All of yesterday's articles

May 5, 2021






The Pulse


Alberta goes into hard lockdown while ICUs are used less than last year

Premier Jason Kenney is imposing severe restrictions to keep the health-care system from being 'overwhelmed,' but the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms reports that intensive-care unit rates are not any higher than before COVID.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 8:19 pm EST
Featured Image
Alberta Premier Jason Kenney addresses the province on May 4, 2021. YouTube screenshot
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

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

EDMONTON, Alberta, May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In a new round of COVID health measures announced yesterday, the Canadian province of Alberta has shuttered churches, closed schools, banned eating outdoors, and hindered many mom-and-pop shops from being able to make a living by limiting how many people can shop in their stores.  

In a televised address usually only reserved for extreme natural disaster emergencies, Premier of Alberta Jason Kenney spoke to the province about the new measures, which are to be in place for “at least three weeks,” because of rising COVID-19 case counts.  

“If you can stay home, do so for the next three weeks,” Kenney said in his address.

“We will not permit our health-care system to be overwhelmed. We must not, and we will not force our doctors and nurses to decide who gets care and who doesn’t. And that is why we must act now to stop the spike.”

The new COVID-19 measures come about based mainly on PCR testing, the accuracy of which has been called into question. 

Kenney had said Monday that he would bring in stronger measures after announcing new ones last week, which included possible curfews in “hot spots.” 

The new measures in effect are province-wide, include shutting down all schools in all grades until May 25 and closing all restaurants for outdoor dining.

For areas described as “high case” regions of the province where there are more than “50 cases per 100,000 people, and with more than 30 active cases,” which in essence is the bulk of the province, there are more restrictions. 

— 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

For these regions, church attendance size has been quashed to only 15 people, with funerals only allowed 10 people. Retail capacity has been cut to 10 percent of fire code, all sports and recreation are banned, and barbers and hair salons must close on May 9. 

Despite all of the new measures, professional sports teams can continue under a “special” exemption. 

ICU rates in 2020 was 'the lowest number of admissions since 2015'

The new restrictions come despite data released by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) that shows total provincial hospital ICU occupancy rate is no worse than pre-COVID times.

According to the JCCF data, ICU rates in 2020 were “the lowest number of admissions since 2015.”

In a Twitter message posted yesterday, the JCCF also stated that, according to information they were privy to, staff at two Alberta hospitals in Calgary and Edmonton said that “they are near-empty.”

The JCCF is expected to release additional information related to Alberta’s ICU capacity in the near future. 

As for Kenney, in his address yesterday he said, “Governments must not impair peoples' rights or their livelihoods unless it is absolutely necessary to save lives, and in this case, to prevent a disaster from unfolding in our hospitals."

He also stated that COVID-19 “vaccines,” the safety and moral use of which have been called into question by many, are an important and necessary part of defeating the virus. 

However, JCCF president John Carpay said recently that the Alberta government has “refused” to provide evidence to support its lockdowns to justify violating the charter of rights and freedoms.

“After 13 months of violating Charter freedoms, the Alberta Government refuses to present evidence in support of lockdowns in Court, and unfortunately the courts have permitted the government to delay facing accountability in regard to Charter violations,” Carpay said. 

As of this writing, Alberta lists 671 people in the hospital with 150 of those in ICU, with just under 24,000 cases attributed to COVID-19. 

According to Alberta Health Services (AHS), the province has 106 acute care hospitals with 8,515 acute care beds and 27,774 continuing care beds. The province has stated they can allocate more than 400 ICU spaces as well for COVID-19 patients if needed. 

'Premier, Albertans have lost confidence in you' 

Not everyone in Kenney’s United Conservative Party (UCP) caucus has been thrilled with COVID-19 restrictions imposed by Kenney and Dr. Deena Hinshaw, the province's chief medical officer of health.

Only recently in an unprecedented political move, 17 UCP MLAs blasted Kenney for taking the province back into a severe COVID-19 lockdown.

Brian Jean, the co-founder of the UCP and former federal MP and Alberta MLA, blasted Kenney’s latest restrictions and style of handling the virus, saying, “When a politician rejects the people whose votes he campaigned for, it is always his fault and never theirs.”

“Premier, if many Albertans have stopped doing what you want, that is on you,” Jean said.

“Premier, Albertans have lost confidence in you. Those who didn't vote for you have concluded that you are even worse than they feared. Those who did vote for you know that you are not governing as they would have hoped.”

Ontario entered a hard lockdown on April 16 after Premier Doug Ford extended “stay at home orders” that placed a 10-person limit on church service attendance and implemented provincial border checks. 

Up until today, Alberta’s COVID health rules enacted under Kenney capped church attendance size at 15 percent. 

The de facto shuttering of Alberta churches comes at the same time many have defied COVID health orders to stay open, with one church even going underground. 

On April 7, Grace Life Church was barricaded by police for defying coronavirus health rules. The church has now gone underground to worship. 

Grace Life pastor James Coates was jailed for defying lockdown orders and spent 35 days in jail. 

A trial for Coates, who is being represented by the JCCF, recently adjourned, at which the provincial crown used as evidence against the pastor video shot by a health inspector of people engaging in what she called the “risky” act of singing. This came despite the fact the inspector was warned by church elders of Coates’ church that it is an offense under Canadian law to disrupt a church service.  

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

  alberta, covid-19, jason kenney, lockdowns


Over a dozen U.S. cities and counties are now pro-freedom ‘sanctuaries’ against COVID measures

Highly regulated areas are among the locations where emergency government orders are being refused.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 7:31 pm EST
Featured Image
Raymond Wolfe Follow

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

May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – More than a dozen cities and counties in the United States are fighting COVID-19 restrictions by designating themselves pro-freedom “sanctuaries” or by simply refusing to enforce emergency orders.  

The counties are primarily located in highly regulated states – like Michigan and California – that have suffered catastrophic economic and mental health impacts amid months of business closures and mask mandates. 

Late last year, county commissioners in Campbell County, Virginia passed a “First Amendment Sanctuary” resolution, declaring that “(n)o Campbell County funds will be used to restrict the First Amendment.” No funding “shall be expended to aid federal or state agencies in the restriction of said rights,” it added.
“We’re not going to utilize county resources to enforce the governor’s orders,” a district representative from the county told local news. “We’re not going to aid the Virginia Department of Health in shutting our businesses down.”
At least nine other cities and counties have passed similar “sanctuary” designations, including Burrillville, Rhode Island, Delta County, Michigan, Kosciusko County, Carroll County and the city of Mooresville in Indiana, and multiple jurisdictions in California and Texas. 

In Michigan’s Baraga County earlier this year, the county sheriff and other officials approved the “Baraga Manifesto,” slamming Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s “clearly unconstitutional measures that treat human beings like herd animals.” 

“Since March 10, 2020, the People of the State of Michigan have endured restrictions on their freedom which have not been seen in North America since the days of King George III and the American Revolution,” the officials wrote. “Enough is enough.” 

“Accordingly, we hereby put the State of Michigan on NOTICE that we have no intention of participating in the unconstitutional destruction of our citizens’ economic security and Liberty,” they continued. “We further declare our intention to take no action whatsoever in furtherance of this terribly misguided agenda.” The manifesto echoes defiant local resolutions approved in Nebraska and Colorado

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

At least one conservative county also has signaled its resistance to coronavirus vaccine mandates. 

Assemblymen in Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska, passed a resolution in December stressing that the county supports vaccination on an “optional basis.” The statement, which passed 8-1, says that “the best interests of the state” are not served by mandating a vaccine that “many people are concerned… could potentially have serious harmful effects on themselves.”

State legislatures have pushed back against COVID-19 rules as well, with more than nine states enacting new restrictions of executives’ emergency powers or advancing vaccine passport bans since the start of the crisis.

  business closings, covid-19, lockdowns, mask mandates, pro-freedom 'sanctuaries'


Toronto Catholic school board could face legal action if it votes to fly ‘Pride’ flag: lawyer

Parents who send their Catholic children to Catholic schools expect them to receive a Catholic education.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 6:06 pm EST
Featured Image
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

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

TORONTO, May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – An Ontario-based lawyer is warning trustees of Toronto’s Catholic school board that if they vote on May 6 to raise the homosexual “Pride” flag they could find themselves facing legal action from Catholic parents over their “serious errors in corporate governance.”

