70 percent of the world is immune-suppressed,' Dr. Ryan Cole says.
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 5:29 pm EST
Featured Image
Shutterstock
Emily Mangiaracina Emily Mangiaracina Follow
By

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

March 29, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) –A founder of one of the largest independent laboratories in Idaho is declaring loud and clear that the greatest weapon against the coronavirus is Vitamin D.

“(The) biggest lost message in this entire pandemic is Vitamin D. It is the master key to your immune system, the master key. So we don't just have a viral pandemic, we have an international Vitamin D deficiency pandemic – i.e., 70 percent of the world is immune-suppressed,” Dr. Ryan Cole, founder of Cole Diagnostics, said during a March Capitol Clarity talk hosted by the Idaho Freedom Foundation.

Dr. Cole introduced himself as a “Mayo clinic trained, board-certified pathologist, board certified anatomic and clinical pathology,” who had seen about 350,000 patients in his career, and had done about 100,000 COVID tests and read about 6,000 articles in the past year.

“It is right up my alley, and so I’m not just blowing smoke today,” he explained.

“Normal D levels decrease your COVID symptom severity risk for hospitalization by 90 percent. There have been a lot of placebo controlled trials that show this all around the world. It is scientific fact, not just a correlation,” said Dr. Cole.

Dr. Cole explained why Vitamin D deficiency is the biggest contributor to both Wuhan coronavirus hospitalizations and deaths: “Data shows what kills people. Cytokine storm. If you are in (Vitamin D) mid-level range, you will not die from COVID because you cannot get a cytokine storm.”

— 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

According to Dr. Cole, widespread Vitamin D deficiency makes this a big problem. “Seventy to 80 percent of all Americans are immune suppressed because they are D deficient.” He further noted that “96 percent of people in the ICU are Vitamin D deficient.”  

Dr. Cole cited statistics showing lower levels of Vitamin D in darker skinned populations, which he says is due to biology, and not “social disparity.” 

“Eighty-three percent of African Americans, 70 percent of Latinos, 72 percent of Native Americans, 47 percent of Caucasians are deficient,” Dr. Cole said. “The darker your skin, the further north you live, the harder it is to synthesize Vitamin D.”

Along with low Vitamin D levels, Dr. Cole discussed what he called the other “highest risk factors” for COVID-19: obesity and advanced age.

“Ninety percent of deaths in the state have been over 70 years of age. That’s the at-risk population. We have stopped our society for something that's taking people that are already at that death risk age anyway,” said Dr. Cole.

Dr. Cole explained that obesity contributes to higher risk of symptoms and death at least in part because it “drastically reduces your ability to get Vitamin D into your circulation.”

“D is a fat soluble vitamin. The heavier set you are, the more it goes into your fat and not into your circulation to stimulate your immune system,” Dr. Cole explained.

“If you don't have D in normal range, how do we get D? Sunshine,” he continued.

“There's only about a three-hour window a day, without your sunscreen. You need to be outside for 20 to 30 minutes during the spring and summer to get natural Vitamin D. In the fall, in the winter, you need to supplement to boost your immune system.”

To help guide the best use of time spent outdoors, Dr. Cole recommended an app called D Minder that “shows you when you can synthesize your vitamin D.”

Dr. Joseph Mercola stresses the importance of taking vitamin K2 while supplementing with vitamin D, to prevent any potential vitamin D toxicity symptoms. He recommends supplementing with vitamin D3, instead of vitamin D2, at 5,000 units per day for adults.

Dr. Cole noted that Dr. Fauci revealed in an interview in November that he takes 8,000 to 9,000 IU of vitamin D a day in the winter. “Yet inexplicably, that’s not a public health message,” Dr. Cole continued.

While Dr. Cole focused on the preventative power of vitamin D, he also emphasized the importance of early treatment of COVID-19, if and when the disease is contracted, through the use of Ivermectin.

“This medication won the Nobel prize for the discoverer. It is on the world’s safest and most essential drugs list,” Dr. Cole explained.

“Ivermectin, if that’s added to the mix, it decreases the death rate by 75 percent. If given early, by 86 percent. What does that mean? Of the half-million deaths we have in North America we would have 375,000 less deaths. There is blood on the hands of the bureaucrats in Washington who have suppressed this life-saving medication,” he continued.

“Wherever it has been given in the world, they’re back to normal life. 100 percent of the world trials have shown benefit. In Argentina, in a hospital trial it prevented 100% of acquisition in health care workers. In the placebo group, 57% got Covid that were not on Ivermectin. To a ‘T,’ every person that’s had Covid I’ve treated with this has been better in 12 to 48 hours. 42 people. I know it works.”

“The beauty of it: It can cover all the variants because of its mechanism,” he continued.

Dr. Cole didn’t stop at promoting prevention and treatment of Covid. During his talk, he warned about the potential dangers of the mRNA so-called “vaccines.”

He first pointed out, “If there’s a treatment for a disease, the federal government cannot approve a vaccine. By law. The NIH who is involved in approving medications, they co-hold the patent on the “vaccine” with Moderna. That is insanity, to have the government in bed with a private company vending a product that they want to give to everybody.”

He further explained that the mRNA injections don’t fall under the definition of vaccines, but are rather “experimental biological gene therapy.”

“Long-term safety data is not there. MRNA trials in mammals have led to odd cancers. mRNA trials on mammals have led to auto-immune diseases, not right away — six, nine, twelve months later,” said Dr. Cole.

“The companies did their own data. There were no independent observer groups looking at the data. They don't fall under the definition of creating peer immunity and preventing transmission. If you are immune after injection, why in the world would you have to mask and social distance. That is an admission that they don't know that it’s a vaccine. That’s an absurdity,” he continued.

“My biggest concern is antibody-dependent enhancement reaction. If you get a coronavirus shot, historically SARS, MERS, animal coronaviruses, when you are exposed to a wild type variant of the virus, six, nine, twelve months later the immune system can go haywire.”

“In the SARS vaccine trials, in the ferrets and the monkeys, 100 percent of the animals, when exposed to wild type virus, ended up with immune reaction.”

Dr. Cole also explained that COVID, like other coronaviruses, must be allowed to run its course, and slammed some of the measures being currently used to keep it in check.

“Coronaviruses are seasonal. They follow a 6-9 month life cycle - no matter what we do, they’re going to do what they do, and then they’re going to fade. What happened to SARS? What happened to MERS? What did we do to stop them? Nothing. They did their thing.”

He showed a graph of Idaho daily cases over the past year and explained that Idaho is no longer in a state of pandemic, but in an endemic. “Statistically, once we are below a certain percentage we are not in a pandemic. Is the disease present? Sure it is. Is it widespread? No. At most we are seeing 2% (positives) per day now and so the numbers are going way down.”

Dr. Cole also explained why wearing masks outside is “insanity.”

“The virus is fragile. It doesn’t live outside. UV light fractionates it, kills it, blows it apart. Ventilation and the wind blows it away. It is insanity to wear a mask outside. Absolute insanity. There is not one study that has shown any superspreader to have occurred outside. They have all happened indoors with poor ventilation.”


  coronavirus, immune sytem, ryan cole, vitamin d, wuhan virus

News

Cdl. Sarah says Vatican ban on private Masses violates ‘laws of the Church,’ urges Pope to lift ban

‘St. Peter’s Basilica should be an example for the liturgy of the whole Church. But these new rules impose criteria that would not be tolerated in any other place, in that they violate common sense as much as they do the laws of the Church.’
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 4:30 pm EST
Featured Image
Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship offers Mass at London's 'Sacra Liturgia' conference on July 6, 2016. Fr. Lawrence Lew, O.P. / Flickr
Sandro Magister
By

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

March 29, 2021 (L’Espresso) – For a week now, the basilica of St. Peter has been a silent desert. It is no longer enlivened, every morning, by the many Masses celebrated on its numerous altars. And all this on account of an ordinance issued on March 12 by the first section of the secretariat of state - the one that through the substitute has a direct line to the pope - that has banned all “individual” Masses and allowed only collective Masses, no more than four per day and at set times and places.

The order is on letterhead paper, but lacks signature and protocol number. Nor is it addressed to the one who should be its natural recipient, the cardinal archpriest of the papal basilica built on the site of the martyrdom and burial of the apostle Peter. It’s a juridical scrawl.

Yet it has taken effect. But it has also raised authoritative protests.

The following, entrusted to Settimo Cielo for publication, is by Cardinal Robert Sarah, until last February 20 prefect of the congregation for divine worship and the discipline of the sacraments, therefore the most qualified to speak out on the subject.

His protest ends with this appeal to Pope Francis:

“I humbly beg the Holy Father to order the withdrawal of the recent norms issued by the secretariat of state, which are as lacking in justice as in love, do not correspond to the truth or the law, do not facilitate but rather endanger the decorum of the celebration, devout participation in the Mass, and the freedom of the children of God.”

It remains to be seen if Francis will respond, and how.

*

OBSERVATIONS ON THE NEW NORMS FOR MASSES AT SAINT PETER’S

 

by Robert Card. Sarah

I would like to spontaneously add my voice to those of cardinals Raymond L. Burke, Gerhard L. Müller and Walter Brandmüller, who have already expressed their thoughts regarding the provision issued last March 12 by the Vatican secretariat of state, which prohibits individual celebration of the Eucharist on the side altars of St. Peter's Basilica.

The aforementioned cardinal confreres have already noted several problems related to the text of the secretariat of state.

Cardinal Burke has highlighted, as the excellent canonist he is, the considerable juridical problems, as well as providing other useful considerations.

Cardinal Müller has likewise noted a certain lack of competence, that is, of authority, on the part of the secretariat of state in issuing the decision in question. His Eminence, who is a renowned theologian, has also made some brief but substantial references to significant theological questions.

Cardinal Brandmüller has focused on the question of the legitimacy of such a use of authority and has also hypothesized - based on his sensibilities as a great Church historian - that the decision on Masses at the basilica could represent a “ballon d'essai” in view of future decisions that could affect the universal Church.

If this be true, it becomes even more necessary that we bishops, the priests, and the holy people of God all make our voices heard respectfully. I therefore propose some brief reflections below.

*

1. Vatican Council II certainly manifested the Church’s preference for the community celebration of the liturgy. The constitution “Sacrosanctum concilium” teaches in no. 27: “Whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.”

Immediately afterwards, in the same paragraph, the Council Fathers - perhaps foreseeing the use that could have been made of their words after the Council - add: “This applies with especial force to the celebration of Mass and the administration of the sacraments, even though every Mass has of itself a public and social nature.” The Mass, therefore, even if celebrated by the priest alone, is never a private act and even less does it therefore represent an undignified celebration.

It should be added, incidentally, that there may be undignified and sparsely attended concelebrations and very decorous and well attended individual celebrations, depending both on the external furnishings and on the personal devotion of both the celebrant and the faithful, when present. The decorum of the liturgy is therefore not obtained automatically simply by prohibiting the individual celebration of the Mass and by imposing concelebration.

In the decree “Presbyterorum ordinis,” then, Vatican II teaches: “In the mystery of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, in which priests fulfill their greatest task, the work of our redemption is being constantly carried on; and hence the daily celebration of Mass is strongly urged, since even if there cannot be present a number of the faithful, it is still an act of Christ and of the Church” (no. 13).

Not only is it confirmed here that, even when the priest celebrates without the people, the Mass remains an act of Christ and of the Church, but its daily celebration is also recommended. St. Paul VI, in the encyclical “Mysterium fidei,” took up both of these aspects and confirmed them with even more incisive words: “Even though active participation by many faithful is of its very nature particularly fitting when Mass is celebrated, still there is no reason to criticize but rather only to approve a Mass that a priest celebrates privately for a good reason in accordance with the regulations and legitimate traditions of the Church, even when only a server to make the responses is present. For such a Mass brings a rich and abundant treasure of special graces to help the priest himself, the faithful, the whole Church and the whole world toward salvation—and this same abundance of graces is not gained through mere reception of Holy Communion.” (no. 32). All this is reconfirmed by can. 904 of the Code of Canon Law.

In summary: when possible, community celebration is preferred, but individual celebration by a priest remains the work of Christ and the Church. The magisterium not only does not prohibit it, but approves it, and recommends that priests celebrate Holy Mass every day, because from every Mass there flows a great quantity of graces for the whole world.

*

2. At the theological level, there are at least two positions currently held by experts, regarding the multiplication of the fruit of grace due to the celebration of the Mass.

According to an opinion that developed in the second half of the twentieth century, whether ten priests concelebrate the same Mass or they individually celebrate ten Masses makes no difference as to the gift of grace that is offered by God to the Church and to the world.

The other opinion, which is based among others on the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas and on the magisterium of Pius XII in particular, argues on the contrary that by concelebrating a single Mass the gift of grace is reduced, because “in more Masses the oblation of the sacrifice and therefore the effect of the sacrifice and of the sacrament is multiplied” (Summa Theologiae, III, q. 79, a. 7 ad 3; cf. q. 82, a. 2; cf. also Pius XII, “Mediator Dei,” part II; Address of 2.11.1954; Address of 22.9.1956).

— 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

I do not intend here to settle the question of which of the two theses is more credible. The second thesis, however, has a number of points in its favor and should not be ignored. It should be kept in mind that there is at least the serious possibility that, by forcing priests to concelebrate and thus reducing the number of Masses celebrated, there will be a decrease in the gift of grace given to the Church and to the world. If so, the spiritual damage would be incalculable.

And it must be added that, in addition to the objective aspects, from the spiritual point of view there is also a sting in the peremptory tone with which the text of the secretariat of state establishes that “individual celebrations are suppressed.” In a statement put this way one perceives, particularly in the choice of the verb, a sort of unusual violence.

*

3. On account of the instructions that have been published, priests who would like to celebrate Mass according to the ordinary form of the Roman rite will now be forced to concelebrate.

Forcing priests to concelebrate is also a singular fact. Priests are welcome to concelebrate if they wish, but can concelebration be imposed on them? It will be said: if they do not want to concelebrate, let them go elsewhere! But is this the welcoming spirit of the Church that we want to embody? Is this the symbolism expressed by Bernini’s colonnade in front of the basilica, which in spirit represents the open arms of Mother Church welcoming her children?

How many priests come to Rome on pilgrimage! It is entirely normal that they, even if they do not have a group of faithful in tow, should nourish the healthy and beautiful desire to be able to celebrate Mass at St. Peter's, perhaps on the altar dedicated to a saint for whom they nurture special devotion. For how many centuries has the basilica welcomed such priests? And why now does it no longer want to welcome them, unless they accept the imposition of concelebration?

On the other hand, concelebration by its nature - as conceived and approved by the liturgical reform of Paul VI - is rather a concelebration of presbyters with the bishop than (at least ordinarily, on a daily basis) a concelebration of none but presbyters. As an aside I would note that such an imposition is taking place while humanity is fighting against Covid-19, which makes it less prudent to concelebrate.

*

4. What is to be done by those priests who come to Rome and do not know Italian? How will they concelebrate at St. Peter’s, where concelebrations are held only in Italian? On the other hand, even if a correction were decided on this, by admitting the use of three or four languages, that could never cover the vast number of languages in which it is possible to celebrate Holy Mass.

The three cardinal confreres mentioned above have already cited can. 902 of the Code of Canon Law, which refers to “Sacrosanctum concilium” no. 57, which guarantees priests the possibility of personally celebrating the Eucharist. And also in this regard it would be sad if one were to say: do they want to make use of this right? let them go elsewhere!

I would like to add the reference to can. 928: “The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in the Latin language or in another language provided that the liturgical texts have been legitimately approved.”

