All articles from April 28, 2021






  • Nothing is published in Video on April 28, 2021.

The Pulse

  • Nothing is published in The Pulse on April 28, 2021.


20 of 26 COVID-positive residents in a Kentucky nursing home outbreak were fully vaccinated a month earlier

A CDC report blames an unvaccinated healthcare worker for an outbreak; data compares a population of four unvaccinated elderly residents to the rest of the group.
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 9:47 pm EST
Featured Image
St. Walburg Monastery community St. Walburg Monastery / website
Celeste McGovern Follow Celeste
By Celeste McGovern

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

April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Nearly half of the 46 people who tested positive for COVID-19 in a Kentucky nursing facility in March had been fully vaccinated against the virus more than four weeks earlier, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released last week.

Twenty of the 26 COVID-positive residents and four of 18 COVID-positive healthcare personnel had received both doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech two-shot coronavirus vaccine at on-site clinics January 10 and 31, a full month before the outbreak on March 1, making them “breakthrough” vaccinated cases of COVID.

Two additional COVID-positive residents who had been fully vaccinated eight days before the outbreak were excluded from the CDC’s analysis. 

When the outbreak occurred, 79 of 83 nursing home residents had been fully vaccinated, including more than 90 percent who had received both Pfizer doses a month earlier. CDC experts insist the vaccine should be fully effective two weeks after vaccination.
Among staff, 61 of 116 (52.6 percent) received both shots a month before the outbreak and another five had received their second injections at a clinic in February.  

Data from four unvaccinated residents

No healthcare workers, vaccinated or unvaccinated, were hospitalized or died. 

Three residents died. One was fully vaccinated. Two were not, according to the CDC. 

These would have been two of only four residents of 83 in the facility who chose not to be vaccinated and there is no indication from the CDC why they declined to be vaccinated. 

The CDC report acknowledges that “the health status of residents who declined vaccination might have differed from those who consented to vaccination.” In other words, they may have been extremely ill or frail or in palliative condition near death, although the report does not describe their condition.

— 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

Based on the data of four unvaccinated individuals of unknown condition, the researchers led by Alyson Cavanaugh of the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service concluded that unvaccinated residents had three times higher rates of infection as those who were vaccinated residents (75 percent vs. 25.4 percent). 

5,800 ‘breakthrough cases’

The other 22 cases would have been counted among the 5,800 American “breakthrough” cases of coronavirus among fully vaccinated individuals reported to the CDC up until April 13, including 74 deaths. 

The CDC report did not identify the nursing home in the state of Kentucky where the outbreak occurred in March. In February, in an apparently separate incident, three nuns at St. Walburg convent in Kentucky died and 28 were infected though they had recently received a first dose of coronavirus vaccine. 

Prior infection?

“It is a good bet that most, if not all, of the sisters of St. Walburg have been naturally infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus — AND that they were infected at around the time of their first vaccination,” Pennsylvania immunologist Hooman Noorchashm wrote in an open letter to the Sisters of St. Walberg after the incident, imploring them to be tested for infection before taking a second dose of the coronavirus vaccine.

“It is my opinion as a physician and immunologist that persons with recent or occult SARS-CoV-2 infections may be at risk of harm from indiscriminate COVID-19 vaccination — especially the elderly and frail with cardiovascular disease,” he said.

Noorchashm suggested that the sisters first have their blood tested for the presence of IgG antibodies and to perform another PCR assay for the virus immediately before any planned vaccination.

“If you are positive for either of these tests, it is my recommendation that you delay your second shots for a minimum of 6–8 months,” he said, though the sisters were scheduled to have their second shots in May.

If blood tests revealed any nuns to have had a recent natural infection, then they would already “almost certainly” be immune and vaccinating those with recent or current natural infections would risk reactivating, or activating, a “potentially deadly inflammatory response in their bodies,” he said.

The CDC report did not consider the possibility of the vaccination campaigns having activated a dormant infection.

Symptomatic index case

The CDC report blames an unvaccinated, symptomatic healthcare worker at the facility for the outbreak and used the incident to highlight the “imperative” that all healthcare personnel, as well as nursing home residents, receive experimental coronavirus vaccines. The vaccines have only been given Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Some media followed with reports that an unvaccinated worker had set off a coronavirus outbreak, “killing 3 residents.”

The CDC report did not explain how a symptomatic healthcare worker was on duty at the facility where it said personnel were screened daily for the coronavirus beginning a year earlier in March 2020 and have undergone twice-weekly SARS-COV2 testing since November 2020. It also did not explain how that person was identified as the “index case” when other vaccinated and unvaccinated workers were infected.

“Despite the overall numbers that occurred during this outbreak, vaccination was associated with a lower risk of being infected, lower risk of developing symptomatic disease, and lower risk of hospitalization and death,” Melissa Brower, a public affairs specialist at the CDC, said in an e-mailed statement. “In fact, vaccination was 86.5 percent and 87.1 percent effective against symptomatic COVID-19 in residents and healthcare personnel, respectively.”

The report estimated vaccine effectiveness against coronavirus infection among residents was 66 percent and among healthcare workers, who had a larger proportion of unvaccinated individuals, was 75 percent.

The researchers acknowledged that its calculation of “hospitalization and death outcomes might be biased” because of the lack of controlling for underlying health conditions.

  cdc, centers for disease control, coronavirus vaccines, covid-19, emergency use authorization, kentucky, nuns, nursing facility, pfizer-biontech, sarscov2, st. walburg, vaccine deaths


PETA, Project Veritas, 20 state attorneys general rally behind pro-lifers who exposed sale of baby body parts

Six amicus briefs were filed in support of overturning the multimillion judgment against Daleiden and fellow pro-lifers, citing First Amendment speech protection.
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 9:18 pm EST
Featured Image
CMP project lead David Daleiden
Emily Mangiaracina Emily Mangiaracina Follow

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

April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Animal rights groups, investigative organizations, pro-life groups, and 20 state attorneys general are rallying behind David Daleiden and his co-defendants to appeal the multimillion dollar judgment levied against them after they exposed Planned Parenthood’s illegal baby body parts trafficking.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Project Veritas, Live Action, Americans United for Life, Judicial Watch, and the attorneys general of 20 states filed amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs in support of the appeal of the $16 million judgment imposed on Daleiden, his organization Center for Medical Progress (CMP), and pro-life associates Sandra Merritt, Albin Rhomberg, and Operation Rescue president Troy Newman, after Planned Parenthood sued them. 

The attorneys general supporting the pro-life journalists were from Arizona, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. 

In November 2019, a San Francisco jury found CMP, Daleiden, Merritt, Rhomberg, and Newman jointly liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to Planned Parenthood, tripled to $1.4 million under a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) charge. Combined with compensatory damages, the award totaled more than $2 million. This past December, an additional $13.6 million in attorney fees were awarded to Planned Parenthood.

The hefty collective weight of these “friends of the court” who are asking to overturn the pro-lifers’ punishment is an indication not just of definite error by the court but of widespread recognition of its alarming consequences for law and justice in America.

The 20 state attorneys general and organizations are acutely aware, from their own work experience, of the scope of the First Amendment, which protects deceptive tactics involved in undercover work, and of its importance in helping undercover journalists launch investigations of corrupt, inhumane, and illegal activity. 

The amicus briefs argue that because the pro-lifers’ undercover work is protected by the First Amendment, the costs incurred by Planned Parenthood as a result are “not recoverable as damages,” as Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF) pointed out. A fatal error of the court, LLDF notes, was that District Court Judge William Orrick refused to inform the jury of this fact.

The undercover investigative reporting group Project Veritas noted in their brief that “Although nominal damages are ordinarily available in trespass claims stemming out of conduct that is otherwise protected by the First Amendment, here the inclusion of compensatory and punitive damages is constitutionally suspect.” The compensatory and punitive damages awarded to Planned Parenthood in this case are so massive that they constitute “bankrupting” claims.

Project Veritas’s amicus brief points out that “false speech to gain entry to property for newsgathering purposes has a lengthy pedigree in the United States,” citing a recent Ninth Circuit case, Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Wasden, that struck down a portion of Idaho’s so-called Ag-Gag law that it found to be “fatal to First Amendment liberties.” The court rejected the claim that the “simple entry of a trespasser onto the property by misrepresentation” constituted a legal injury, arguing that it does not constitute an actual property infringement.

The historic, critical role of undercover journalism in exposing unethical and even cruel treatment of human beings and animals was invoked in the amicus brief filed by animal advocacy organizations such as the controversial PETA, along with eleven First Amendment scholars.

— 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 brief stated that “undercover newsgathering and reporting is central to democratic accountability in the United States” and to “law and policy debates on matters of public concern.” 

“From Mortimer Thompson’s firsthand accounts of the slave trade leading up to the Civil War, to Nellie Bly’s graphic translation of her time in Blackwell’s Island Insane Asylum, to Upton Sinclair’s exposé of the meat-packing industry, investigative reporting is responsible for bringing to public view some of the most pressing matters in the last 150 years,” the brief continued.

The brief further argued that “the use of deception for undercover investigative reporting on matters of public concern is constitutionally protected speech,” and is “absolutely necessary to access facts hidden from public view and thereby enable accurate stories.” 

Justin Marceau, a law professor and co-author of the brief, wrote that “(if) left standing, the district court's various decisions on recoverable damages will be a roadmap for investigative subjects to sue journalists, activists, and whistleblowers to chill their undercover investigative work.”

The appeal to First Amendment speech protection was also echoed in the amicus briefs of Americans United for Life, Judicial Watch, and Live Action.

The 20 state attorneys general went even further in their joint amicus brief, arguing that the court not only erred in its finding that the CMP videos contained “no evidence of actual criminal wrongdoing” but that it wrongly discounted the public interest by discounting the congressional, state, and local investigations of Planned Parenthood that resulted from the release of the CMP videos.

The brief cited “the substantial law enforcement and policy consequences of the release of the CMP Videos,” which included the termination of Planned Parenthood’s participation in Texas’s Medicaid program, the Orange County District Attorney’s prosecution of firms for selling fetal tissue “exclusively acquired” from Planned Parenthood, and the prohibiting of most fetal tissue transfers by the Arizona Legislature. 

One federal investigation that was “supposedly launched in 2017 into the allegations raised, in part, through the video documentation by CMP,” is still pending an update from the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) on the Department of Justice/FBI response, according to Breitbart News.

Investigative footage documenting Planned Parenthood’s sale of baby body parts can be found on the Center for Medical Progress website.

  abortion baby body parts sale, albin rhomberg, americans united for life, center for medical progress cmp, david daleiden, judicial watch, live action, operation rescue, peta, project veritas, rico, sandra merritt, william orrick


Another Catholic university mandates coronavirus injections for all students

St. John's University, located in New York City, joins the University of Notre Dame in requiring the experimental shots in order to study on campus in the fall.
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 8:37 pm EST
Featured Image
Father Brian Shanley, OP, is the president of St. John's University in New York.
Michael Haynes Michael Haynes Follow Michael
By Michael Haynes

NEW YORK, April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews)St. John’s University revealed that it will mandate COVID-19 injections and demand proof of injection for all students in the fall of 2021, becoming yet another center of higher education to implement a policy that appears to violate the Nuremberg Code.

Father Brian J. Shanley, O.P., a Dominican priest and president of the Catholic university, announced the news in an internal memo obtained by LifeSiteNews. 

Thanks to the “expanded availability of the COVID-19 vaccine,” Fr. Shanley announced that the university would be implementing a new directive for the fall.

“As of Monday, April 19, the COVID-19 vaccine is available nationwide to anyone aged 16 and over. As such, St. John’s will require all students to be vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus and to provide proof of vaccination before returning to campus for the fall semester.”

According to Shanley, this would be part of the university taking “the necessary steps to protect the health of our academic community, and, to move toward a return to our pre-pandemic business operations as a vibrant living and learning institution.”

While mandating the experimental injections, Shanley did allow room for some leeway, offering exemptions to the “vaccination requirement” to certain students. Those who could provide “proof of a documented medical condition” or who did not have the injection “due to religious beliefs” would be exempted from the university policy. 

However, there was no further explanation of what such a religious exemption might entail. Nor was there mention of whether the university, which is Catholic and proclaims its Vincentian “compassion and zeal for service,” would allow conscientious Catholics to be exempted from the policy of mandatory vaccinations, given the connection of the COVID-19 injections to abortion

LifeSiteNews contacted the university and Fr. Shanley for clarification and for a comment on the vaccination mandate, but did not receive a response. 

The university policy would affect all students who were on campus for at least some part of the degree, but those who were based purely online would not have to take the injection in order to access their education.  

Fr. Shanley wrote that “any vaccine authorized for use in the U.S.” would be accepted by the university, adding that international students would be provided with guidance at a later date, as to whether the injections they had received would be accepted by the university. 

Shanley also revealed that after collaboration with the New York State Department of Health, the university was due to receive some of the Pfizer-BioNTech injections on April 27. “The University will make those doses available to students first,” he wrote. “The vaccine will be distributed free of charge.”

Consequently, Stanley wrote to “personally encourage you to get vaccinated at your earliest convenience.” 

— 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

“Many medical experts have indicated that the best vaccine is the one that you can access as soon as possible. I have already been vaccinated and I am grateful for the experience. The ongoing risk of serious health consequences for anyone who contracts COVID-19, along with the greater public health threat, are but two strong reasons in favor of getting vaccinated. The well-being and safety of you — our students, faculty, administrators, and staff — is always the highest priority of St. John’s, and, is my foremost daily prayer for you all.”

The 62-year-old Dominican, appointed as president in November 2020, mentioned that he was “proud of the way the St. John’s family has come together throughout this ongoing pandemic.”

Citing the “adherence” to the various “safety protocols” on campus, he lauded the the “spirit of compliance and cooperation.” 

“We must persist in our mutual commitment to campus health if we are to get past this pandemic,” he added. “Like you, I look forward to a full return to campus life. I welcome more in-person interactions, events, and activities that are essential to and hallmarks of the St. John’s experience.”

Growing academic company in holding education to ransom

In mandating the experimental coronavirus injections, St. John’s joins a number of other institutions that are set to hold student’s education to ransom for the price of being injected. Just days ago, LifeSiteNews reported on the University of Notre Dame’s decision to do likewise. 

Similarly citing the “safety of the university and local communities,” university president Father John Jenkins stipulated that all students in the fall of 2021 would need “to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.”

Likewise, the University of California mandated flu shots last year for all students, faculty, and staff, and both Rutgers and Cornell universities have also mandated the COVID injections for students and staff, with Cornell being the more restrictive of the two. 

Rutgers University led the way in late March, with president Jonathan Holloway stipulating that “all students planning to attend in the Fall 2021 semester must be fully vaccinated,” and providing limited exceptions to those who refused the injection due to “medical or religious reasons,” and anyone studying remotely.

Some weeks prior, the University of Wisconsin paved the way for mandatory injections, imposing frequent mandatory testing and the downloading of a contact tracing app, which also serves as a means of access to all university facilities, for all students, staff, and faculty. 

Compliance with these mandates permits all participants to utilize the “Badger Badge” screen on their Safer Badgers app as a “virtual access pass for entry into campus workplaces and buildings where in-person classes and other in-person activities are being held.”

The green checkmark on the Badger Badge must be verified by “Badger Wellness Ambassadors” in order to enter university buildings.

A need for COVID injections?

Despite Fr. Shanley advocating and mandating injections as the surest means of protecting public health, the actual fatality rate of the media-hyped virus does not require such a measure. 

A new study released by Professor John P. A. Ioannidis of Stanford University found that the infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 is significantly lower than previous studies indicated. According to Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology, the virus is less deadly than once thought, registering at a mere 0.15 percent fatality rate.

Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which for many reasons may be significantly overestimating infection fatality rates (IFR), provided its “Best Estimate” of the IFR by age in the United States last September as represented below.

0-19 years old: 0.00003 (99.997 percent survival rate)

20-49 years old: 0.0002 (99.98 percent survival rate)

50-69 years old: 0.005 (99.5 percent survival rate)

70+ years old: 0.054 (94.46 percent survival rate)

Thus, for those under 70, COVID-19 remains less of a threat than influenza. As one researcher affirmed, the risk of death for those healthy individuals of school and working age “is comparable to a daily car ride to work” and is thus “completely negligible.” 

Despite this data, Shanley writes that the “ongoing risk of serious health consequences for anyone who contracts COVID-19, along with the greater public health threat, are but two strong reasons in favor of getting vaccinated.” 

However, the injections themselves are not fully approved, and have only been granted Emergency Use Authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Adverse effects, as well as deaths, are swiftly mounting, following administration of the experimental enjections. Data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, documents that by April 16, 86,080 adverse reactions were voluntarily reported, which included 3,186 deaths, and 10,152 serious injuries.

As explained by Dr. Simone Gold of America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS), “If you take the (COVID-19) vaccine” you are not receiving an FDA approved treatment, but this “means you have enrolled yourself in a medical trial … (and) most people are not aware that that’s what they’re doing.”

To force students to thus partake in an experimental trial would appear to place Fr. Shanley and St. John’s University in violation of the Nuremberg Code, which provides clear, firm principles regarding the use and rollout of an experimental medication. As laid out in the Code, an individual must be free from “any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.”

To coerce means “to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition.” 

Thus, as summarized by AFLDS, “The Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Helsinki led to universal acceptance that no person can ever be coerced or mandated to taking an experimental treatment.” Furthermore, these principles have been upheld “by all reputable governments, NGOs, organizations, policy leaders, and physicians for many decades.”

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

  brian shanley, catholic, coronavirus vaccines, covid-19, new york, st. john's university, vaccine mandate


Toronto Sun runs interview with three medical experts calling lockdowns ‘waste of time’

The Toronto Sun interviewed Dr. Harvey Risch, Dr. Howard Tenenbaum, and Dr. Paul Elias Alexander
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 8:14 pm EST
Featured Image
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

CONTACT YOUR MPPS AND MPS: Resist oppressive lockdowns! Click to contact your MPPs and MPs now.

ONTARIO, April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Three prominent medical experts recently spoke with the Toronto Sun about lockdowns, all agreeing that such measures are, in the words of the Sun, a “waste of time” with one going as far as saying they are “counterproductive.”

The Sun’s Sue-Ann Levy interviewed Dr. Harvey Risch, Dr. Howard Tenenbaum, and Dr. Paul Elias Alexander via a lengthy Zoom interview earlier this month on the topic of lockdowns. Risch is a professor of epidemiology at Yale University. Tenenbaum is a periodontist based at the University of Toronto with a PhD in cell biology. Alexander has a degree in epidemiology and a degree in health research methodologies from McMaster University and has worked in the Health and Human Services Department under the Trump administration.

Reported the Sun of Risch’s comments:

He said while lockdowns can reduce the numbers of COVID-infected patients, they only have a fighting chance when you can move every infected person out of a population.

Once the lockdown ends, there are people waiting to be infected, he noted.

“Once an epidemic has spread widely in a population or around the world, there’s no chance you can eradicate the virus completely,” Risch said, adding that putting travellers in quarantine for 14 days is also a waste of time.