Lawyer Geoff Cauchi wrote a letter to the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) on May 4 as a “friend of the Board” to urge trustees about their duties and responsibilities as trustees of a Catholic board (read full letter here).

“It is my understanding that your Board (the “TCDSB”) is about to deliberate on resolutions to approve the flying of the ‘Rainbow Flag’ at its schools during the month of June, 2021, and approve moving forward with a plan to incorporate into its curricula the ideologies promoted by the organization that goes by the name Black Lives Matter, and those that come under the general description of ‘Critical Race Theory,’” he wrote in his letter obtained by LifeSiteNews.   

“As a member of the ‘Class of Persons’ in the Province of Ontario who possess what is known as Denominational Rights, I cannot resist the urge to again volunteer my assistance to the Board in helping it avoid serious errors in corporate governance,” he added.

Section 93 of the 1867 Constitution Act guarantees Catholics in Ontario the right to have a publicly funded separate denominational school system where Catholic children can be taught the fullness of the Catholic faith without government interference.

Cauchi’s legal opinion comes in the wake of the TCDSB’s newly-established “2SLGBTQ+ Advisory Committee” recommending that the board proclaim June as Pride month and that the Pride flag be raised “at the Catholic Education Centre and at all schools in the system.” Declaring June as Pride month “implores us to be compassionate, welcoming, and inclusive of marginalized people, including 2SLGBTQ+, as an example of our faith in action,” the pro-LGBT Committee states in its report that is included on the agenda for the upcoming May 6 meeting where the matter is expected to come to a vote.

Cauchi outlined in his 31-page letter how the trustees owe “fiduciary duties to all of their Catholic Electors” to not only “recognize and rigorously defend the constitutional right of Catholic education” but to fulfill their vow when becoming a trustee to “be faithful to the teachings of the Church and to the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff and the authority of the Magisterium.”

The lawyer made the case that TCDSB trustees who openly support groups promoting homosexuality or who openly dissent from the Church’s teaching on moral matters have a “conflict of interests” that makes them ineligible to vote on any resolution involving Pride flags at Catholic schools.

“I think this is an opportune time for the TCDSB to review its conflicts of interest ‘management’ obligations, and take appropriate action. In my opinion, a failure to do so could materially expose the TCDSB and many of its individual Trustees to valid legal claims asserted by its Catholic Electors,” he wrote in his letter.

The lawyer highlighted the many duties and responsibilities that trustees owe Catholic parents who send their children to Catholic schools to receive a Catholic education. These included, among others, that the “Board and its Trustees must always put the interests of the Catholic Electors who support the Mandate of the Board ahead of their own personal interests and the interests of all other persons or special interest groups,” and that they must “reject all advice and lobbying efforts from persons and groups that are hostile to the magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church.”

“A failure by the Board or any of its Trustees to fulfill the duties described above will constitute a breach of fiduciary duty that will trigger a variety of causes of action and their attendant legal remedies to which the injured Catholic Electors should have recourse as a matter of law,” wrote Cauchi.

Cauchi criticized Catholic school boards in Ontario in general for allowing what he called “busybodies” — entities and persons who have no legal standing — to weigh in at meetings on matters pertaining to the running of Catholic schools. In this group, he includes unions, such as the dissident Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association (OECTA), along with non-Catholics and dissenting Catholics.

“Non-Catholic and dissenting Catholic ‘busybodies’ who seek to lobby the Trustees on denominational issues should be politely told that their efforts will not be tolerated,” he wrote.

He highlighted that Catholic parents have “multiple causes of action against Catholic Boards and their trustees” if they breach their “fiduciary duty.” These include, among others, a request for judicial review of policies that were enacted by trustees that may not align with Catholic teaching and a request for a court order declaring a trustee’s seat vacant for violations of a school board’s conflict of interest policies.

Cauchi told LifeSiteNews that Thursday’s meeting boils down to whether Trustees will fulfill their duties to Catholic parents.

“Here, we are on the brink of witnessing the Catholic Electors being victimized by their own Trustees,” he said.

Jack Fonseca of Canada’s pro-life and pro-family organization Campaign Life Coalition told LifeSiteNews that Cauchi’s legal reasoning in the letter was “impeccable.”

“He drew out of precedent-setting cases and administrative law principles, the clear fact that if any trustee votes in a manner that condones lifestyles or ideologies that are hostile to Catholic doctrinal teaching, he or she is in breach of the fiduciary duty they owe to faithful Catholics who reasonably expected the TCDSB to indoctrinate students in the fullness of Catholic magisterial teaching. As such, the trustee opens him or herself up to legal action by Catholic electors in Toronto. To leave no ambiguity, Cauchi presents case law which establishes that trustees have no fiduciary obligation to Catholics who dissent from magisterial teaching and who, therefore, cannot be considered beneficiaries,” he commented.

Fonseca said that Cauchi’s legal opinion also makes it clear that several of the current trustees who have publicly declared positions in opposition to magisterial teaching ought to declare that they have a conflict of interest on May 6 and recuse themselves from voting on the Pride motion.

“Based on public tweets and media interviews that I’ve seen from them, at least four of the trustees will have to recuse themselves from voting on Thursday’s motion, including Maria Rizzo, Markus De Domenico, Norm Di Pasquale and Ida Li Preti. Cauchi’s opinion suggests they open themselves up individually to a lawsuit if they don’t declare their non-pecuniary conflict of interest and don’t recuse themselves from this vote,” he said.

Fonseca said that if the TCDSB votes in favor of flying Pride flags from Catholic schools that parents should take action.

“Based on the strength of Cauchi’s expert legal opinion, I believe that Catholic parents should commence a lawsuit if the TCDSB votes to fly the gay Pride flag. This issue is important enough because such a vote to condone homosexual activity, lifestyles and ideologies that are hostile to magisterial teaching would put the souls of 92,000 students served by the TCDSB in grave spiritual danger by influencing them to also reject Catholic magisterial teaching. To paraphrase Jesus Christ, this is the Trustees’ millstone moment.”

The Archdiocese of Toronto, led by Cardinal Thomas Collins, released a statement yesterday advising the TCDSB against flying the rainbow “Pride” flag at its schools in June.

“Parents make a clear choice when they decide that their children will attend a Catholic school. They rightly expect that trustees, principals, teachers — all partners in education — will ensure that Catholic teaching is presented, lived and infused in all that we do,” the May 4 letter states (read full letter here).

The archdiocese points out that given the number of groups working to advocate for many diverse causes, many school boards “wisely fly only the Canadian flag out of a sense of equity for all.”

  canada, gay pride flag, geoff cauchi, ontario, pride flag, toronto catholic district school board


US birth rate plummets to lowest recorded in past 42 years, study shows

A 4 percent drop was recorded in 2020 alone.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 6:00 pm EST
Featured Image
Clare Marie Merkowsky

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

May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — According to a new report, the number of U.S. births dropped 4 percent in 2020 to the lowest level since 1979 and the general fertility rate reached a record low. 

This week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics published statistics showing that births in the United States fell from 3,747,540 to 3,605,201 in 2020. 

According to CBS News, health records across 27 states reveal that there was a 7 percent decline in the birth rate in December, nine months after the first lockdowns began. However, the recent drop is only part of the larger trend. 

In the 1950s, U.S. women averaged having nearly four babies each in their lifetimes. Today, women average fewer than two babies each. In 2020, there was a record-low 55.8 births per 1,000 women from ages 15 to 44.

Experts in the 1960s and 70s warned against overpopulation and exhausting the world’s resources to an extent that human life would no longer be possible, according to a video published by CBS. Since contraception was legalized in 1960 and abortion was legalized in America in 1973, birth rates have dropped significantly. 

During the COVID-19 lockdowns, while most business were forced to close, many abortion clinics were considered "essential" and remained open. Also, mail-order abortion pills have become increasingly available and resulted in countless stay-at-home abortions.

This trend is not only occurring in America but throughout the world. In January 2021, France saw a drop of 13 percent in births from the previous year. Similarly, the birth rate in France for December 2020 dropped 7 percent compared with the previous year. These were babies conceived in the first months of the COVID-19 lockdowns. 