This canon provides, first of all, that Mass should also be celebrated in Latin. But now this cannot be done at the basilica, with the exception of celebration in the extraordinary form, to which I will return later.

In the second place, the canon provides for celebration in another language, if the relative liturgical books have been approved. But even this cannot be done now at St. Peter's, unless the celebrant has a group of faithful with him, in which case, following the new rules, he will still be diverted to the Vatican Grottoes, keeping Italian the only language admitted in the basilica.

St. Peter's Basilica should be an example for the liturgy of the whole Church. But these new rules impose criteria that would not be tolerated in any other place, in that they violate common sense as much as they do the laws of the Church.

In any case, this is not just about laws, since it is not a matter of mere formalism. Beyond the requisite respect for the canons what is at stake here is the good of the Church as well as the respect that the Church has always had for legitimate variety. The choice on the part of a priest not to concelebrate is legitimate and should be respected. And the possibility of being able to celebrate Mass individually should be guaranteed at St. Peter’s, given the common law but also the very high symbolic value of the basilica for the whole Church.

*

5. The decisions made by the secretariat of state also give rise to a heterogenesis of ends. For example, it does not seem that the text aims at an expansion of the use of the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, the celebration of which is relegated, by the recent instructions, to the grottoes beneath the basilica.

But on the basis of the new rules, what should a priest do who legitimately wishes to continue celebrating Mass individually? He would have no choice but to celebrate it in the extraordinary form, since he is prevented from celebrating individually in the ordinary form.

Why is it forbidden to celebrate the Mass of Paul VI individually at St. Peter’s Basilica, when - as reported above - pope Montini himself in “Mysterium fidei” approved this way of celebrating?

*

6. That of the priests who every morning take turns at the altars of the basilica to offer the holy sacrifice of the Mass is an ancient and venerable custom. Was it really necessary to break it? Does such a decision really produce greater good for the Church and greater decorum in the liturgy?

How many saints have, over the centuries, perpetuated this beautiful tradition! We think of the saints who worked in Rome, or who came for a period to the Eternal City. They normally went to St. Peter’s to celebrate. Why deny the saints of today - who thank God exist, are among us, and visit Rome at least from time to time - as well as all the other priests such an experience, so profoundly spiritual? On the basis of what criterion and for the sake of what hypothetical progress does one break a centuries-old tradition and deny many the chance to celebrate Mass at St. Peter’s?

If the aim is - as the document states - that the celebrations “be enlivened liturgically, with the help of readers and singers,” this result could easily have been achieved with a minimum of organization, in a less dramatic and above all less unjust way. The Holy Father has often lamented the injustice present in today's world. To emphasize this teaching, His Holiness has even created a neologism, that of “inequity.” Is the recent decision of the secretariat of state an expression of equity? Is it an expression of magnanimity, welcome, pastoral, liturgical, and spiritual sensitivity?

Since I have talked about the saints who celebrated at St. Peter’s, let’s not forget that the basilica houses the relics of many of them and several altars are dedicated to the saint whose mortal remains are kept there. The new instructions establish that it is no longer possible to celebrate on these altars. The maximum allowed is only one Mass a year, on the day on which the liturgical memorial of that saint occurs. In this way, such altars are almost condemned to death.

The main, not to say the only, role of an altar is in fact that the Eucharistic sacrifice be offered on it. The presence of the relics of the saints under the altars has a biblical, theological, liturgical, and spiritual value of such magnitude that there is no need even to mention them. With the new norms the altars of St. Peter’s are destined to serve, except one day a year, only as tombs of saints, if not as mere works of art. Those altars, instead, must live, and their life is the daily celebration of the Holy Mass.

*

7. Also singular is the decision concerning the extraordinary form of the Roman rite. From now on, it - in the maximum number of four daily celebrations - is allowed exclusively in the Clementine Chapel of the Vatican Grottoes and is completely prohibited on any other altar in the basilica and in the Grottoes.

It is even specified that such celebrations will be carried out only by “authorized” priests. This indication, in addition to not respecting the norms contained in the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” of Benedict XVI, is also ambiguous: who should authorize those priests? Why should it never again be possible to celebrate the extraordinary form in the basilica? What danger does it represent for the dignity of the liturgy?

Let’s imagine that one day a Catholic priest of a rite other than the Roman rite shows up in the sacristy of St. Peter's. Of course he could not be forced to concelebrate in the Roman rite, so the question arises: could that priest celebrate in his rite? St. Peter’s Basilica represents the center of catholicity, so it comes naturally to think that such a celebration would be allowed. But if a celebration carried out according to one of the other Catholic rites can be carried out, for the sake of equality it would be all the more necessary to recognize the freedom of priests to celebrate in the extraordinary form of the Roman rite.

For all the reasons set out here and for yet others, together with a boundless number of baptized persons (many of whom do not want to or cannot express their thoughts) I humbly beg the Holy Father to order the withdrawal of the recent norms issued by the secretariat of state, which are as lacking in justice as in love, do not correspond to the truth or the law, do not facilitate but rather endanger the decorum of the celebration, devout participation in the Mass, and the freedom of the children of God

Rome, March 29 2021

This article originally appeared at L'Espresso. It is published with permission from Sandro Magister.

RELATED

‘Nobody is obliged to obey’ decree suppressing individually said Masses at St. Peter’s: Cardinal Müller

Cardinal Burke: Vatican’s ban on private Masses in St. Peter’s Basilica should be ‘rescinded’

Third cardinal publicly opposes Vatican letter banning private Masses at St. Peter’s basilica


  cardinal brandmuller, cardinal burke, cardinal müller, cardinal sarah, catholic church, congregation for divine worship, latin mass, pope francis, private mass, vatican

News

68-year-old dies after anaphylactic reaction to COVID vaccine as CDC continues to ignore inquiry into increasing number of deaths

VAERS data released today showed 44,606 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines, including 2,050 deaths and 7,095 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and March 19, 2021.
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 3:40 pm EST
Featured Image
Megan Redshaw, J.D.
By Megan Redshaw J.D.

LifeSiteNews note: This article was originally published on Friday March 26, 2021.

March 29, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) –  Data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the number of injuries and deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID vaccines showed that between Dec. 14, 2020 and March 19, 2021, there were 44,606 reports of adverse events, including 2,050 deaths and 7,095 serious injuries.

In the U.S., 118.3 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of March 19.

Image

VAERS is the primary mechanism for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Every Friday, the CDC makes public all VAERS vaccine injury reports received as of the previous week.

This week’s VAERS data included 2,306 reports of anaphylaxis. Fifty-five percent of anaphylaxis reports were attributed to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 45% to Moderna and 1% to the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine, which was rolled out in the U.S. on March 2.

As The Defender reported earlier this month, the J&J vaccine contains polysorbate 80, known to trigger allergic reactions. The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines contain polyethylene glycol (PEG), also known to trigger anaphylactic reactions.

The latest news report of an anaphylactic reaction to a COVID vaccine was of a 68-year-old Kansas woman who died a day after receiving the vaccine. According to EMS dispatch records, the woman had an allergic reaction at a vaccine clinic site around 4 p.m. on Tuesday, KMBC reported. She had difficulty breathing and speaking and was injected with an EpiPen.

Kansas Department of Health and Environment spokesperson Kristi Zears told The Wichita Eagle that Evans had an anaphylactic reaction during a waiting period after receiving the shot. She was transported to the hospital and pronounced dead a day later. It is not clear whether Evans had underlying health conditions and the Kansas health agency did not indicate which COVID vaccine was administered.

According to the CDC’s website, “the CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information and learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or unrelated.”

To date, the only information the CDC has published related to the investigation of COVID vaccine-related deaths and how those investigations were conducted is a COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Update via the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), published on Jan. 27.

On March 8, The Defender contacted the CDC with questions about reported deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines. We provided a written list of questions about how the CDC conducts investigations into reported deaths, the status of investigations on deaths reported in the media, if autopsies are being done and the standard for determining whether an injury is causally connected to a vaccine.

We also inquired about whether healthcare providers are reporting all injuries and deaths that might be connected to the COVID vaccine, and what education initiatives are in place to encourage and facilitate proper and accurate reporting.

As of today, 18 days later, the CDC has not responded or followed up with our calls or emails. We have contacted them numerous times and are either told “they received the email,” “they will escalate it and it is in the system” or their press officers are still reviewing it. After our most recent follow up call this Wednesday and giving them an updated deadline of 48 hours, we still have not heard back.

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

A look at the numbers

Overall, the data released today reflects trends that have been emerging since The Defender first began tracking VAERS reports related to COVID vaccines.

This week’s VAERS data show:

Physicians sound alarm about need for pre-screening

Meanwhile, concerns about mass vaccination continued to make national and international headlines this week.

As The Defender reported Tuesday, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, cardiothoracic surgeon and patient safety advocate, said we’re taking the COVID pandemic problem — where a half-percent of the population is susceptible to dying — and compounding it by vaccinating people who are already infected. In an interview with Fox News host and political commentator, Tucker Carlson, Noorchasm said public health officials are making a “dramatic error” by promoting a “one-size-fits-all” COVID vaccination program:

“… the signal is deafening, the people who are having complications or adverse events are the people who have recently or are currently or previously infected [with COVID]. I don’t think we can ignore this.”

Noorchashm believes that a #ScreenB4Vaccine campaign could save millions from vaccine injuries. He is promoting a screening campaign that consists of “PCR or Rapid Antigen test to determine if there is an active infection and an IgG antibody test that would allow determination of a past infection. If either of these tests are positive, vaccination ought to be delayed for a minimum of 3 – 6 months,” Noorchasm told The Defender. “If at that time IgG levels are waning, it is reasonable to consider getting a vaccine shot. But even then, blood IgG levels should guide whether or not a person gets vaccinated.”

Noorchasm sent a third communication to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration this week, warning that deaths like that of 32-year-old Benjamin G. Goodman, who died after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, could have been prevented, and that there will be more deaths unless people are screened before being vaccinated.

An article in The Hill this week, by several physicians, also suggested that people be prescreened for COVID before being vaccinated.

The physicians wrote:

“A closer look at the level of protection obtained by a single shot vaccine regimen for those who are ‘COVID-primed’ is needed. Rigorous, effective and efficient antibody prescreening tools to identify these individuals would be required as well.”

AstraZeneca under fire in U.S. and Europe

As far as individual vaccines, AstraZeneca garnered the most headlines this week, in Europe and the U.S.

On March 22, The Defender reported that two independent research teams in Norway and Germany identified antibodies that provoke immune reactions leading to the type of blood clots experienced by some people who received AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine.

Although many countries resumed their vaccination program with AstraZeneca’s vaccine after the EMA’s preliminary findings, some countries, including France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland, did not lift their restrictions on its use.

According to Reuters, Finland announced Wednesday it was still looking into two cases of blood clots but would resume using the AstraZeneca vaccine against COVID for people aged 65 and over. Finland plans to complete its investigation by April 6 at the earliest.

On March 23, U.S. health officials accused AstraZeneca of misrepresenting efficacy data when it included “outdated information” in its clinical trial results, which may have led to the vaccine maker providing the public with an incomplete view of its efficacy data, The Defender reported.

The statement by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases came less than a day after the pharmaceutical company said its vaccine was 79% effective against COVID and 100% effective against severe or critical disease and hospitalization.

AstraZeneca released updated information on its COVID-19 clinical trial Wednesday which showed an efficacy rate of 76% against symptomatic COVID infection instead of the 79% figure released Monday. The estimated efficacy in people over 65 rose slightly, from 80% to 85%. The vaccine maker identified no safety concerns related to the vaccine.

On March 24, the Ukrainian government urged the public not to jump to conclusions after a servicewoman died two days after getting the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, reported Fox News. Although the woman reportedly had chronic cardiovascular disease and other comorbidities, she experienced no side effects from the vaccine before she suddenly lost consciousness.

According to Reuters, nine other people were given the vaccine from the same batch on the same day and had no ill effects.

Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.

© March 26, 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

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

RELATED

It’s ‘entirely possible’ vaccine campaigns ‘will be used for massive-scale depopulation’: Former Pfizer VP

Priest on COVID vaccine: ‘The risks far outweigh the benefits’

At least nine countries pull AstraZeneca’s vaccine over blood clot reports

‘Healthy’ 28-year-old mom dies suddenly following second Pfizer shot

Portuguese mother, 41, dies two days after taking Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine

39-year-old nurse aide dies ‘within 48 hours’ of receiving mandated COVID-19 shot

‘Very healthy’ Miami obstetrician, 56, dies 16 days after receiving Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine

Johns Hopkins scientist: ‘A medical certainty’ Pfizer vaccine caused death of Florida doctor


  coronavirus, coronavirus vaccine, covid-19, vaers

News

Kristi Noem vetoes bill to protect women’s sports, denies responsibility (UPDATE: override fails)

'There should now be no illusion as to the kind of leader Kristi Noem is,' said leading pro-family activist Terry Schilling in a statement slamming the South Dakota governor.
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 3:37 pm EST
Featured Image
Kristi Noem NBC News / YouTube
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.

UPDATE, March 29, 2021, 7:11PM EST: Following publication of this report, a veto override vote failed in the South Dakota House 45-24.

PIERRE, March 29, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem has effectively vetoed legislation ensuring that female students will only have to compete against other females in athletic programs, while issuing a statement attempting to deflect blame for the bill’s defeat onto the state legislature.

HB 1217 affirms that a “team or sport designated as being female is available only to participants who are female, based on their biological sex.” On March 8, Noem declared she was “excited to sign this bill very soon,” hailing the defense of women’s sports as a worthy cause to highlight on International Women’s Day.

However, following a barrage of media and corporate pressure, Noem reversed herself at the last minute, announcing on March 19 she was sending the bill back to the legislature over sudden reservations about its “vague and overly broad language” and suggesting various “style and form” changes. 

Those changes, which would make the bill harder to enforce at the high school level and exempt the collegiate level entirely, didn’t sit well with most conservatives, whom Noem tried and failed to mollify by announcing a “Defend Title IX Coalition” — effectively a petition which carries no legal force, but does help Noem collect contact information for future mailing lists.

The South Dakota House “resoundingly” rejected Noem’s “style and form” changes Monday morning, the Argus Leader reports, with only two members voting in favor of them.

“Every single day I focus on waking up and doing what’s best for this state and the families here, building strong families and giving them opportunities,” Noem told the paper. “It seems strange this has gotten to be a bit of a personal attack on me from several legislators.”

In response to the vote, Noem sent a letter to House leaders confirming that the bill is effectively vetoed, while claiming that the legislature’s refusal to make her recommended changes are what vetoed it, rather than her rejection of the bill:

“There should now be no illusion as to the kind of leader Kristi Noem is,” American Principles Project (APP) president Terry Schilling responded. “In this past week, voters in her state and nationwide have seen her surrender to the left, engage in political theater to distract from that surrender, and now refuse to change course despite being called out for it. This failure to stand up when it mattered most will define Noem for the rest of her career and will certainly haunt her should she decide to run for any office in the future. Conservatives will not forget it.”

LGBT activists claim it’s “discriminatory” to reserve female competitive sports for actual females, but science confirms that “trans women” (i.e., biological men) retain distinct physical advantages through which they can deprive actual female athletes of recognition and scholarship opportunities intended to advance girls.

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

In a paper published by the Journal of Medical Ethics, New Zealand researchers found that “healthy young men (do) not lose significant muscle mass (or power) when their circulating testosterone levels were reduced to (below International Olympic Committee guidelines) for 20 weeks,” and “indirect effects of testosterone” on factors such as bone structure, lung volume, and heart size “will not be altered by hormone therapy”; therefore, “the advantage to transwomen (biological men) afforded by the (International Olympic Committee) guidelines is an intolerable unfairness.”