“This is all show, this is all theatre.”


Risch said that what we’ve faced is a “massive epidemic of stupidity.”

Tenenbaum criticized the medical profession for not employing proven medical interventions in the fight against the Wuhan coronavirus.

Reported the Sun of Tenenbaum’s comments:

When he tried to present it to his university colleagues, he said he was met with “stone silence” and incredulity because no one believed an antibiotic could work.

He added there have been lawsuits in the U.S. over getting such drugs to patients who were going to die.

Alexander said that a year’s worth of data is showing the “crushing harms” from “draconian” lockdowns.

Reported the Sun of Alexander’s comments:

“The present lockdown and school closures are not sustainable, illogical, and often driven by an ill-informed, sensationalized media,” he added.

The controversial Alexander, who has repeatedly criticized Dr. Anthony Fauci for scaring Americans unnecessarily, said they saw data in the United States last summer indicating a dramatic spike among university and college students wanting to “commit suicide” because they couldn’t deal with the impact of isolation and being locked down.

“We were seeing 300% increase in reported self-harms among kids in primary and elementary school,” said the McMaster University assistant professor.

“We were also seeing data that business owners were hanging themselves across America … the collateral damage was far worse than COVID.”

Alexander told the Sun that there is “no credible” basis for the lockdowns currently happening in Ontario but that there is evidence that the measures are causing more harm than good.

“We were seeing 300% increase in reported self-harms among kids in primary and elementary school,” he said.

“We were also seeing data that business owners were hanging themselves across America … the collateral damage was far worse than COVID,” he added.

The Ford government imposed its strictest lockdown measures a week and a half ago that are to last until May 20. Ontarians are to stay at home unless they need to go out for food or other necessary errands. Police have been empowered to stop people to ask their reason for leaving home. 

  canada, harvey risch, howard tenenbaum, lockdowns, ontario, paul elias alexander, toronto sun


Florida women’s sports protection bill in jeopardy after being shelved by Senate Republicans

Legislation was amended to match an already-passed House version that prohibits some 'transitioning' males to remain on women's and girls' teams.
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 7:43 pm EST
Featured Image
Raymond Wolfe Follow

CONTACT YOUR STATE SENATOR: Save SB 2012! Click to contact your State Senator now.

TALLAHASSEE, Florida, April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Legislation banning males in women’s and girls’ sports is in danger of dying in the Florida Senate after overwhelming approval of a similar bill by House lawmakers.

Senate Bill 2012, titled the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, was scheduled to be heard in the senate on Tuesday before Republicans postponed the hearing late last week. The Florida House passed a companion bill, House Bill 1475, by a 37-vote margin earlier this month.

The bills require sports teams in Florida to be designated according to sex and explicitly bar males from competing against female students. Republican Sen. Kelli Stargel, the primary sponsor of the SB 2012, said the legislation was shelved in the Senate due to other priorities. 

SB 2012 originally allowed some males “transitioning” to a feminized appearance to continue playing on women’s and girls’ teams, a provision not contained in HB 1475. Sen. Stargel amended SB 2012 last Monday, removing the provision, though she called for a hearing on the bill to be postponed when it came before the Senate Rules Committee, local news reported

— 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

“Athletic teams or sports designated for females, women, or girls may not be open to students of the male sex,” the amended legislation read. SB 2012 could be revived if Republican Kathleen Passidomo, chair of the rules committee, schedules a meeting to hear it before the legislative session ends Friday. 

Florida has some of the most liberal athletic requirements in the nation, allowing students to compete on interscholastic teams “in a manner that is consistent with their gender identity and expression, irrespective of the gender listed on a student’s birth certificate.”

Gender-confused, “transitioning” men substantially outperform women in physical contests, even after years of cross-sex hormones, threatening female athletes’ safety and opportunities. Recent polling shows that most Americans support bills to protect biological standards in sports. 

Today, LifeSiteNews launched a campaign in support of women’s sports protections in the Sunshine State, calling on Florida voters to reach out to their senators about SB 2012. 

“Individual states are our last line of defense against the left’s attack on female athletes and biology in general, and the time to fight back is NOW,” LifeSite noted.

The passage of the Save Women’s Sports Act would make Florida one of seven states to enact new restrictions on males in women’s and girls’ sports this year, despite intimidation by major corporations and the NCAA. 

“I think that this is now a movement that you’re seeing in corporate America that, whether it’s the NCAA today or it might be someone tomorrow, that we’re going to use our corporate largess to bully the state,” Republican House Speaker Chris Sprowls said after the Florida House approved HB 1475. He added that House lawmakers “couldn’t care less” about corporate threats. 

  fairness in women's sports act, florida house of representatives, florida senate, gender, gender-confused men, kathleen passidomo, kelli stargel


Canadian MP, local politician charged for attending ‘illegal’ Ontario church service

Derek Sloan and Randy Hillier were among more than 400 people at the Aylmer Church of God defying the province's lockdown.
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 7:11 pm EST
Featured Image
Pastor Henry Hildebrandt and several politicians Pastor Henry Hildebrandt / YouTube
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

CONTACT YOUR MPPS AND MPS: Resist oppressive lockdowns! Click to contact your MPPs and MPs now.

AYLMER, Ontario, April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Two prominent Canadian anti-lockdown politicians have vowed to fight any charges leveled against them as a result of attending a church service this past Sunday led by a pastor who has kept his place of worship open contrary to draconian COVID-19 health rules. 

The service was held at the Church of God located in Aylmer, Ontario, by Pastor Henry Hildebrandt. 

Independent MP Derek Sloan and Independent Ontario MPP Randy Hillier are facing charges – which could top out at $100,000 or even include jail time – because they attended what was one of the largest church services held in Ontario during COVID-19 restrictions. Hildebrandt welcomed Sloan and Hillier into his church, who both briefly spoke at the pulpit. 

Sloan told LifeSiteNews that he has not seen a court summons yet, but that it appears he fits “the description of one of the charges.”

He vowed he would “fight” any charges leveled against him.

“The Aylmer police release says summons have been issued under the Reopening Ontario Act – which would mean any offence would be provincial and not criminal. I have not been notified of any tickets or charges personally – though I appear to fit the description of one of the charges,” Sloan said. 

“I was at the event because the lockdowns are unconstitutional and cause far more harm than good. The government has been too afraid to actually follow through on fighting any of these tickets in court, for fear of the obvious – that they will be ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, I will appeal this ticket without any expectation of actually being convicted. Evidence is coming out in spades that lockdowns ‘are accomplishing little benefit, but colossal damage.’ For the first time in Canada's history, we have an underground church, and I am frightened and appalled at that concept.” 

— 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

Hillier said he is “confident” the courts “will nullify the law, if I'm ever allowed to go to court,” according to a CBC report, although he said he has yet to see a summons. 

“I've indicated according to the courts that I will be challenging these charges under constitutional grounds and I've been vocal that we need to get these charges before a court of law as quickly as possible. That's why I've gone out and engaged in civil disobedience, so that matter could be heard,” Hillier said.

Both Sloan and Hillier are to appear in an Elgin County provincial offences court in June, according to the CBC report. The Church of God was also charged for failing to comply with the Reopening Ontario Act, and if found guilty could face fines of up to $10 million. 

According to a news release from the Aylmer Police Service, six individuals who attended the service were “identified and charged” with failing to “comply with a section 7.0.2 order contrary to s.10(1) of the Re-opening Act of Ontario.”

Two of these persons fit the age and place of residence of both Sloan and Hillier. 

Hillier tweeted that “over 400 people attended” the illegal church service.

Over the course of the last few months, several members of the Church of God have received fines for defying local health orders. Hildebrandt’s son, Herbert, was charged with obstruction of justice in December. 

At the Sunday service, Hildebrandt said he was “very ashamed of many, many pastors in this land,” for being “noodlebacks” in going along with COVID restrictions limiting church size. 

Ontario Premier Doug Ford on April 16 introduced extended “stay at home orders” that placed a 10-person limit on church service attendance size, closed playgrounds, implemented provincial border checks, and gave police the power to stop anyone outside his or her home without cause.

After public backlash, the Ford government walked back some of its coronavirus rules less than a day later. Playgrounds were allowed to stay open, and police had to have “reason to suspect that you are participating in an organized public event or social gathering” in order to question people. 

  aylmer church of god, covid-19, derek sloan, henry hildebrandt, lockdowns, ontario, randy hillier


WATCH: Fr. Altman says bishops showed ‘abundance of cowardice’ in COVID response

‘Shepherds of the Church, bishops of the Church: You better get united, you better start standing up for the faithful. That’s your job.’
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 6:07 pm EST
Featured Image
Fr. James Altman in an Oct. 23, 2020 interview with LifeSiteNews.
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

LA CROSSE, Wisconsin, April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The priest who last fall rocked the U.S. Catholic Church when he warned, “You cannot be Catholic and Democrat,” is again making headlines for speaking plainly and truthfully about the COVID-19 vaccines, and for calling out the apostasy of Catholic bishops. In an exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews, Fr. James Altman discussed the media-manufactured controversy and rebuked bishops who have cowardly mishandled the Church’s pandemic response from the start.

The U.S. bishops could’ve “shown an abundance of courage, instead of an abundance of cowardice,” he pointed out.

Altman, a priest of the Diocese of La Crosse, Wisconsin, is being targeted by local and national media for cautioning parishioners that the COVID-19 injection technically “is NOT a vaccine,” but rather “an experimental use of a genetic altering substance that modifies your body — your Temple of the Holy Spirit.”

He is also being criticized for what some detractors deem to be his disregard for COVID-19 gathering and masking restrictions during parish Masses, while also frequently administering the Sacrament of Holy Communion on the tongue, not the hand.

The Associated Press (AP), Newsweek, and others picked up on the story after a local paper, La Crosse Tribune, accused Fr. Altman of “flouting COVID protocols” and sharing “vaccine misinformation.”

Fr. Altman sat down with LifeSite’s Jim Hale to discuss the media-manufactured controversy and to rebuke bishops who have cowardly mishandled the Church’s pandemic response from the start.

“This is how stupid the left wing is,” said Fr. Altman. “They think they’re attacking me, but what they have done is they have created international news, spreading the truth that I have been speaking. I could never have done [this] on my own.”

Altman explained that his simple goal is to lead his parishioners to remain faithful in the face of what’s going on in the world, noting that in countries like Ireland and Canada, those resisting mandates while striving to live their faith are being arrested.

“It’s coming here if we don’t stand up to it,” said Altman. “Shepherds of the Church, bishops of the Church: You better get united, you better start standing up for the faithful. That’s your job.”

“Back when this whole thing started, the bishops of the Church lost a great opportunity to finally stand up and be relevant again,” noted Altman. The U.S. bishops could’ve “shown an abundance of courage, instead of an abundance of cowardice.”

“They lost the opportunity, they dropped the ball, they abandoned the sheep,” said Altman. “It’s like a blinking pink neon sign,” repeatedly flashing the message that the Church is “non-essential, non-essential, non-essential.”

“Why should people believe in the real-presence [of Christ in the Eucharist] when the shepherds of the Church in this country and around the world have said it doesn’t matter if you receive or not?” wondered Altman.

“There’s an absolute lack of faith,” he declared. “This is the bad fruit that has come from the bad trees over the last thirty years, really since Vatican II when they destroyed our churches, when they eviscerated our sacred liturgy, [and when] they made it a turning toward man instead of toward God.”

Bishops commit sacrilege by allowing President Biden to receive Holy Communion

Fr. Altman criticized President Joe Biden for telling Americans that it is their patriotic duty to take the COVID-19 injection.

“No, Joe Biden, it’s my patriotic duty NOT to get your little science experiment inside my body,” emphasized Altman. “What a buffoon!”

— 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 this context, he addressed the bishops, saying, “How dare you, shepherds of the Church, encourage people to use the Temple of the Holy Spirit … in some experiment that we know is gene manipulation? How dare any shepherd of the Church encourage you to take an experiment that manipulates your genes? That is as godless as they come.”

Biden “is no more Catholic than the Dalai Lama,” said Altman, “and shame on any shepherd of the Church who dared to say they would commit sacrilege by giving that guy Holy Communion.”

“How dare you, shepherds of the Church, how dare you say such a thing!” he added.

Altman said that Biden is an apostate, and that the prelates who condone Biden’s reception of the Holy Eucharist are likewise engaged in apostasy: “You don’t give apostates the Blessed Sacrament.”

To the German bishops: “You guys don’t deserve your little red hats”

Fr. Altman then turned his attention to the errant German bishops, who are seeking to mormalize homosexuality and divorce within the Church, and to Pope Francis.

“Is the bishop of Rome finally saying: ‘Listen, you guys don’t deserve your little red hats. You don’t deserve your little purple hats? You are evil? You are apostates to the unchangeable truth?”

What Fauci, Bishops, are now promoting is damnable to the hottest fires of hell

In his Palm Sunday homily, Fr. Altman had criticized the “godless vermin” who have “fed us fear and instituted godless, Nazi-esque controls on all of us and on those we love.”

“Let us be clear, God damns every single one of those godless moves, whether it be in civil governments, or worse, in the complicity of many in the Church,” he declared.

“In fact, if hell itself has many levels … as Dante was inspired to write, the lowest, hottest levels are the final burning place for those shepherds who were complicit in the godless restrictions,” said Fr. Altman.

COVID restrictions are “destroying our humanity,” asserted the priest. “We are destroying our relationships with other humans made in the image and likeness of God.”

“The godlessness of what has happened over the past year — the godlessness of what Fauci is now promoting, double masking — is damnable to the hottest fires of hell,” said Altman. “And I’m not joking.”

Why aren’t there more priests like Fr. Altman?

When asked why there aren’t more priests who are willing to speak out boldly and truthfully, he said priests are trained beginning in the seminary to be afraid.

“Once you’re a priest, if you step out of line, they’ll take away your faculties. That’s the big threat — the Sword of Damacles — hanging over everybody’s head,” so truth-speaking priests have to “fly below the radar.”

Fr. Altman’s parting words to LifeSiteNews readers

“Stay close to the Holy Eucharist,” Altman said. “Without that, you do not have life within you. That is what sustains us. And that is why it is so diabolical for any shepherd of the Church to deny people access.”

Every single Catholic has a right to kneel and receive communion on the tongue, and no shepherd of the Church can deny that universal right, the priest emphasized. “Go to the Holy Eucharist, my dear family. That is our only hope in Jesus Our Lord.”

  coronavirus vaccine, james altman, joe biden, us bishops


Hunter Biden to guest lecture for college course about fake news

'Hunter Biden lecturing a class on fake news is like Harvey Weinstein teaching a course to prevent sexual harassment.'
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 6:05 pm EST
Featured Image
Hunter Biden ABC News / YouTube
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

NEW ORLEANS, April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Presidential son Hunter Biden has a new gig lined up that’s already raising eyebrows given his recent history in the public eye: teaching college students about fake news.

The Daily Mail reports that 51-year-old Hunter, the son of Democrat President Joe Biden, will be one of ten guest speakers for Tulane University’s “Media Polarization and Public Policy Impacts” course, which “will explore the current state of the media landscape in the United States and how media polarization, fake news, and the economics of the news business impact public policymaking in Washington, D.C.”

The rest of the speakers for the course are overwhelmingly liberal: White House COVID-19 adviser Dr. Deborah Birx, left-wing Fox News contributor Juan Williams, New Yorker columnist Susan Glasser, Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan, CNN national security correspondent Kylie Atwood, Face the Nation moderator Margaret Brennan, Howard University political scientist Dr. Michael Fauntroy, and New York Times columnist Bret Stephens (who identifies as one of the Times’ few “conservative” voices, but promotes left-wing narratives on gun control, climate change, and former President Donald Trump).

Conservatives argue that Biden, who has no professional experience in the journalism industry, is an ironic choice to lecture on the subject of media bias, given he benefited significantly from it last year.

In the months before the 2020 presidential election, the New York Post released a series of bombshell reports about a laptop belonging to Hunter that was delivered to and abandoned at a Delaware computer repair shop. The laptop contained scores of emails and texts detailing how the Biden family made millions of dollars through Hunter’s facilitation meetings between his father, formerly the vice president, and business interests around the world.

The Biden camp never specifically denied the authenticity of the material, but its allies in traditional and social media worked tirelessly to ignore, suppress, or discredit the story, in large part by promoting unsupported claims made by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and former intelligence officials that the laptop was part of a “disinformation” operation by a foreign power.

In fact, the laptop’s authenticity was attested to by John Paul Mac Isaac, the owner of the computer shop, and the accuracy of its comments by retired Navy lieutenant and former Hunter business partner Tony Bobulinski. Media efforts to downplay the story persisted even as it was corroborated by documents that appeared to include Hunter’s signature on a bill from the shop, as well as pictures and audio of Hunter himself. The FBI itself confirmed the authenticity of the laptop and its contents in late October 2020.

“Hunter Biden has no background in media,” said Phelim McAleer, who along with his wife Ann McElhinney is producing a biopic about the troubled Biden son. “He has never worked for a newspaper or a media outlet. Hunter Biden lecturing a class on fake news is like Harvey Weinstein teaching a course to prevent sexual harassment. It shouldn't be happening. Period.”

  academia, college, democrats, fake news, hunter biden, joe biden, liberal media bias, mainstream media, tulsa university


Ten reasons why Canada’s COVID experience does not justify violating Charter rights and freedoms

There's a greater risk of young people dying in a car accident than from coronavirus.
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 5:51 pm EST
Featured Image
Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

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

CALGARY, Alberta (Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms)The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has released a new Charter analysis outlining why Canadians need not fear Covid to the extent the federal and provincial governments’ draconian restrictions would imply. The report: “Covid in Canada: Nothing much to fear” explains why the ongoing violations of Charter rights and freedoms are not justified by facts and evidence.

This new report presents 10 reasons why government lockdowns and restrictions are not proportionate or reasonable in light of the facts about Covid:

1.  Covid simply isn’t the unusually deadly killer that it’s made it out to be.  

In 2020, more than 309,000 Canadians died. Adjusted for population growth, this number is consistent with previous years.1 Of these 309,000 deaths, only about five percent were linked to Covid. There was an alarming surge in non-Covid deaths in western Canada, especially among younger men Covid has only a negligible impact on life expectancy.

2. Covid has little impact on overall life expectancy.

The average age of death for all Canadians in 2018 was 81.95 years.2 Statistics Canada has yet to publish the average age of death of Canadians in 2020 who died with Covid. However, available death-by-age data from Canadian provinces consistently shows the majority of Covid-related deaths occur in ages older than  average life expectancy.

3.  The Covid survival rate is 99.77 percent.

A meta-analysis3 by Dr. John Ioannidis of seroprevalence studies shows the median infection survival rate from Covid infection is 99.77 percent. For Covid patients under the age of 70, the survival rate is even higher, 99.95 percent.

4.  If you are young and healthy, you are more likely to die in a car accident than with Covid.

Of the 22,475 Canadians who died with Covid between March 8, 2020 and March 19, 2021, only 304 – 1.4 percent – were under age 50. In contrast, almost 90 percent of deaths with Covid were over the age of 70 and nearly 70 percent were over 80, (which for men is beyond typical expectancy.) Among Canadian men under 50, traffic accidents cause higher mortality.