— 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

Italy’s birth rate has fallen to the lowest in its history; the number of births were down by 5,000 and the number of deaths increased by 14,000. President Sergio Mattarella warned that the shrinking population affects the “very existence of our country.” Italy is planning to hold a conference to address this crisis during which Pope Francis will speak. 

During the first six months of 2019, Spain registered tens of thousands more deaths than births, which in 2019 dropped 6.2 percent from the previous year. 

In China, there is evidence to show that the government has been lying about the number of births. In 2020, China’s National Bureau of Statistics declared that 14.65 million babies were born during the past year. However, looking at the birth rates in each region, the numbers are between 10 percent and 20 percent lower than those reported by the government. 

  abortion, birth control, birth rates, centers for disease control, covid-19, lockdowns, overpopulation


Florida passes bill limiting Big Tech’s power to silence political enemies; DeSantis to sign

Signing this legislation into law will further endear DeSantis to conservatives.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 5:56 pm EST
Featured Image
YouTube screenshot
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

TALLAHASSEE, May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — With an impending signature from Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, Florida is on the verge of enacting a first-of-its-kind law placing strong limits on social media giants’ ability to discriminate against conservative speech online.

The legislation, which has cleared both chambers of the state legislature, does the following:

  • forbids social media platforms from intentionally deplatforming any candidate for a pending election (enforceable by fines of $250,000 per day for statewide offices and $25,000 per day for other offices), though candidates may still be suspended for fourteen days or fewer; 
  • recognizes free advertising provided by a platform to any candidate (which does not include ordinary user posts by a candidate) as in-kind political contributions; 
  • requires platforms to apply its “censorship, deplatforming, and shadow banning standards in a consistent manner” based on publicly available standards; 
  • requires platforms to inform users of rule changes before enforcing them and forbids rules from being changed more than once every 30 days;
  • requires platforms to inform users if they have been shadow-banned and entitles users to request data on how many people saw their posts;
  • requires platforms to let users opt out of algorithms that arrange content visibility by criteria other than chronology or sequential order, as well as annually notify users of this option;
  • forbids platforms from applying shadow-banning algorithms to political candidates;
  • requires platforms to give banned users a 60-day window in which they can retrieve their content before deletion;
  • forbids the deplatforming of “a journalistic enterprise based on the content of its publication or broadcast”

“Over the years, however, these platforms have changed from neutral platforms that provided Americans with the freedom to speak to enforcers of preferred narratives,” DeSantis declared in February when he first proposed the bill. “Silicon Valley CEOs wield extraordinary power, to the point of holistically controlling the flow of vast swaths of information in our country. In a matter of hours, a business can be dismantled, a community of friends and colleagues canceled, and even a sitting president of the United States silenced.”

Defenders of tech corporations and libertarian ideologues who oppose regulating social media have concentrated their fire on an amendment added to the bill by Republican state Sen. Ray Rodrigues, which exempts “any information service, system, Internet search engine, or access software provider operated by a company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex.” 

While the amendment is a clear reference to far-left entertainment giant Disney, whose park and resort are a major boon to Florida’s economy, it is also true that Disney does not own or operate any of the social media platforms currently involved in suppressing conservative speech, and many of those now attacking the amendment for narrowing the bill’s scope have previously objected to social media reform on the grounds that it could affect websites beyond Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

Big Tech’s suppression of and discrimination against conservative speech has been a topic of growing concern ever since former President Donald Trump’s 2016 victory was attributed in part to his use of Twitter to spread his message, and accelerated over the past year as Google, Facebook, and Twitter appointed themselves arbiters of “misinformation” pertaining to COVID-19 and election fraud.

Since the election, and particularly the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol building, those efforts have accelerated further still. The riot was used as a pretext to ban Trump from Twitter and Facebook; Facebook’s so-called “Oversight Board” upheld Trump’s ban Wednesday. 

Meanwhile, signing this legislation into law will further endear DeSantis to conservatives, many of whom consider him an early frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination thanks to his conservative record in office, his handling of COVID-19 without intensive lockdowns, and his knack for parrying hostile media

Most recently, the governor has endorsed and/or signed legislation banning left-wing critical race theory from public schools, forbidding “vaccine passports” that would coerce Floridians into taking a COVID-19 vaccine against their will, keeping gender-confused males out of girls’ athletic programs, strengthening election integrity in the Sunshine State, and increasing penalties for rioting.

— 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

LifeSite’s own Facebook page was permanently banned just yesterday. The social media giant accused LifeSite of publishing “false information about COVID-19 that could contribute to physical harm.”

  2024 presidential election, big tech, florida, free speech, gop, online censorship, republicans, ron desantis, social media bias


ALERT: Tell lawmakers to stop Biden from funding abortion through Title X

'We MUST fight back, and protect Title X — and our taxpayer dollars — from being manipulated to promote abortion and support abortion providers/services across our country.'
Wed May 5, 2021 - 4:36 pm EST
Featured Image
Screen grab from Jun 15, 2020 Planned Parenthood video endorsing Joe Biden for President. Planned Parenthood Action / Youtube
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

CONTACT HHS AND FEDERAL LAWMAKERS: Block public funding of abortion! Click to contact HHS and Members of Congress now.

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – The Biden administration wants to allow federal family planning dollars to go directly to groups that commit abortions, and LifeSiteNews is working to raise a chorus of voices demanding they be stopped.

President Joe Biden and his Secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, are backing a proposed rule that, if adopted, would amend the Title X Family Planning program to allow public funding to go to organizations that perform abortions.

In 2019, former President Donald Trump instituted the Protect Life rule, which required “clear financial and physical separation between Title X-funded projects and programs or facilities where abortion is a method of family planning,” and banned “referral for abortion as a method of family planning.” It was projected to cut almost $60 million from the $616 million Planned Parenthood received during the most recent fiscal year.

But in his first month as president, Biden issued a memorandum “direct[ing] the Department of Health and Human Services to take immediate action to consider whether to rescind regulations under its Title X family planning program,” as part of a broader executive action dismantling pro-life limits on how taxpayer dollars could be spent.

In response, LifeSiteNews is running a fifty-state Voter Voice campaign, through which readers can easily submit comments both to federal HHS regulators and their elected representatives in Congress simply by clicking here.

The campaign provides sample language for readers to use, while also allowing readers to write and customize their own messages if they choose, all without having to track down specific lawmakers’ contact information.

LifeSite encourages readers to submit all comments as soon as possible, as the public comment period for the proposed regulation ends on May 17, 2021 — less than two weeks away.

“We MUST fight back, and protect Title X — and our taxpayer dollars — from being manipulated to promote abortion and support abortion providers/services across our country,” the campaign declares.

CONTACT HHS AND FEDERAL LAWMAKERS: Block public funding of abortion! Click to contact HHS and Members of Congress now.

  abortion, democrats, joe biden, taxpayer funding of abortion, title x, voter voice


Ontario: Hospitals may move patients to long-term care to prepare for ‘third wave’ of COVID

The patient’s consent is not required.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 4:26 pm EST
Featured Image
Hospital scene Shutterstock
David McLoone David McLoone Follow

TORONTO, Ontario, May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The Ontario provincial government has given hospitals unprecedented powers to move patients out of wards and into retirement homes and other long-term care residences, without their permission, as part of plans to free up bed spaces in hospitals purely for COVID-19 patients.

An announcement was made on April 28 by Deputy Premier and Health Minister of Ontario Christine Elliot, wherein she declared a patient could be transferred to any nursing home based on a doctor’s determination of the needs of the patient and the need for bed space, regardless of the patient’s wishes or consent. The measure has been introduced on the basis of a predicted surge in COVID “cases” brought about by an apparent third wave of the virus.

The amendment to the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act permits hospitals to override a patient’s choice of long-term care facility “when absolutely necessary to respond to a major surge event and when the attending physician is satisfied that the patient will receive the care they require in their new setting,” Elliott said.

She confirmed the amendment is intended as a “temporary emergency order,” designed to “provide hospitals with the flexibility to transfer certain patients, those whose doctors have determined no longer require hospital care and could be better supported in a more appropriate setting, to a long-term care or retirement home.”