During a Senate hearing on the LGBT lobby’s so-called “Equality Act” earlier this month, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) noted that the speed of world record-holding runner Florence Griffith Joyner, while still unmatched by female successors, was surpassed by 76 American high-school boys in 2019 alone.

Prior to Noem’s decision, a coalition of 47 national and state policy leaders sent a letter warning the governor that “gutting the bill doesn’t help anyone win—it sends South Dakota and their girls and women back to the sidelines and sends the wrong signal to others across the country in the fight to save girls’ and women’s sports.”

“Your version of the bill would hand South Dakota’s collegiate female athletes—and a say in your state’s governance—to the NCAA on a silver platter,” the letter noted. “Why should collegiate females face injustice for achieving the honor of college-level competition?”

Despite the veto, HB 1217’s fate is not yet sealed. APP’s director of policy and government affairs Jon Schweppe reports that the state legislature is currently weighing its options, and may be able to override Noem’s veto. Two-thirds of each chamber must vote yes to override a veto in South Dakota; the bill originally passed by more than enough votes in the House but would need an additional four votes in the Senate.


  girls sports, kristi noem, lgbt, republicans, south dakota, transgender athletes, transgenderism, women's sports

News

Catholic parish bans Confession for unvaccinated, reverses course after bishop steps in

The diocese informed the priest that he cannot put such a condition for the reception of the Sacrament of Penance.
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 2:32 pm EST
Featured Image
Church of the Precious Blood in Monmouth Beach, New Jersey screenshot / facebook.com/PreciousBloodMonmouthBeach
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.

MONMOUTH BEACH, New Jersey, March 29, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – A Catholic parish in New Jersey announced this week that it would only allow those who had been vaccinated to receive the sacrament of Confession. After LifeSiteNews began investigating the matter this morning, reaching out to the parish priest and the local bishop for comment, the parish suddenly altered course and will now allow confessions for everyone.

The Church of the Precious Blood in Monmouth Beach, New Jersey, where Father Michael Sullivan is pastor, originally stated on its website this week that confessions are “now available for those who are vaccinated” after the loosening of COVID-related restrictions.

“Only those vaccinated may come to the Sacrament of Penance in order to protect yourself, and more importantly, to protect others in case you are asymptomatic and contagious,” the website originally stated.

Image

LifeSiteNews reached out to Bishop David O’Connel of the New Jersey Diocese of Trenton, where the Precious Blood parish is located, for comment on Father Sullivan making the vaccine jab a prerequisite to receiving a sacrament. Within 2 hours, the diocese’s spokesperson Rayanne Bennett responded with the following statement: “The question regarding Confession in Precious Blood Parish was brought to the attention of the Diocese this morning, March 29, and was immediately reviewed by the Vicar General, the Chancellor and the Director of Worship.” 

“The Vicar General promptly informed the pastor that he cannot put that condition on reception of the Sacrament of Penance. No one is obliged to take the COVID vaccine. The pastor indicated that he would comply, and the parish website has been updated.  All the priests of the Diocese were informed through ‘Diocesan Pandemic Directives’ in September 2020 that ‘as has been the case throughout the pandemic, Confession continues to be available as needed,’” she added.

The website of Precious Blood parish now states: “Confessions Are Now Available.”

Now that Fr. Mike has been vaccinated, the Sacrament of Penance will be available in two ways:

For those who have not been vaccinated, in the sanctuary of the church, face to face.

For those who have been vaccinated, in the confessional where confession can take place anonymously.

Image
Screenshot of updated announcement on Precious Blood parish's website

Canon lawyer Father Gerald E. Murray, a pastor in New York who is a regular commentator on EWTN, called the parish’s original restriction “unjust,” noting how it goes against the Church’s law when it comes to the faithful receiving the sacraments.

The Code of Canon law states that “Sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them” (843,1). It furthermore states that “All to whom by virtue of office the care of souls is committed are bound to provide for the hearing of the confessions of the faithful entrusted to them, who reasonably request confession, and they are to provide these faithful with an opportunity to make individual confession on days and at times arranged to suit them. In an urgent necessity, every confessor is bound to hear the confessions of Christ's faithful, and in danger of death every priest is so obliged."

“The restrictive policy of hearing confessions only of those who have been vaccinated for COVID-19 violates these canons,” Fr. Murray told LifeSiteNews.

“The faithful have the right to approach their pastor or another priest for the sacrament of penance and that right must not be denied. Vaccination is not the only means for preventing the spread of COVID-19. Mask wearing combined with social distancing and adequate ventilation has been safely used to allow the faithful to have the opportunity to receive the sacrament of penance. Priests have also heard confession outdoors to provide the greatest possible safety.”

“Since vaccinations are not yet offered to large segments of the population, many people would be denied their right to receive the sacrament of penance through no fault of their own. This restriction is unjust given that the stated aim of preventing COVID-19 transmission can be achieved through the practices noted above,” he added.

Precious Blood’s initial announcement banning Confession for the unvaccinated also failed to take into account people who already have immunity from the coronavirus from a past infection, pregnant women who won’t take the jab because of the many reported miscarriages it has caused, and people who are allergic to ingredients in the shot. The coronavirus jab, which has only been granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and not full approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is also not approved for children; they are currently ineligible for the shot.

LifeSiteNews reached out to Father Michael Sullivan, pastor of the Church of the Precious Blood, to ask why he had made the original ban on Confession to those who weren’t vaccinated.

“My take is the way that some parishes have been doing confessions either puts people at risk because they are not sanitizing the place where each penitent comes up to, they’re not sanitizing the chair, they’re not sanitizing that side of the screen, or, it’s way open, and there’s a big lack of privacy,” he told LifeSiteNews.

Fr. Sullivan said that when he began to receive pushback from people who were telling him that he cannot keep people from the sacraments, he told them: “When we had the lockdown, that is exactly what we did, to keep people safe.”

It seemed logical to him to move from a mask mandate to a vaccination mandate.

— 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

“People can’t go to Mass and receive the sacraments unless they wear a mask. People who refuse to wear a mask, there is no sacrament for them,” he said.

When LifeSiteNews asked Fr. Sullivan if, in his opinion, pursuing “bodily safety” by means of COVID protocols was more important than “spiritual safety,” he immediately replied that “bodily safety” was more important.

“It’s immoral to put people’s lives in danger,” he said.

“I really really want to make the sacraments available, but I also really really want people to be safe. It then becomes a question of where do you draw the line in protecting people’s health, and maybe even their life, and providing the sacraments.”

Guidance from the Catholic Church on the morality of using COVID-19 vaccines allows the faithful the option of seeking a religious exemption from vaccines, especially those tainted by abortion.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated in December of 2020 that “practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.”

“In any case, from the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one's own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent.”

Image

Precious Blood parish also boasts an “LGBT Faith Sharing Ministry.”

“The Church of the Precious Blood's LGBT Faith Sharing Ministry welcomes and supports lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Catholic persons, their family and friends,” the parish website says. “We will share our faith through prayer, social justice and dialogue.”

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

RELATED:

Priest suggests parishioners over 60 must be vaccinated to distribute Communion


  catholic, confession, covid restrictions, covid vaccine, david o’connel, diocese of trenton, sacraments, vaccines

News

Catholic university stands up to LGBT bullying

Reports had emerged claiming that the university had banned actor Daniel Franzese from performing at the school because he was a homosexual.
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 1:05 pm EST
Featured Image
Walsh University OhioWalshUniversity / YouTube
Michael Haynes Michael Haynes Follow Michael
By Michael Haynes

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

NORTH CANTON, Ohio, March 29, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A Catholic university in north-eastern Ohio is fighting back against LGBT bullying after reports emerged claiming that the university had banned actor Daniel Franzese from performing at the school because he was a homosexual.

In a video uploaded to YouTube on March 18, Franzese claimed that “today I was fired from Walsh University, in Ohio, for being gay.”

Founded in 1960, Walsh University is an independent Catholic institution, with the purpose of teaching students to “to act in accordance with reason guided by the example and teachings of Jesus Christ.”

Franzese revealed that he had been invited to host the university’s March 26 “Mr. Walsh” pageant, described by the university as “a student talent competition featuring Walsh’s finest gentlemen representing their student organizations.”

Reading from an email, which he said was from the university’s student activities director, Franzese described how the contract for his appearance was rejected. The decision was, he said, “clearly based on personal beliefs of the higher administration.”

As a result, Franzese declared that the recent ruling by the Vatican banning same-sex blessings was being “weaponized” against him. He learnt that he would not be appearing at Walsh shortly after the Vatican document was issued.

Bemoaning his loss of income, and noting how he had been planning on performing for “practically half my rate,” Franzese stated that “LGBTQ people losing the ability to merely just exist on stage hurts as whole.”

“When does it end?” he continued. “This is a sad example about how tax-exempt institutions are using their own beliefs and the unfair religious freedom protection act … and it could cause a ripple effect of discrimination and bigotry to further alienate and harm LGBTQ people and our livelihoods.”

Franzese’s attack on the university has since been succinctly and thoroughly rejected by the institution’s president, Dr. Tim Collins.

In a March 19 email seen by LifeSiteNews, Collins wrote that “our country is suffering mightily from a Crisis of Convictions — on nearly any issue we seem drawn only to the loudest voice.”

The timing of canceling Franzese’s appearance was attributed to a breakdown in the university’s own vetting procedures which had lasted until “earlier this week,” he argued.

“Our process broke down, folks,” wrote the president, explaining that Franzese had been approached before the internal approval for his appearance had been granted.

Had that process been completed as normal, it would have shown that Franzese’s work was not in line with the university standards.

“Mr. Franzese’s professional content does not meet our standards,” wrote Collins. “Here are three exemplars of his public podcast titles … ‘Episode 131: Jesus is the OG Zombie,’ ‘Episode 135: Can You Thank God for a Good Blowjob?’ ‘Episode 208: Penises Everywhere.”

“Thus, on the basis of public content that does not align with either Walsh University core values or our shared University mission, the decision was justly made to not sign a draft contract and had nothing to do with Mr. Franzese as a person,” continued Collins.

Franzese’s podcast is entitled “YassJesus,” and is billed as “a faith and sexuality affirming podcast that believes you don’t have to pick between gay and God.” Franzese describes himself as a “Christ-loving member of the LGBTQIA+ community.”

— 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

But a further aspect formed the basis of the university’s decision: Despite Franzese praising himself for being willing to appear for about half his normal fee, Collins revealed that Franzese requested “$4,000 plus expenses, for about an hour-long performance” — an amount which the university was “unwilling to pay.”

Collins, who was appointed president in August 2019, rejected the claim that the university was waging a war of discrimination against the promoters of LGBT ideology. Instead, he said, the university was simply adhering to its advertised mission: “Upon arrival at Walsh University, no one is asked to surrender who they are … we simply ask all to take on the cloak of our core values of faith, excellence, integrity, service, and community as we relentlessly pursue our mission to build men and women in service to others in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

He called for a return to “truth” instead of allowing “streaming or screaming on social media” to form the accepted narrative.

The letter did not go unnoticed, and Franzese responded again, still attributing the university’s decision to his homosexual lifestyle, and blaming the Vatican once more for its ban on same-sex blessings: “This whole situation is a mess. This is what happens when the Vatican drops a bomb like this without explanation.”

He alleged that a number of students had approached him, claiming that the university made them feel “unwelcomed.”

LifeSiteNews reached out to Collins, but the university declined to comment.

Another private Catholic institution, the University of Dallas, has also recently come under fire from the homosexual lobby. A former student of the university, a man who know believes himself to be a woman, attacked the university, demanding that one of the professors be removed from his position after he made biologically correct comments about Joe Biden’s Assistant Secretary of Health, “Rachel” (Richard) Levine.

The university’s president Thomas Hibbs and provost Jonathan Sanford were firm in their defense of their colleague, Professor David Ulpham. They declared that the university was acting in accord with its policies and “will not yield to internal or external demands to divert from them.”

“If anyone is wondering whether we uphold Catholic teaching, we do. Our Catholic identity and fidelity to its teachings is at the core of our mission,” continued the letter.


  daniel franzese, tim collins, walsh university

News

Canadian judge jails father for breaking ‘gag order’ on gov’t supported ‘sex-change’ procedures on his teenage daughter

Rob Hoogland of Surrey, British Columbia, faces five years in prison after trial next month
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 1:05 pm EST
Featured Image
Outside the courthouse before the hearing, Rob Hoogland ponders his fate as his supporters gather near the doors.
Mass Resistance
By

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

March 29, 2021 (MassResistance) — The dark face of an oppressive government that enforces insane, unnatural, and destructive ideas on innocent people was on display last week in Vancouver, British Columbia. Someday people will look back on all of this in disbelief. But for now, Americans and others around the world need to take notice: What’s happening in Canada now will likely be coming to your doorstep. Be prepared to speak out and oppose it!

Background – a parent’s nightmare

As we described in our March 13 report, Rob Hoogland of Surrey, British Columbia is living a horror story. The government has ruled that his 15-year-old daughter, who believes she is “really” a boy (thanks to school propaganda), must be given dangerous and experimental medical procedures to “change” her sex to male – despite her terrified father’s objections.

These treatments include puberty-blockers, cross-sex hormones, surgical procedures will likely follow. This will cause sterility and other horrible and irreversible side effects, such as unhealthy bone growth and premature aging. In fact, what the girl really needs is psychological help.

This did not happen in a vacuum. The Canadian LGBT movement funded over two dozen lawyers to represent the daughter against her father. With their help, in 2019 the Court ruled that this young girl is “mature” enough to overrule her father’s wishes, and that these treatments are in her best interest.

Moreover, the government insists that everything about this case must be kept secret to “protect” the daughter (whom they state is a boy). Thus, the Court has ordered that neither Rob (nor anyone else) may publicly relate any details about what is happening to his daughter, or reveal the daughter’s name, the names of the hideous “gender clinic” doctors who are experimenting on her, or even Rob’s own name!

Court document outlining its rulings in this case (1/10/2020). Note that Rob is referred to as “C.D.,” his daughter is “A.B.” and the mother is “E.F.”

But Rob has refused to be cowed into silence by this totalitarian gag order. He believes that the world needs to know the truth about what is happening. He has given interviews to MassResistance and other conservative media, and has named the doctors and others who are participating in this.

Rob charged with gag order violations, trial set for April 2021

Last November, the Attorney General of British Columbia formally charged Rob with multiple “criminal” violations of the gag order (known as a “conduct order”). A four-day trial has been set beginning April 12, 2021.

On March 4, the Attorney General filed a further charge because Rob had set up a GoGetFunding page that included his name and other banned information. This time the government issued an immediate warrant for Rob’s arrest, ostensibly to keep him from committing more violations before his April trial.

A bail hearing before Justice Michael Tammen was set for March 16. On that day, Rob was scheduled to turn himself in, which he did.

INCREDIBLE VIDEO: Rob Hoogland speaks before going to court - and jail. Great interview by Canadian pro-family journalist Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson. (6 min 26 sec)

The hearing from hell - the nightmare continues for this father

The hearing commenced on March 16 and was continued on March 19. This was clearly anything but a typical bail hearing for a seemingly minor, non-violent infraction.

Image
Rob (right) chats with a few of his friends who came to support him, before walking in.
Image
Some local conservative press was also there.

It was very clear that the Court sought to make a powerful statement to the public.