5.  The ‘cases’ reported by media do not refer to sick people.

Although there were 572,982 “cases” in Canada during 2020, the majority were not actually ill or experiencing any symptoms. Rather, these “cases” refer to people who tested positive on a PCR test, the accuracy of which has been seriously questioned by medical doctors and infectious disease specialists. Of those Canadians who did show symptoms, most experienced it as a mild or severe flu, and very few required hospitalization.

6. The number of severely symptomatic cases is very low.

By March 19, 2021, the total number of positive PCR test results (‘cases’) had grown to 916,844. Statistics Canada offered detailed information on 71 percent of these. Only slightly more than seven percent required hospitalization, and approximately 1.4 percent of the 916,844 were admitted to ICU. As one would expect, nearly two-thirds of ICU admissions were above the age of 60.

7. Asymptomatic spread isn’t significant.

Lockdown restrictions are based for the most part in the belief that the virus can be passed from people showing no symptoms – asymptomatic carriers – to uninfected individuals. However, research suggests that about 20 percent of people diagnosed with Covid are asymptomatic4, and asymptomatic patients passed on Covid to other members of their households in only 0.7 percent of instances.5

Even symptomatic patients are infectious for only the first eight days after symptom onset. Beyond the ninth day there is no evidence of a live virus.6

In short, asymptomatic individuals are not dangerous spreaders.

8. Infection fatality rates confirm there is little danger.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has determined the Infection Fatality Rate of Covid for various age groups.
In its Current Best Estimate, the CDC proposes for different age-groups:

0-17:                20 deaths per million infections (or 0.002 percent)
18-49:             500 deaths per million (or 0.05 percent)
5-64:               6,500 deaths per million (or 0.65 percent)
65 and over:  90,000 (or 9 percent)

In other words, older people are significantly more vulnerable to Covid than younger people. When younger people do pick it up, their survival prospects are excellent and symptoms generally mild.

9. Casual contact is not enough to transmit Covid.

The New England Journal of Medicine reported that significant exposure to Covid was defined as “face-to-face contact within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes).”8 There is little risk of catching Covid from a casual encounter in a public place.9

10. The ‘science’ isn’t that settled.

“When you don’t have the data and you don’t have the actual evidence, then you’ve got to make a judgment call.”
This was Dr. Anthony Fauci’s response to a question asked by CNN’s John Berman on March 10, 2021, about the Biden administration’s promise to make its decisions based on science: “What’s the science behind not saying it’s safe for people who have been vaccinated – received two doses – to travel?”


“The numbers don’t justify the governments’ overreach in the restriction of Charter freedoms, or the ruinously expensive governmental response, or continued public fear of the virus,” states lawyer and Justice Centre president John Carpay.

“Of 38 million Canadians, very few are going to get sick. Almost all who get sick will get over it. As a country we need to protect those of our elderly citizens who are genuinely vulnerable. We need our Charter freedoms restored to us, to get back to work, and to get back to living life and enjoying it,” continues Mr. Carpay.

“Notwithstanding the public alarm ignited by health bureaucrats, fanned by elected officials and breathlessly reported as gospel truth by a strangely incurious news media, the numbers simply don’t support the government’s message of fear,” adds Mr. Carpay.

“The Charter requires governments to have a pressing reason for violating our fundamental freedoms to move, travel, assemble, associate and worship. The governments’ own data and statistics make it clear that Covid does not justify the ongoing and continuing violation of Charter rights and freedoms by our federal and provincial governments,” concludes Mr. Carpay.

NOTE: Dates referenced are drawn from the year-end report by Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, and from Statistics Canada. When reviewing data published by Statistics Canada, it should be noted that Statistics Canada receives and then verifies data from provincial gathering agencies.  Processing times and reporting practices vary. Early revisions can be the most significant, but data is noted by Statistics Canada as provisional for up to 18 months.

The data in 10 reasons is sourced from a Statistics Canada data release from April 16, 2021.


NB: These are Statistics Canada provisional numbers, issued 10 March 2021. Mortality information is provided to Statistics Canada by provincial health authorities. Statistics Canada offers this figure as complete to mid-December 2020.
3  John P.A. Ioannidis , The Infection Fatality Rate of COVID- 19 Inferred from Seroprevalence Data, Bulletin of the World Health Organization BLT 20.265892.
4  1 Buitrago-Garcia D, Egli-Gany D, Counotte MJ, Hossmann S, Imeri H, Ipekci AM, Salanti G, Low N. Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: A living systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoSMed.2020Sep22;17(9):e1003346.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003346. PMID: 32960881; PMCID: PMC7508369
5  3 (Madewell ZJ, Yang Y, Longini IM, Halloran ME, Dean NE. Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: A
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12):e2031756.
6  Cevik M, Tate M, Lloyd O et al. SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV viral load dynamics, duration of
viral shedding, and infectiousness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Microbe. Nov. 19, 2020.
7  “This year, in the United States, more children have died from the seasonal flu than from Covid by a factor of two or three.” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.
9  Ibid.

  canada, charter rights, coronavirus, covid-19, justice centre for constitutional freedoms, lockdowns, survival rates


Idaho, Arizona pass sweeping new protections for preborn children

‘At a time when our federal government under the Biden-Harris administration is pushing an extreme anti-life agenda, it’s so encouraging to see state legislatures and leaders … taking charge and acting on the will of the people.’
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 5:20 pm EST
Featured Image
Hand of premature baby Shutterstock
Raymond Wolfe Follow

April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — On Tuesday, the Republican governors of Idaho and Arizona signed into law two sweeping pro-life bills that could save thousands of preborn lives.

Idaho Gov. Brad Little approved House Bill 366, titled the Fetal Heartbeat Preborn Child Protection Act, which bans abortions of preborn babies with detectable heartbeats. The bill, sponsored by State Sen. Patti Anne Lodge and State Rep. Steven Harris, protects most babies by around six weeks of pregnancy, though it allows for exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or “medical emergency.”

Abortion providers who abort babies with detectable heartbeats could face up to five years in prison under the law, and pregnant women who undergo outlawed abortions could sue them.

“Idaho is a state that values the most innocent of all lives — the lives of babies. We should never relent in our efforts to protect the lives of the preborn,” Little said upon signing House Bill 366, calling abortion an “absolute tragedy.”

“Hundreds and hundreds of babies lose their lives every year in Idaho due to abortion, an absolute tragedy,” he said. “I appreciate Idaho lawmakers for continuing to protect lives by passing this important legislation, and I am proud to sign the bill into law today.”

Idaho joins several pro-life states that have enacted heartbeat bills in recent years, including Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, and Tennessee. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt also signed similar legislation earlier this week.

Heartbeat bills have been repeatedly attacked in court and are the subject of ongoing litigation. Planned Parenthood already has vowed to sue over House Bill 366, which will take effect upon a court ruling on heartbeat bills that is favorable to the abortion giant.

“We are proud that Idaho can be added to the list of pro-life states leading the charge in offering legal protection for our youngest and most defenseless residents,” the pro-life Family Policy Alliance reacted yesterday. “The action taken today by Gov. Brad Little will ultimately save thousands of precious lives.”

On Tuesday, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed another sweeping pro-life bill, criminalizing eugenic abortions of preborn babies with disabilities like Down syndrome.

Senate Bill 1457 bans abortion providers from knowingly committing abortions “sought because of a genetic abnormality of the child” and classifies violations as Class 6 felonies. Threatening or intimidating women into an abortion due to genetic abnormalities likewise constitutes a felony under law, though it does not apply to “cases where the child has a lethal fetal condition,” a press release from the governor’s office said.

“Under SB 1457, a person performing an abortion must complete an affidavit stating that the person is not aborting the child because of an abnormality,” the press release added. “It also requires the doctor performing the abortion inform the woman that is it unlawful to perform an abortion due to the child’s race, sex, or genetic abnormality.”

“With this legislation, Arizona remains among the top pro-life states in the nation,” the governor’s office said.

The landmark bill grants civil rights to preborn children regardless of their stage of development, while also mandating that aborted babies be buried or cremated, and prohibiting public education institutions from performing abortions unless the mother’s life is in danger.

SB 1457 additionally bans mail delivery of abortion pills and taxpayer funding for research using aborted babies, both of which have been advanced by recent actions by the pro-abortion Biden administration. Montana similarly banned “tele-abortion,” as well as most late-term abortions, on Monday.

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

The Catholic bishops of Arizona have applauded the passage of SB 1457, saying that the measure “establishes that Arizona’s laws will be interpreted in the context of valuing all human life.”

“This legislation looks forward to the day that Roe v. Wade is overturned and shows concern for both unborn children and their mothers,” the bishops continued.

“It’s a proud moment for a strongly pro-life state like Arizona,” said Sue Liebel, State Policy Director of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List. “This law is a bold stride forward to end lethal discrimination in the womb, safeguard women against the proliferation of dangerous abortion drugs, and protect taxpayers from being forced to fund the abortion industry.”

“At a time when our federal government under the Biden-Harris administration is pushing an extreme anti-life agenda, it’s so encouraging to see state legislatures and leaders like Gov. Ducey taking charge and acting on the will of the people,” Liebel said.

Polling has shown that the vast majority of Americans, including most Democrats, oppose eugenic abortions of babies with Down syndrome and support heartbeat bills.

  abortion, brad little, doug ducey, susan b. anthony list


Biden unveils $1.8 trillion plan to subsidize daycare, get mothers out of the home

Some Republicans have floated alternative proposals for financial aid to working families.
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 4:16 pm EST
Featured Image
Pool / Getty
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

WASHINGTON, April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — President Joe Biden unveiled his proposed “American Families Plan” Wednesday: $1.8 trillion in new spending that would federally subsidize daycare and incentivize both parents to work outside the home.

The plan calls for “universal, quality-preschool to all three- and four-year-olds”; “two years of free community college”; direct subsidies to “ensure that low- and middle-income families spend no more than seven percent of their income on child care”; a “national comprehensive paid family and medical leave program”; and extending “the Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit”; as well as “the expanded health insurance tax credits in the American Rescue Plan.”

“In all, the American Families Plan includes $1.8 trillion in investments and tax credits for American families and children over ten years,” including $1 trillion in direct spending and $800 billion in what Biden calls tax cuts. The administration claims it will be “fully paid for over 15 years” by increasing taxes on higher-income Americans.

One of the plan’s stated goals is to “enable those who dropped out of the workforce — particularly the approximately two million women who left due to COVID — to rejoin and stay in the workforce,” meaning the Biden plan would reduce the number of mothers raising their children full-time.

In a press release, American Principles Project president Terry Schilling raised additional objections to the plan:

For example, the proposal calls for $200 billion for two years of free, universal preschool. Consider what this means: instead of giving this money to parents to help them address the educational needs of their children as they see best, this plan would push kids into our failing public school system two years earlier, while no doubt indoctrinating them into the latest leftist ideological fashions (‘Change your gender!’ ‘America is racist!’) at even younger ages.

Unsurprisingly, this plan also wants to extend that education two years later, promising $109 billion for two years of free community college. This will not help students struggling through our ever worsening K-12 system, nor will it help families who have to deal with that system’s failures. And not a word is dedicated to trade or vocational education which is so important to working-class Americans. But it will be a boon for the education establishment which has become a key Democrat constituency.

Some Republicans have floated alternative proposals for financial aid to working families and families whose mothers stay home. Most recently, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) unveiled a plan that would send $6,000 a year to single parents and $12,000 to married parents.

  child care, daycare, democrats, economy, families, family leave, jobs, joe biden, josh hawley, wealth redistribution


Arkansas mom fired from job after refusing COVID-19 vaccine

The woman said, ‘I am always that one out of every 10 or so that has a bad reaction. I am that one — so I would just rather not’ be injected with the experimental COVID serums.
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 4:02 pm EST
Featured Image
Samantha Wise KARK-TV / Screenshot
David McLoone David McLoone Follow

CONWAY, Arkansas, April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — An Arkansas mother of five, who says she frequently suffers adverse effects from some medications, was fired from her job at a drug dispensary after refusing to take the experimental jab against COVID-19.

Samantha Wise was employed by Harvest Cannabis Dispensary in Conway, Arkansas. State law only allows the prescription of medical marijuana, recreational use is yet prohibited. The company terminated her contract on March 3 on the grounds that she was uncomfortable receiving any of the COVID vaccines.

Currently, three COVID jabs are available exclusively under “emergency use authorization” (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a designation which renders the vaccines experimental. Johnson and Johnson had their one-shot vaccine put on temporary hold after evidence came to light showing the drug to cause dangerous blood clots. The ban has since been lifted, though data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) highlights blood clot dangers, and many other ailments beside, associated with all three COVID vaccine options.

Following her termination, a stunned Wise told KARK-TV that “[t]hey actually did it — they really fired me — I didn’t think it was really going to happen,” before explaining her history of bad reactions to a number of medicines. “I am always that one out of every 10 or so that has a bad reaction. I am that one — so I would just rather not” be injected with the experimental COVID serums.

Harvest executive director Robbin Rahman said the company had enacted a policy whereby “[a]ll employees, managers and owners must receive a COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of continued employment.” They do, however, provide a caveat “for any employee that has provided notice of a medical or religious basis for not receiving the vaccine,” claiming to “accommodate” employees in this category “to the extent possible.”

Alongside a vaccination requirement, Harvest also has a strict regimen of mask mandates and physical distancing for both employees and customers “at all times while inside any part of the facility.”

Despite Wise’s concerning medical history, giving rise to her legitimate concerns over taking the vaccine, Harvest maintained a resolute position.

The drug dispenser doubled down on its decision in a statement provided to KARK, downplaying the importance of Wise’s refusal to vaccinate: “[T]he former employee that is the subject of KARK’s story was terminated based on a number of factors and no single factor was determinative, including whether he or she did or did not get a COVID-19 vaccine.”

“With respect to the COVID-19 vaccine,” Rahman continued, “Harvest takes very seriously its obligation to maintain a safe environment for its patients [recipients of medical marijuana] and also its employees. This obligation has never been more relevant than over the past year, during which every city — big and small — has been in the grips of a deadly pandemic.”

“Harvest is a medical facility and many of its patients suffer from serious medical conditions and are considered ‘high risk,’” Rahman added.

Wise, now out of work, expressed her wish that other employers “would let people make decisions for themselves instead of making the decision for them.”

Whether or not employers can legally require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 remains a contentious topic.

The FDA states that as products authorized only for emergency use, 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 that “to protect public health,” 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.”

Accordingly, some make the case 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.

— 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 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,” admitting 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.”

  arkansas, coronavirus vaccine, mandatory vaccines, samantha wise


Canadian pastor again orders ‘Nazi Gestapo’ police, health inspectors to leave his church

‘I do not cooperate with Nazis. Talk to my lawyer … You came in your uniforms like thugs. That’s what you are: brownshirts of Adolf Hitler.’
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 3:36 pm EST
Featured Image
Health inspector and police at Cave of Adullam church Artur Pawlowski TV / YouTube
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

CONTACT YOUR MPPS AND MPS: Resist oppressive lockdowns! Click to contact your MPPs and MPs now.

CALGARY, Alberta, April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — For the second time this month, a Canadian pastor who fled communist Poland told police and public health officials to leave his church, telling them he would not cooperate with “the Gestapo.”

“You can call my lawyer, okay? My lawyer takes care of this. I’m not interested to listen to any word you have to say. I do not cooperate with the Gestapo, I do not talk to the Nazis,” said Pastor Artur Pawlowski of The Cave of Adullam church located in Calgary, Alberta, this past Saturday to police and health inspectors.

“You came in your uniforms like thugs. That’s what you are: brownshirts of Adolf Hitler, [you’re] Nazi, Gestapo, communist, fascist. I do not cooperate with Nazis. Talk to my lawyer.”

Pawlowski is a well-known street preacher in Calgary and is renowned for feeding the homeless. He has been running Calgary-based Street Church Ministries for over 20 years and has been a vocal opponent to Wuhan coronavirus lockdowns.

This is the second time this month Calgary police and Alberta Health Services (AHS) public health officials have come to Pawlowski’s church for an unannounced coronavirus health visit during worship services.

During an Easter Passover Saturday service earlier in the month, Pawlowski told the same health inspector to “please get out” of his church, saying “you Nazis, Gestapo is not allowed here … don’t come back without a warrant.”

The video of Saturday’s incident, which Pawlowski himself recorded and posted to his YouTube page, shows a public health inspector hand him a document for the COVID-19 health visit.

Pawlowski, however, quickly fought back, saying, “I’m not really interested in what you have to say.”

“You see, this is what the Gestapo is doing. You coming to the place of worship to intimidate and to harass so you can make an appointment. Lady, listen to me, you can make an appointment another day … Gestapo, another day. Not this day, not this day, not during the church. You understand, make an appointment.”

After this point, the health inspector and police quietly left the church.

Section 176(2) of the “Criminal Code of Canada” bans interrupting or disturbing a religious service.

CONTACT YOUR MPPS AND MPS: Resist oppressive lockdowns! Click to contact your MPPs and MPs now.

Pawlowski told LifeSiteNews that the continued police presence at his church gives him bad memories of growing up behind the Iron Curtain in communist Poland.

He said that while he doesn’t mind talking with authorities, it should not be done during worship services, which he says “intimidates” his parishioners. “You want to come and visit the church — fine, I have no problem letting them in to inspect the place, but not during worship, during the church time, and they heard that from me many times,” said Pawlowski.

Wicked, evil people”

After the health inspector and police left his church, Pawlowski continued recording himself, and blasted police for “again” coming to his church during time of worship.

“Like the Gestapo of old, sickening what this country came to — coming to the place of worship with their uniform, with their guns again and again during the time of worship. They could do it another time. They could do it another day,” said Pawlowski.

“Wicked, evil people — unbelievable, it is what it is. If Canadians will not rise up and stand up, if they will not come to their senses while there is still a time, while there is a time to wake up and push this evil, there will be absolutely no rights whatsoever. If they can get away with this, they’re going to come anywhere else. And, you know, that’s what people do not understand.”

CONTACT YOUR MPPS AND MPS: Resist oppressive lockdowns! Click to contact your MPPs and MPs now.

The province of Alberta’s COVID-19 health rules enacted under United Conservative Party (UCP) Premier Jason Kenney has capped church attendance size to 15 percent and mandated mask wearing and physical distancing.

Some Alberta churches have resisted the measures, notably Pastor James Coates of Grace Life Church in Spruce Grove, Alberta. He was jailed for over a month for defying COVID-related orders.

  artur pawlowski, coronavirus restrictions, lockdowns


New book ‘Sacred Betrayals’ reveals web of financial and sexual abuse by top Vatican cardinal protected by Pope Francis

The widow of a former Vatican ambassador accuses Pope Francis of covering-up for Cardinal Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga.
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 3:01 pm EST
Featured Image
Martha Alegría Reichmann de Valladares, Cardinal Óscar Maradiaga, and her late husband, Alejandro.
LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The widow of the former dean of the Vatican diplomatic corps is revealing the involvement of Pope Francis in the cover-up of his top cardinal, Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga, in a new book now available from Faithful Insight Books, a publishing imprint of LifeSiteNews.