Elliot cushioned the announcement by assuring Ontarians that efforts to consult the patient on the move would be made and that any decision to move a patient to temporary holdings “would be done in only the most urgent of situations when a hospital is at risk of becoming overwhelmed [with COVID-19 patients].”

“This would be a temporary transfer and [any] patient who is transferred to a long-term care home that is not their first choice will continue to maintain their place in line for their first choice,” assured Elliot.

The provincial health minister attempted to quell fears of a COVID spike in nursing homes by suggesting, “Every effort will be made to ensure patients have been fully vaccinated before being transferred.”

Elliot’s proposal, however, did not account for the growing medical consensus that people injected with mRNA-developed COVID-19 vaccines can become a source of “shedding” the Spike protein, a pathogen which causes numerous illnesses particularly troublesome for women and the elderly. The shedding phenomenon has been recognized by Pfizer in its own vaccine trial documentation.

The decision to usurp patient rights was supposedly a “very difficult decision to make, however, the consequences of not doing so could be devastating if we don’t have the hospital beds we urgently need to care for the growing number of COVID-19 patients across the province,” Elliot claimed.

David Cooke, the campaigns manager at Campaign Life Coalition in Canada, told LifeSiteNews that the Ford government’s treatment of hospital patients “is unconscionable,” and that the government “has no excuse to perpetrate this assault on patients’ rights.”

Cooke derided the government for “treating hospital patients like pawns on a political chessboard, moving them all around the province without their consent, putting them into ill-equipped facilities, potentially hundreds of miles away from their home support networks.”

“Mr. Ford has had over a year to bolster our provincial healthcare system,” Cooke added. “COVID-19 is nothing new.”

Even Liberal House Leader John Fraser admitted that the Ford administration’s latest healthcare-related legislation constituted “overriding people’s rights.”

The introduction of forced relocation for non-COVID patients follows measures implemented the week prior, whereby all surgeries considered non-urgent have been indefinitely suspended, again based on a supposed third wave.

A spokesperson for Public Health Ontario said at the time, “This directive, in addition to the emergency orders recently issued, are being taken in response to escalating case counts, which have led to increasing hospitalization and ICU occupancy rates which are already over the peak of wave two.”

“This decision will be closely monitored on an ongoing basis with the intention of bringing on surgical capacity as soon as safely possible,” the statement read.

Executive director for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Alex Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews that, though patient consent is of grave concern, “the greater concern is the pandemic rule in Ontario that will enable a physician or hospital to withdraw treatment, such as a ventilator, from a patient while the person is receiving treatment.”

Schadenberg explained that Ontario legislation now allows doctors to reassign medical equipment “based on an assessment that determines that another patient is more likely to benefit from the treatment than the person currently receiving that treatment.”

Until now, legal precedent in Ontario has required physicians to obtain patient consent before withdrawing any treatment in the case of reassigning equipment, Schadenberg said. “This pandemic protocol enables the withdrawal of effective life-saving treatment without consent,” he warned.

The cause cited as necessitating drastic and unprecedented medical protocols has been found in a supposed third wave of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. But despite these concerns, evidence has come to the fore which may explain Ontario’s high coronavirus test positivity rate, pointing towards a fault in the testing technology rather than a fierce new wave of COVID-19 ravaging the province.

— 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

Explaining how PCR testing works, Carl Heneghan, professor of evidence-based medicine at the University of Oxford and director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, wrote an article last August along with Tom Jefferson, an honorary research fellow at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford.

In the article, the eminent scholars described that the test relies on multiple cycles of amplification to produce results and that a positive result doesn’t necessarily indicate if someone is infected with COVID-19, only if they have more or less of a viral load.

Besides the unreliability of the amplification process in determining true positive cases of active COVID-19, a new study has shown that tests had a likelihood of returning positive results based on the time of day that swabs were taken.

Nevertheless, PCR testing remains a popular method with businesses, medical groups, and at state-regulated test sites to determine infection with the virus.

  alex schadenberg, campaign life coalition, coronavirus, daylin leach, ontario, third wave


Abortion survivor shares story of forgiveness and hope toward her birth mother

Claire Culwell says 'the humanity of the unborn' is seen on the face of every abortion victim and survivor.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 4:17 pm EST
Featured Image
LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Abortion survivor and public speaker Claire Culwell joins The Van Maren Show this week to recount her amazing story, and to talk about her new autobiographical book Survivor: An Abortion Survivor’s Surprising Story of Choosing Forgiveness and Finding Redemption. She tells Jonathon Van Maren how she miraculously survived a very common late-term abortion procedure of dismembering the baby limb by limb.

Culwell says she learned to find redemption and hope in forgiving her birth mother after meeting her in 2009. When she saw her face-to-face, the experience opened her eyes to the pain her biological mother went through. This led her “to fight for her and for women like her.”

While Culwell survived the abortion attempt, her twin sister did not. She says that she wonders every day what the world is missing “because my twin isn’t here, and that is such an impactful part of my story.” Culwell also higlights that even though abortion survivors are just as human as anyone else, “they are rejected by society."

To learn more about Claire Culwell’s work or to find her book Survivor, visit her website by clicking here.

The Van Maren Show is hosted on numerous platforms, including Spotify, SoundCloud, YouTube, iTunes, and Google Play.

For a full listing of episodes, and to subscribe to various channels, visit our Acast webpage here.

To receive weekly emails when a new episode is uploaded, subscribe below: 


* indicates required

By selecting Email below, you agree to receive emails about The Van Maren Show Podcast.

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

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

  abortion, abortion survivor, abortion survivors, claire culwell, forgiveness, healing, jonathon van maren, the jonathon van maren show, the van maren show, van maren show


White House declares Biden will keep using bully pulpit to promote transgender dogma

'That includes ensuring that transgender youth have the opportunity to play sports and to be treated equally in states across the country.'
Wed May 5, 2021 - 3:51 pm EST
Featured Image
Joe Biden YouTube
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

WASHINGTON, May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The White House reiterated President Joe Biden’s support for the transgender agenda Tuesday by declaring his intentions to continue speaking out, touting his executive actions, and leaving open the possibility that the U.S. Justice Department might take action against states that continue to make policy on the basis of biological reality.

“Well, certainly the president has put in place — has signed executive orders, he’s also used the power of the bully pulpit and his presidency to convey that transgender rights are human rights, and that is the view and belief of his administration and how he expects policies to be implemented,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told a reporter from the pro-LGBT Washington Blade.

“That includes ensuring that transgender youth have the opportunity to play sports and to be treated equally in states across the country, so he will look to members of his administration to implement what his view and what his value is as president,” she continued. As for whether the Biden administration will intervene to block state laws ensuring that female student athletes only have to compete against other actual females, Psaki said simply, “I will leave that to the Department of Justice.”

Among Biden’s first actions upon taking office was signing an executive order declaring his intentions to interpret “nondiscrimination” laws in such a way as to require recognition of “sexual orientation and gender identity” in a wide variety of contexts, which in practice means supporting gender-confused biological males’ access to women’s athletic programs, restrooms, and housing. 

In March, he commemorated International Women’s Day by issuing a pair of executive orders establishing a White House Gender Policy Council and directing the U.S. Department of Education to undertake a comprehensive review of “all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions” for compliance with his LGBT agenda. Biden also reversed the Trump administration’s ban on gender dysphoria in the military, displayed the transgender flag at the White House, and even appointed a gender-confused man, Rachel Levine, to a prominent post at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

  democrats, jen psaki, joe biden, lgbt, transgenderism


Russell Brand: Facebook wants to ‘control, curate and obscure’ your reality

Facebook wants you to think it’s offering free internet services to make lives better, but it’s really about profits, says Russell Brand.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 3:46 pm EST
Featured Image
Children’s Health Defense
By Children's Health Defense

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

May 5, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) – When Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg talks about the social media giant’s plan to get the remaining 5 billion people in the world onto its platform — by offering free services — she frames the strategy as “doing good” for the world.

But in the video below, Russell Brand says Facebook’s plan is more nefarious than that — it’s really about “digital colonization.”

“It’s about billions of people’s experience of reality being controlled by, obscured by and presented through massive tech giants,” Brand says.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum session in Davos in January, Sandberg explained how Facebook’s “Free Basics” service gives smartphone owners free, limited connectivity to the internet.