For example, at the conclusion of the hearing, the judge announced that Rob was denied bail and must stay in jail pending his trial in April – for violating his conduct order (gag order). To put things in perspective, Justice Tammen presided over a hearing two years ago in which he released a convicted murderer pending review of his criminal murder conviction.

Furthermore, it is unheard of for the B.C. Attorney General’s office to be prosecuting a conduct order. It would be like the New York State Attorney General prosecuting a misdemeanor. But the government clearly wanted to put its full punitive force on Rob Hoogland – and send a strong message to anyone else who would stand up to the transgender movement that is entrapping so many children.

It was eerie how coldly businesslike the proceeding was, focused only on following laws, procedure, and orders. Yet at its core was unimaginable child abuse and violation of a parent’s rights. The prosecutor and judge both refused to acknowledge those underlying issues, or why this case has created shock and horror internationally. They both seemed oblivious to their role in enforcing an order that would destroy a teenage girl’s body and life, and that they were violating the bond between parent and child.

But as every American knows, existing law and procedure are easily twisted (or even ignored) when a court is deciding a radical issue like abortion or “gay marriage.”

Image
Justice Michael Tammen
Image
Attorney Carey Linde, Rob's lawyer.

And throughout the hearing, Judge Tammen’s demeanor was openly hostile toward Rob and his attorney. He seemed to take on the role of prosecutor at times. He often interrupted Rob’s lawyer to attempt to “correct” his arguments. The prosecutor and the judge both referred to the girl as “he.” Rob’s attorney refused to do that.

The Attorney General’s office makes its case against Rob

The Attorney General’s prosecutor, Daniel Pruim, began by reciting the litany of Rob’s violations over the years. Then he focused on the “GoGetFunding” page, which comprised the specific reason for the arrest warrant. He went point by point over the text and videos on that page, citing dozens of things that Rob wrote and said that they are considered “violations.” He compared them to the various “conduct orders” issued against Rob.

He went on to say that Rob’s “son” (i.e., daughter) is suicidal, that these “gender” treatments are saving the child’s life, and implied that Rob’s discussing them makes the suicide more likely.

The purpose was to portray Rob as a deliberate repeat “criminal” against the government who flouts laws and is not concerned for the well-being of his child. And for the “gravity” of these offenses, he must be imprisoned.

Both the prosecutor and the judge pointedly voiced their outrage at one particular statement on the GoGetFunding page. Rob wrote, “I am fighting the far left based on a civil disobedience defense!” The judge remarked, “I’m the left? I’m the far left?!”

The irony should not be lost on anyone. This whole legal and political persecution is from the far left – from the LGBT lobby that has been harassing Rob Hoogland and anyone else who speaks out against their “gender” ideology.

— 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

Rob Hoogland’s attorney makes a passionate case

Carey Linde, Rob’s attorney, made a very passionate and (we think) compelling case in Rob’s defense. He covered several points:

  1. There is no evidence of any harm to anyone from Rob allegedly breaching the gag order. The identities of Rob and the two doctors are widely known. The identity of his daughter is known by her schoolmates, neighbors, the community, and the media. There is not now and never has been evidence of problems for any of them from unknown persons. As Mr. Linde said, “So what is the big secret? The genie is out of the bottle. It can’t be put back in with any number of arrest warrants.”

  2. The courts here are being manipulated to hide these unethical doctors from public scrutiny. But these same doctors proudly advertise their skills on social media, and sell books about what they do. As Mr. Linde said:
    “The psychologist and endocrinologist are hiding behind court orders while they move an increasing number of emotionally wounded children to a lifetime addiction to expensive gender-altering hormones. These men are abusing the courts for their personal gain. The court cannot sanction this.”

  3. Rob’s “crime” is warning parents of young girls how the government permits schools to surreptitiously convince girls they can be boys. And how the state allows pediatric endocrinologists to give gender-altering hormones to children without the parent’s knowledge or consent.

  4. An obvious question: Why has the Attorney General chosen to escalate this case against a father in such a draconian fashion? It is a punitive and intimidating effort to punish him for speaking his conscience. Will the state have to keep Rob incommunicado behind bars? For how long? “Does the AG think that Rob’s conscience will shrivel up like the testosterone poisoned eggs in his now sterile 15-year-old child?” Carey asked.

  5. Or more to the point: Why isn’t the Attorney General leading the charge to protect young girls with rapid-onset gender dysphoria from the psychologists and doctors experimenting with the girls’ growing bodies and fragile minds without parental knowledge or consent?

  6. The Attorney General is on the wrong side of history here when it comes to denying guardianship rights to parents. How would he or any of us in this room feel if what happened to Rob were to happen to us?

  7. Regarding the “suicide” threat, this entire case is based on a fiction. It’s been well documented that Rob’s daughter was 12 years old when she attempted “suicide” by spraying the contents of a pressurized can in her mouth. She did this because she had a crush on a male gym teacher, and she was disciplined by the school for stalking him. She admitted this at the hospital, which was written in their report. But the LGBT lawyers have been purposefully dishonest about this in their arguments, and the Court refuses to correct it.

  8. Finally, Mr. Linde brought up the recent English case of Bell v Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and others, by the English High Court in London Dec 1, 2020. This concerned a young woman who had gone through “transition” to become a man. She sued because she had been given bad information about it as a teenager. The judgment held there was no medical evidence or statistical basis for the medical claims by the transgender movement – that it is pseudo-science at best. There is no evidence that supports it other than someone saying, “I have a feeling …”

Mr. Linde’s arguments were certainly convincing to us and probably any normal member of the public.

The Judge speaks

One expects a judge to at least give the appearance of being impartial. But there was none of that here. Justice Tammen was openly very harsh toward Attorney Linde, and insisted that Rob’s guilt was undeniable. He told Mr. Linde that the arguments he made had no bearing on this hearing. He stated that Rob had repeatedly violated the conduct orders, particularly in regard to “health care professionals.”  He said that Mr. Linde’s arguments are simply a “collateral attack” on the conduct orders and is no defense at all. The only thing that matters is if Rob violated them, nothing else.

Justice Tammen reiterated very sternly that the basis for that gag order was “to protect the psychological well-being” of Rob’s child. That’s how it stands.

He insisted that Rob’s previous attorneys in this case did not file papers to ask to rescind the orders, that the time for it has long since passed, and that he was not going to deal with any of that here. And even using his own name publicly makes it clear who the daughter is, he said. Rob has also posted a photo of him and his daughter in elementary school, which is apparently a grave violation.

For quite a while the judge basically shouted at Mr. Linde about Rob’s continual violation of the orders, and stated that he will likely continue defying the orders.

Finally, Mr. Linde said to the judge “At some point we have to start dealing with [medical] facts.”

But that was ignored and the judge reiterated that Rob had broken the conduct orders, and that Rob’s disagreement with the correctness of transgender treatments were simply “his opinions.”

In the end, the judge was adamant that Rob must be kept in jail – without bail – until the “criminal contempt” trial, which they decided will commence on April 12 at 2:00 pm.

The judge’s dark attack on MassResistance

On March 19, after Justice Tammen finished announcing his reasons for denying bail, he proceeded to attack MassResistance (avoiding using our name, of course). It gives an insight into his chilling and totalitarian thinking on this whole matter:

[Note that in keeping with the gag order, the judge refuses to use the actual names of Rob and his daughter. He refers to Rob's daughter as "A.B." and to Rob as "C.D."]

I wish to add this by way of an addendum. After I completed [writing my statement], the Counsel for the Crown [Attorney General] brought to my attention additional information concerning ongoing breeches of the publication ban. I have not considered that evidence in reaching my decision, but I will make some comment on it now.

The body of evidence includes a lengthy interview clip that C.D. [Rob Hoogland] gave to an organization that describes itself as a “pro-family activist organization” [i.e., MassResistance].  That entity maintains a website on which it publishes. Although the organization is clearly based in the United States, and thus beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this court, through its website it publishes on the World Wide Web. Some of the content is a flagrant breech of the publication ban orders in this case. Obviously, that content is available within British Columbia and has the potential to cause great harm to A.B. [Rob’s daughter].

The interview given by C.D. provides the strongest evidence of his criminal intent. Through his own mouth, C.D. announces his clear intention to flout court orders and attempt to get his message out before his bail hearing. Thus, rather than take the opportunity he was given by the delay [from March 3 to March 16] of the execution of the warrant and comply with the court orders, C.D. in fact escalated his offending behavior.

The content which is most alarming is contained within the attachment which is posted below the interview with C.D. All of those attachments are documents which could only have been provided to the website host by C.D. or his counsel. The documents include the Crown disclosure for his criminal trial and the press release authored by C.D.’s counsel, Mr. Linde. Two documents relate to A.B. [Rob’s daughter] and his [her] medical treatments. They both contain intensely private information about A.B. One of those documents contains information that on its face is an extremely egregious breech of both A.B.’s fundamental right to privacy and the publication ban.

I alert C.D. now that he must make every effort to have the offending content removed from that website. If at some point I must sentence C.D. for criminal contempt, and that content remains, the range of sentence might be very different than the one I referenced in my recent judicial internment release.

It's interesting that Justice Tammen took the time to threaten MassResistance regarding what we’ve posted, since Rob is clearly unable to contact us (or anyone) while in jail. But more important: Tammen is being dishonest. Those documents that we posted are in no way harmful to Rob’s daughter. (The harm to her is coming from her “medical” team.) They are quite harmful to the Canadian Government’s absurd case against Rob Hoogland.

These documents include the gender clinic’s bizarre “Informed Consent Form” that admits that their procedures are dangerous and experimental, the Vancouver Police Report, and the hospital’s memorandum to Rob where they state that his 15-year-old daughter is “mature” enough to consent to their procedures. The others are basically public documents.

Will Tammen actually lengthen Rob’s prison time, as he outrageously threatened, unless MassResistance “removes the offending content” from our website – something Rob has no control over? We are contacting Rob’s attorney to discuss that. (Someone has already modified the GoGetFunding page.)

Justice Tammen went on to say that people should not believe what they read on “social media” about the case. He said that the “correct” facts about the case are in the rulings by the judges in this case. Those rulings, the judge reminded everyone, have decided that the child has been declared “a mature 15-year-old” and that her father has no right to interfere with anything, or even publicly discuss it.

All of this is like some nightmare court scene out of Kafka or Solzhenitsyn. Judges like Tammen are eradicating humane standards from our institutions. They are men without souls holding the power to inflict trans-human experiments on children. It’s simply madness.

Printed with permission from MassResistance.


  lgbt agenda, rob hoogland, robert hoogland, transgenderism

News

They survived failed abortions. LifeSite readers helped cover their medical costs

Tonio Tavares de Mello adopts all of the children who come to the Baby Jesus Community in Brazil.
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 1:05 pm EST
Featured Image
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire
By Claire Chretien

March 29, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Readers of LifeSiteNews have donated over $41,000 to a unique pro-life project: a community of disabled children in Brazil, many of whom survived failed abortions.

And one man, Tonio Tavares de Mello, has adopted all of them. His apostolate, Comunidade Jesús Menino (Baby Jesus Community), was featured in the HUMAN Life movie.

In an exclusive video for LifeSite, Tavares thanked “all the benefactors who have sent their donations to Brazil” through LifeSite’s crowdfunding platform LifeFunder.

“You have helped us pay many overdue bills and afford many projects that we are supposed to carry out,” Tavares explained. “The help was very, very, very significant, indeed!”

The coronavirus shutdown and subsequent economic problems hurt the Baby Jesus Community.

“The coronavirus crisis has brought pain to the whole world, and not only financial pain, but also physical and psychological pain, and religious pain because people could not go to religious services or Mass,” Tavares previously told LifeSite.

The funds raised through LifeFunder allowed Tavares to pay medical bills for his 42 children. And now, one of his 2021 projects is “the construction and purchase of a new home for babies with disabilities,” said Tavares. “Through the LifeSiteNews website, you can help us give other children that same heart, that same love, that same life. So, thank you very much. Help us keep on leading initiatives to defend and welcome life.”

“You have contributed not only to this moment, but also to the beginning and the defense of life, which pulsates in Brazil and all over the world,” said Tavares. “Our mission ‘Jesus Menino’ [baby Jesus] is this: to defend life, to welcome life, and to take concrete actions for life in Brazil and worldwide. That is why we are the community ‘Jesus Menino.’”

In the new video for LifeSite, Tavares and some of his sons — Alex, Marco Aurélio, and Felipe — sing a song of thanksgiving: “He reigns over us, He is among us. Maranatha, come Lord Jesus! He reigns over us, He is among us. Maranatha, come Lord Jesus!”

LifeSite has extended the LifeFunder for the Baby Jesus Community through Holy Week and Easter, in the hopes that our community of pro-life readers will give a final push to power Tavares’s life-saving work. LifeSite will continue to provide updates on the Baby Jesus Community and their pro-life work. 

Click HERE to learn more about the Baby Jesus Community and donate to them through LifeFunder.


  baby jesus, brazil, failed abortion, jesus menino, jesus menino disabled community, tonio tavares de mello

News

Benedict XVI’s private secretary calls out ‘enormous collateral damage’ of lockdowns

Archbishop Georg Gänswein also said that ‘the Catholic Church herself is in a deep crisis — with a serious internal dissent within the Church as not seen for centuries.’
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 12:15 pm EST
Featured Image
Archbishop Georg Gänswein EWTN - Katholisches TV / YouTube
LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

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

ROME, Italy, March 29, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s private secretary Archbishop Georg Gänswein referred to numerous consequences of coronavirus-related lockdowns, including “enormous collateral damage and alarming suicide number that are strictly taboo.” He also talked about the “deep crisis” in the Church, as well as the resilience of Catholics amid crises.

Gänswein explained in his speech Saturday that he has been living in a quasi-lockdown with the former Pope ever since the latter resigned from the papacy, before pointing to the adverse effects of lockdowns in response to COVID-19: “I have read of a huge run to psychotherapists, heard of enormous collateral damage and alarming suicide numbers that are strictly taboo, and recognize from the ongoing debates in the media that there is no satisfactory answer in sight as to how to respond politically and socially to this distress in an appropriate manner.”

He compared the current situation to the Spanish flu pandemic, which led to tens of millions of lives lost worldwide. “When the ‘Spanish Flu’ took over 50 million people in just two years from 1918 to 1920, it didn’t scare people half as much as the COVID-19 pandemic does today, as far as I can see — without all the lockdowns and masks and vaccination debates.”

While admitting that he might not have “studied it enough,” Gänswein speculated that people at the time — just after World War I — were far less afraid of death than people today. “Was it perhaps because the peoples at that time were grosso modo still more at home in religion, and its consolations and resilience? I don’t know. From my family history, I only know that in the generation of my grandparents, death was still perceived and accepted, in a certain way, simply as a ‘part of life.’”

“Frankly speaking, I am not afraid of death, but I am a bit afraid of dying,” he admitted. “Here we see that a certain doubt accompanies faith at every turn as a faithful twin. It is, to say it clearly, the temptation to fall away from this demanding faith, for the sake of the temptations of a cheap nihilism, which I understand as the great and widespread contrast to the Catholic faith — as a black hole, as it were, which swallows up every truth and every sense of existence with the erroneous conviction that not God but nothingness surrounds us.”

Speaking at an event on “Crisis and Opportunity” organized by RPP-Institut, which focuses on psychiatry and psychotherapy, Gänswein said that “the Catholic Church herself is in a deep crisis — with a serious internal dissent within the Church as not seen for centuries.”

The theme of crisis, however, is not new in the Church, Gänswein emphasized. Since the very beginning, “the Church has always been aware that it is made up of sinful and weak people.” Christ made Simon “the ‘foundation’ of his Church,” but “the evangelist Matthew writes that this apostle, after the arrest of his Lord, cried and raved that he did not know ‘this man.’”