Sacred Betrayals: A Widow Raises Her Voice Against the Corruption of the Francis Papacy reveals evidence that Cardinal Mardiaga covered up the sexual abuse and misconduct of his auxiliary bishop, Juan José Pineda Fasquelle, and diverted millions of dollars of Church money to fraudulent investment schemes that have since disappeared. The investments included the life savings of Honduras’ ambassador to the Holy See, Alejandro Valladares and his wife, Martha Alegría Reichmann. 

Reichmann and her husband hosted Cardinal Maradiaga in their home for decades, until they fell afoul of Maradiaga after protesting against the scandalous behavior of his auxiliary bishop, Juan José Pineda, who was ultimately accused of sexual predation against seminarians and disappeared from Honduras after resigning his office.  


When the Valladares family’s life savings disappeared in a fraudulent investment scheme promoted to them by Maradiaga, Alegría Reichmann took her case to the height of the Vatican hierarchy and even to Pope Francis himself, but found that no one was willing to correct the wayward Maradiaga, even after the financial and sexual scandals were exposed in the international media.  

Sacred Betrayals recounts Alegría Reichmann’s struggle to find justice for her family, and to alert the Catholic Church to the corruption of Pope Francis’ most influential and powerful cardinal. 

Philip Lawler, editor of Catholic World News, writes: “This book is dynamite! The compelling testimony of Martha Alegria Reichmann— a widow betrayed by a powerful cardinal she had once considered a close friend— has the power to break down the wall of silence that protects Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga, and expose the corruption that reaches to the very top of the Vatican.”

In addition to Pope Francis and Cardinal Maradiaga, Sacred Betrayals recounts the involvement of other high curial officials, including Cardinal Pietro Parolin and Cardinal Marc Ouellet, who seemed helpless to proceed against Maradiaga because of Francis’ protection.

“Alegría’s testimony regarding Cardinal Maradiaga’s involvement of their family in a fraudulent financial scheme, as well as his defense and cover-ups of his auxiliary bishop is deeply shocking. More disturbing is her revelation that Francis continues to protect Maradiaga despite all the misdeeds for which Maradiaga has made himself personally responsible,” writes the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Carlo Maria Viganò, in his foreword to the book.

Alegría Reichmann’s accusations come in the wake of exploding financial and moral scandals in the Vatican, as cardinals are removed from their positions following accusations of financial malfeasance. While others have fallen, Cardinal Maradiaga continues to be defended by Pope Francis, who has refused to believe repeated reports of misconduct by the prelate. 

“The pope is determined to support and cover up Maradiaga knowing of his corruption and all he is accused of, and that he himself has verified through the investigation made by his friend Pedro Casaretto,” writes Alegría Reichmann, who adds that she believes that “more and more scandals will be exposed because time is like the sea: the sea brings everything back to shore, from bottles to corpses.”

Sacred Betrayals was formerly only available in Honduras in Spanish, and the new publication has been translated into English and adapted for a global audience by Faithful Insight Books, a publishing imprint of LifeSiteNews.

For media inquiries, contact Stephen Kokx, LifeSite’s Content Marketing Manager.

[email protected]
888-678-6008  x 938

  cardinal maradiaga, cardinal rodríguez maradiaga, honduras, matthew hoffman, óscar andrés rodríguez maradiaga, pope francis, sacred betrayals, vatican


UPDATED: In London, hundreds of thousands protest lockdowns, vaccine passports

The rally is estimated to have drawn more than 100,000 people on Saturday.
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 2:25 pm EST
Featured Image
Rally against lockdowns and vaccine passports in London, April 24, 2021 We Will Be Free / Twitter
Raymond Wolfe Follow

UPDATE, April 28, 1:05 p.m.: This article has been updated to reflect accounts of a far larger crowd size than initially reported by the mainstream media. 

 LONDON, U.K., April 27, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Hundreds of thousands gathered in London over the weekend to protest the British government’s COVID-19 restrictions, in what was one of the largest public demonstrations in the U.K. in months.

The rally, called “Unite for Freedom” and “March for Freedom,” drew an estimated 100,000 or more people who packed London streets on Saturday to denounce vaccine passports, lockdowns, and other coronavirus measures.

Despite the reported figures of mere “thousands” or 10,000 marchers from the pro-lockdown mainstream media, several commentators and journalists present at the protest declared that there were well over 100,000 people present.

They were supported by video clips showing the significance of the crowd size, and Daily Expose even described the event as “possibly the largest protest the United Kingdom has ever seen.”

Protesters marched to the Houses of Parliament with signs that read “the people refuse your totalitarian stage agenda,” “lockdowns kill,” and “no new normal.”

“They did not isolate a virus. They isolated you,” one demonstrator’s sign said. Other protesters shouted slogans like “take off your mask,” “save our rights,” and “COVID-1984.”

“Do you know that you have been lied to for over a year?” asked the White Rose, a peaceful resistance group that helped organize the event. “Do you know that far more people are dying due to lockdowns and restrictions than from the virus?”

The non-violent demonstrations defied punitive government health guidelines, which prohibit large gatherings and mandate strict adherence to masking and social distancing. Similar events that drew around 18,000 people were broken up in Berlin on the same day.

The U.K. has employed some of the harshest COVID-19 measures in the world, but finally began allowing restaurants and other “non-essential” businesses to re-open earlier this month after a months-long winter lockdown.

Researchers with the Department of Health have projected that more than 100,000 lives could be lost due to the country’s restrictions. Only around half of British deaths during the COVID-19 crisis ultimately may result from the virus itself, the scientists said, citing rising mental health problems and missed medical appointments.

Several studies have shown that business closures and stay-at-home orders have little to no effect on virus spread.

Earlier this month, the British government announced plans to introduce “vaccine passports” for citizens to prove their COVID-19 vaccine status before being allowed to attend public events or travel. The proposal has been met with strong opposition from lawmakers, with more than 70 MPs denouncing the idea as “divisive and discriminatory,” echoing warnings of watchdogs.

  coronavirus restrictions, lockdown protests, lockdowns


Catholics furious at diocesan education boss endorsing gender theory in schools, seek to oust him and bishop

While the agnostic politician Mark Latham is advocating the primacy of parental judgement in how their children learn about gender and sexuality, the professional Catholic Greg Whitby has used his submission to speak emphatically against this perennially Catholic principle.
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 2:20 pm EST
Featured Image
Bishop Vincent Long Van Nguyen
LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Faithful Catholics of the Diocese of Parramatta, which is to the west of Sydney, are petitioning the Vatican to remove Bishop Vincent Long Van Nguyen and the diocesan head of Catholic Education, Greg Whitby, following a parliamentary submission that directly defies the Church’s teaching on gender.

The submission was in written in response to New South Wales (NSW) Upper House Member Mark Latham’s Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020, which seeks to remove gender theory from all classrooms in the state.

As expected, the anti-transgender indoctrination education bill is being supported by Sydney Archbishop Anthony Fisher as well as regulatory body Catholic Schools NSW.

LifeSite has comprehensively covered Bishop Long’s controversial track record, which includes speaking in favor of women’s “ordination,” urging his flock to accept the homosexxual orientation, and ushering in a new religious education curriculum that promotes gender fluidity.

The architect of that curriculum is also the author of the submission in question, Catholic Education CEO Greg Whitby, whose office oversees 80 Catholic schools and approximately 43,000 children.

And while the agnostic politician Mark Latham is advocating the primacy of parental judgement in how their children learn about gender and sexuality, the professional Catholic Greg Whitby has used his submission to speak emphatically against this perennially Catholic principle: “The concept of ‘parental primacy’….has long been discarded in Australia,” Whitby wrote.

The uproar from faithful Catholics has been led by popular priest Father John Rizzo, who wrote the following public letter to his bishop:

Dear Bishop Vincent, I hope that you are doing well. I am forwarding you today’s article from the Sydney Morning Herald regarding the “split” between the Archdiocese of Sydney and the Diocese of Parramatta over Mark Latham introducing an anti-trans Education Bill. If the contents of this article and the quotes of Greg Whitby are accurate, then I kindly ask you to resign as the Bishop of Parramatta. Your stance regarding homosexuality is at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Your zealous approach at “inclusivity” towards the LGBTIQ Community is very confusing to Catholics wanting to be faithful to the Church. Enough is enough Bishop. I’m praying for your conversion and the salvation of your soul. In the meantime please consider leaving the Diocese and allow for a Catholic bishop to replace you.

Sincerely in the charity of Christ,

Fr. John Rizzo

P.S. Please take Greg Whitby with you.

Conservative commentator and outspoken supporter of Latham’s bill Miranda Devine also took aim at Whitby in her most recent column for The Daily Telegraph:

He slams as “short-sighted and lacking insight” Latham’s thesis that parents should have the right to object to their child being indoctrinated in gender fluidity.

He claims that the bill would make it impossible to teach students Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, As You Like It or Merchant of Venice.

Astonishingly, Whitby’s submission also goes on at length about international treaties, as if they somehow should usurp age-old Catholic teaching.

Parramatta Bishop Vincent Long needs to step up and tell us where he stands on the indoctrination of children in the concept of multiple genders, and how setting them on a path to puberty-blocking hormones and mutilating surgery accords with God’s creation. Until the Bishop comes out of the shadows, we are left with the words of his envoy, Whitby, who explained his objection to Latham’s bill on the weekend to Nine newspapers: “It’s not for a school or a central office or, dare I say, even politicians to make those decisions. If you seek to codify those things, you are putting a personal perspective on what’s right and what’s wrong.”

Actually, teaching right from wrong is what the Church does.

If the Parramatta Diocese wants to pander to transgender activism, that’s their business, but don’t mislead parents into thinking you’re providing a Catholic education.

Local Catholic Bernadette Ching is inviting fellow Catholics to sign a petition demanding full transparency from Bishop Long.

For more updates, readers can also follow The Laity Advocacy Group on Facebook.

  australia, catholic, diocese of parramatta, greg whitby, homosexuality, miranda devine, new south wales, parental rights, parental rights in education, transgenderism, vincent long van nguyen


WATCH: Young Catholics raise ‘God cannot bless sin’ banner in response to church displaying pride flag

The young Catholics in an act of resistance placed their banner on the church close to where the pride flag was draped
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 2:15 pm EST
Featured Image
St. Rupert’s Church in Vienna, Austria with the new banner created by young faithful Catholics and pinned to the Church in April, 2021. Christus Vincit / 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.

VIENNA, Austria, April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — When Vienna’s oldest Catholic church draped the rainbow “pride flag” from its bell tower as a sign of defiance to the Vatican’s recent declaration that banned blessings for same-sex couples, young faithful Catholics responded by creating their own banner in support of Church teaching, clandestinely pinning it to the same church. 

Video posted to Youtube channel Christus Vincit on April 26 captures four young Viennese Catholics creating the banner and then climbing a ladder at night to attach it to the side of St. Rupert’s Church.

“God cannot bless sin,” the banner states in blue and red words. “Roma locuta, causa finita,” it reads at the bottom.

The Catholic saying “Rome has spoken, the case is closed” means that doctrinal matters are settled by the Church’s teaching authority and once that authority has spoken, the matter is settled and Catholics must assent to the outcome.

Young Catholics creating the banner stating 'God cannot bless sin.' SOURCE: Christus Vincit / Youtube screen grab

Last month, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that the Church cannot bless same-sex relationships since “God does not and cannot bless sin.” 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.”

In reaction to the ban, a group of over 300 Austrian priests issued a “call to disobedience,” stating that they would “continue to bless same-sex couples.” Similarly, a group of over 500 German priests vowed to defy the ban and to bless homosexual couples. More than anything else, the Congregation’s declaration spotlighted an already existing schism in the Church consisting of those who do not accept the moral teachings of the Church and the authority that promulgates them.

The young Catholics, who wish to remain anonymous, say their banner “echoes the voice” of the Church in banning blessings for homosexual couples.

Placing the banner on the church is “how they corrected the unacceptable sacrilegious message on St. Ruprecht’s tower to remind the faithful: Love the sinner, but hate the sin,” a text from the video of the young people states.

Young Catholics placing a ladder on St. Rupert’s Church in Vienna to hang their banner protesting the gay pride flag hung from the bell tower. SOURCE: Christus Vincit / Youtube screen grab

Representatives of the group told CNA Deutsch that they saw the rainbow flag draped from St. Rupert’s Church as a “provocation” that they could not ignore.

“On the one hand, we wanted to show that such a provocation is not simply tolerated in Vienna and, on the other hand, we hope that this might trigger a rethinking among certain officials,” said the group. “We also think that such an action can give other Catholics courage and hope. We actually hope that no further actions will be necessary, but should there be another one, it would arise from the same intention, namely to defend the Catholic faith.”

The group criticized Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schönborn’s opposition to the ban on blessings, saying the Cardinal showed more concern for the “feelings” of people with same-sex attraction than for their eternal salvation.

  austria, blessing for gay couples, blessings, christoph schönborn, christus vincit, congregation for the doctrine of the faith cdf, homosexuality, resistance, same-sex unions, schism, vienna


Europe rejects candidate for human rights court with ties to George Soros

A report on the connections between judges on the European Court of Human Rights and left-wing billionaire George Soros bears fruit.
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 1:40 pm EST
Featured Image
European Court of Human Rights Shutterstock
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits

April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A recent report by the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) shows that numerous judges at the Council of Europe’s Court of Human Rights (ECHR) have close connections with left-wing billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundation. Now, in a remarkable victory against the packing of the Court with Soros affiliates, the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe rejected the candidacy of yet another Open Society employee. Instead, Frédéric Krenc was chosen, a Belgian lawyer, “less political and more competent,” according to the ECLJ.

“On 20 April 2021, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe elected the new Belgium judge to the ECHR. Among the three candidates proposed by the Belgian government was a lawyer employed by George Soros’ Open Society, as is often the case. But for the first time in a long time, the Open Society failed to get its candidate elected, despite its considerable financial and political power. In the end, a Belgian lawyer, less political and more competent, was elected: Mr. Frédéric Krenc, with 148 votes against 81 for the Open Society employee and 29 for Sylvie Saroléa. This is a victory for the independence of the Court, and a fruit of the ECLJ Report on NGOs and the judges of the ECHR,” according to the ECLJ’s website.

The victory is in fact double: Grégor Puppinck, director of the ECLJ, pointed out in his communiqué on the Soros connection that the ambassadors of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe “have just adopted an official text admitting the veracity of the ECLJ’s report on NGOs and judges of the ECHR,” announcing their decision to re-evaluate the effectiveness of the current system of selection and election of the Court’s judges by the end of 2024.

For a major international institution such as the Council of Europe — not to be confused with the (smaller) European Union — to have acknowledged that there is a problem with the ideological proximity with the Open Society Foundation of judges it has itself chosen to designate, indicates that the evidence produced by the ECLJ was of necessity overwhelming.

LifeSite’s Paul Smeaton reported on the ECLJ’s remarkable piece of lobbying on March 11, first recalling the problems posed by the Open Society Foundation that imposes its liberal agenda through massive funding and agit-prop all over the world.

He wrote: “The OSF is just one of the means utilized by billionaire Soros to push left-wing causes throughout Europe, throughout the United States, and around the world, including abortion, euthanasia, population control, same-sex ‘marriage,’ transgenderism, and more. The OSF spends $940 million annually in 100 different countries, including $150 million per year funding the left-wing American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the leading abortion company Planned Parenthood, and other liberal groups.”

“The organization claims to support humanitarian and democratic initiatives around the world but also is documented fomenting social discord — for example, by puppeteering globalist politicians, provoking riots, and pouring money into abortion groups,” he added.

These groups include “Black Lives Matter,” whose propaganda has reached far beyond the U.S.

Puppinck explained that the ECLJ report has found that “at least 22 of the 100 judges who have served since 2009 are former staff or leaders” of the Open Society Foundation (OSF) or a number of NGO’s directly founded by the OSF — seven in total: the Helsinki Committees, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Interights and the A.I.R.E. Centre. “Among these, the Open Society Foundation stands out for the number of judges linked to it (12) and for the fact that it actually funds the other six organizations identified in this report,” he added.

Even more shockingly, these judges have sat on at least 88 cases where their former NGO was involved, making them both judge and party.

As Puppinck has now pointed out on the ECLJ’s website, the campaign to expose OSF links to over 20 percent of recent judges of the ECHR was a lengthy and difficult affair because of the complexity of getting the involved institutions to take notice of the report and above all to respond to it.

Puppinck writes: “The revelations in this report are extremely serious; they circulated around the world but have also been met with silence from the ECHR and with the refusal of the European Commission and some governments to respond to them in substance, to the point of denying the evidence. The most important support for the report came from Mr Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister.”

But unexpectedly, the 47 Ambassadors representing the member states of the Council of Europe and as such, its main body, having been seized with three “embarrassing written questions from members of parliament on ‘the systemic problem of conflicts of interest between NGOs and judges of the Court’ and on ‘Restoring the integrity of the European Court of Human Rights’,” decided not to ignore it. This would have been easy if they had invoked an inability to find a common answer: instead, they submitted a written reply.

In their written questions, the parliamentarians pointed to the low number of European judges who had previously served as magistrates, and accused the ECHR of giving too much importance to legal professionals from lobbies; they also denounced the absence of an effective procedure for deferral and recusal in case of a possible conflict of interest. Barna Pál Zsigmond asked “what measures will the Committee of Ministers adopt, in the context of the reform of the Court, to remedy the weaknesses of the system and restore the Court’s credibility?”

Puppinck commented: “At first glance, this response seems smooth and conventional, but when one reads between the lines, as befits a diplomatic document, the undertones become clear. Here, they are obvious: at no time do the ambassadors contradict or even try to minimize the reality of the facts revealed in the ECLJ report and recalled by the MEPs. This is itself an essential confession, which the European Commission had not conceded. The Council of Europe admits the facts revealed by the ECLJ.”

— 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 ambassadors stated that it will be necessary to “continue to guarantee the highest standard of qualifications, independence and impartiality of the Court’s judges,” also describing “measures taken to that end.” They added that “by the end of 2024, in light of further experience, the effectiveness of the current system for the selection and election of the Court’s judges” will be reassessed.

This is encouraging, for it means that the problems underscored by the ECLJ report appear to be prompting action on the part of the Council of Europe.

In particular, the ECLJ suggested that ECHR magistrates should make a declaration of interests when assuming their new functions. Grégor Puppinck told the French daily le Figaro that this and other conclusions of the report “were implicitly accepted by the Committee of ministers,” since none were rejected in its written reply to the three parliamentarians.

But the campaign for independent judges is far from over. The ECLJ has stated that it “will closely follow this review of the judicial selection mechanism and ensure that its recommendations are taken into consideration.”