But as Brand describes it, through “Free Basics,” Facebook “becomes your internet, becomes your portal, allowing Facebook to control, curate and obscure your reality” — all under the pretense that the tech giant is making people’s lives better.

Facebook is an advertising company, Brand says — and the unconnected world represents a “giant untapped revenue stream.” In the end, Facebook’s plan is really about turning everyone in the world into a passive consumer of mostly western corporate content.

“That’s digital colonialism,” Brand says. “It’s the capture of neutral or new territories and metabolizing them into something that’s useful for profit.”

Watch here:

© May 5, 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

  children's health defense, facebook censorship, facebook restriction of free speech, freedom, great reset, internet tyranny, russell brand, world economic forum


Tucker Carlson: Americans shouldn’t be forced to take one-size-fits-all vaccine

Fox News commentator, Tucker Carlson, told viewers even though President Biden said COVID vaccines won’t be mandated, Biden is supporting mandates by allowing private industry to require the vaccines.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 3:29 pm EST
Featured Image
Fox News
Children’s Health Defense
By Children's Health Defense

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

May 5, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) —  In the segment below on Monday’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson said, “there are unresolved concerns” about the long-term health effects of COVID vaccines, including on female fertility and pregnant women.

The American people should not be forced to take a one-size-fits-all medical treatment, Carlson explained. “No medicine is designed for every person in all circumstances,” he said.

Last month, the Biden administration said the federal government will not require all Americans to get the COVID vaccine, nor will it require vaccination passports. But the truth is, when it comes to COVID vaccines, President Biden is not pro-choice, he’s pro-mandate, Carlson said.

He added:

“The question of whether to take them, whether to have powerful drugs injected into your body is the most intimate kind of personal health decision. Politicians and bureaucrats should have no role in a decision like that.”

But just because there’s no federal mandate to get the COVID vaccine doesn’t mean you or your family won’t be required to get it, Carlson explained. With support from the Biden administration, “private industry and nonprofits may be forcing you to,” he added.

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

Carlson noted that colleges and universities are requiring COVID vaccinations in some form, including the entire University of California system, the largest in the country.

Based on what we know about COVID and its effect on young people, Carlson said it doesn’t make sense to require them to get the vaccine — yet nobody is asking why college students need the vaccine.

“Why would we immunize people against a virus for which they already have antibodies?” Carlson asked. On top of that, he reminded viewers, no coronavirus vaccines have been fully licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Carlson said:

“From a medical standpoint, it’s hard to understand the reasoning behind this. As a group, young people are not at risk of dying from COVID. Huge numbers of college students have already been infected with the coronavirus and therefore have natural immunity to it.”

Watch Tucker Carlson’s segment here:

© May 4, 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

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

  coronavirus vaccine, joe biden, tucker carlson, vaccine mandate


Doctors must tell Indiana mothers about abortion reversal. Abortion lobby threatens legal action

After Indiana passed a bill requiring doctors to tell mothers about life-saving abortion reversals, Planned Parenthood plans legal action to prevent women from knowing their options.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 3:12 pm EST
Featured Image
Human embryo Shutterstock
Clare Marie Merkowsky

INDIANAPOLIS, May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Abortion activists are attempting to overturn a new Indiana law requiring doctors to tell women chemical abortions can be reversed, and their babies can be saved even if they have taken the first dose of the abortion pill regimen.

Last week, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb (R) signed into law House Bill 1577 requiring doctors to provide information to pregnant women about live-saving procedures which can save their babies, even after taking the first pill as part of a chemical abortion. The bill also requires an ultrasound be shown to pregnant women and requires other precautions to help women make informed decisions.

According to the Princeton Daily, after this life-saving bill was passed, LaKimba DeSadier, Indiana state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, threatened “legal action” against the law — without going into any specifics as to what form that might take. She asserted that medical procedures cannot actually reverse the effects of the first abortion pill despite conclusive evidence to the contrary.

Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood, claimed that the law “is meant to shame patients seeking access to a safe, legal medical procedure, and puts their health in jeopardy.” House Bill 1577 merely facilitates allowing a second chance to a woman who, after taking the first pill, regrets her decision and chooses to keep her baby.

Upon hearing about the backlash from Planned Parenthood, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) boldly stated, “Taking a stand for life means facing down opponents who, in the name of ‘choice,’ are relentless in their efforts to eviscerate the rights of the unborn. Our determination to prevail for the cause of truth must surpass the resolve of the abortion industry to perpetuate a culture of death.”

The Charlotte Lozier Institute explained the abortion pill reversal procedure, which is simple and safe, in an infographic.

The medical abortion is committed by taking mifepristone, followed by misoprostol 24 to 72 hours later. “Mifepristone is a progesterone receptor blocker which causes separation of the placenta from the uterus which leads to the death of the embryo or fetus. The misoprostol causes the uterus to contract and expel the remains of the child.”

To reverse the medical abortion, women take progesterone, orally or as an injection, “as soon as possible after taking the mifepristone but before taking the misoprostol.”

An entire website is dedicated to helping women with an abortion pill reversal.

Chemical abortions are often painful for mothers and have been known to cause infection or hemorrhage which can require emergency care. In the U.S. between 2000 and 2011, 14 women died from complications following chemical abortions.

  abortion pill, abortion pill reversal, alexis mcgill johnson, chemical abortion, eric holcomb, indiana, lakimba desadier, todd rokita


Physicians, surgeons call on universities to reverse COVID vaccine mandates

In an open letter, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons asked universities to reverse mandates 'before more students are harmed' and to make the vaccines 'rightfully optional.'
Wed May 5, 2021 - 3:06 pm EST
Featured Image
Children’s Health Defense
By Children's Health Defense

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

May 5, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) —  The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is calling on U.S. colleges and universities to allow students to attend in-person classes without requiring them to be vaccinated for COVID.

In an open letter, AAPS listed 15 reasons universities should reconsider vaccine mandates.

“Although, at first glance, the policy may seem prudent, it coerces students into bearing unneeded and unknown risk and is at heart contrary to the bedrock medical principle of informed consent,” the letter stated.

According to its website, AAPS is a non-partisan professional association of physicians in all types of practices and specialties across the country. The organization was founded in 1943 to preserve “the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship and the practice of private medicine.”

As The Defender reported last week, more than 100 colleges across the country will require students to get the vaccine for in-person attendance, though most will allow medical and religious exemptions.

Children’s Health Defense provides this letter students can send to universities explaining that under federal law, Emergency Use Authorization vaccines cannot be mandated.

— 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

Read the AAPS open letter:

Dear Deans, Governing Boards and Trustees,

On behalf of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, I am writing to ask you to reconsider your new policy mandating COVID-19 vaccination of students prior to returning to campus.

Institutions of higher learning are divided on this issue. Although, at first glance, the policy may seem prudent, it coerces students into bearing unneeded and unknown risk and is at heart contrary to the bedrock medical principle of informed consent.

There are multiple reasons to reverse your policy. I ask you to consider the following:

  1. Young adults are a healthy and immunologically competent and vibrant group that is at, “extraordinary low risk for COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.

  2. College and University students, however, are under significant mental health strain already from COVID-19 fears, circumstances, distance learning problems and the imposition of government health policy restrictions.

  3. Even though the FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for three COVID-19 vaccines, they are not FDA approved to treat, cure or prevent any disease at this time. Clinical trials will continue for at least two years before the FDA can even consider approval of these vaccines as effective and safe.

  4. The COVID-19 vaccines on the market in the U.S., mRNA (Moderna and Pfizer) and DNA (Johnson & Johnson — Janssen), have caused notable side effects, pathology and even death (>2300 deaths per VAERS as of April 20). These adverse reactions result in absence from school and work, hospital visits, and even loss of life.

  5. College-age women may be at unique risk for adverse events following administration of the experimental COVID vaccinations currently available. According to the CDC, all cases of life-threatening blood clots, subsequent to receiving the J&J vaccine, reported so far in the United States, occurred in younger women. The vast majority of cases of anaphylaxis have also occurred in women. In addition, “women are reporting having irregular menstrual cycles after getting the coronavirus vaccine,” and 95 miscarriages have been reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID vaccination as of April 24, 2021.

  6. Recent research data demonstrates that the spike protein, present on the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the induced primary mechanism of action of COVID-19 vaccines, are the primary cause of disease, infirmity, hospitalization and death.