“Thus, Jesus Christ founded the Church as a community of fragile people and not of angels, or fairies and mythical creatures,” Benedict’s private secretary said. “This is not to gloss over anything or even to give the victims among us any less respect that they so deserve. Sin and crime have nevertheless always existed in the Church! Of great artists, for example, who have decisively worked on St. Peter’s Basilica, it was never a secret that they were also great sinners.”

“In all times there have always been saints in the Church, and always at the same time as the criminals, as in our time: the time of Mother Teresa of Calcutta and the time of Cardinal McCarrick of Washington.” Referring to Pope St. John Paul II, who worked, often closely, with the disgraced and abusive founder of the Legionaries of Christ, Marcial Maciel Degollado, Gänswein cautioned, “Saints are not psychics or magicians.”

Gänswein made the case for being resilient to any crisis with child-like faith. He said his resilience to crises is more like that, rather than academic.

Directly addressing the question he was asked to talk about at the event, Gänswein said, “So I could calmly answer your original question about resilience according to the Catholic faith with one sentence: Yes, this faith makes resilient. It makes people resilient in the face of any fear, primarily through the sacraments of the Eucharist and confession, which Catholics regard as ‘signs of salvation.’”

In addition to these, the Pope Emeritus’s private secretary mentioned praying the breviary, often called liturgy of the hours, as well as the Our Father and the Apostolic Creed. Finally, he also talked about the Angelus prayer, which is prayed three times a day and focuses on the incarnation, and the rosary, which he prays every day with Benedict XVI.

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

In some of his most personal remarks, Gänswein said that after his own father died in 2015, “I increasingly feel as if Pope Benedict … has become a new father to me in a way that probably could never have happened had he remained in office. This happens in an ever-growing intimacy, such as we have not experienced before, when we contemplate together our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, afternoon after afternoon in the Vatican Gardens, in the prayer of the rosary.”

As for the Pope Emeritus, these prayers have given him, Gänswein said, “powers of resilience that he would never have dreamed of. When he resigned in the spring of 2013, it seemed to him and to me — I can confess this here — that he had only a few more months ahead of him, but not eight more years. Now everything has turned out quite differently.”


  coronavirus lockdowns, crisis in the church, georg gänswein

News

Officer Talley, the Catholic dad of 7 killed in the Boulder shooting, ‘shows us there are great heroes in this time’

'He died as he lived: a protector and provider, going above and beyond,' said Father Dave Nix.
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 11:15 am EST
Featured Image
Emily Mangiaracina Emily Mangiaracina Follow
By

LifeSiteNews has launched a fundraising appeal to support the family of Officer Eric Talley. Donate here.

BOULDER, Colorado, March 29, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In the midst of the tragedy of the Boulder shooting, the example and memory of Eric Talley shines bright, now not just to those who knew him, but to the world.

Talley, a fallen Colorado police officer, is being widely praised as a hero for having plunged into the scene of the Boulder market shooting before other officers arrived. His family and colleagues affirm that this was simply in keeping with how he lived his life, as a man who poured himself out for others.

“I honestly know my brother, when he heard there was a shooting in a supermarket, I know his first thought was, ‘There are kids in there’,” Talley’s sister, Kirstin Brooks told the Washington Post. “He loved his kids. His family shopped at King Soopers,” she said, referring to the market where the shooting occurred.

“I know Eric would have wanted to save every single one of those lives. I know why he flew in there first, because he was thinking, there are families in that store.”

Father Dave Nix, an ex-paramedic who shares several mutual friends with Talley, seconds Brooks’ thoughts. “I think he went in without coverage because he knew there were civilians that were going to die,” he told LifeSiteNews.

By all accounts, Talley’s heroic death is an extension of who he was as a person. His family and friends paint the picture of a man totally devoted to his job, to his family, and to God.

“He died as he lived: a protector and provider, going above and beyond,” said Fr. Nix.

“I think he wasn’t just a good man, I think he was a hero — and extremely, extremely, virtuous,” Fr. Nix continued. “I’ve been getting texts from all over the nation saying how virtuous he was.”
In the wake of his death, glowing praise of Talley is pouring from virtually everyone who knew him — from his family, to his colleagues, to his former classmates.

Talley’s sister, Kirstin Brooks, described Talley as protective even from a young age. She says he took the blame when she got in trouble as a kid, and defended her when she got picked on in school, the Washington Post reported.

More recently, Brooks said her brother would “often call and check in” with her, “reminding her to take care of herself.”

His sister said that Talley, his wife and his seven children were “a good, sweet, tight, close family.” The mother homeschools their children, who traveled with their parents in a 15-passenger van bought by Talley so that they could be comfortable on the road, according to Jeremy Herko, a lieutenant with the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office.

Herko told the Washington Post that when he last spoke to Talley, on Sunday, he had sent him a picture of his family playing a board game that Talley had recommended. 

Talley’s mother was emotional as she told KOAT, “He would call me on the way to work, and on the way home. He loved his family and his job. He loves his wife.”

“He loved his kids and his family more than anything,” his father, Homer Talley, told Denver TV station KMGH.

Talley’s former classmates also warmly remember Talley as a loving person. Kerry O’Bryant, who was a friend of Talley’s in middle school and high school, told the Albuquerque Journal, “I think one of the recurring themes that I’ve heard from our mutual friends is that if there was anyone who was potentially going to be able to go in and defuse a bad situation, it was him – because he was such a lovable person.”

“I know everyone says nice things about somebody after they pass away, but I’m telling you the truth: he was the most liked person in our class. He wasn’t necessarily Mr. Jock or Mr. Popularity or whatever, but everybody liked Eric. There was nobody who didn’t,” O’Bryant continued.

Another former classmate of Talley’s, Rob Sobak, said: “When I read the stories of how he had helped people as an officer, I recognized Eric in those stories. Him being patient and kind, and generous. He was a gentle soul.”

According to Talley’s friends and family, he had previously worked in IT, until one of his closest friends died in 2010 in a DUI crash. Talley then quit his IT job and enrolled in the police academy at age 40.

“It was remarkable to me that somebody would go to law enforcement from IT,” Herko said. “He lost pay. He lost time away from his family. He joined the police academy without a guaranteed job.”

Boulder Police Chief Maris Herold said in a tribute to Talley, He didn’t have to go into policing. He had a profession before this. But he felt a higher calling. He loved this community. And he’s everything that policing deserves and needs.... he was willing to die to protect others.”

“I had that officer’s whole family in my office two weeks ago to give him an award,” Herold continued.

“The last years as a police officer, the hatred made his job so much harder. But he didn’t stop,” Talley’s mother told KOAT.

Family, friends, and acquaintances of Talley reveal he was deeply devoted not just to his family and to his work, but to his Catholic faith.

“He was a strong Catholic. Of deep faith,” Talley’s mother told KOAT.

One woman who met him twice at Church remembers him as having a “beautifully friendly smile” and explained that he would attend the Traditional Latin Mass “as often as he could” on weekdays, in addition to attending on Sundays. 

A funeral for Talley will be celebrated on Monday, March 29 at the Cathedral Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in Denver. It will be a solemn high Mass offered in the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, according to an announcement. The capacity of the cathedral has been set to 175, due to COVID-19 regulations. 

LifeSiteNews has launched a fundraising appeal to support the family of Officer Eric Talley. Donate here.


  boulder shooting, dave nix, eric talley

News

BREAKING: Supreme Court to review Kentucky AG’s power to defend pro-life laws

While the case will not set precedent for abortion law itself, it will have ramifications for how much discretion attorneys general of one party have in states where the other party occupies the governor’s mansion. Meanwhile, the Court still hasn't announced whether it will hear a case on Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban.
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 11:03 am EST
Featured Image
Drew Angerer / Getty Images
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.

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 29, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – The United States Supreme Court announced Monday it will be intervening in the case of Kentucky’s ban on an abortion procedure that dismembers children in the second trimester, specifically the question of whether the state’s attorney general has the authority to intervene to defend such laws.

In 2018, former Kentucky Republican Gov. Matt Bevin signed HB 454 into law, which bans the dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortion procedure. D&Es are more commonly known as “dismemberment abortions” because they function by tearing a preborn baby apart limb by limb. Bevin has since been replaced by pro-abortion Democrat Gov. Andy Beshear, but Republican Attorney General Daniel Cameron is pro-life and committed to upholding the state’s pro-life laws.

In 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals deemed the law an “undue burden” on “all of the individuals it restricts” and denied Cameron’s request to defend the law after Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CHFS) Eric Friedlander chose not to appeal the case. 

“The threats to these sovereign interests are particularly acute in this case,” argued a brief to the Supreme Court filed by 20 states on Cameron’s behalf. “The Sixth Circuit panel majority deprived the Commonwealth of Kentucky from seeking complete appellate review of the District Court’s injunction invalidating one of its duly enacted laws. And it did so on purely procedural grounds, holding that the Kentucky Attorney General could not intervene to vindicate state law on appeal because a single state officer had decided to abandon defense of a law passed by both houses of its Legislature and signed into law by its Governor.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court published its latest order list, confirming that it will be hearing arguments in Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C., albeit “limited to Question 1 presented by the petition,” i.e., the question of “Whether a state attorney general vested with the power to defend state law should be permitted to intervene after a federal court of appeals invalidates a state statute when no other state actor will defend the law.” 

— 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

So while the case will not set precedent for abortion law itself, it will have ramifications for how much discretion attorneys general of one party have in states where the other party occupies the governor’s mansion. In February, the Kentucky legislature enacted a law over Beshear’s veto empowering the attorney general to enforce abortion restrictions independent of the governor’s office.

Pro-abortion activists have objected to the “dismemberment” label as inflammatory and misleading, but the abortion industry itself has effectively admitted its accuracy. The National Abortion Federation’s own instructional materials describe dismemberment abortions as “grasping a fetal part,” then “withdraw[ing] the forceps while gently rotating it” to achieve “separation.”

Defenders also claim dismemberment abortions are the safest second-trimester procedure available (for the mother), but pro-lifers suspect abortionists actually prefer D&E abortions because they can fit more into their schedule, and therefore make more money.

As to the merits of rulings against such laws, supporters note that in 2000’s Stenberg v. Carhart, the pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens admitted that partial-birth abortion and dismemberment abortion were “equally gruesome,” and that it was “simply irrational” to conclude that one was “more akin to infanticide than the other.” Stenberg struck down the federal partial-birth abortion ban, but Gonzales v. Carhart ultimately upheld it in 2007.

The Supreme Court has yet to announce whether it will hear a case on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban. It has delayed announcing its decision on whether to hear that case for months now.


  cameron v. emw women’s surgical center, p.s.c., daniel cameron, dismemberment abortion, dismemberment abortion ban, kentucky, pro-life laws, supreme court

Opinion

Sixteen years have passed since Terri Schiavo was killed and we can’t let her story die

Her forced death should continue to be a rallying cry for the pro-life movement.
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 7:35 pm EST
Featured Image
Terri being kissed by her mother Video frame
Bryan Kemper Follow Bryan
By Bryan Kemper

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

March 29, 2021 (Priests for Life) -- In my more than 30 years of pro-life work, I have talked to thousands of people about their own involvement in the movement, why and how they got started and what motivates them to continue. 

We have talked about what happened in 1973 and wondered where all the Christians were when Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal. We asked ourselves how Christians could have owned slaves. We would tell stories about the few brave Christians who hid Jews during the Holocaust. We told ourselves if we had been around in those days, we would have risked all to save an innocent life. That’s what we said, at least.

Sixteen years ago, a young woman in Florida began an agonizing and painful journey toward death. Her husband, who had once made a vow to love and honor her through good times and bad, had her killed while the whole world was watching. Having already broken his marriage vows by living with another woman and fathering children with her, he went to court to have his legal wife, Terri, starved and dehydrated to death. 

Terri Schindler Schiavo was 26 when she went into cardiac arrest in 1990. She never fully recovered and was declared to be in a persistent vegetative state. While her husband was fighting to have her feeding tube removed, Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, was spending time with her. This is what he wrote about her in January 2005:

“She is not dying. She has no terminal illness. She is not in a coma. She is not on life-support equipment. She is not alone, but rather has loving parents and siblings ready to care for her for the rest of her life. She has not requested death …  I have been able to talk to her, to listen to her struggle to speak, to watch her focus her eyes and smile and attempt to kiss her parents. I have prayed with her, blessed her, and assured her that she has many friends around the country and around the world, who love her and want her to enjoy the same protections we all enjoy, even when we're wounded.”

The feeding tube was removed on March 18. Terri fought for her life for 13 days before closing her eyes for the last time on March 31, 2005.

I arrived in Florida one week before her death, expecting to see thousands and thousands of Christians in front of the hospice praying, singing and crying out for Terri. I expected to see all those people who said, “I would have been there to stand up if I were around during the Holocaust.” I was sadly disappointed.

— 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

Among the 150 people – at most – outside the hospice were some familiar faces from the pro-life movement. Father Pavone was there from New York, spending time at her bedside. Most of the pro-lifers I encountered outside were from out of town or out of state. It was hard to find anyone from the Tampa area there to stand up for Terri. For years I wondered where the Christians were when Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion and now I had the answer. They were sitting out the fight.

I spent the first day praying with people, talking about what could be done and simply being there in solidarity with our sister as she was dying. On the second day, I spoke to Terri’s sister, Suzanne Schindler, whom I had met in Washington, D.C. in January that year. She asked me to help guard Terri’s family and escort them around as everyone was swarming them.

I spent a lot of time just sitting with them and listening to stories about Terri and her life growing up. Her dad, Robert Schindler, told a story about when Terri ran over a cat and how upset she was. Her friends shared beautiful stories and memories I will treasure forever.

I also spent a lot of time in prayer with many different Christian leaders and friends. We would be desperate trying to think of actions we might take to save her life and then someone would say, “Let’s pray.” There was more spontaneous prayer than I had ever seen.

Small groups gathered up and down the street were praying, singing hymns and just reading Scripture out loud. There may not have been a large group there, but those who showed up were dedicated and faithful. 

I spent a lot of time escorting the family through the media circus camped outside the hospice. I accompanied Terri’s dad through the crowd every night as he thanked all the supporters there for his daughter.

I talked to many of the behind-the-scenes media people who were obviously shaken by this tragedy. People from all different walks of life and political and religious backgrounds were there to take a stand. There were many non-Christian people there in support of Terri, and dozens of handicapped people from a group called Not Dead Yet. I even spent time in prayer with Rev. Jesse Jackson as he came to help the family and speak out for Terri. And I prayed with Fox News’s Sean Hannity and Operation Rescue’s Randall Terry.

Each night at about 11 I would leave the hospice to get something to eat and try to catch up on work. One night Terri’s brother, Bobby Schindler, joined me for a late dinner. When he left the restaurant, people asked him for the true story of what had happened – and was happening then – to his sister. They were shocked when they heard the true story.

On Wednesday, March 30, when I returned to my hotel for the night, my friend Will and I sat in the pool until 2 a.m. the next morning, discussing the past week and what else might have been done to save Terri’s life. I finally got to sleep at about 3 a.m. Just a few hours later, Will woke me with the news that Terri had died. We quickly packed our bags. As I got into the car to drive to the hospice, it really began to hit me what had just happened and I started to cry. I picked up my cell phone and called my children; I just needed to hear their voices and tell them I loved them.

I got to the hospice and stood guard outside Terri’s room to give her family some private time with her. Outside, I saw many of the media people fighting back tears. I watched reporters hugging the family. Many of the reporters and producers I had gotten to know expressed their grief to me, some of them on-air personalities who were affected greatly.