The ECLJ will also work to obtain a renewal of procedures allowing applicants to object to the presence of a politically biased judge in their cases. Two new written questions originating in the ECLJ report have already been submitted to the Ambassadors on April 8. “The first one questions the practical impossibility of requesting the recusal of a judge of the European Court, since the identity of the judges is only revealed once the judgment is published, in violation of the rules imposed by the ECHR on national courts. The other written question concerns the impossibility of applying for a revision of certain judgments of the Court.”

  council of europe, eclj, european court of human rights, george soros, open society foundations


Masking children: tragic, unscientific, and damaging

Masking children is as absurd, illogical, nonsensical, and potentially dangerous as trying to stop ‘every case of Covid’ or ‘stopping Covid at all costs.’
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 1:13 pm EST
Featured Image
Paul E. Alexander

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

April 28, 2021 (American Institute for Economic Research) – Summary:  Children do not readily acquire SARS-CoV-2 (very low risk), spread it to other children or teachers, or endanger parents or others at home. This is the settled science. In the rare cases where a child contracts Covid virus it is very unusual for the child to get severely ill or die. Masking can do positive harm to children – as it can to some adults. But the cost benefit analysis is entirely different for adults and children – particularly younger children. Whatever arguments there may be for consenting adults – children should not be required to wear masks to prevent the spread of Covid-19. Of course, zero risk is not attainable – with or without masks, vaccines, therapeutics, distancing or anything else medicine may develop or government agencies may impose. 

How did this blue surgical mask and white cloth mask come to dominate our daily lives? Well, indeed, the surgical masks and white cloth (often homemade) masks have become the most contentious and quarrelsome symbol and reminder of our battle with SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes, Covid-19. The mask has become so politicized that it prevents rational consideration of the evidence (even across political lines) and drives levels of acrimony, invidious actions, disdain, and villainy among wearers to each other who feel threatened by the individual who will not or cannot wear a mask. 

But how dangerous is this virus? Based on studies done by Professor John PA Ioannidis of Stanford University, we know that we are dealing with a virus that has an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.05 in persons 70 years old and under (range: 0.00% to 0.57% with a median of 0.05% across the different global locations; with a corrected median of 0.04%). This compares quite well to the IFR of most influenza viruses (and even lower), and yet the draconian and massive reactions to SARS- CoV-2 have never been employed during influenza season. 

Given this knowledge it is more than perplexing as to why our governments, at the behest of their public health advisors, have accepted as a fait accompli what we refer to as a ‘great deception’ or lie, convincing us of inevitable and severe consequences if anyone is infected with SARS-CoV-2. 

Yes, the public was lied to and deceived from day one by governments and their medical advisors and the media medical cabal with its incessant messaging that we were all at equal risk of severe illness or death if infected, young and old. They subverted science. This caused irrational fear and hysteria and it has held on. This type of deception and the resulting unfounded fear has been driven by the media despite “a thousandfold difference in risk between old and young.”

We suggest that this has always been known, and yet this disinformation and related falsehoods were spread seemingly both willfully and knowingly by our leaders and the media. Such conflation of the risks between the young and the elderly population with comorbidities and at risk is wrong-headed and creates unnecessary fear for all. It is well known that there is a distinct stratified risk (strongly associated with increasing age and comorbidities). 

Additionally, data now suggests (even though still nascent) that children not only have extremely low risk as mentioned above but also that they naturally have the capability of evading the SARS-CoV-2 virus due to the lack of the ACE-2 receptors in their nostrils. It escapes us as to why this deceit continues to be served to the public and has not been stopped forthwith. 

What does the evidence show? Well, evidence is accumulating about the potential harms of mask use (references 1234567891011121314151617181920212223). For example, the CDC’s own February 2021 double-mask study reported that masking may impede breathing – which can trigger a variety of other problems including acute anxiety attacks in susceptible individuals. These harms are even more likely to occur to children, particularly smaller children.

The scientific evidence in total also suggests masks (surgical and cloth masks) as currently used are ineffective in reducing transmission (references 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425). Even if we tried to tease out ‘minimal help’ and say ‘they may help a little,’ these Covid-19 masks are largely ineffective. In many reports, conclusively so. As an example, a very recent publication stated that face masks become nonconsequential and do not function after 20 minutes due to saturation. “Those masks are only effective so long as they are dry,” said Professor Yvonne Cossart of the Department of Infectious Diseases at the University of Sydney.” As soon as they become saturated with the moisture in your breath, they stop doing their job and pass on the droplets.” In a similar light, there are indications that wearing a mask that has already been used, which is very common, is riskier than if one wore no mask at all. The evidence on mask mandates is also clear in that they are ineffective and do not work (references 123456) to prevent the spread of respiratory viruses like SARS-CoV-2. 

We don’t have a wealth of scientific evidence on exactly when it is safe or not safe for children to be masked, but here’s a good rule of thumb. If you wouldn’t put a child in the front seat of your Prius without disabling the airbag – think twice before requiring an otherwise healthy child to wear a mask – or even forcing them to social distance in school. 

On the dangers of masks generally, a recent mini-review reported “There are insufficient data to quantify all of the adverse effects that might reduce the acceptability, adherence and effectiveness of face masks.”  We agree that the adequate primary type comparative effectiveness research is still not available but we do have strong anecdotal, reported, and real-world information as indicated above, along with some primary evidence, which we have judged appropriate to inform the discussion sufficiently. 

During April to October 2020 in the US, emergency room visits linked to mental health problems (e.g. anxiety) for children aged 5-11 increased by nearly 25% and increased by 31% for those aged 12-17 years old as compared to the same period in 2019. During the month of June 2020, 25% of persons aged 18 to 24 in the US reported suicidal ideation. While some of this may be related to the pandemic, we suspect that it is largely a function of our response to the pandemic.

One of the most starkly revealing and troubling observations come from Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson MD, PhD, who is one of Europe’s leading neurologists and neurophysiologists focused on neurotoxicology, environmental medicine, neuro-regeneration and neuroplasticity. She has gone on record stating: “The rebreathing of our exhaled air will without a doubt create oxygen deficiency and a flooding of carbon dioxide. We know that the human brain is very sensitive to oxygen deprivation.” There are neurons, for example in the hippocampus that cannot survive more than 3 minutes without an adequate supply of oxygen. Given that such cells are so sensitive to oxygen deprivation, their functionality must be affected by low oxygen levels. 

Oxygen deprivation can cause metabolic changes and the metabolic changes that happen in neuronal cells are vitally important for cognitive functioning and brain plasticity and it is known that when drastic metabolic shifts occur in the brain, there are consequent changes of oxidative stress (cellular oxidative state) and these have a significant role in managing neuron functioning (we do not claim that masking would produce complete absence of oxygen of course).  

The acute warning symptoms are headaches, drowsiness, dizziness, reduced ability to concentrate and reductions in cognitive function. Given that the development of neurodegenerative diseases can take years to develop, then what are the potentially deleterious effects of the use of masks, especially in children, when masks are used over the majority of their day? We and particularly parents, must consider this and weigh the benefits versus the harms. Are there benefits enough to warrant use relative to the potential harms? If the harms outweigh the benefits, then we cannot in good conscience advocate for mask use. Moreover, the continual and stressful impacts of masking (and school closures) will also have a known and deleterious impact on the immune systems in children (and adults). 

Other medical harms relate to the notion that children and adolescents have an extremely active and adaptive immune system, a system that must be challenged in order to retain functionality. Yet by severely restricting children’s activities because of lockdowns and masking (physical activity/fitness exercises are almost impossible whilst wearing a mask), we are probably hobbling their immune systems. Evidence indicates that regular physical activity and frequent exercise enhance immune competency and regulation

A child unexposed to nature has little defense against a minor illness, which can become overwhelming due to the lack of a primed ‘tuned-up’ and ‘taxed’ immune system. A robust immune system shortens an illness as a consequence of the presence of preprogrammed anamnestic immunity. Preventing children from such interactions with nature and germs can and does lead to overwhelming infections and serious consequences to the health and life of a child. We might be setting up our children for future disaster when they emerge from societal restrictions fully and with no masks, to then be at the mercy of normally benign opportunistic infections with a now weakened immune system. This cannot be disregarded as we consider the consequences of our actions today in this pandemic and the questionable lockdownsschool closures, and mask policies. 

— 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

German-wide registry (not the optimal highest-quality study) used by 20,353 parents who reported on data from almost 26,000 children, found that the “average wearing time of the mask was 270 minutes per day. Impairments caused by wearing the mask were reported by 68% of the parents. These included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%) impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).”  

Concerns are being raised regarding psychological damage and why a mask is not ‘just a mask.’ There is tremendous psychological damage to infants and children, with potential catastrophic impacts on the cognitive development of children. This is even more critical in relation to children with special needs or those within the autism spectrum who need to be able to recognize facial expressions as part of their ongoing development. The accumulating evidence also suggests that prolonged mask use in children or adults can cause harms, so much so that Dr. Blaylock states “the bottom line is that [if] you are not sick, you should not wear a mask.” Furthermore, Dr. Blaylock writes, “By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.”

In sum, as mentioned, the optimal comparative research on harms has not sufficiently accumulated but what has been reported is sufficient to inform and guide us in our debate on the potential harms of mask use (surgical and cloth), especially in children. But we do have real-world evidence. While additional evidence will help clarify the extent of risk, the existing details are sobering enough and of tremendous utility as we consider the benefits versus the harms of mask use. Even the potential of minimal harm is enough to prevent justification of such use. 

Remember, even Dr. Fauci told us in 2020 that masks are not needed and not effective as you may think it is (March 2020 with Jon LaPook, 60 Minutes). Para ‘no need to walk around with one.’ Dr. Fauci was indeed telling you the science then, and the science has not changed. His statement “it is not providing the perfect protection that people think…” may have changed, but the science remains crystal clear on effectiveness, or lack of. 

We call on parents to consider this and to carefully weigh the benefits versus the downsides/harms of masks to their children. This really is not an issue of the ‘science’ as kids do not spread the virus readily to kids, to adults, to teachers, or to the home. They do not get severely ill or die from this. Moreover, teachers are at very low risk of severe illness or death and the school setting remains one of the safest, lowest risk environments. 

The science is clear and thus the question becomes, what is the benefit of masks for children? Is masking of children really more about seeming to be doing something even if it is ineffective or possibly harmful? If the possible harms outweigh the negligible and questionable benefit in such a low-risk group, then why must they wear masks indoors and outdoors at school? Masks in children with such near zero risk of transmission and illness from Covid is not necessary and illogical and irrational. This is similar to the need for vaccination of children, especially young children. Children were not part of the vaccine research and also the very low risk to children raises very troubling questions of why. A move to vaccinate children based on the existing risk evidence has no basis in science and there is no net benefit. 

Why then did Dr. Fauci call for this? What is the benefit? Is this similar to when Dr. Fauci initially called for double masking, only to then retract the statement? An ‘assumption’ or ‘speculation’ or ‘supposition’ it may work is not science! Is a ‘children vaccine’ retraction coming from Dr. Fauci? Absolutely, children need vaccinations for measles, mumps, rubella etc. but not for Covid. Similar for masks, there is no benefit we can see. 

To close, masking children is as absurd, illogical, nonsensical, and potentially dangerous as trying to stop ‘every case of Covid’ or ‘stopping Covid at all costs.’ Masks are not needed for children based on near zero risk in children. The risk of dying from Covid-19 is “almost zero” for young people. The issue of masks in children is really a risk management question for parents and any decision-maker. The science is settled.

Reprinted with permission from American Institute for Economic Research

  anthony fauci, covid-19 masks, covid-19 restrictions, mask mandates, masks


Apple’s latest iOS update features emojis of bearded women, coronavirus vaccine

Users of iPhones and other Apple products can now access emojis of bearded women and 'a gender-neutral individual with a beard.'
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 12:23 pm EST
Featured Image
Victoria Gisondi Follow Victoria
By Victoria Gisondi

April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Apple’s iOS 14.5 update features 217 new emojis, which include bearded women and coronavirus vaccines.

The organization which creates the emojis, the Unicode Consortium, made new emojis of mixed-race same-sex couples with over 200 skin tones and bearded women, “allowing users to choose among a bearded man, a bearded woman or a gender-neutral individual with a beard.” 

In an article mocking Apple, Not The Bee noted that there are no redheaded women with beards in its new emoji line-up.

Apple has also added an emoji designed to look like a coronavirus vaccine – a syringe with clear fluid.

“The syringe with blood emoji is changed to one with a pale liquid to represent the Covid-19 vaccine,” a Mirror article noted. The emoji was “previously shown with blood on all platforms” but is “[n]ow shown with an empty barrel on iOS and Twitter, making this emoji more useful for representing vaccination,” according to Emojipedia.

The update will also allow users to unlock their iPhones and Apple watches with facial recognition software that won’t require them to remove face masks.

Apple is one of many giant corporations, along with Deutsche Bank, Walgreens, and Amazon to promote and provide vaccinations to its employees onsite. The Hill reported, “Apple last month began offering paid time off to employees to get vaccinated, as well as paid sick leave for workers who experienced side effects from the shots.”

  apple, coronavirus, coronavirus vaccine, emoji, homosexuality, same-sex 'marriage', transgenderism


After loud rebukes from Supreme Court, California Gov. Newsom quietly scraps ban on church singing

Newsom’s coronavirus website now says religious service capacity limits and singing restrictions are 'strongly recommended,' not 'mandatory.'
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 11:43 am EST
Featured Image
California Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom Shutterstock

SACRAMENTO, California, April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Governor Gavin Newsom suddenly abandoned his 10-month old COVID-19 singing ban on churches last Friday, in response to a series of losses before the U.S. Supreme Court. The governor had already abandoned mandating church capacity limits several weeks ago after justices rebuked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the governor for continuing to violate the religious liberty rights of churches by imposing pandemic regulations favoring secular businesses and services.

“This is the fifth time the Court has summarily rejected the Ninth Circuit’s analysis of California’s COVID restrictions on religious exercise,” the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in a 5 to 4 decision on Tandon v. Newsom on April 9, 2021. 

Newsom’s coronavirus website now says religious service capacity limits and singing restrictions are “strongly recommended,” not “mandatory.”

“In response to recent judicial rulings, effective immediately, location and capacity limits on places of worship are not mandatory but are strongly recommended. Additionally, the restrictions on indoor singing and chanting are recommended only, and are consistent with the recommendations in the guidance on gatherings,” the website reads under the heading, “Places of worship and cultural ceremonies - updated April 23, 2021.” 

“All Californians owe a debt of gratitude to the faith leaders and civil rights groups who stood up to the governor’s illegal violations of our religious liberty rights. Without their willingness to peacefully resist and speak up, houses of worship would still be in lockdown,” said Jonathan Keller, President of California Family Council. “A pandemic is no excuse to discriminate against believers. Our Constitution mandates that religious practice be treated as essential, not tossed aside and treated like a frivolous pastime.” 

One of the first attorneys to file a lawsuit against Newsom’s illegal church building closures was Dean Broyles, President of the National Center for Law and Policy. 

“While California’s lifting of the capacity limits and worship ban are indeed welcome, it is incredible that it took this long for Governor Newsom to see the handwriting on the wall,” stated Broyles. “It was clear back on November 25, 2020, when the Supreme Court issued its game-changing ruling in Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo that California’s draconian church restrictions were blatantly unconstitutional. California’s persisting religious antipathy and stubborn resistance towards people of faith is unique among many poor national examples. Californians have endured a lot of unnecessary collateral damage, including spiritually,” continued Broyles. “If we are to remain a free people, we must never again allow a virus, or any other declared emergency, to suspend our fundamental constitutional rights.”    

Although he welcomes Newsom’s policy changes, Broyles said the fight is not over since the governor’s changes aren’t permanent. Last Friday, Broyles filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit in Cornerstone Church v. Newsom (a.k.a. Cross Culture Christian Center v. Newsom), a case which challenges church capacity limits.  The appeal is necessary because of Newsom’s track record of “moving the goalposts.”  

Last Thursday, Broyles also filed a complaint in Calvary Chapel Ukiah v. Newsom, a case involving a church 60 miles north of Santa Rosa, which continues to challenge California’s ability to impose a congregational worship ban. Broyles says the fight must continue because, if there is another supposed “spike” in infections, California could quickly reimpose unconstitutional religious restrictions (i.e. capacity limits and worship ban) if the State is not enjoined. 


California priest scores major victory against Gov. Newsom, can keep church open

A courageous priest is fighting Gov. Newsom’s anti-God tyranny

California gov. parties at exclusive restaurant as citizens banned from multi-family gatherings

SCOTUS says at-home religious services are permitted in California

Photos show Newsom and pals flouting California’s virus restrictions indoors at restaurant

  california, coronavirus, gavin newsom, singing


US bishops’ conference denies any wrongdoing in ongoing Peter’s Pence lawsuit, blames parishioners

Lawyers for the bishops asserted that parishioners ought to have been aware that Peter’s Pence donations could be used by the Holy See for any purpose, despite their own advertisement to the contrary.
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 11:31 am EST
Featured Image
Parishioner donating money in church Shutterstock
David McLoone David McLoone Follow

WASHINGTON, April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In an ongoing case regarding the use of Peter’s Pence donations, lawyers for the U.S. bishops have asserted that parishioners were aware (or at least ought to have been) that their money could be used by the Holy See for any purpose, despite their own advertisement to the contrary.

The Peter’s Pence lawsuit was originally filed in January 2020 against the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) by the Stanley Law Group based in Dallas, Texas, representing a Class Action brought by Catholic layman David O’Connell. The suit raises allegations against the USCCB’s promotion of Peter’s Pence, accusing the episcopal conference of “actively” misleading Catholics into believing their millions of dollars in donations to the collection would be used to help “victims of war, oppression, natural disaster, or disease.”

According to the 23-page complaint, Peter’s Pence is a “special collection taken from Catholics every June” and is described by the USCCB as a fund that “supports the Pope’s philanthropy by giving the Holy Father the means to provide emergency assistance to those in need because of natural disaster, war, oppression, and disease.”

Instead of supporting the above charitable causes, reports from Italy’s L’Espresso confirmed that “roughly $560 million” had been “diverted into ‘reckless speculative operations’” at the Swiss investment company Credit Suisse, for example. In all, the “investments” accounted for around “77 per cent of the collections,” the report said.

Much of the money collected under the guise of charity was funnelled into morally questionable ventures, such as Hollywood’s sexually explicit Elton John biopic “Rocketman,” “luxury condominium developments” that ended up losing the Vatican millions of dollars, and “hefty, multi-million dollar commissions” to fund managers.

The suit alleges that “as little as 10% has found its way to the needy for whom it was given,” although some commentators have suggested that figure comes closer to a mere five percent.

An accompanying press release argued that the USCCB is “liable under theories of common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty” for “misleadingly soliciting millions of dollars in charitable donations that were diverted into private investments.”

“USCCB must come clean and give back the money it took from well-intentioned people who thought they were giving urgently-needed funds to help the destitute around the world,” Marc Stanley, the lead counsel representing the Class Action against the USCCB, said at the time.

Following the complaint being filed in a Rhode Island court, the local jurisdiction under which O’Connell was living, the USCCB opened a Motion to Dismiss the case on February 13, 2020, claiming a lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3) and requesting Washington, D.C., as an alternative venue to continue proceedings.