  7. Students who have had self-limited cases of COVID-19 already possess antibodies, activated B-cells, activated T-cells (detectable by lab testing). This durable, long-term immunity would not only prevent them from getting recurrent COVID-19, but would also represent herd immunity to protect others in the college or university community.

  8. COVID-19 convalescent students may be harmed by college and university policy requiring COVID-19 vaccines. They already have extensive immunity and would be likely harmed from a forced confrontation with COVID-19 vaccine induced spike protein causing autoimmune reactions leading to illness and possible death.

  9. Students and their families may justifiably believe these policies discriminate against individuals who aren’t candidates for this vaccine, have pre-existing conditions, previous COVID-19 disease, cite religious objections, or are otherwise exercising their freewill choosing not to participate in this optional vaccine experiment. Refer to the Nuremberg code from WWII, which requires individuals, “to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force …”

  10. Institutional policies that permit faculty to choose or refuse vaccination, but do not allow students the same options, raise equal protection constitutional issues.

  11. The ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, requires “reasonable accommodations,” be provided based on an individual’s own unique health situation.  This includes rejection of an experimental vaccine intervention which may exacerbate known health problems and thereby cause harm.

  12. Colleges and Universities should consider whether they might be liable for damages, poor health outcomes, and loss of life due to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies.

  13. “Positive cases,” as defined by laboratory testing alone, may be false positive testing errors or asymptomatic infection that is not clinically proven to spread disease.

  14. Ambulatory outpatient early treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection / COVID-19 has been demonstrated effective in adults.

  15. Informed consent is the standard for all medical interventions. The FDA factsheet for the healthcare provider reads, “The recipient or their caregiver has the option to accept or refuse (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine.”

Please reverse your decision to mandate experimental COVID-19 vaccines before more students are harmed and make the vaccines rightfully optional. Both unvaccinated and vaccinated students should be permitted on campus. Thank you for your time and attention. We would appreciate hearing back from you as soon as possible and welcome further discussion with you and other leaders at your institution.


Paul M. Kempen, M.D., Ph.D. – AAPS President (2021)

The vaccine is expected to keep generating significant revenue for Pfizer and BioNTech, as the company anticipates people will need annual booster shots.

© May 4, 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

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

  association of american physicians and surgeons, coronavirus vaccine, vaccine mandate


Planned Parenthood’s partnership with China – does it cross the line to treason?

Planned Parenthood may have crossed the red line to treason, as evidence strongly implies that DNA obtained from aborted babies supplied to China by American Planned Parenthood facilities may be contributing to the development of a bioweapon (virus) that could bring America and the rest of the world into submission to China.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 3:00 pm EST
Featured Image
Cheryl Sullenger
By Cheryl Sullenger

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

May 5, 2021 (Operation Rescue) – The world was shocked in the summer of 2015 when the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released a series of undercover videos that showed Planned Parenthood executives discussing the sale of human tissues and organs harvested from aborted babies.

At the onset of the investigation into Planned Parenthood’s involvement in tissue trafficking, CMP Board Members David Daleiden, Troy Newman, and Albin Rhomberg made a conscious decision to focus narrowly on Planned Parenthood’s suspected criminality, since it is a violation of Federal Statute 42 U.S.C. § 289g-2 to sell aborted baby remains for “valuable consideration.”

The decision not to pursue the questions of why there was a demand for such tissue, the extent of that demand, and who the end-users were may have inadvertently left the most important aspect of the baby parts trafficking scheme behind a curtain of secrecy.

“I understood there was more to the trafficking in baby body parts than just the aspect of Planned Parenthood’s apparent lawbreaking and the horrific details of the harvesting practice that was being told through the undercover videos,” said Newman.  “Now, more of that critical part the story must be told, especially at this moment in history.”

Newman watched with dismay as federal law enforcement agencies completely disregard the evidence compiled by the CMP. More evidence uncovered by investigations conducted by committees in the U.S. House and Senate resulted in several criminal referrals against Planned Parenthood and the middle-man procurement companies, but even those inexplicably went without action from a Department of Justice that was later shown to be corrupt even during the Trump Administration. 

There was also an aggressive attempt on the part of the media to vilify the pro-life journalists and portray the videos as “discredited” or “deceptively edited” – even though an independent forensic video analysis showed they were neither.

Newman endured a Planned Parenthood lawsuit that seemed to violate all legal norms and left him with a judgment and attorney fees totaling a staggering $16 million – just for consulting on the CMP project that expose Planned Parenthood’s wrong-doing.

So, what was really going on?  Why were enormously powerful people going all-out to protect Planned Parenthood? Why was tax-funding for Planned Parenthood treated with more importance by Democrats than national security?  What made Planned Parenthood so politically powerful?  Why did federal law enforcement agencies turn a blind eye to volumes of evidence that Planned Parenthood broke the law?

It took time to fit the pieces of the puzzle together.

Enter the dragon

The first clue came in September 2015, when the CMP video series prompted the U.S. House of Representatives to pass a bill defunding Planned Parenthood of all Federal tax dollars.  That was when Li Bin, the head of China’s National Health and Family Planning Commission (CFPA), announced that it would “contribute $528 million to Planned Parenthood for the 2016 fiscal year in exchange for the continued donation of tissue samples.” [Emphasis added.]

This indicated that as prior to 2015, there was already a close partnership between Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)  and Communist China – so close that China was willing to pay Planned Parenthood well over a half billion dollars to make sure the supply of American aborted baby tissues and organs kept flowing from PPFA into China, which coveted the DNA.

There is other evidence that that tissues and organs from Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties in California ended up in China.

Based on a complaint filed by the Center for Medical Progress, Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas filed a civil suit against two businesses, DaVinci Biosciences and DV Biologics, for illegally profiting from the sale of aborted baby tissues and organs.  The businesses were heavily fined and forced to close.

As Operation Rescue previously reported, the businesses had no problem acquiring aborted baby remains from Orange County Planned Parenthood abortion facilities.  The companies marked up the price ten times over costs then sold them worldwide, according to Rackauckas’ lawsuit.  In fact, their primary customer base was an international one.

Undoubtedly, some of that tissue ultimately ended up in Chinese labs since China was the largest buyer of aborted baby remains outside the U.S. 

Planned Parenthood organizations have had long relationships with China.  The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) has partnered with China’s National Health and Family Planning Commission (CFPA) since at least 1983, when they first began working together to forcibly control China’s population through the One Child program and other policies.

According to a 2016 article:

In its first decade, in collaboration with IPPF, CFPA established one million branches in China and mobilized as many as 94 million members and volunteers “all over the country.”  In fact, China was the second country to become officially recognized as a qualified member of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), after CFPA met IPPF’s 65 criteria on sexual and reproductive health issues.

Reggie Littlejohn, President of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, understands IPPF’s affiliation with China all too well.  In that same 2016 article, she told, “The One Child Policy has been responsible for hundreds of millions of forced abortions and sterilizations and untold human suffering.  While posturing as a champion of choice, International Planned Parenthood has been working hand in hand with the population control program in China, almost since its inception.  Forced abortion is not a choice.”

China’s draconian one-child policy was instituted in 1979 to control its burgeoning population.  Because the Chinese culture valued male children who could support parents in their old age, baby girls were targeted for abortion.  The program led to a troubling age imbalance and an equally disturbing lopsided ratio of boys to girls. But the consequences of China’s efforts to depopulate were just beginning.

Startled by the dramatic population disparities that since manifested, China claimed to have ended its one-child policy in 2015 in favor of a two-child policy that is still in place today.  But instead of stabilizing China’s population, the two-child policy had the unintended result of further lowering the birth rate. The reasons for this are unclear.

Through it all, International Planned Parenthood Federation has assisted as an integral partner in the depopulation of China.

China’s goals

It is no secret that China’s goal is to become the world’s sole “superpower,” which can exercise global political, economic, and military domination.  Without the moral underpinnings of respect for freedom and human rights, China has adopted a “by any means necessary” approach to achieving those goals.

The Chinese Communists have also embraced a revealing aspect of Sun Tzu’s ancient military strategy outlined in The Art of War – at least as far as America is concerned: “Subdue the enemy without fighting.”