After the family had finished making their public statements, I made my rounds to offer my condolences and say my goodbyes. I told Terri’s family about all the people who had asked me to send their prayers. I thanked them for their strength and resolve in the fight for Terri’s life. I let them know that we at Stand True, the youth ministry I founded and that is now part of Priests for Life, would never let Terri be forgotten.

I kept that promise, and I will never stop telling her story.

Bryan Kemper is the youth outreach director for Priests for Life and the founder of its youth outreach Stand True. He is the author of Social Justice Begins in the Womb.


  abortion, catholic, frank pavone, hospice, priests for life, pro-life, roe v wade, starvation, terri schiavo

Opinion

Why I find Pope Francis’s contempt for the title of Co-Redemptrix so offensive

A pious protest from one of Our Lady’s children.
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 5:13 pm EST
Featured Image
Statue of Our Lady Shutterstock
Karen Darantière
By Karen Darantière

March 29, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — It is a sad state of affairs in the Church when a simple child of God, devoted to Our Lady, hears words shocking to pious ears coming from the Vicar of Christ himself and feels the need to cry out in protest, from the depths of a heart consecrated to the Immaculate Heart, in order to defend Our Lady’s honor, against anyone — even the Holy Father — who would appear, through apparently casual and careless remarks, to very nearly deny Her the just veneration due to Her as Mother of God who participated, through her Compassion, in Her Son’s salvific mission from His Conception to Calvary. However, such is the sorry state of Holy Mother Church today.

Already back in December 2019, during a Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica in honor of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Pope Francis had qualified the idea of Mary being given the title of Co-Redemptrix as being mere “foolishness”. And now, on March 24, 2021, in his general audience, he has reiterated his hostility to this title: “The mother who covers everyone under her mantle as a mother, Jesus entrusted us to her as a mother, not as a goddess, not as a co-redemptrix, as a mother.” Does the Holy Father mean to suggest that Pope St. John Paul II, who repeatedly and lovingly referred to Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix, worshiped her as a goddess, along with Saint Padre Pio, Saint Maximilian Kolbe, Saint Mother Teresa, and many others in a long line of saints and Popes? Do his words simply deny the dogma of Marian co-redemption, which indeed has not yet been solemnly proclaimed, or do they strike at the heart of the doctrine itself, which belongs to the Tradition of the Church? And we might further wonder whether the Holy Father does not even go so far as to belittle the title of Mother of God when he says: “Mary is completely directed towards Him, she is more His disciple than His mother, we could say.” Who can deny the ambiguity of this last remark? Does this remark made in passing not at the very least hint at a certain disparagement of Mary as Mother of God? Why such murky words from the Vicar of Christ?

And so, a zealous desire to defend Our Mother’s honor, seemingly sullied in muddied waters, has prompted me to pen a few reflections in response to Pope Francis’s open hostility to the title of Co-Redemptrix, and even, perhaps, to a certain belittling of the title of Mother of God. I have no claims to being any sort of theologian, nor anything other than one of the myriad of little ones devoted and consecrated to Our Lady. The following reflections are simply those of a Marian devotee, and are a simple sharing of some spiritual nourishment I have recently benefited from through my reading of good devotional books during this year’s Lenten journey and which – providentially – seem to provide a response, and perhaps even a rebuke, to those who would appear to disparage Our Lady’s co-redemptive role.

No, no, cries Saint Bernard, may no one imagine that the glory of the Son is in the least obscured by praising the Mother greatly, because ‘the more we honor the Mother, the more we praise the Son.’” (Saint Alphonsus of Liguori, quoting Saint Bernard, in The Glories of Mary [Saint Alphonsus of Liguori, in his Paraphrase of the Salve Regina, chapter 5])

Indeed, fortunately for us, in these dark times in the Church, we can choose to pay less attention to the uninspired improvisations of unfortunate shepherds and to spend more time reading the beautiful words of great saints and theologians who, for their part, don’t hesitate to crown Our Lady with the most glorious titles. Let’s question Saint Alphonsus of Liguori, Doctor of the Church, and see how he might respond to Pope Francis’s opinion that the title of Co-Redemptrix would somehow take away from Our Lord’s unique mediating role and is therefore mere pious exaggeration. In his great masterpiece of Marian devotion, The Glories of Mary, Saint Alphonsus devotes the entire fifth chapter of his Paraphrase of the Salve Regina to refuting a thesis which, oddly, resembles the opinion expressed by Pope Francis, and which our saint attributes to some theologian whose name no one any longer cares to remember.

Saint Alphonsus begins by ardently defending the doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces which derives from that of Our Lady’s role as Co-Redemptrix. Along with a host of saints, whose words he amply quotes, Saint Alphonsus affirms that “no grace is accorded to mankind without passing through the hands of Mary.” He continues: “This proposition, that all the graces that we receive from God come to us through the hands of Mary, is hardly to the taste of a certain modern author, who shows himself to be very stingy when it comes to speaking of devotion to the divine Mother … This author claims that such a proposition, namely that God grants no grace, except through the intermediary of Mary, can only be a hyperbole, an exaggeration escaped from the fervor of some saints.”

When Saint Alphonsus mentions this “certain modern author”, I can’t help thinking of Pope Francis’s recent remarks from this past March 24: “They [Marian titles] are expressions of love like a son to the mother, sometimes exaggerated, but we know love always makes us do exaggerated things. Lovesickness.” These titles would somehow, according to both the author Saint Alphonsus refutes, as well as to Pope Francis, “take [something] away from the unique mediating role of Jesus,” as Pope Francis himself says. Saint Alphonsus refutes this opinion by distinguishing between the mediation of strict justice, which belongs solely to Jesus Christ, our unique Redeemer, and the mediation of grace, through prayer, which belongs to Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces.

Saint Alphonsus goes on to say that it is one thing to say, wrongly and blasphemously, that God cannot accord his graces without the intercession of Mary, and that it is entirely another thing to say, rightly and piously, that He does not wish to accord his graces except through Mary. Such is His divine Will, says our saint, affirming the Tradition of the Church: “The Church … teaches us to have recourse to this divine Mother and to invoke her as the salvation of the infirm, the refuge of sinners, the help of Christians, as our life and our hope …”; and he goes on to quote a host of saints, Doctors and Fathers of the Church: “… in order to rid ourselves of the fear of going too far in our praise, it is more than sufficient to have the authority of Saint Augustine, who assures us that all that we can say in praise of Mary is insignificant in comparison with what she deserves due to her dignity as Mother of God.”

Saint Alphonsus would surely agree with the words of another saint, canonized by Pope Francis himself, who likewise protested against those who would deny Mother Mary the title of Co-Redemptrix. Saint John Henry Cardinal Newman, objecting to a theologian of his day, could likewise address the Holy Father with the following words: “When they found you with the Fathers calling her Mother of God, Second Eve, and Mother of all Living, the Mother of Life, the Morning Star, the Mystical New Heaven, the Sceptre of Orthodoxy, the All-undefiled Mother of Holiness, and the like, they would have deemed it a poor compensation for such language that you protested against her being called a Coredemptrix.” [Saint John Henry Cardinal Newman to Pusey, quoted in “With Jesus”, The Story of Mary Co-redemptrix, by Mark Miravalle, Queenship Publishing, 2003, p. 7.]

Finally, let us pause to consider for a moment the troubling words of the Holy Father when he states that Our Lady, with regards to her Son, “is more His disciple than His mother.” What does this mean? Is Our Lady less Mother of God and more mere disciple, like the rest of us? Or how else should we understand such a seeming semi-negation? A simple faithful Catholic cannot but be disheartened and troubled by words such as these. When we consider what the Church Tradition teaches us, that all the titles and honors which are given to the Blessed Virgin are rooted in her essential role as Mother of God, as taught in the Council of Ephesus in 431, how can we not be taken aback by such off-the-cuff remarks? When we think, just a moment, of what Church history tells us of the great battle which was waged in order for this important dogma to be solemnly proclaimed, how can we not wonder how the likes of Saint Cyril of Alexandria would react to such a dismissive remark? Considering the significance of this dogma for our Faith as a whole, how can such a careless remark not shock us or do anything other than pierce our hearts devoted to Our Lady’s Heart?

Fortunately, we can, however, find some solace in reading the wise and seriously pondered reflections of Father Frederick William Faber in his beautiful work entitled At the Foot of the Cross; or, the Sorrows of Mary. Concerning the use of the title of Co-Redemptrix by so many saints, he asserts that “it seems rash to assert of language used both by Saints and Doctors, that is only exaggeration and hyperbole, flowery phraseology intended to startle, but without any real meaning hidden beneath it…”

And he goes on at length to defend this title, using many arguments, but one in particular which might be of interest to us in response to the Holy Father’s recent unfortunate remarks. Indeed, this theologian explains beautifully in what sense Our Lady cooperated with our Lord in the redemption of the world by showing the necessary link between the Divine Maternity and Our Lady’s Coredemption, and so between Mary as Mother of God and as Co-Redemptrix:

Her free consent was necessary to the Incarnation … She gave Him the pure blood, out of which the Holy Ghost fashioned His Flesh and bone and Blood. She bore Him in her womb for nine months, feeding Him with her own substance. Of her was He born, and to her He owed all those maternal offices which, according to common laws, were necessary for the preservation of His inestimable life. She exercised over Him the plenitude of parental jurisdiction. She consented to His Passion; and if she could not in reality have withheld her consent, because it was already involved in her original consent to the Incarnation, nevertheless she did not in fact withhold it, and so He went to Calvary as her free-will offering to the Father … the cooperation of the Divine Maternity was indispensable. Without it our Lord would not have been born when and as He was; He would not have had that Body to suffer in … It was through the free will and blissful consent of Mary that they flowed as God would have them flow. Bethlehem, and Nazareth, and Calvary, came out of her consent, a consent which God did in no wise constrain. [At the Foot of the Cross; or, the Sorrows of Mary, by Father Frederick William Faber (initially published in 1858), Veritatis Splendor Publications, 2014, p. 439-440.]

These are profound words worth rereading and meditating upon. But why should this question of Our Lady’s co-redemption matter to us in the first place? What does this title of Co-Redemptrix mean for us as Catholics? Isn’t it just some fancy theological jargon that has little to do with our day-to-day Christian life? Nothing could be further from the truth. And this leads us to our last point, which concern Mary’s increasingly important role in the latter times.

Mary must become as terrible as an army in battle array to the devil and his followers, especially in these latter times. For Satan, knowing that he has little time even less now than ever to destroy souls, intensifies his efforts and his onslaughts every day.” (Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort, True Devotion to Mary, n. 50)

Few faithful Catholics would deny that these are difficult times we are living in, and that these times have even some hint of the latter times when, as Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort states, Mary will “become as terrible as an army in battle array to the devil and his followers” [Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort, True Devotion to Mary, n. 50.]. Whether or not we are living in these times is not for us to ascertain with certainty, but unquestionably our Church is navigating some rather rough seas at the present time. The Faith of the Church seems to be in a sort of eclipse, which is why we need to seek refuge in Our Lady’s Heart in order to survive what appears to be the great apostasy coming from the very heart of the Church.

The martyr-saint Maximilian Maria Kolbe links the promise of a Co-Redemptrix at the dawn of time with Her essential role in the triumph of the end times: “From the moment of the Fall, God promised a Redeemer and a Co-Redemptrix, saying ‘I will place enmities between thee and the Woman, and thy seed and her Seed: She shall crush thy head.’” And, quoting Pope Leo XIII, Saint Maximilian calls for prayers to Our Mother to hasten the solemn dogmatic proclamation of Our Lady’s role as Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces: “We have recourse to the Immaculata and we are instruments in Her hands, because She distributes all the graces of conversion and sanctification to the inhabitants of this valley of tears … Every grace passes through Her hands from the Sweetest Heart of the pure Jesus to us … In his encyclical on the Rosary (September 22, 1891), Pope Leo XIII says: ‘It can be affirmed in all truth that according to the divine will nothing of the immense treasury of grace can be communicated to us except through Mary.’ Let us pray, therefore, that our Holy Mother may expedite the solemn proclamation of this Her privilege, so that all humanity may run to Her feet with complete trust, since today we are in great need of Her protection.” [Saint Maximilian Maria Kolbe, quoted in “With Jesus”, The Story of Mary Co-redemptrix, by Mark Miravalle, Queenship Publishing, 2003, p. 217-219.]

Indeed, the proclamation of the 5th Marian dogma affirming Our Lady’s spiritual maternity, and most especially her role as Co-Redemptrix, according to Father Seraphino M. Lanzetta, “would be propitious to officially gather that special Marian army needed in the latter times, marked by a special presence of Our Mother and Queen. No doubt, this would also prepare the triumph of the Immaculate Heart so dear to each one of us.”

So, let’s pray for this intention, confident that Our Lady will hear our prayers and that this time of trial will eventually, in God’s good time, come to an end. Devotion to Our Lady is the best, and indeed the sole remedy to the never-ending litany of shocking statements coming from so many of our shepherds who appear to have abandoned the Eternal Word in favor of the secular worldview. The solution to our Church’s and to the world’s woes is to be found in Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart and, in order for this Heart to truly triumph as she promised at Fatima over a century ago, we must consecrate ourselves completely to her Heart. And what better way to show our devotion than to pray to Our Mother to hasten this triumph through the proclamation of the 5th Marian dogma which will crown our spiritual Mother with the glorious title of Co-Redemptrix?

Mary, Redemptrix of the human race, because by providing your flesh in the Word, you redeemed the world. Christ redeemed with his Passion and you with your sorrow of body and mind.” (Saint Catherine of Siena, Doctor of the Church, from Oratio XI, delivered in Rome on the feast of the Annunciation, 1379)

By way of conclusion, I would like to share the following poem in honor of Our Mother Co-Redemptrix, written on the feast of the Annunciation, March 25, 2021, humbly offered in reparation for the offenses against the Blessed Virgin, committed by all those who would deny her the just veneration due to her as Mother of God who, through her Compassion, participated in her Son’s salvific mission from cradle to Calvary.

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

In the womb of the Immaculate the soul is reborn in the form of Jesus Christ … She must nourish the soul with the milk of Her grace, lovingly care for it and educate it, just as She nourished, cared for, and educated Jesus. On Her lap the soul must learn how to know and love Jesus. It must draw love for Him from her Heart, or even love Him with Her Heart, and become like unto Him by means of love.” – Saint Maximilian Maria Kolbe [from the writings of Saint Maximilian Maria Kolbe, SK 461, SK 1295, quoted in The Three Crowns: The Seven Joys, the Seven Sorrows, and the Seven Glories of Mary, Academy of the Immaculate, 2013, p. 45]

I

To You, our hearts’ sweet home, we humbly dedicate
This poem which our love for You does now dictate,
So that we always may your praise perpetuate,
And wholly may our hearts to Yours now consecrate.

II

So now to you we sing, sweet Mary, full of grace!
Your womb, where God made man does banish our disgrace,
Is, thanks to you, where our salvation can take place.
You gave warm welcome in your womb immaculate
To the Eternal Word for us made incarnate.
In your pure womb his flesh and blood God did create:
All other miracles He wrought take second place!

III

With joy today your fiat do we celebrate,
When with God’s holy will you did cooperate;
On this deep mystery we now must meditate.
Ours souls now educate, help us to contemplate!

IV

Your blessed soul is sanctified by sacred grace,
Your blessed womb is now God’s hiding place,
And, for our souls’ rebirth to grace, our holy place.
How this Divine Maternity does elevate
Your womb as tabernacle of God incarnate,
In whose salvific mission you participate,
Oh, Coredemptress of the human race!