In response, Stanley agreed to transfer the venue, rather than argue against the request or drop the case. The Rhode Island Court granted the request to transfer to D.C. the following May, denying the USCCB’s attendant Motion to Dismiss as “moot.” So began a series of evasive moves by the USCCB’s counsel.

Following the case being transferred to a new jurisdiction, it was assigned to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has since been tipped to be President Joe Biden’s pick for the Supreme Court after he nominated her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia less than a month ago.

On June 2, 2020, the USCCB petitioned Brown for an extension to answer the complaints raised within the Class Action lawsuit, which she granted, giving the defense just over one month to prepare.

Within their July 6 reply, the USCCB flatly denied virtually all allegations, including the simple fact that they promoted the collection of Peter’s Pence donations for the purpose of helping those on the fringes of society, something expressly claimed on promotional material provided by the conference, but since deleted from the USCCB website.

Subsequently, on July 10, the conference moved again to have the case dismissed, basing their request on “lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.”

According to the USCCB, the complaint concerns a matter of internal Church governance over which the court may not assert jurisdiction, consistent with the First Amendment, in what is known as the “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.” The conference added that the complaint “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” essentially asserting that O’Connell has not provided sufficient facts to indicate a violation of law has occurred.

Stanley noted that, though much attention is given by the conference to “exacting pleading standards,” that, in fact, “the thrust of its argument is to disclaim any fiduciary relationship to Mr. O’Connell or any donor to Peter’s Pence.” The conference, indeed, denied all fiduciary duties to O’Connell, asserting that his claim of a fiduciary relationship arises “out of the same sparse nucleus of fact as his fraud claim.”

In essence, this means that the USCCB does not believe it is in a position of trust with parishioners in matters pertaining to the custody of donations to Peter’s Pence, placing blame squarely on the shoulders of the faithful American Catholic parishioners who donate to the Peter’s Pence collection.

The conference, therefore, asserted that parishioners were (or at least ought to have been) aware that donations to Peter’s Pence could be used by the Holy See for any purpose, despite their own advertisement to the contrary.

Notably, the motion did not mention the allegations that money was funnelled into expensive London real estate and to other European investments funds, nor did it dispute that donations did not find their way to the poor and suffering, as was promised by the USCCB’s promotional material.

As part of the defense’s response to the “breach of fiduciary duties” allegation, the USCCB focused its efforts on denying the existence of any fiduciary relationship whatsoever, adding that there are “no facts to support a conclusion that the USCCB is a fiduciary to American Catholics generally, or that the USCCB had a relationship of trust and confidence with Plaintiff personally.” Consequently, the conference described the fiduciary claim as based on “bald allegations.”

Countering, Stanley noted that, “other than questioning the sufficiency of the allegations, USCCB’s only claimed ground for dismissal of the fiduciary duty claim is the ostensible absence of a fiduciary relationship.”

He explained that “the complaint makes clear that per its own Guidelines, USCCB requires — of itself, its dioceses, and churches — scrupulous honesty, transparency, and accountability to donors at every step of every collection process, to ensure that donor intent is honored.”

“As the only entity in charge of promoting and administering the Peter’s Pence collection in the United States, which it does pursuant to Guidelines that are binding upon dioceses, USCCB has a fiduciary duty to donors to act as a fiduciary and honor donor intent when it solicits charitable donations through its subordinates.”

As part of the ongoing legal proceedings, a Motion Hearing was held, via video-conference, at the U.S. District Court in D.C. January 28, 2021.

Throughout the course of the hearing, the USCCB’s counsel maintained the position that “there are situations in which a civil court should not insert itself into what are internal questions of church governance,” invoking ecclesiastical abstention. This not only covers matters of administration and doctrine, they argued, but also “spending decisions.”

The defense, headed by Emmet T. Flood, expanded, characterizing O’Connell’s complaint as basically “an idea of how his donation would be used immediately and exclusively,” and that simply because this did not happen as he thought it would, the judge ought not to get involved in internal affairs. “A civil court … should not be able to tell a religious institution how to spend its money,” the USCCB contended.

Brown questioned the fairness of the argument, simplifying the matter as follows: “[T]here is a great disparity between how this Peter’s Pence fund collection is being marketed and what the vast majority of the collection is actually used for … isn’t that a classic fraud kind of dynamic?”

Brown noted that O’Connell’s complaint was not that money was used for purposes not advertised simply, but that the money was understood to be used “in a certain way” by virtue of the accompanying promotion. The claim, then, has more to do with being deceived about the general intention behind raising the Peter’s Pence funds and the actual use thereof.

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

As the hearing continued, Flood repeatedly relied on arguments based on the particularity of the fraud claim made by O’Connell in the Class Action case. His argument was that O’Connell himself did not clearly define that he heard or received, in whatever manner, a misleading instruction from the conference as to the destination of his donation to Peter’s Pence, and that he has to be able to point to some particular instance thereof in order to make the fraud claim. All the while, Flood did not dispute the claim that the conference displayed misleading or false information regarding the use of Peter’s Pence funds.

O’Connell did, however, claim that he had heard from the conference that there was an annual collection, handled by the USCCB and given to Peter’s Pence for the sake of assisting the poor and marginalized. Stanley later pointed out that “this is a once-a-year solicitation, a special collection once a year … we do say that O’Connell heard that, and he relied on it and he donated money.”

The complaint also noted that O’Connell would have withheld his donation, had he known the true destination of the funds.

Flood retorted that the USCCB is not, “by reason of structure, in a position” to know where the money from Peter’s Pence donations ends up, arguing that fundraising would be useless “without giving [parishioners] some sense of where it might go.”

As was noted in O’Connell’s original claim, the USCCB “has always known the difference between a donation for emergency assistance and a donation to defray Vatican expenses” but “hid this distinction in its promotion, oversight, and administration of the Peter’s Pence collection in the United States.”

Consequently, the USCCB “has effectively profited at the expense of David O’Connell and members of the public.”

Brown suggested that the allegation of fraud can be made by O’Connell without knowing the precise mechanics behind the USCCB’s involvement in Peter’s Pence fundraising, some of which may only be known to the USCCB about the use of donations, especially prior to discovery. She added that, “given the allegations that place the Conference at the center of this [case] with respect to the alleged misrepresentations, I’m not sure he [O’Connell] needs to say more than when they made the statement.”

“Don't solicit money telling people this goes to the poor if you either don’t know where it goes or if it’s going to all of these investments and whatever before it gets to the poor, such that people are confused or people feel as though they haven’t been leveled with in terms of how this money is being allocated,” Brown added.

Following the conclusion of the hearing on January 28, the parties await Brown’s judgement, which could be delayed owing to her recent nomination to replace Attorney General Merrick Garland at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

  david o'connell, peter's pence, usccb


How to resist a Catholic school board that wants to fly the homosexual pride flag

‘Trustees should take decisions faithful to the history of Catholic education, the primary purpose of which is to help students to be holy and get to heaven, enjoy union with God.’
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 10:43 am EST
Featured Image
Homosexual pride flag Shutterstock
LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — After much resistance from faithful Catholics, the Halton Catholic District School Board in Ontario decided during an illegal meeting on Monday not to fly the pro-homosexual “pride” flag at its schools. Nevertheless, all school staff must undergo “mandatory training” on LGBT students, and schools must “raise awareness around Pride month” and post pro-LGBT signage “to ensure that students in the 2SLGBT community are supported throughout the entire school year.”

The partial victory was made possible by concerned Catholics. Below, LifeSiteNews documents one such effort: a letter sent to Patrick Murphy, chair of the Board of Trustees, by Dan Di Rocco, “a former Catholic school trustee, retired principal, father and grandfather.”

“The Board appears to be facilitating the promotion of a gay political and cultural agenda, step by step, by entertaining such dangerous and divisive requests” as flying the rainbow flag, Di Rocco warned.

He also pointed out that at previous board meetings on the issue, several “false statements were allowed to stand without anyone challenging them. One example was that of a parent saying that Jesus asked us to respect all diversities. That is nonsensical. He never said anything of the sort. Wrong doing and false worship were condemned by Jesus many times.”

“Trustees should take decisions faithful to the history of Catholic education, the primary purpose of which is to help students to be holy and get to heaven, enjoy union with God,” Di Rocco explained. “It may sound trite, passé, but it is the truth and the only real justification for having a system of education separate from the public one.”

Full text of the letter:

Patrick Murphy, Chair
Board of Trustees
Halton Catholic District School Board

Dear Mr. Murphy,

It is with disappointment in my heart that I write this letter after watching the proceedings of the April 20 meeting of the Board of Trustees of the HCDSB.

As a former Catholic school trustee, retired principal, father and grandfather, I appreciate the delicate nature of the topic up for discussion. But, I was flummoxed by the inability or unwillingness of trustees to defend clearly and unequivocally the rights of parents and students to a true and robust Catholic education in the schools under their fiduciary care.

It has always been my understanding that the primary purpose of Catholic schools is to transmit the truth of the Catholic faith, impart knowledge, moral values, and love for Jesus, preparing them for a good death so they will enjoy their ultimate destiny, union with God in heaven. In addition to the regular aims of education, Catholic schools exist for this supernatural objective — well defined, well explained, well set forth in word and deed, in the liturgy, the sacraments, and the living examples of the teachers, parents, and fellow students.

Given this raison d’être, trustees of the HCDSB should not find it difficult to say no to an unreasonable, divisive and improper request — that of flying the rainbow flag. That flag has a history and it does not symbolize inclusiveness, diversity, tolerance and love. Rather, it signifies special privilege, arrogance, aggression and support for an immoral lifestyle.

There were many elements of that board meeting that I found befuddling. One trustee sported a rainbow t-shirt, clearly manifesting support for the motion, meaning that she is not impartial, but, rather a person with a closed mind.

More than once, trustees thanked pro-flag delegations profusely, in glowing terms, commending them for their “courage” in making their presentations.

Thank you for your wonderful delegation

Great presentation

Excellent presentation … so eloquent

It shows a lot of hard work

Every delegation ought to be recognized and politely thanked for their presentation, but without using effusive, sycophantic language to encourage them in their false or immature understanding of the faith. Little effort was made to correct their biased, and in some instances, outlandish statements.

The questions asked of the presenters (at least three different times) by certain trustees, were exactly the same, and shamelessly tailored to evoke the same answer, limited as it was. I invite the entire Board of Trustees to watch their own performances to see how other people might construe their attitudes, statements and facial expressions.

Some trustees and a few pro-flag-flying presenters at times displayed a supercilious, off-putting, aggressive tone, not in the least interested or open to points of view that differed from their own preconceived notions, even in the face of truthful statements made by the two parents and the priest who presented in opposition to the motion.

What about the actual content of what was discussed and the arguments presented by the various delegations?

It was said that flying the rainbow flag would be a symbol of acceptance, inclusiveness, safety, togetherness, unity, love, hope, tolerance of diversity, sense of belonging, etc. Repeatedly, the question was asked of the students and parents promoting the flying of that flag, what it would mean for them. They gave the same answer each time. But, they also mentioned that it was merely the first step to more fully accepting and celebrating the gay agenda. They mentioned the need for teachers and other staff to learn to use the proper pronouns, to stock school libraries with their gay literature, to welcome gay-freindly posters in the classroom, to have the teachers take sensitivity training, probably to learn how to engage in self-censorship, etc.

The Board appears to be facilitating the promotion of a gay political and cultural agenda, step by step, by entertaining such dangerous and divisive requests.

Many false statements were allowed to stand without anyone challenging them. One example was that of a parent saying that Jesus asked us to respect all diversities. That is nonsensical. He never said anything of the sort. Wrong doing and false worship were condemned by Jesus many times. Another example was the statement about Jesus meeting the woman at the well and how that showed that we must likewise respect people from different backgrounds. The point of the meeting was not that Jesus dared to meet with a foreigner (and a Samaritan woman to boot) but rather that he gently gave her a lesson and an opportunity to be saved by believing in him, the living water. All have the chance to be saved, Gentile or Jew. Everyone is welcome at the banquet. He told her all about herself, even the many husbands she had had. She saw the need to repent and turn away from her sinful past. And she did. It’s what all of us sinners are asked to do to be saved. That is why Jesus came into the world. It is why there is a Catholic school system.

— 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

How these students could not be taught a proper reading and understanding of the scriptures they were quoting is disturbing. They either have not been taught or they have not understood the meaning of Jesus’ actions and words.

Another unacceptable statement was that we are “not to condemn, judge or marginalize people”. It is well-meaning but taken out of context. If the correction is done for the salvation of the individual we have a responsibility to point out the problem and try to show them the better way and the truth of the matter. I can still love my child and yet insist that certain actions are sinful and ought to be avoided. I can love a person who may resort to stealing, or fighting, or being disrespectful, being disobedient, gambling, cheating on exams, but in charity I need to point out that the action is not acceptable, that it is harmful. Correction is needed. Failure to correct is moral cowardice.

It seems to me that, in fact, it is easier today to go along with the crowd than to insist on truth. The parent’s G. K. Chesterton quote was apropos. One trustee was afraid to take a stand, feeling that he did not wish to insert politics into it. A trustee is elected to make decisions and those decisions are political because they impact the community of believers. A person who stands in the middle of the road usually gets run over.

The reality is that when something has a high moral price, only committed people will pursue it. A new magisterium is seeking to take over, that of the gay rights regime, working for the one percent of the population. If teachers, parents, critics and trustees accept self-censorship for fear of reprisal then the public discourse is definitely dominated by the totalitarian mentality.

Several times it was stated that “it is 2021!” What is that supposed to mean? There is no longer a need to teach morality? No need to speak the truth? Sin has been eradicated? It is a foolish statement, but was delivered in a rebuking fashion, “come on you rubes get with it”. In fact, one trustee uttered a foolish statement that scriptures were written for other reasons that don’t really apply today. She seemed to be denying the eternal truth of the inspired word of God. Amazing, and from a Catholic trustee!

On one of the occasions that the phrase “It’s 2021” was spoken, it was followed immediately by the challenge that “we should practise what we preach”. That’s exactly what these students, teachers and parents wishing to fly that rainbow flag should do — practice the Catholic faith as taught by the magisterium.

How is flying that flag a divisive, and therefore unacceptable course of action? There are several reasons. For one, it extends to a small group of individuals a special privilege denied to all others. The student, teacher or parent who has same sex attraction is foisting their agenda and their values on the rest of the community. The Canadian and Ontario flags already include everyone. There is no special need. It would be an exercise of power on the part of the promoters of the gay life style, and in contradiction of Catholic moral teaching concerning that lifestyle. The individual who experiences such attraction is to be respected and loved, but the lifestyle needs to be described for what it is, immoral and harmful to self and society.

On a practical level, why stop with just a rainbow flag? Why not a flag each week denoting a different cause and a different agenda; pirate flags; disability flags; sports team flags; occupational flags; real estate flags; capitalist flags; the United Nations flag; the Olympics flag; themunicipality’s flag; chamber of commerce flags; Black Lives Matter flags; asian flags; safety flags; music flags; health food flags; etc. etc. ad nauseam. No one person or group is more important than others. One flag for the nation, one flag for the province and one flag for the faith. That is it. Period.

There were other statements made that deserve appropriate attention and a response - ”We are wonderfully made”. Exactly, we ought to keep ourselves that way, live up to the aspirations and responsibility given to us. We should strive to do everything in our power to avoid any sinful behaviour.

Another vacuous statement was — “June is known as flag month”. Really? Something that a group of politically motivated people thought up a few years ago, suddenly acquires the status of a longstanding tradition, going back hundreds of years. I am certain that there must be at least a dozen other “causes” that celebrate something in the month of June depending on the national context; Father’s day; graduation day; Hernia awareness day; migraine and headache awareness day; Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) awareness; Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome awareness; world infertility awareness; professional wellness; hunger awareness; National Aboriginal History Month; Canadian Armed Forces Day; Canadian Environment Week; Clean Air Day Canada; National Blood Donor Week; National Public Service Week; National Day of Remembrance for Victims of Terrorism; Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day; Canadian Multiculturailsm Day; and a host of other such awarenes days or celebratory days. But, as Father Roginski stated, in the church tradition, June is dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, just as May is traditionally seen as the month of Mary, and October as the month of the Rosary. So why fly the rainbow flag that divides the community? Father Roginski is right; an appropriate and thoroughly Catholic theme for June should be what unites us, the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Unfortunately, the board’s trustees do not seem to understand the true nature of the gay agenda, (or worse, perhaps some of the trustees are fellow travellers). People with homosexual attraction, as activist operatives, have worked and agitated for the last four to five decades. These tactitians proceed, step by step, in a clever, stealthful manner, according to the rules set down for radicals by Marxist thinkers and activists like the American, Saul Alinsky, and the Italian, Antonio Gramsci. It would be wise to learn about these political philosophers and activists. Their influence is everywhere.

This ‘innocent’ request for flying of the rainbow flag should not fool you or deceive you. It is part of a common thread that binds certain developments together — namely, a secular, humanist philosophy of life, (to be seen in law, entertainment, education, music, and politics, etc.) — one in which human nature is portrayed as infinitely malleable, freed from any belief in God, and in which the human will is sovereign, able to choose and create its own sense of reality. The original lie made to Eve by the serpent still holds, “You will be like God, having knowledge of good and evil”. It means making your own decision of what is right and wrong; you will be your own master, your own god, your own reference point. You can build a wonderful, sane, rational, progressive society, without the need of God.

Trustees should take decisions faithful to the history of Catholic education, the primary purpose of which is to help students to be holy and get to heaven, enjoy union with God. It may sound trite, passé, but it is the truth and the only real justification for having a system of education separate from the public one. Students can learn or aquire general and discrete skills and knowledge anywhere — whether public schools, private schools, virtual schools or homeschool or any combination thereof.

Have the courage to say no to the request. To acquiesce to this immoral request is to act as quislings, as traitors to the faith and to the sacrifices of parents, students, priests, teachers and trustees who have gone before us. I remember vividly my grade 3 teacher, Miss Mary Duffy at Holy Rosary School in Hamilton working at the Brewer’s Retail store on Friday nights to make ends meet because the pay for Catholic teachers was so low; and yet, she made the sacrifice to teach in that school and to give her students an excellent education. That is just one example.

We should not forget the deep roots of our Christian society. It is those spiritual roots that nourished and protected our society, that emphasized the protection and empowerment of individuals and institutions against the absolutist claims of the state. Catholic schools have contributed mightily to the well-being of Ontario. It has helped to shape the society for the better. This heritage should not be tossed aside.

To give in to these requests for special privileges is illogical, unproductive, destructive, divisive and a sad gutting of the sacrificial efforts of past generations of Catholics in the province of Ontario. It is to surrender to a slick, immoral political agenda whose proponents will return each year (if not each month) with an ever-expanding list of innocuous-sounding demands that will never satiate them.

Do the right thing. Just say no to a request that has no genuine justification in fact or in spirit. Be not afraid to speak the truth. The supporters for the flag-flying are indeed correct — it gives them hope, but unfortunately it is a badly placed hope. Real hope lies in the promise of Christ.