That’s not to say that China will not engage its powerful military – it certainly will.    Recent news reports give every indication that China is in fact preparing for a global war, with experts predicting that China’s invasion of Taiwan may be imminent.

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

But invasion of a nation like America would be difficult and costly – if it could succeed at all.  That’s where Sun Tzu and his subdue-without-fighting strategy comes in.

Make no mistake, China is engaged in an unconventional war with the U.S. that has, until now, taken the long and patient course of using infiltration at almost every societal level to control America.  It has been wildly successful.  Only recently have Americans started to wake up to the deep influence China has on American government, academia, news media, business, and even cultural influences like Hollywood and sports.

That infiltration strategy also has allowed China to access to American technology and resources, which it has been acquiring for years in legitimate and illegitimate ways.  Those acquisitions include a substantial emphasis on the field of biotechnology.

Global domination of biodata

China has never embraced the Western views that generally place a high value on human life.  Because of their typically-Communist utilitarian view that people exist to serve the state, the Chinese Communists have no moral issues with engaging in human experimentation that Western nations would find abhorrent. 

To accomplish its geopolitical goals, China has focused heavily on acquiring biotechnology and DNA from Americans while attempting to attain worldwide domination in the field of biodata.

China has become the largest repository for American DNA in the world.  One important source of American DNA is tissue and organs procured from aborted babies at Planned Parenthood abortion facilities in the U.S.

Gordon Chang, a highly respected expert on China who authored the book The Coming Collapse of China, made a startling statement about China’s possession of American DNA in a December 2020 interview with America Can We Talk:

If you want to find the biggest database of the DNA of Americans, don’t look in America.  The place that you find that is China.

China has infiltrated numerous American biotech companies for the purpose of obtaining data and new technologies.  And they are willing to get it any way they can. 

Chang has commented on China’s efforts to gain an advantage in biotechnology. 

These [biotech] companies from China will try to have research collaborations, they have all sorts of partnerships with U.S. companies in DNA and genetics.  And whatever they can’t get legally, they will steal it.  So, for instance, the hack that was discovered or released in January 2015, of Anthem, the second largest American insurance company – that was China.  They got a lot of information on Americans – perhaps 80 million of them. . . On the other hand, China is preventing Chinese research institutes and companies from sharing Chinese DNA.”

The problem of China’s infiltration of America’s biotechnology industry is so severe that even Newsweek reported on it on April 23, 2021, stating, “More than 500 U.S. scientists are under investigation for being compromised by China and other foreign countries, according to a recent hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The hearing was focused on protecting the U.S.’s biomedical research from foreign entities such as China.”

Gene-editing programs

It has been widely reported that China has engaged in gene editing and attempted cloning of human beings.  In fact, China is a Mecca for international scientists who want to conduct human experimentation that is banned as unethical in their home nations.

Brandon Weichert, author of The Weichert Report and Winning Space, commented on this troubling development in an interview with the Gatestone Institute, in February 2021:

What is most disturbing about these endeavors is that China has gleaned access to CRISPR and advanced genetic and biotech research, thanks to their relationship with the United States and other advanced Western nations. American research labs, biotech investors, and scientists have all striven to do research and business in China’s budding biotech arena. . . because the ethical standards for research. . . are so low.

The lack of ethics and respect for individual human rights makes China’s acquisition of CRISPR technology worrisome, to say the least.

To put it simply, the CRISPR technology allows for extremely accurate gene editing. It can attach to selected parts of a DNA strand, untwist it, splice out a section, then insert a new portion of DNA containing the desired genes to produce changes in the DNA stand. It can also disable gene sequences altogether. [Watch a video that explains this.]

The moral implications of this are frightening.

In 2015, China became the first nation to use CRISPR gene-editing technology on human embryos, eventually producing genetically altered twin girls in November 2018.  China has apparently produced other genetically altered babies as well.

It is no secret that China is attempting to create a Chinese “master race” using the powerful CRISPR technology, which makes the Nazi master race programs seem amateurish.

Secondly, China’s military is also heavily involved in these kinds of human experiments.  They are seeking to develop a genetically enhanced “super soldier,” a program heavily denounced by former Director of Intelligence John Ratcliff.

This is not science fiction.  In China, it is a reality.

It has become startlingly clear that China could advance its geopolitical goal of global dominance by using its new “master race” as the global ruling class with their “super soldiers” as the enforcers.

“We do not yet know all the repercussions of playing God with the human genome, but this cannot end well.  There are good reasons most countries have laws against this kind of unethical and immoral human experimentation,” said Newman.

In September, 2018, President Donald J. Trump put an end to the National Health Institute’s policy of purchasing aborted baby remains from Planned Parenthood and using them for experimentation and human-animal hybridization in the U.S.. However, within the first 100 days of the pro-Planned Parenthood Biden-Harris Administration, that policy was rolled back and the experimentation with human baby remains now has the green light.

Given China’s penchant for espionage in the biotech field, there is a great likelihood that any data gleaned from these resumed experiments in the U.S. will fall into the hands of the Communist Chinese Party.

Yet, with China aborting an estimated 23 million unborn babies annually, surly it has plenty of tissue of its own that can be used to conduct their unethical biotech programs, which include the creation of chimeras — experimental crosses between human beings and animals.

So why does China have a seemly insatiable demand for tissue and DNA from American sources such as Planned Parenthood?  That answer involves another application of gene-editing technology that has dreadful implications.

‘Civilization Killer’ virus

CRISPR is not only able to manipulate the genomes of humans and animals, but it also has the capability of altering or enhancing viruses. 

Last year, the world was stunned and radically changed with the release of the COVID-19 virus, which is believed by former U.S. State Department officials to have originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China. 

In January 2021, a Reuters report noted that in November 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce under President Donald Trump proposed adding gene-editing technology to the U.S. export control list “because it could be used to create a bioweapon.”

That is exactly what David Asher, former top investigator for the State Department under Mike Pompeo believes happened.

“The Wuhan Institute of Virology is not the National Institute of Health.  It was operating a secret, classified program. In my view, and I’m just one person, my view is it was a biological weapons program,” Asher told Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin in a segment that aired on March 12, 2021.

Griffin also reported further that during a panel discussion at the Hudson Institute where he now works, Asher doubled down on his view that the COVID-19 virus was bioweapon, and how it benefitted China.

And if you believe, as I do, that this might have been a weapons vector gone awry, not deliberately released, but in development and then somehow leaked, this has turned out to be the greatest weapon in history.  You’ve taken out 15 to 20 percent of global GDP.  You’ve killed millions of people. The Chinese population has been barely affected. Their economies roared back to being number one in the entire G20.

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo backed up his former colleague during a his own powerful interview with FoxNews.

There are facts that make it indicative that this came out of that laboratory through what was likely an accidental leak.  The Chinese Party won’t let anybody into that lab to look at what happened.  They disappeared journalists.   They made doctors that knew what happened go away.  That coverup itself is a crime.

In an online interview with Steve Bannon’s Pandemic War Room on March 13, 2021, Gordon Chang made another startling revelation.

This is not the last pathogen to come from Chinese soil, and Xi Jinping now knows he can spread a disease . . . We’ve got to develop deterrents, and the reason is especially important now, Steve, is that China’s working on pathogens that will leave the Chinese alone – the Chinese will be immune to them – but they will sicken everybody else.  So, China’s working on civilization killers.  This could leave China as the only viable society. . . And why the media isn’t talking about this, I don’t know.  But this is their greatest failing because this is our greatest challenge.

Chang’s assertion that the Chinese are attempting to use American DNA to develop a “civilization killer” bioweapon that can target certain ethnic or racial groups, such as Caucasian Americans, while exempting the Chinese people should concern everyone.

Decreasing the population of their enemies makes their goals of global domination much easier because smaller populations are easier to control than large ones.

This strongly implies that DNA obtained from aborted babies supplied to China by American Planned Parenthood facilities may be contributing to the development of a bioweapon (virus) that could bring America and the rest of the world into submission to China.

If true — and it more than likely is — this means Planned Parenthood has crossed the bright red line to treason.

Imploding demographics

Gordon Chang has issued yet another warning about China that brings urgency to the threat of that nation using a bioweapon against the U.S. 