V

You nourish all our souls with purest milk of grace.
As nestled on your lap we gaze upon your face,
Sheer solace do we seek in hopes You will replace
Our heart with Yours, so they may beat at kindred pace.

VI

Enfold us in your arms, and in your cloak enlace
Our souls: just as you nourish, care for and embrace
The Infant God, please help us to our pride efface,
To humbly love Him with your Heart Immaculate.
Before the starry throne of God, please mediate
For us, dear Mother; be our Advocate,
Until in heaven we see Jesus face-to-face!

VII

Give to our sinful souls your tender, loving care,
So in divine life we may now receive a share,
And may become like Him: such is our prayer
To You, oh Blessed Virgin, fairest of the fair.


  co-redemptrix

Opinion

Here’s the anti-people agenda of HR 1 on election reform

HR 1 should be exposed for what it is. It is a revolution that will destroy what remains of representative government.
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 3:19 pm EST
Featured Image
Americans voting Shutterstock
John Horvat II
By

CONTACT YOUR US SENATORS: Tell them to protect election integrity and oppose H.R. 1! Click to contact your Senators, now.

March 29, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Liberals often accuse conservatives of undermining the electoral process. They cite state voter ID laws, security protocols, and other reasonable restrictions as “proof” of efforts to disenfranchise minorities and the poor. They forever portray themselves as defenders of the ballot box.

However, leftists often project onto the right what they are doing. The recent passage of HR 1 in the House of Representatives smashes the ballot box it claims to save. Never will a piece of legislation do more harm to voting integrity than this bill, shamefully misnamed the “For the People Act of 2021.”

The 800-page monster bill is working its way to the Senate, where only the precarious filibuster stands in its path. Should it pass, the Democrats have all the tools they need to ensure that they will never lose federal power through the ballot box. Every questionable electoral practice criticized in the 2020 elections will be enshrined in law.

This is a revolution, not reform. This bill will help transform America into a socialist nation with no turning back.

The many reasons that make HR 1 detestable

There are many reasons to hate HR 1. It is a wish list of everything on the liberal agenda regarding the vote.

The Act takes away the states’ constitutional rights to regulate their electoral procedures. It will permanently put everything in the hands of an all-powerful central government.

The bill mandates universal mail-in balloting and will require states to wait ten days after the election date for any outstanding ballots to arrive. Such measures facilitate election manipulation and create electoral chaos by prolonging the contests needlessly.

The bill will gut the popular voter ID laws passed by thirty-five states as a condition for voting. Thus, it opens up opportunities for voter fraud since there is no meaningful way to ensure voters are who they say.

States will be forced to automatically extend voter registration to millions of illegal migrants when they use government agencies like motor vehicle departments, welfare offices, and university enrollments. Other provisions prevent officials from questioning qualifications and ban enforcing legal penalties on those who vote illegally.

HR 1 mandates “secured and clearly labeled drop boxes” in every county where absentee ballots can be placed. This would facilitate “ballot harvesting” where individuals could collect mail-in ballots, fill them in, and dump them anonymously into the drop boxes.

These reasons and many others prompted 20 Republican attorneys general to write a letter in which they say, “It is difficult to imagine a legislative proposal more threatening to election integrity and voter confidence.”

What’s behind HR 1

These provisions are bad enough. It is all part of a plan in which the present Congress will take advantage of House and Senate majorities to ram through bills that will restructure American life and take away freedoms.

However, the mentality behind the bill is much worse. This fight is not only about political alignments, maneuvers or even agendas. It reflects a profound mindset shift in significant sectors of the American public that can no longer wait for society to conform to their radical desires. Hence comes the will to impose these changes during this window of opportunity regardless of the consequences.

The left’s polarization has now reached the point that political structures and procedures once deemed sacred must be sacrificed to the idol of extreme ideology. The “woke” left considers the time-tested state rules that have long assured the ordered conduct of elections to be oppressive and even “racist.” For the left’s ideology to prevail, states’ constitutional role in running their own elections must go.

States’ voting laws must be overturned because they harbor “systemic” injustice. They impose minimum voting standards, disqualifying those who do not meet the requirements. They ask voters to make an effort to register, identify themselves, and go to the polls as part of their civic duty.

For generations, this was considered patriotism. Today’s left wants to abolish the most legitimate standards for voting: being an adult; bona fide residence in the county where registering; even proof of U.S. citizenship. No. All must vote, even if they lack proper qualifications.

— 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 electoral process changes contemplated by HR 1 pave the way for massive vote harvesting. Undoubtedly, this favors a determined electoral outcome: the left’s eternal grip of the reins of power.

Not reform, but revolution

Thus, HR 1 should be exposed for what it is. It is a revolution that will destroy what remains of representative government. It will make radical and permanent changes to the electoral process. It must be opposed with all possible vigor.

Some see the ramming through of HR 1 as a sign of political strength on the part of the left. However, it is a sign of weakness. The left’s precarious majority should dictate caution. However, the left knows its message is not popular and is willing to gamble away its political capital to ram through its program. It is ready to break the political process in its effort to risk all. Sooner or later, the left — and America — will pay the consequences of its rashness.

HR 1 and other legislative measures in the works make it clear that the left is breaking down the system. And its radical followers do not care. The “For the People Act of 2021” is not for the people. It is for the destruction of the nation.


  election reform, hr 1, voter id

Opinion

It’s ‘entirely possible’ vaccine campaigns ‘will be used for massive-scale depopulation’: Former Pfizer VP

'PLEASE warn every person not to go near top up vaccines. There is absolutely no need to them...If someone wished to harm or kill a significant proportion of the world’s population over the next few years, the systems being put in place right now will enable it. It’s my considered view that it is entirely possible that this will be used for massive-scale depopulation', Dr Mike Yeadon told the American Frontline Doctors
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 2:42 pm EST
Featured Image
Dr. Mike Yeadon Arshad Ebrahim / YouTube
Mordechai Sones
By

Introduction by LifeSiteNews journalist Patrick Delaney.

March 29, 2020 (America’s Frontline Doctors) –  Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former Vice President and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer, spoke with great urgency to America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) late last week warning that the drive to inject the largest possible portion of the population with experimental COVID-19 vaccines is “madness,” involves “evil,” includes “crimes against humanity” and may have the intention of “massive-scale depopulation.”

Yeadon’s comments are also made in the broader context of a sharp debate over theories offered by Geert Vanden Bossche, a vaccine expert associated with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who, with the appearance of a “whistleblower” has also warned of a “global catastrophe without equal” due to the way these vaccines have been utilized.

In short, Vanden Bossche fears these experimental vaccines, which do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus, will foster the development of “dangerous variants” that will be far more lethal to the unvaccinated and vaccinated alike, who, for different reasons, will not have sufficient immunity to protect them.

In addition to the immediate halting of the current vaccination campaign, Vanden Bossche’s proposed solution is yet another worldwide vaccination of a different type.

While Yeadon also fears terrible consequences due to these vaccination campaigns, he strongly disagrees with Vanden Bossche’s theory, and with the proposed solution of more vaccination.

“I think the Gerrt Vanden Bossche story is highly suspect,” Yeadon said. “There is no evidence at all that vaccination is leading or will lead to ‘dangerous variants’. I am worried that it’s some kind of trick.”

Last December, Yeadon, a British national, filed a petition with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to immediately suspend testing on these experimental vaccines due to many safety concerns, including pathogenic priming, which involves “an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, ‘wild’ virus after vaccination.”

In their white paper on the topic, AFLDS warned that such reactions, which can be fatal, “are difficult to prove,” as they are often interpreted as infection with “a worse virus,” or, perhaps, a more dangerous variant.

Having maintained that there is “no need of vaccines” for COVID-19, Yeadon emphasizes below, “PLEASE warn every person not to go near top up vaccines. There is absolutely no need to them.”

------------------------------

America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) spoke to former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Dr. Mike Yeadon about his views on the COVID-19 vaccine, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, the regulatory authorities, and more.

At the outset, Dr. Yeadon said: “I’m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the world’s population.

“I feel great fear, but I’m not deterred from giving expert testimony to multiple groups of able lawyers like Rocco Galati in Canada and Reiner Fuellmich in Germany.

“I have absolutely no doubt that we are in the presence of evil (not a determination I’ve ever made before in a 40-year research career) and dangerous products.

“In the U.K., it’s abundantly clear that the authorities are bent on a course which will result in administering ‘vaccines’ to as many of the population as they can. This is madness, because even if these agents were legitimate, protection is needed only by those at notably elevated risk of death from the virus. In those people, there might even be an argument that the risks are worth bearing. And there definitely are risks which are what I call ‘mechanistic’: inbuilt in the way they work.

“But all the other people, those in good health and younger than 60 years, perhaps a little older, they don’t perish from the virus. In this large group, it’s wholly unethical to administer something novel and for which the potential for unwanted effects after a few months is completely uncharacterized.

“In no other era would it be wise to do what is stated as the intention.

“Since I know this with certainty, and I know those driving it know this too, we have to enquire: What is their motive?

“While I don’t know, I have strong theoretical answers, only one of which relates to money and that motive doesn’t work, because the same quantum can be arrived at by doubling the unit cost and giving the agent to half as many people. Dilemma solved. So it’s something else. Appreciating that, by entire population, it is also intended that minor children and eventually babies are to be included in the net, and that’s what I interpret to be an evil act.

“There is no medical rationale for it. Knowing as I do that the design of these ‘vaccines’ results, in the expression in the bodies of recipients, expression of the spike protein, which has adverse biological effects of its own which, in some people, are harmful (initiating blood coagulation and activating the immune ‘complement system’), I’m determined to point out that those not at risk from this virus should not be exposed to the risk of unwanted effects from these agents.”

INTERVIEWER: In a talk you gave four months ago, you said:

The most likely duration of immunity to a respiratory virus like SARS CoV-2 is multiple years. Why do I say that? We actually have the data for a virus that swept through parts of the world seventeen years ago called SARS, and remember SARS CoV-2 is 80% similar to SARS, so I think that’s the best comparison that anyone can provide.

The evidence is clear: These very clever cellular immunologists studied all the people they could get hold of who had survived SARS 17 years ago. They took a blood sample, and they tested whether they responded or not to the original SARS and they all did; they all had perfectly normal, robust T cell memory. They were actually also protected against SARS CoV-2, because they’re so similar; it’s cross immunity.

So, I would say the best data that exists is that immunity should be robust for at least 17 years. I think it’s entirely possible that it is lifelong. The style of the responses of these people’s T cells were the same as if you’ve been vaccinated and then you come back years later to see if that immunity has been retained. So I think the evidence is really strong that the duration of immunity will be multiple years, and possibly lifelong.

In other words, previous exposure to SARS – that is, a variant similar to SARS CoV-2 – bestowed SARS CoV-2 immunity.

The Israel government cites new variants to justify lockdowns, flight closures, restrictions, and Green Passport issuance. Given the Supreme Court verdict, do you think it may be possible to preempt future government measures with accurate information about variants, immunity, herd immunity, etc. that could be provided to the lawyers who will be challenging those future measures?

DR. YEADON: “What I outlined in relation to immunity to SARS is precisely what we’re seeing with SARS-CoV-2. The study is from one of the best labs in their field.

“So, theoretically, people could test their T-cell immunity by measuring the responses of cells in a small sample of their blood. There are such tests, they are not ‘high throughout’ and they are likely to cost a few hundred USD each on scale. But not thousands. The test I’m aware of is not yet commercially available, but research only in U.K.

“However, I expect the company could be induced to provide test kits “for research” on scale, subject to an agreement. If you were to arrange to test a few thousand non-vaccinated Israelis, it may be a double edged sword. Based on other countries experiences, 30-50% of people had prior immunity & additionally around 25% have been infected & are now immune.

“Personally, I wouldn’t want to deal with the authorities on their own terms: that you’re suspected as a source of infection until proven otherwise. You shouldn’t need to be proving you’re not a health risk to others. Those without symptoms are never a health threat to others. And in any case, once those who are concerned about the virus are vaccinated, there is just no argument for anyone else needing to be vaccinated.”

— 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

INTERVIEWER: My understanding of a “leaky vaccine” is that it only lessens symptoms in the vaccinated, but does not stop transmission; it therefore allows the spread of what then becomes a more deadly virus.

For example, in China they deliberately use leaky Avian Flu vaccines to quickly cull flocks of chicken, because the unvaccinated die within three days. In Marek’s Disease, from which they needed to save all the chickens, the only solution was to vaccinate 100% of the flock, because all unvaccinated were at high risk of death. So how a leaky vax is utilized is intention-driven, that is, it is possible that the intent can be to cause great harm to the unvaccinated.

Stronger strains usually would not propagate through a population because they kill the host too rapidly, but if the vaccinated experience only less-serious disease, then they spread these strains to the unvaccinated who contract serious disease and die.

Do you agree with this assessment? Furthermore, do you agree that if the unvaccinated become the susceptible ones, the only way forward is HCQ prophylaxis for those who haven’t already had COVID-19?

Would the Zelenko Protocol work against these stronger strains if this is the case?

And if many already have the aforementioned previous “17-year SARS immunity”, would that then not protect from any super-variant?

DR. YEADON: “I think the Gerrt Vanden Bossche story is highly suspect. There is no evidence at all that vaccination is leading or will lead to ‘dangerous variants’. I am worried that it’s some kind of trick.

“As a general rule, variants form very often, routinely, and tend to become less dangerous & more infectious over time, as it comes into equilibrium with its human host. Variants generally don’t become more dangerous.

“No variant differs from the original sequence by more than 0.3%. In other words, all variants are at least 99.7% identical to the Wuhan sequence.

“It’s a fiction, and an evil one at that, that variants are likely to “escape immunity”.

“Not only is it intrinsically unlikely – because this degree of similarity of variants means zero chance that an immune person (whether from natural infection or from vaccination) will be made ill by a variant – but it’s empirically supported by high-quality research.

“The research I refer to shows that people recovering from infection or who have been vaccinated ALL have a wide range of immune cells which recognize ALL the variants.

This paper shows WHY the extensive molecular recognition by the immune system makes the tiny changes in variants irrelevant.

“I cannot say strongly enough: The stories around variants and need for top up vaccines are FALSE. I am concerned there is a very malign reason behind all this. It is certainly not backed by the best ways to look at immunity. The claims always lack substance when examined, and utilize various tricks, like manipulating conditions for testing the effectiveness of antibodies. Antibodies are probably rather unimportant in host protection against this virus. There have been a few ‘natural experiments’, people who unfortunately cannot make antibodies, yet are able quite successfully to repel this virus. They definitely are better off with antibodies than without. I mention these rare patients because they show that antibodies are not essential to host immunity, so some contrived test in a lab of antibodies and engineered variant viruses do NOT justify need for top up vaccines.

“The only people who might remain vulnerable and need prophylaxis or treatment are those who are elderly and/or ill and do not wish to receive a vaccine (as is their right).

“The good news is that there are multiple choices available: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, budesonide (inhaled steroid used in asthmatics), and of course oral Vitamin D, zinc, azithromycin etc. These reduce the severity to such an extent that this virus did not need to become a public health crisis.”

INTERVIEWER: Do you feel the FDA does a good job regulating big pharma? In what ways does big pharma get around the regulator? Do you feel they did so for the mRNA injection?

DR. YEADON: “Until recently, I had high regard for global medicines regulators. When I was in Pfizer, and later CEO of a biotech I founded (Ziarco, later acquired by Novartis), we interacted respectfully with FDA, EMA, and the U.K. MHRA. Always good quality interactions.