You have the opportunity to lead in a positive renewal of Catholic education. Don’t drive a rainbow coloured stake into its heart.

Dan Di Rocco
Markham, Ontario

  catholic, dan di rocco, halton catholic district school board, halton school board, homosexuality, patrick murphy


The decimal point that blew up the world

The lockdowners who created this appalling disaster, the people who turned our trust into betrayal and a blizzard of statistical baloney, need to look at the science and data as they stand and come clean.
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 2:30 pm EST
Featured Image
President Trump delivers remarks at a coronavirus press briefing Friday, March 20, 2020, in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House. Official White House Photo / Shealah Craighead
Jeffrey A. Tucker
By Jeffrey Tucker

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

Editor’s Note: This article was first published Dec. 16, 2020. LifeSite is publishing this because of the still significant data the article refers to, indicating there is not now and never has been a need for a vaccine for this relatively mild virus, or any “variants,” that are not as dangerous as the public wrongly believes. Enormous fear was generated by Fauci and others because of seriously incorrect interpretations of the data and that fear unfortunately still exists.

April 28, 2021 (American Institute for Economic Research) – What was the basis of panic that led the lights to darken on civilization? The most important date here might be March 11, 2020. That’s when Congress itself flew into an unwarranted panic, and acquiesced to a lockdown at the urging of the “experts.” State governors followed one by one, with few exceptions, and the rest of the world joined the lockdown frenzy. 

In February, people were aching to know the answer to the following. Would this “novel virus” have familiar patterns we associate with the flu, seasonal colds, and other predictable and manageable pathogens? Or would this be something entirely different, unprecedented in our lifetimes, terrifying, and universally deadly?

Crucial in this stage was public-health messaging. In previous pandemics from post-1918 throughout the 20th century, the central messaging was to stay calm, go to the doctor if you feel sick, avoid deliberately infecting others, and otherwise trust the systems in place and keep society functioning. This was long considered responsible public-health messaging, and this was pretty much where we stood throughout most of January and February, when publications regardless of their political outlook maintained sobriety and rationality. 

Something dramatically changed this time. They pushed panic, tapping into a primal fear of disease. The reality of pandemic, as it turns out, has been familiar. The severity of its impact has been radically disparate across demographics, hitting mainly the elderly and infirm with 40% of deaths tracing to long-term care facilities with an average age of death nearly equal to the average lifespan. It is regionally migratory. It follows a seasonal pattern from pandemic to its endemic equilibrium. 

What has been different has been the messaging that has almost universally been structured to create public frenzy, from the New York Times’s February 28 [2020] urge to “go medieval” to Salon’s latest demand that we panic even more. 

My own sense of impending doom began on March 6 [2020] with the cancellation of South by Southwest in Austin, Texas, an action of the mayor alone, and completely without modern precedent. I wrote about it on March 8. Four days later, President Trump gave a nationwide address that ended with a shocking announcement that all flights from Europe would be stopped to keep the coronavirus out even though the virus had been here since January. The next day, on March 13 [2020], the administration issued what amounted to a shutdown plan for the nation

This timeline, however, misses a crucial step. 

We should be grateful to Ronald B. Brown of Waterloo University for his extraordinary paper that appears in Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness (Vol 14, No. 3): “Public Health Lessons Learned From Biases in Coronavirus Mortality Overestimation.” It also appears on the website of the National Institutes of Health with a date of August 12. Our author’s thesis was that the wild overreaction and unprecedented lockdowns of life began with what was a terminological mixup that led to a misplacement of a decimal point in a report from the National Institutes of Health. 

It was a seemingly small error but it provided the basis on which Anthony Fauci testified at the House Oversight and Reform Committee about the seriousness of novel coronavirus spreading across the globe.

Here is the video in question. As you watch, you will note the seeming precision of data that actually masks a huge problem. He obscures the huge difference between the infection fatality rate, the case fatality rate, and the overall death rate. Nowhere does he mention survival rates. Not one person present pushed back on his claims. In the blizzard of data, he finally summarizes in a way that terrified everyone. Covid, he said, is “10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu.” 

Even apart from that prediction, his entire demeanor was: this is entirely new, very deadly, and unbearably unmanageable without extreme measures. Fauci’s implicit message to Congress and the American people was that it is time to panic. 

Note all the confused and confusing language: he refers to the “mortality rate” without specifying what he means, throws around numbers as high as 3%, and then talks of “cases” without symptoms. In all this hot mess of seeming science, Fauci was claiming what in fact he could not know, conflating two distinct data sets, and extrapolating in ways that allowed him to make a completely unsupported claim that very obviously turned out to be false. Two years ago, 61,000 Americans of all ages died of flu, exclusive of other ailments. If you incorrectly impose on that a “case fatality rate” of 0.1% and extrapolate to Covid infections, you end up with at least 800,000 deaths from Covid alone – not “with” or “involving” Covid as the CDC classifies deaths today (that alone represents a big change). This is a scary prediction at the time; it seemed to add weight to the estimates out of the Imperial College of London that 2.2 million people would die without locking down. This testimony led a whole generation of lawmakers to believe that none of the traditional medical measures could or would work. There is no comparing this with the flu or any respiratory illness. This was the Other that justified a once-in-many-generations national emergency that required an end to our way of life. 

The trouble is that the whole claim was based on a terminological misstatement that fed a basic math error. As Brown explains:

Sampling bias in coronavirus mortality calculations led to a 10-fold increased mortality overestimation in March 11, 2020, US Congressional testimony. This bias most likely followed from information bias due to misclassifying a seasonal influenza IFR as a CFR, evident in a editorial. Evidence from the WHO confirmed that the approximate CFR of the coronavirus is generally no higher than that of seasonal influenza. By early May 2020, mortality levels from COVID-19 were considerably below predicted overestimations, a result that the public attributed to successful mitigating measures to contain the spread of the novel coronavirus.

Let’s follow Brown here as he takes the reader through the crucial differences between the IFR and the CFR. IFRs from samples across the population “include undiagnosed, asymptomatic, and mild infections.” To calculate the average IFR across the population, you do randomized samples to judge its prevalence. The results are inclusive of cases – what we used to call actual “sick” people – but extend to people who merely carry traces of the dead virus but are in no substantial danger of passing it onward or experiencing any severe outcomes. Cases, on the other hand, “are based exclusively on relatively smaller groups of moderately to severely ill diagnosed cases at the beginning of an outbreak.” The CFR is a smaller group. Brown provides the following graphic to show how epidemiology has long considered the difference. 


Based on this graphic alone, you can see why it becomes crucial to keep these terms straight. The CFR is higher; IFR is lower; the crude mortality rate is lower still. The CFR measures severity; the IFR measures prevalence. Those are the two general issues one needs to know to assess whether and to what extent a virus outbreak is mild, moderate, serious, or severe. This matters due to the long-observed evolved reality of respiratory viruses: there is a trade off between the forces. The more severe the virus, the quicker it burns itself out. The milder (and “smarter”) it is, the more it can spread. To mix up severity and prevalence is to make a mess of all the important categories that infectious disease specialists use to assess the social impact of a new virus. 

Moreover, if you are going to compare how severe a pandemic is, you have to compare apples to apples, which means at the very minimum that we must be careful to distinguish apples from oranges from pears. That is precisely what the early messaging surrounding the coronavirus did not do. 

— 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

Cases are not deaths; even more crucially, cases in a traditional sense mean that people are actually sick, not merely that they have been tested positive by a PCR test. Adding to the confusion, most data sources on Covid today use the term “cases” to identify any positive test, with or without symptoms, when the correct word would be “infections.” Further, the PCR test itself presents its own problems. As Brown notes, “A serious limitation of RT-PCR testing is that nucleic acid detection is not capable of determining the difference between infective and noninfective viruses.” The widespread use of the PCR test has made its own contribution to blurring all these crucial distinctions. 

Now consider an extraordinary article from the New England Journal of Medicine that appeared on February 28 [2020], with Anthony Fauci as the co-author. The import of the piece was to claim that Covid and flu are quite similar in severity. “The overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.”

What matters here is not the prediction as such but the switching of the word infection with case: the flu has “a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%.” This was incorrect even at the time of writing. You can call it a misprint or sloppy or downright duplicitous. Regardless, even the World Health Organization had identified the 0.1% figure as the flu’s infection fatality rate. If you assume one symptomatic confirmed case for every 10 infections (or what is now confusingly called “cumulative cases”), the error could be a misplace decimal. Fauci’s article directly contradicted the WHO, and ran counter to everything that was already then known. But his CFR claim about flu is precisely what led him to claim in front of the Congressional committee that Covid would be deadly in ways that defy all experience of this generation. 

Brown further explains: 

As the campaign to mitigate coronavirus transmission was implemented from March into May, 2020, expected coronavirus mortality totals in the United States appeared much lower than the overestimation reported in Congressional testimony on March 11. Compared with the most recent season of severe influenza A (H3N2) in 2017-2018,with 80,000 US deaths reported by CDC officials, US coronavirus mortality totals had just reached 80,000 on May 9, 2020. By then, relative to the 2017-2018 influenza, it was clear that the coronavirus mortality total for the season would be nowhere near 800,000 deaths inferred from the 10-fold mortality overestimation reported to Congress. Even after adjusting for the effect of successful mitigation measures that may have slowed down the rate of coronavirus transmission, it seems unlikely that so many deaths were completely eliminated by a nonpharmaceutical intervention such as social distancing, which was only intended to contain infection transmission, not suppress infections and related fatalities. Also in early May, 2020, a New York State survey of 1,269 COVID-19 patients recently admitted to 113 hospitals found that most of the patients had been following shelter-in-place orders for 6 wks, which raised state officials’ suspicions about social distancing effectiveness. Still, polls showed the public credited social distancing and other mitigation measures for reducing predicted COVID-19 deaths, and for keeping people safe from the coronavirus.

As of this writing, however, deaths “involving” or “with” Covid has passed 300,000, which while less than half as high as what Congress heard they would be on March 11 [2020], is still quite high, provided these deaths have not been broadly misclassified. However, on March 24 [2020], the CDC made an announcement of serious significance. It would now calculate coronavirus mortality by including “probable” and “likely” deaths in the International Classification of Diseases code (ICD). 

This became an invitation to misclassification. People who otherwise would have previously been classified as having heart disease or some other comorbidity could now be classified as Covid. This also included a financial incentive to do just that. For this reason, when the CDC announced that “for 6% of the deaths, Covid-19 was the only cause mentioned,” it came as a shock to people. What that means is that 94% of the deaths attributed to Covid were associated with additional comorbidities that prevented the immune system from fighting off the virus. 

Following the March 11 [2020] Fauci testimony, in which he conflated IFR and CFR, the national media went wild with Covid and flu comparison. The following article, for example, blew up from Business Insider in June: “The coronavirus death rate in the US is almost 50 times higher than that of the flu. See how they compare by age bracket.” If you look carefully at the charts, you can see something fishy: they calculated infection fatality rate for flu against the case fatality rate for Covid. That necessarily generates a wild overestimate for Covid deaths. The charts are terrifying – and have nothing to do with reality. 

Let’s hop forward from the testimony days to one month later when full-scale panic had already hit the U.S. Speaking at a White House press conference, Fauci then made a claim that strains credulity at every level. He said at a White House press briefing that the stringencies and “social distancing” could not and would not be relaxed until there are no “no new cases, no deaths.” Such a thing has happened only once in the history of viruses: smallpox. From the first experiments with inoculation to the final eradication took some 250 years. And yet here we have Fauci explaining that life could not be normal and functioning again until this widespread virus, relatively mild for 95% of the population, was completely eradicated from the planet! 

And now we have the vaccine, and plenty of questions remaining about it, such as why non-vulnerable populations would prefer to take it over gaining the exposure necessary for naturally acquired immunity. Asking such a basic question is very close to being tabooed, even as lawmakers and other institutions are toying with the idea of making it mandatory. Even then, many of the lockdown advocates from earlier this year are saying that it will not enable us to go back to normal, to take off the masks, to go to the movies, or travel again. This is precisely the belief you might expect from a crowd that participated in what John Iaonnidis called a “one-in-a-century evidence fiasco” and are desperately trying to dig themselves out of losing every bit of scientific credibility. 

Whether Brown is correct that the whole panic truly does trace to a brain flakeout on the part of Fauci – or even perhaps a deliberate “noble lie” to deceive the public into accepting the unacceptable – it hardly matters. The problem we face now is a huge tangle over terminology such that “infections” that could include as many as 90% false positives (according to the NYT) are called cases, while the once-distinct condition called cases which used to indicate actually being sick no longer has any precise meaning. The cacophony of statistical confusion here truly boggles the mind. 

In the midst of all of this, the CDC itself finally updated its own estimates of the infection fatality rate of Covid-19. The CDC wisely took account of the huge demographic stratification of severe outcomes. There is not one rate that applies to the whole population or to any particular individual. There are only backward looking estimates of outcomes. They are all follows: 

  • 0.003% for 0-19 years
  • 0.02% for 20-49 years 
  • 0.5% for 50-69 years 
  • 5.4% for 70+ years

Flipping the data to state it by survival rate by age:

  • 99.997% for 0-19 years 
  • 99.98% for 20-49 years
  • 99.5% for 50-69 years 
  • 94.6% for 70+ years 

John Ioannidis sums up the disparity by age with the following infection fatality rate for people under the age of 70: 0.05%. This conclusion has been peer-reviewed and published by the World Health Organization. 

How does this compare with the flu? We do not really know. As science journalist Shin Jie Yong has written, “There seems to be no data on age-specific IFR of the seasonal flu.” What this means is that crucial testimony of Fauci from March 11 [2020], in which he casually predicted based on bad numbers, that Covid would be ten times worse than the flu, can neither be confirmed or denied based on age-specific severe outcomes. 

However, we can assemble the data based on years of lost life. Consider the long-term view over the future course of existing lifetimes. JusttheFacts reports:

If 500,000 Covid-19 deaths ultimately [in the future] occur in the United States—or more than twice the level of a prominent projection—the disease will rob about 6.8 million years of life from all Americans who were alive at the outset of 2020. 

In contrast:
* the flu will rob them of about 35 million years.
* suicides will rob them of 132 million years.
* accidents will rob them of 409 million years.    


As testing has expanded dramatically throughout the population, the estimated infection fatality rate of Covid will fall further. Thus can we observe a chart of “cases” (actually positive tests) all over the world and compare it with severe outcomes and see something remarkable that should make every living person fundamentally question why they decided to shut down the world and wreck billions of lives. 

Another statistic that bears repeating, Covid – based on infections vs deaths – has close to a 99.9% survival rate. Imagine how the world would have been different had Fauci told that to the Congress on that fateful day of March 11 [2020]. Or what if Fauci had revealed that the average age of death from Covid would almost equal the average lifespan in the US and exceed it in most parts of the world? People present might have wondered why they were holding hearings at all. 

All these categories of data placement carry with them the danger of creating an illusion of control. Viruses do not come with little gears inside them with these rates. Human beings collect data and create them, and not one of them (whether IFR, CFR, infection rates, mortality rates, survival rates) pertains infallibly to any single individual. Our response to a virus is contingent on our own health, age, cross immunities, T cell memory, and a thousand other factors that no politician controls. 

What we know is that a terminological confusion, a misplaced decimal point, a one-word error in data description, and a massive amount of arrogant presumptions about how to control a virus set in motion a series of events that turned our great and prosperous country into a disaster of confusion, demoralization, foregone medical services, closed businesses, wrecked arts and education, and long bread lines. The lockdowners who created this appalling disaster, the people who turned our trust into betrayal and a blizzard of statistical baloney, need to look at the science and data as they stand and come clean.

Reprinted with permission from American Institute for Economic Research

  american institute for economic research, anthony fauci, covid-19 death numbers, covid-19 immunity, covid-19 restrictions, covid-19 vaccine, fake news, lockdowns, media-generated fear


Traditionalist Catholics are divided on the use of vaccines derived from cell lines of aborted babies

The debate about the use of the abortion-tainted experimental vaccines, has pitted traditional Catholics against each other in an unprecedented manner.
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 11:20 am EST
Featured Image
Alberto Carosa

April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – While a parish priest in Cesena thunders from the pulpit against vaccines produced by cell lines of aborted babies, some 300 parishes in Sicily have made their own premises available for the administration of coronavirus vaccines on Easter Saturday: this is just the latest reflection of a rift that could not be deeper within the Catholic Church.

It all began on December 21, 2020, with the official  pronouncement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the moral liceity of the use of vaccines derived from cell lines of aborted babies, with the approval of Pope Francis. This marked a profound division within the hierarchy, in that it was seen as a response to those of its members who had instead branded these vaccines as always morally illicit and unacceptable. 

We are referring in particular to the document released on December 12, 2020, by five prelates – the Metropolitan Archbishop emeritus of Rige (Latvia) Cardinal Janis Pujats; the Metropolitan Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana (Kazahkstan) Tomash Peta; the Archbishop emeritus of Karaganda (Kazahkstan) Jan Pawel Lenga; the Bishop of Tyler (USA) Joseph E. Strickland; and the Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Athanasius Schneider, who instead contested the theological reasons offered to justify the liceity of the use of these vaccines.

After having preliminarily noted that “a growing chorus of churchmen (bishops’ conferences, individual bishops, and priests) has said that in the event that no alternative vaccine using ethically licit substances is available, it would be morally permissible for Catholics to receive vaccines made form the cell lines of aborted babies,” the five prelates claim that this thesis is based on: “two documents of the Holy See: the first from the Pontifical Academy for Life is title, ‘Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived form aborted human fetuses’ and was issued on June 9, 2005; the second, an Institution from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is titled ‘Dignitas Personae, on certain bioethical questions,’ and was issued on September 8, 2008. Both of these documents allow for the use of such vaccines in exceptional cases and for a limited time, on the basis of what in moral theology is called remote, passive, material cooperation with evil.”

On the contrary, the five prelates “see a clear contradiction between the Catholic doctrine to categorically, and beyond the shadow of any doubt, reject abortion in all cases as a grave moral evil that cries out to heave for vengeance (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n.2268, n.2270), and the practice of regarding vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell lines as morally acceptable in exceptional cases of ‘urgent need’ – on the grounds of remote, passive, material cooperation,” so much so that “using vaccines made from the cells of murdered unborn children contradicts a ‘maximum determination’ to defend unborn life.”

Therefore, the document goes on: “the crime of abortion is so monstrous that any kind of concatenation with this crime, even a very remote one, is immoral and cannot be accepted under any circumstances by a Catholic once he has become fully aware of it.” To sum it all up, the whole issue boils down to the basic Christian principle that “the ends cannot justify the means.”

In their conclusions, the five prelates say that their document was penned in consultation with doctors and the laypeople, including grandmothers, grandfathers, father, mothers, and young people. “All of those consulted – independent of age, nationality and profession – unanimously and almost instinctively rejected the idea of a vaccine derived from the cell lines of aborted children,” the five churchmen pointed out.

Among the five prelates, Bishop Schneider is undoubtedly the most prominent figure and essential point of reference for those Catholics linked to the traditional liturgy and doctrine of the Church, so much so that one would think they are obviously all aligned behind him in this respect as well.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. The most striking case, in the traditionalist religious sphere, is undoubtedly that of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), whose American district published a statement in late 2020, the “cleared” the use of these vaccines, this document was withdrawn, after being disavowed by the General House of Menzingen, which announced the establishment of a special commission to draft a document representing the official position of the SSPX as a whole.

Among the Catholic laity, there are even those who, like Professor Roberto de Mattei – the president of Fondazione Lepanto (which has nothing to do with Centro Culturale Lepanto) –do not limit themselves to upholding the liceity of the vaccines merely with articles, videos, and other interventions, but also with the publication and dissemination of a 74-page Italian study entitled “On the moral liceity of vaccination,” with its English version being already printed and promoted at breakneck speed.

“The position that Professor de Mattei takes it not that different from that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as expressed on September 8, 2008 and December 21, 2020, but he distances himself from statements made by some prelates on December 12, 2020,” the traditional Catholic blog Rorate Caeli posted on March 19, 2021, in its English translation of a review of the above Italian study that appeared in Corrispondenza Romana (March 17, 2021), the foundation’s news agency which is edited by de Mattei himself. “At the same time he distances himself forcefully from many positions that are diffused on the internet that have no basis either in science or in theology or in morality,” continued Rorate.

If on the one hand, de Mattei’s stance is reported in the above review to have “gathered much support in the international community,” – including Professor Giorgia Brambilla, “considered one of the most respected voices in Catholic bioethics in Italy,” – on the other hadn’t an international group of nearly 100 medical women, consecrated religious and pro-life leaders have courageously called upon Christian and all people of good will “not to morally justify the use of vaccines contaminated by abortion, thus fuelling a growing culture of death based on the trafficking and exploitation of aborted children for medical experimentation.”

The signatories, from 25 countries worldwide, included 100–year old Polish physician Dr. Wanda Półtawska, a personal friend of the late Pope John Paul II and victim of pseudo-medical experiments carried out by Adolf Hitler’s personal doctor in the Nazi concentration camp of Ravensbrück; Abby Johnson, a U.S. anti–abortion activist who worked as a clinical director for Planned Parenthood until 2009, when she became pro-life; Sister Deidre Byrne, a former military general surgeon and missionary who has served in Kenya, Afghanistan, Haiti, Iraq and Sudan; and three former members of the Pontifical Academy for Life – Dr. Pilar calva, MD (Mexico), Mercedes Wison de Arzu (Guatemala), and Christine de Marcellus Vollmer (Venezuela). The signatories “humbly” called upon Pope Francis, the Vatican and bishops worldwide, to “reevaluate” their statement on the basis of a more complete assessment of the “science of vaccination and immunology.”

The debate raged on, up to the point that on March 24 Corrispondenza Romana (CR) had to run another piece by de Mattei, who reiterated his positions, insisting thus: “it is licit to be vaccinated because the Church assures of this, through its most authoritative doctrinal body, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. On December 21, 2020 the Congregation expressed itself with a concise document that refers back to another document that is more comprehensive: On the Dignity of the Person, dated from September 8, 2008.” (Full English translation by Fr. Richard Gennaro Cipolla here.)

Subsequently, de Mattei’s piece was reprinted in another traditional Catholic blog, OnePeterFive on March 31, 2021, with 248 comments, almost all of which are anti-vaccine, as acknowledged by Fr. Cipolla in the piece he penned on April 7, 2021 in response to them, appearing again in Rorate.

But de Mattei’s thesis was in turn rebutted by Bishop Schneider in another document which appeared in English in Gloria TV (April 1, 2021). “The documents of the Holy See (from 2005, 2008 and 2020) that deal with vaccines developed from cell lines originating from murdered unborn children are not infallible decisions of the Magisterium. The arguments put forth in the aforementioned documents regarding the moral licitness of the use of abortion-tainted vaccines are ultimately too abstract,” wrote Schneider.

“We need to approach this problem in a more profound way, and not remain in a juridical positivism and formalism of abstract theories of cooperation with evil, benefiting from the evil deeds of others, double effect or whatever one wishes to call such justifying theories.” He is convinced that “anti-Christian world powers that promote the culture of death are seeking to impose on the world’s population an implicit — though remote and passive — collaboration with abortion. Such remote collaboration, in itself, is also an evil because of the extraordinary historical circumstances in which these same world powers are promoting the murder of unborn children and the exploitation of their remains…The problem lies in the moral weakening of our resistance to the crime of abortion, and to the crime of the trafficking, exploitation and commercialization of the body parts of murdered unborn children. The use of such vaccines and medicines in some way morally – albeit indirectly — supports this horrible situation.”

Moreover, in his conclusion, Schneider also called upon people to form a new pro-life movement, to be unambiguously against any abortion-tainted vaccines whatsoever.

Another authoritative voice against the morality of abortion-tainted vaccines, is that of Don Pietro Leone, who in his insightful piece in Rorate on April 15, 2021, pointed out the abortion is not the only evil behind this vaccination, but that there are no less than ten evils: from murder to denial of baptism; from torture to parts of the baby’s body being stolen and trafficked for financial profits, with the rest disposed of like common refuse.

It is not possible to speak of remote and passive participation, he says: “We note that the term ‘remote’ in moral theology possesses a moral sense, signifying the lack of direct moral involvement in the evil concerned. We reply that the co-operation is not remote and passive, but proximate and active, for the evil in question in fact consists not in one single past event, but in the proximate and active participation in a process which extends from the original abortion to the very act of injection itself. This process is not simply a concatenation of discrete and isolated events, but a continuous, unbroken chain extending from the extraction of the child from the mother’s womb and culminating in the vaccination, as the last link of the chain. We call this chain a ‘chain of evil’ corresponding to the ‘cell-line’, in virtue of the moral value that supervenes upon the physical continuum.”

As part of this debate, it’s also worth mentioning the scathing attack on vaccine researcher Pamela Acker, made in another piece in Corrispondenza Romana (March 10, 2021), followed up by her own rebuttal on April 14, 2021 in LifeSiteNews. While the Corrispondenza Romana was not signed by its editor, de Mattei, he cannot but identify himself 100% with its content.

In his introductory note to Acker’s rebuttal, LifeSiteNews editor-in-chief John-Henry Westen epitomises the main points of the debate, saying he was “saddened…stunned…even taken aback” by the uncharitable tactics used to take issue with “vaccine researcher Pamela Acker and also a presentation of mine presenting evidence of the abortion-tainted nature of vaccines from the godfather of vaccines Dr. Stanley Plotkin.”

Among these main points addressed, was the “fake news” accusation in the CR piece headline, and the fact that its author questioned the motives of those who suggest the immorality of COVID “vaccinations,” saying that “claims about the immorality of the COVID shots ‘have repeatedly been debunked, so it appears legitimate to doubt that those who keep fostering them are in good faith’.”

But Westen added that the most serious error in the CR piece, amid “straw man arguments and other fallacies” is “asserting that vaccine researcher Pamela Acker is unqualified to comment on vaccines. ‘Pamela Acker is an American graduate in biology, with no specific expertise,’ he posits. Adding insult to injury, Barbieri continues: ‘Maintaining she is a qualified expert in biology would be like passing off a law school graduate as an experienced lawyer’.”

While we refer to Acker’s response for the technical aspects of the debate, she returns the accusation of not acting in good faith to her accuser, who concludes his article with the “unjustified assertion that ‘those who stubbornly claim that abortion exists only inasmuch as it serves the interest of the pharmaceutical industry are deliberately lying, or rather, they are simply ignoring the reality of the abortionist culture’.”

“It is hard to see how such a statement could have been made in good faith,” responded Acker, “particularly as those who are decrying the link between abortion and the pharmaceutical industry are not suggesting that abortion exists only for the purposes of biomedical research.”

At this stage one might well wonder: what are the real motivations underlying de Mattei’s crusade for the morality of these abortion-tainted vaccines? Albeit convinced that they are morally licit, however, he does not see them either sufficiently tested or useful, and therefore he won’t get one.

Two Italian sources

Those who are familiar with the Italian language and would like to have a wider and clearer picture of this debate, may well refer to two Italian sources: the video made by Don Giorgio Ghio, a priest responsible for the celebration of the traditional liturgy in a Rome church under a Vicariate mandate; and some posts in the blog “La scure di Elia” of a traditionalist Catholic priest, who presents himself as Don Elia. In the aforementioned video, Don Ghio speaks of the absolute refusal to use the vaccines, based on two indisputable motivations:

  1. The biological material comes from human foetuses aborted on demand for a fee and is taken from subjects still alive to ensure quality;
  2. The use of such biological material involves very high risks to people’s health, not only in the short term, as evidence by the thousands of cases of serious adverse reactions, but also in the medium and long term.

A fact which is constantly avoided and not considered, is that there is a real abortion industry structurally connected to the pharmaceutical industry. The present case has simply lifted the veil on a form of technological barbarism, which is by now widely spread.

— 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 so-called vaccination, is the ultimate goal of an entire production and commercial process that requires as a sine qua non pre-requisite, numerous abortions and actions of inhuman cruelty on fetuses extracted alive from the users, explains Don Ghio. This is a process which would not have been carried out if there were no consumers of the product. Regrettably, it would seem that in this case, many progressivists and traditionalists appear to be on the same wavelength, condoning the same modern barbarism in line with the vulgate of the globalist powers that be.

As a matter of fact, banks that have invested in the production of the so-called COVID-19 vaccines, cannot see their profits jeopardized by moral objections, argues Don Ghio. However, those who do not receive funds from them are free to speak the truth for the honor of God and for the good of a humanity that is today threatened by an attempt of global genocide.

For his part Don Elia stresses the grave responsibility of those who are in favor of the moral licitness of such vaccination. “Whether it be for intellectual blindness or malice,” he says, “in any case they ignore or hide that those who get vaccinated become a healthy carrier of the virus (rather than being immunized) and therefore, in addition to putting their health at serious risk, they become a potential danger also for others.” And if this view of vaccine liceity is also shared by traditionalists, it is because the “system” does not limit itself to tolerate them, but instead encourages and support them economically, so as to harness dissent through them and keep it firmly under control. Don Elia says that a typical case in point could be that of a well-known foundation which, with no specific doctrinal mandate as far as he knows, persists in declaring vaccination morally licit: as revealed by reliable FBI-related sources, he maintains, it is financed by American banks.

In another post, Don Elia is of the opinion that the so-called vaccine, is part of the plan of Divine Providence, working like a sieve that separates sand from gold. “All men are thus at crossroads that forces them to choose whether to go one way or the other. At stake is not only physical safety, but also consistency with the truth and, consequently, eternal salvation. It is an issue on which one cannot absolutely give in, since the slightest compromise can cause the collapse of the whole cultural, social and religious building.”

But other than the moral and medical–scientific aspects, there is another crucial dimension that has hardly been addressed in this vaccine debate: mass experimentation on human beings. As aptly pointed out by epidemiologist Paolo Gulisano in a video panel on April 13th, 2020, the so-called vaccines against COVID are essentially experimental drugs, because a whole series of steps have been skipped with the justification of the emergency. Incidentally Gulisano, together with his colleague Silvana de Mari, who was also taking part in the above panel, are two Catholic medical doctors in the frontline of the resistance against anti-COVID mandatory vaccination in Italy.

Therefore he wonders: is it licit and lawful to force the administration of an experimental vaccine, irrespective of its nature and composition, on people against their will? In this regard he has co–authored a book, “Cavie per legge” (Guinea pigs by law), showing that there are international treaties and documents which prohibit such a practice. Most prominent of these if of course the Code of Nuremberg, as a result of the Nuremberg trial and its “never again” proclamation at the end of the Second World War. Clearly, such a type of vaccine must be administered only and exclusively to volunteers, without penalties for those who, in good conscience, refuse the drug inoculation. “Last thing we need,” he concludes, “is that unvaccinated people will have to wear a yellow star on their jacket so as to be identified and there is someone who probably would like this.”

In a more recent development on Gloria TV, as reported on April 19, 2021, an increasing number of Italian pro-life leaders, academic, journalists, physicians, jurists, lawyers and Catholic activists in general, are heeding the call of Msgr. Schneider to form a new pro-life movement. “The battle in defense of human life today cannot but ALSO entail a commitment to fight against those practices and structures that degrade innocent life to a reservoir of biological material that can be used in the field of experimentation and production, the proclaim in their response to Msgr. Schneider. “It is a question, then, of acting at a jurisprudential and legislative level, so that any use of human embryonic and fetal cells derived from the taking of innocent human life is legally reprimanded and criminally sanctioned, and likewise that any trade in human cells and/or tissues so derived is legally prohibited.”

In turn, Msgr. Schneider replied to the above letter on April 21, reconfirming his appeal to establish a “pro-life movement that courageously and steadfastly affirms the absolute unlawfulness of any attack on innocent human life from conception to natural death.” A “new pro-life movement [that] cannot remain silent about that monstrous and global structure of sin that is crying out to God for vengeance: the routine use by pharmaceutical, cosmetics and food industries of human cell lines from aborted embryos and fetuses.”

Thanking all those who committed to establishing this “new pro-life movement in Italy which is so sorely needed,” Schneider expressed the hope that “your noble and courageous initiative in Italy may inspire similar initiatives in other countries. I invoke the Divine blessing on all those who support this initiative.”

  abortion, abortion-tainted vaccines, athanasius schneider, bioethics, catholic, catholic morality, covid-19 vaccine, don pietro leone, john-henry westen, pamela acker, roberto de mattei, rorate caeli


‘We took an oath’: Devout Catholic school board member fights back against LGBT mob

Despite facing a court case, Michael Del Grande is not backing down.
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 5:51 pm EST
Featured Image
John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry
By John-Henry Westen

April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Michael Del Grande has been the target of repeated attacks by pro-LGBT and leftist forces in recent years. He’s currently a member of the Toronto Catholic School Board of Trustees, where he’s taken a stand for the Church’s unchangeable teachings, especially the ones on sexuality and gender. For this, he’s come under major fire.

I spoke to Del Grande today on my podcast because the situation has gotten way out of hand lately. On multiple occasions in the last two years, the board has attempted to find him guilty of violating their code of conduct. Several prominent Canadian politicians, including the former premier of Ontario, Kathleen Wynne, have even got involved to ramp up the pressure. But Del Grande, who is now involved in a court case, isn’t intimidated.

“We took an oath as Catholic school trustees. We took an oath to the Magisterium that we would obey and follow the teaching magisterium.”

Michael’s main concern is how the Canadian government’s so-called “human rights” doctrines are creeping into Catholic schools and superseding what the Bible teaches about family life and sexuality. “People sometimes confuse the fact that because we’re publicly funded, that somehow we owe a specific allegiance to the government,” he said. In reality, “we have constitutionally embedded a right of denominational rights to teach in our schools our faith.” A Catholic school “is defined by the Catholic teacher in the classroom,” he continued. “So the teacher has to be Catholic.”

LifeSite has launched a fundraising campaign on its LifeFunder website so you can help Michael Del Grande with the legal fees he’s facing. Click here to securely donate.

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

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

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

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


* indicates required

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


  catholicism, lgbt, mike del grande, the john-henry westen show, toronto, toronto catholic school board


Pixar to introduce first transgender character

It is concerning that so many parents appear to abandon discretion when it comes to entertainment.
Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 5:25 pm EST
Featured Image
Alena Ozerova/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.

April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – As the LGBT movement gained cultural hegemony, the producers of children’s entertainment trailed cautiously behind, careful to keep up with trends without pushing the envelope or risking too much parental pushback. But one by one, children’s cartoons have become yet another educational arm of the LGBT movement. Clifford the Big Red Dog has two moms; Arthur’s teacher Mr. Ratburn is gay; the Disney Channel’s animated series Owl House will feature a bisexual teenager that dabbles in witchcraft.

Then there’s Sponge Bob Squarepants “coming out”; Disney’s gay character in Onward and their children’s film Out, which focuses on a gay couple. The children’s section of Netflix, which many parents use to avoid exposing their kids to inappropriate content, also features many LGBT characters, storylines, and messaging. As I noted last year, we’ve seen a very effective LGBT colonization of the children’s entertainment industry.

Now it is Pixar Animation Studios, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company. Famous for Toy Story and recently raking in an Oscar for the very-problematic Soul, it was only a matter of time before America’s best-known producer of children’s entertainment would go woke. Much to the delight of activists, they have released a casting call for their first transgender character. The group TransMarch posted the notice to Twitter:

Pixar is casting a youth voice-over role for an upcoming animated project.

The character, Jess, is a 14-year-old transgender girl. She’s compassionate, funny, and always has your back.

We’re looking for actresses 12-17 years old who:

– Are enthusiastic, outgoing, funny, and energetic

– Feel comfortable acting in front of a microphone

– Can authentically portray a 14-year-old transgender girl

If you know a child who fits this description and would like to audition for the role, her legal guardian should contact: [email protected].

This, as several news outlets noted, will be the first Pixar character who is transgender. The character also just happens to be targeted to a children’s audience, affirming the wildfire phenomenon of gender dysphoria in young teens.

If Pixar and Walt Disney are the curators of children’s Americana, then the transgender movement has officially won. Despite that, LGBT groups noted approvingly that it is about time Disney/Pixar do better. Representation is not enough—over-representation and domination is what they are seeking.

It is concerning that so many parents appear to abandon discretion when it comes to entertainment. Recent data indicates that many parents are watching increasingly sexualized content with their children during the pandemic; the excuse given for this is that entertainment is not only an important part of life, but an essential one. Thus, cancelling streaming services that bring sexualized, immoral, and anti-Christian entertainment into the home is presented as a non-option. That, to put it bluntly, is ludicrous.

If we raise our children to believe that entertainment is so important that we can welcome wicked storytellers into our homes and that moral compromise is a small price to pay for a well-produced narrative, they will learn that lesson well.

Companies like Disney, Pixar, and others know that for all the bluster from a few Christian and conservative news sites, most people will quietly go on as before and their consumption and viewing habits will not change.

In short, Christians and non-Christians are all consuming the same storytellers, and their children are animated by the same heroes and villains. It may seem like no big deal to allow small compromises—how big of a deal can an animated feature be, anyway?—but someday soon, we’ll discover that there is a price to pay for allowing those actively working to subvert Christian values to have direct access to our children while paying for the privilege.

  children's rights, children's safety, disney, gender ideology, lgbt, pixar, transgender children, transgenderism

Featured Image

Episodes Wed Apr 28, 2021 - 5:53 pm EST

‘We took an oath’: Devout Catholic school board member fights back against LGBT mob

By John-Henry Westen   Follow John-Henry
By John-Henry Westen

Michael Del Grande has been the target of repeated attacks by pro-LGBT and leftist forces in recent years. He’s currently a member of the Toronto Catholic School Board of Trustees, where he’s taken a stand for the Church’s unchangeable teachings, especially the ones on sexuality and gender. For this, he’s come under major fire.