“Recently, I noticed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) had made a grant to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)! Can that ever be appropriate? They’re funded by public money. They should never accept money from a private body.

“So here is an example where the U.K. regulator has a conflict of interest.

“The European Medicines Agency failed to require certain things as disclosed in the ‘hack’ of their files while reviewing the Pfizer vaccine.

“You can find examples on Reiner Fuellmich’s ‘Corona Committee’ online.

“So I no longer believe the regulators are capable of protecting us. ‘Approval’ is therefore meaningless.

“Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and I petitioned the EMA Dec 1, 2020 on the genetic vaccines. They ignored us.

“Recently, we wrote privately to them, warning of blood clots, they ignored us. When we went public with our letter, we were completely censored. Days later, more than ten countries paused use of a vaccine citing blood clots.

“I think the big money of pharma plus cash from BMGF creates the environment where saying no just isn’t an option for the regulator.

“I must return to the issue of ‘top up vaccines’ (booster shots) and it is this whole narrative which I fear will he exploited and used to gain unparalleled power over us.

“PLEASE warn every person not to go near top up vaccines. There is absolutely no need to them.

“As there’s no need for them, yet they’re being made in pharma, and regulators have stood aside (no safety testing), I can only deduce they will be used for nefarious purposes.

“For example, if someone wished to harm or kill a significant proportion of the world’s population over the next few years, the systems being put in place right now will enable it.

“It’s my considered view that it is entirely possible that this will be used for massive-scale depopulation.”

Reprinted with permission from America’s Frontline Doctors.

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

RELATED

Former Pfizer VP: ‘No need for vaccines,’ ‘the pandemic is effectively over’

Priest on COVID vaccine: ‘The risks far outweigh the benefits’

At least nine countries pull AstraZeneca’s vaccine over blood clot reports

‘Healthy’ 28-year-old mom dies suddenly following second Pfizer shot

Portuguese mother, 41, dies two days after taking Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine

39-year-old nurse aide dies ‘within 48 hours’ of receiving mandated COVID-19 shot

‘Very healthy’ Miami obstetrician, 56, dies 16 days after receiving Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine

Johns Hopkins scientist: ‘A medical certainty’ Pfizer vaccine caused death of Florida doctor


  america's frontline doctors, coronavirus vaccine, geert vanden bossche, mike yeadon

Opinion

Politicians, scientists, and the media are creating COVID ‘panic’ for ulterior motives: Stanford professor

'Why have the media, politicians and many scientists sought to panic the populace about SARS-CoV-2 far beyond what the evidence would warrant?' asks Dr Jayanta Bhattacharya, a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University and one of the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 1:22 pm EST
Featured Image
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya ZDoggMD / YouTube
Oliver May
By

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

March 29, 2021 (Lockdown Sceptics) — New variants are of no concern. There is no need to cancel summer holidays. Millions vaccinated, coupled with immunity from millions of prior infections means we can surf on the crest of the third wave, rather than being remotely concerned about it. In fact, the UK should open now. And vaccine passports, certificates, or whatever name they are being given, will do nothing to improve the health of the population – all headlines we have read and heard over the past week or so.

Except, we haven’t. We have heard and read the opposite. And we are instilled with fear from TV and radio adverts, complete with ‘that scary voice’ all too eager to give listeners nightmares, be it your impressionable primary-school-aged daughter, or a frail older lady now terrified into wearing a mask outside while waiting for a bus with no one within a 50-metre radius. But the reality is that the above headlines could have been written – and all based on science. Jayanta Bhattacharya is a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University and one of the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, the report that called for the focused protection of the vulnerable and no lockdowns, signed by almost 14,000 medical and public health scientists, nearly 42,000 medical practitioners and close to 765,000 concerned citizens.

I interviewed him by email and he remains a staunch lockdown sceptic.

DR. BHATTACHARYAWhy have the media, politicians and many scientists sought to panic the populace about SARS-CoV-2 far beyond what the evidence would warrant? The incentives include financial motives, political goals, the desire to protect professional reputations and many other factors.

The virus is seasonal and late fall/winter is its season. It is very unlikely, given that this is the case, that the virus will spread very widely during the summer months. It is also the case that a large fraction of the UK population has already been infected or vaccinated and is immune, which will greatly reduce hospitalisation and mortality from the virus in coming months.

There are tens of thousands of mutations of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. They mutate because the replication mechanisms they induce involve very little error checking. Most of the mutations either do not change the virulence of the virus, or weaken it. There are a few mutations that provide the virus with a selective advantage in infectivity and may increase its lethality very slightly, though the evidence on this latter point is not solid.

We should not be particularly concerned about the variants that have arisen to date. First, prior infection with the wild type virus and vaccination provide protection against severe outcomes arising from reinfection with the mutated virus. Second, though the mutants have taken over the few remaining cases, their rise has coincided with a sharp drop in cases and deaths, even in countries where they have come to dominate. Their selective infectivity advantage has not been enough to cause a resurgence in cases. Third, the age gradient in mortality is the same for the mutant and wild-type virus. Thus a focused protection policy is still warranted. If lockdowns could not stop the less infectious wild type virus, why would we expect them to stop the more infectious mutant virus?

According to the three authors of the Great Barrington Declaration which, other than Dr Bhattacharya, include Dr Martin Kulldorff, Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, and Dr Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford, the UK Government is creating unfounded hysteria around SARS-CoV-2.

DR. BHATTACHARYA: According to a meta-analysis by Dr John Ioannidis [Professor of Medicine at Stanford University] of every seroprevalence study conducted to date of publication with a supporting scientific paper (74 estimates from 61 studies and 51 different localities around the world), the median infection survival rate from COVID-19 infection is 99.77 per cent. For COVID-19 patients under 70, the meta-analysis finds an infection survival rate of 99.95 per cent.

The CDC’s [Centres for Disease Control] and Prevention] best estimate of infection fatality rate for people ages 70 plus years is 5.4 per cent, meaning seniors have a 94.6 per cent survivability rate. For children and people in their 20s/30s, it poses less risk of mortality than the flu. For people in their 60s and above, it is much more dangerous than the flu.

Even so, this hardly warrants a new Government drive urging families to carry out tests on their children twice a week in the hope of unearthing asymptomatic cases. Especially, as the vulnerable have already been vaccinated.

DR. BHATTACHARYAThe scientific evidence now strongly suggests that COVID-19 infected individuals who are asymptomatic are more than an order of magnitude less likely to spread the disease to even close contacts than symptomatic COVID-19 patients. A meta-analysis of 54 studies from around the world found that within households – where none of the safeguards that restaurants are required to apply are typically applied – symptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 18 per cent of instances, while asymptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 0.7 per cent of instances. A separate, smaller meta-analysis similarly found that asymptomatic patients are much less likely to infect others than symptomatic patients.

Asymptomatic individuals are an order of magnitude less likely to infect others than symptomatic individuals, even in intimate settings such as people living in the same household where people are much less likely to follow social distancing and masking practices that they follow outside the household. Spread of the disease in less intimate settings by asymptomatic individuals – including religious services, in-person restaurant visits, gyms, and other public settings – are likely to be even less likely than in the household.

— 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

What about mask mandates?

DR. BHATTACHARYAThe evidence that mask mandates work to slow the spread of the disease is very weak. The only randomised evaluation of mask efficacy in preventing Covid infection found very small, statistically insignificant effects [Danish mask study]. And masks are deleterious to the social and educational development of children, especially young children. They are not needed to address the epidemic. In Sweden, for instance, children have been in school maskless almost the whole of the epidemic, with no child Covid deaths and teachers contracting Covid at rates that are lower than the average of other workers.

In light of this, what conclusion can we draw from the fact that the UK Government wants the entire adult population to be injected against the virus, instead of just the vulnerable? And the possibility that we’ll need to produce vaccine certificates to access hospitality and sports venues or travel overseas?

DR. BHATTACHARYAVaccine passports are a terrible idea that will diminish trust in public health and do nothing to improve the health of the population. Vaccine certificates are not needed as a public health measure. The Government had it right previously. The country should open up now that the older, vulnerable population has been vaccinated. The rest of the population is at much greater health risk from the lockdown than they are from the virus.

-

The author is a staff journalist at a national newspaper group. Oliver May is a pseudonym.

Printed with permission from Lockdown Sceptics.

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


  jay bhattacharya, lockdown sceptics, masks, vaccine passports

Blogs

Sex-selective abortion kills baby girls, but feminist leaders insist abortion is a social necessity

So ideological are these feminists that they hasten to assure their readers that the widespread killing of baby girls through abortion is no reason to get rid of abortion.
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 1:43 pm EST
Featured Image
Pro-abortion sign Shutterstock
Jonathon Van Maren Jonathon Van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon Van Maren

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

March 29, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — It is one of modern feminism’s many twisted ironies that abortion, championed as the essential key to women’s liberation, is predominantly used to kill females because they are female. More than 100 million baby girls are missing worldwide, most of them the victims of feticide. China’s population suffers a staggering shortage of women because the One Child Policy and a cultural preference for sons has resulted in untold carnage in the womb for baby girls — and those who survive are often murdered through infanticide.

In Canada, some cultural communities prefer boys — and people are happy to avail themselves of Canada’s feminist feticide services to rid themselves of unwanted girls. Just this month, CityNews published another exposé on sex-selective abortion in Canada.

According to the British Medical Journal this month, sex selective abortion is a growing problem in Nepal, as well. Examining census data from 2011 to 2016, several social scientists believe that the rate of missing girls who had been killed through abortion between 2006 and 2011 was one in fifty, or roughly 22,540, and that the numbers have been rising steadily. As in many other cultures, boys are preferred to girls for financial reasons, with girls seen as a financial drain due to the necessity of paying a dowry and the likelihood of them “leaving the family” upon marriage, while boys are seen as an economic investment.

While the attitudes are longstanding, when abortion was legalized in Nepal in 2002, a cost-effective and legal method to kill baby girls suddenly became widely available, and with the arrival of ultrasound technology in 2004 sex-selective abortion rapidly became a widespread problem. While sex-selective abortion (feticide following a test to determine gender) is illegal and carries a prison sentence in Nepal, these laws are difficult to enforce (and there is little appetite to do so.) According to the researchers, up to half of the abortions committed in 2014 were illegal. According to the report:

For certain areas of the country, the practice was more widespread. In Arghakhanchi, the most affected district, one in every six girl births were “missing” in census data. In the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal’s main urban centre, around 115 boys are born for every 100 girls. Without sex selection we would expect only 105 boys born for every 100 girls.

Deeper analysis by the team found that sex ratios were skewed, with women who were richer and more highly educated more likely to undertake sex selective abortion. They also found that, in districts where more sex-selection occurred, girls were more likely than boys to die by age five, indicating discrimination both before and after birth.

The researchers admit that the problem of sex-selective abortion has obviously come about due to the legalization of abortion. But so ideological are these feminists that they hasten to assure their readers that the widespread killing of baby girls through abortion is no reason to get rid of abortion. According to Dr. Melanie Channon of the University of Bath’s Department of Social & Policy Sciences, the lead author of the new study:

As fertility falls and urbanisation increases, there is more access to prenatal sex identification technology in Nepal. Our study shows some of the impact this has had over recent years, and we expect there will be a “trickle-down” of ability to select the sex of a baby from the wealthiest and most educated as the technology becomes more widely available and more affordable. Put simple and starkly, without concerted effort, there will be an increase in sex-selective abortions in Nepal.

It is important to stress that the solution to this growing issue is not to ban abortion or ultrasound tests during pregnancy. Many lives have been — and continue to be — saved by these policies. The only lasting solution is to dismantle the deeply rooted gender inequity found across the country in order that people no longer wish to selectively abort female foetuses. The government in Nepal needs to take a lead on this, combining media campaigns with legal and political measures which address the issue of gender equity across a range of themes in the country.

In short: the language used by the researchers indicates that they know these baby girls are — well, babies. This, obviously, means that abortion is an act of violence that kills babies. In Nepal, as in many other places, this violence is being primarily directed at girls because they are girls — and this is one of the primary fruits of abortion legalization. But as these numbers rise, feminist leaders worldwide insist that abortion is a social necessity, a cultural good, and a tool of women’s liberation. In the meantime, baby girls will continue to pay the price — dying by suction and dismemberment in their tens of millions.


  abortion, nepal, sex-selective abortion

Blogs

Forcing little kids to wear masks is cruel, nonsensical, and crazy

Anyone who knows anything about children knows wearing a mask is difficult for them.
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 11:35 am EST
Featured Image
shutterstock.com
Jonathon Van Maren Jonathon Van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon Van Maren

March 29, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Last summer, in that hazy period between the first and second “waves” of the coronavirus when we thought life might go back to normal, I flew with my family to Alberta for work. My little girl was not yet three years old, but the airline required she wear a mask, anyway. As you can imagine, this was difficult for her. She was two. The novelty of having a cloth mask wore off swiftly, and she disliked that it impeded her breathing and was uncomfortable. Still, she kept it on for over two hours before pulling it down and fiddling with it. Even the stewardesses commented on how “good” she’d been.

Sitting next to us was a middle-aged woman who, although the lower part of her head was carefully swaddled, managed to convey her intense disapproval by glaring at us vigorously (I might have smiled at her, but I was wearing a mask). She appeared to be one of those people weaned on a pickle and whose face had never quite recovered. She finally snapped, demanding that our child be masked as this two-year-old was obviously a real risk to her life and health. I was informed that I should “know” better. I have never come so close to losing my temper on plane in my life, and hope I never get that close again. She ended up storming into the aisle to get away from my plague-spreading child and her irresponsible parent, dumping a coffee all over the ground in the process.

It bears mentioning here that the World Health Organization (which ping-pongs about in its advice but is still taken as gospel by the sorts of people who lose their temper at little children on planes) recommends that children under the age of six not be required to wear masks, both because it is difficult for them (as anyone who knows anything about children knows) but also because children are less likely to spread COVID-19. The European Union requires that children age six and older wear masks on planes on this basis; England requires masks for passengers age 11 and up; and New Zealand, with its notoriously onerous restrictions, set the age at 12.

All of that aside, the coronavirus has driven some people crazy and made them cruel. Social media is swamped by stories of people who have apparently tasked themselves with carefully monitoring the behavior of others. In a time when so many are miserable and stressed, these heroes in hazmat have decided to make everyone feel worse. Unmasked children, it turns out, are dangerous. Elisha Krauss of the Washington Examiner noted that she was called carless “for not putting a mask on my 3.5 year old outside on a hike.” Journalist Jade Jackson noted that a non-verbal four-year old and his parents, with a doctor’s note, were booted off a plane because the boy couldn’t wear a mask.

There have been frankly gut-churning videos of families evicted from planes and other spaces because their child or children – not the parents – could not wear a mask. Often these are small children. There is no reason – again, not even according to the World Health Organization – for children to wear masks. There are many, many reasons children should not wear masks. But while COVID enforcers race around harassing people to “save lives,” they manage to do so without compassion, humanity, or basic decency. Their behavior is frequently so disgraceful I frequently wonder if they are simply bothered by smiling children. Why else would the presence of a happy little girl incur so much irrational ire?

In a time where lies seem constant, perhaps the biggest one we’ve been consistently told is that “we’re all in this together.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Most people – most families – are struggling along, attempting to do their best. But some, like the middle-aged woman next to us on the plane and other likeminded joyless paranoiacs, are managing to make all of this even worse than it already is by berating parents, scaring children, and trying to deprive a fear-filled world of the faces of happy children. They should be ashamed of themselves.

— 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

  children, coronavirus, coronavirus masks, mask mandates, masks