In a major speech given by Xi Jinping in March 2021, China’s President proclaimed, “The strong West and weak East is history … the East is rising, and the West is declining,” adding “the biggest source of chaos in the world nowadays is the United States, … the United States is the biggest threat to our country’s development and security.”

Chang responded to that statement in an interview with Fox News’ Martha McCallum on March 4, 2021:

It sounds like he believes China’s strong, but actually I think he has a closing window of opportunity to achieve historic objectives.  Because he realizes he has a problem with his economy, but he’s – more important – has a problem with demography.  China right now is four times – more than four times more populous as the United States.  By the end of this century, it’s probably going to be less populous than the U.S.  That’s the most dramatic collapse in demography in history, absent war or disease, and if Beijing doesn’t achieve its objectives in five years, it has no hope of catching up or passing us . . . China is extremely hostile against the United States – inherently hostile – in the nature of that regime.

The end of China’s birth limits?

China waited too long to reverse their forced one and two-child population control policies. That has backed them into a corner and prompted a surprising new development in China’s population control programs.

According to an April 24, 2021, Epoch Times article by Winnie Han, the Central Bank of the Chinese Communist Party recently released a report signaling the government may be ready to lift all restrictions on birth control.

Reversing the devastating forced depopulation policies may sound like great news, especially for pro-life supporters who have long been appalled at the horrific abuses of forced abortion and sterilization that China has inflicted on its people, but this is not being done for altruistic purposes by any means. 

This decision signals an urgent threat to the free nations of the world, including the U.S. 

Han quotes China expert and commentator Li Yanming, who makes an eye-opening conclusion about the implications the Chinese Communist Party’s apparent population control reversal. 

On the other hand, the CCP’s ambition for global expansion and military hegemony is becoming more and more obvious, and it is reverting to Mao Zedong’s line domestically. . . Therefore, it is likely that the CCP will follow Mao’s practice in the early years of its rule and implement a policy of encouraging and even forcing births for full-scale war preparation and global domination.

This signals to the world that China is ready to make its long-planned move to seize global control.

The clock is ticking

China’s impending population implosion makes it desperate.  Gordon Chang has made it clear that if China does not achieve its geopolitical goals of subjugating America and assuming global domination within the next five years, it never will.

Because China will – without hesitation or remorse – use any means necessary to achieve their goals, that gives them motivation to engage in acts such as rigging U.S. elections or creating a bioweapon that targets other races, such as Americans of European descent.

Control of America’s DNA is critical to China’s plans.  To thwart those plans, Chang recommends that the U.S. prohibit any American company from giving China control of American DNA. 

That includes ancestry companies such as 23 & Me, since most of them hire Chinese companies to conduct the analysis of the DNA samples they collect.  What is learned by these analytic companies goes straight to the Chinese Communist Party.

It also includes Planned Parenthood Federation of America, whose affiliates continue to supply China with aborted baby tissue and organs that can be used for both unethical human experimentation and bioweapon development.  That puts Planned Parenthood directly on the side of China and reveals how the abortion giant is working against American interests.

The big question is whether our government, which is currently under the control of those with seemingly unfettered allegiance to China and Planned Parenthood, has the will to stand up to them and protect America’s biodata from a nation that is bent on achieving U.S. subservience. 

There is reason to believe they won’t.

Ties that bind

The relationship between China and Planned Parenthood is obviously a strong one.  Planned Parenthood is in the depopulation business, which aligns with China’s goals.

It’s not an overstatement to say that China needs Planned Parenthood.  

For financial and ideological reasons, American globalists need China. That includes corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle who are willing to sell out their nation for money and power. China is happy to take advantage of that to spy on the U.S. and exploit American resources and technologies, which they need to advance their geopolitical agenda. 

These same politicians will stop at nothing to protect Planned Parenthood, increase abortions in the U.S., and subvert the traditional views of family because this diminishes our strength as a culture and weakens our will to resist when the final globalist takeover comes. This also puts Planned Parenthood in a position of vast political power and influence.

Already the Biden-Harris Administration has taken several steps to expand abortion, including the restoration of funding to Planned Parenthood and lifting the safety ban on the distribution of abortion pills through the U.S. Mail put in place by the Trump Administration.  These relaxed abortion policies play directly into the Chinese Communists’ hands.

Meanwhile, the Biden-Harris Administration and other powerful politicians currently serving in our government that support Planned Parenthood also have strong ties to Communist China.  Individual politicians have benefitted from those relationships.

Those with political and financial links to China that are currently serving in our government should raise eyebrows. Some of the more notable include President Joe Biden,  Senate Majority Leader Chuck SchumerHouse Speaker Nancy PelosiSen. Diane FeinsteinCongressman Eric Swalwell, and many others. 

In fact, there is no way to know just how deep China’s influence runs in American politics, news media, Big Tech, industry, and academia.  Those who have partnered with China, either overtly or covertly, have a financial and ideological interest in helping China – and that means helping Planned Parenthood.

“There’s no way people like Pelosi and Schumer, who became politically and financially powerful with the backing of China, will ever refuse to do their bidding and risk losing that money and influence,” said Operation Rescue’s Troy Newman. “It is now apparent that the reason these American politicians and their partners in the corrupted news media protect Planned Parenthood at all costs is because it weakens America and ingratiates themselves to China.”

Former Secretary of State Pompeo spoke of China’s deep influence on America’s way of life in recent radio interview with Brian Kilmead.

They’re inside the gates here in the United States.  They are impacting us here in the United States.  They’ve destroyed millions upon millions of American jobs.  They are lobbying our members of Congress.  We’ve seen this with Congressman Eric Swalwell.  They are working our school boards and our city councils to change our way of life here in the United States.

Pompeo addressed the Europeans who have straddled the fence between the U.S. and China and have been reticent to take a stand on the side of life and freedom.

They can’t figure out that the Chinese Communist Party is aiming to destroy civilization in the West and the way we’ve understood it for the last fifty years.  And the United States is trying to make the world a better place.  That we are a force for good in the world.  It’s not about choosing between us. It’s about choosing what kind of life you want to have for your kids and grandkids.

The threat Planned Parenthood poses to the American way of life goes beyond the evils of abortion.  By supplying China with American DNA, Planned Parenthood is helping them achieve their dreams of global domination and oppression – by any means necessary.*

President Ronald Reagan talked of the threat of communism in a famous 1964 speech that is as applicable today as it was then.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. . . You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.”  “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.”
We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

If we want to end this existential threat to our Constitutional Republic, we must not only expose and oppose Planned Parenthood, but we must also expose and oppose the Chinese Communist Party sympathizers in our own government that are aiding and abetting the end of America as we have known it, because, as Reagan said, if America falls, the world falls, and there will be no place to which we might escape.

*Note: Perhaps it is no coincidence that the Antifa-affiliated Communist group By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) appears to have ties to China. This represents another aspect — among others — of the destabilization of America with the assistance of foreign influences that our report could not include due to the length of the subject.

Reprinted with permission from Operation Rescue

  abortion, baby parts, china, china's one-child policy, joe biden, kamala harris, operation rescue, planned parenthood, wuhan institute of virology


UK High Court to review law allowing abortion of babies with Down syndrome until birth

The hearing will take place from July 6 until July 7.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 2:46 pm EST
Featured Image
U.K. High Court Shutterstock
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

LONDON, May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — This summer, the U.K.’s High Court will hear a challenge to a law permitting the abortion of babies with Down syndrome until birth.

Down syndrome activist Heidi Crowter, 25, and Máire Lea-Wilson, 32, the mother of two boys, one with Down syndrome, filed a challenge to the Abortion Act 1967 last year, arguing that its provisions discriminate against disabled people. The application was granted in October, and the hearing will take place from July 6 until July 7.

Currently the British Abortion Act 1967 sets a 24-week limit on the age at which an unborn baby can be killed, unless “there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it [sic] would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.” In this case, the child can be killed until he or she is literally moving down the birth canal.

Crowter, married last July to James Carter, who also has Down syndrome, has been using her own life to illustrate that a life with Down syndrome is worth living. She is also using her “Living the Dream” social media project to fight for the right of children with the condition to live their own.

“Basically, the court case is that a baby without Down syndrome can be aborted up to 24 weeks, but a baby like me and James can be aborted up to birth, which is discrimination” Crowter told the BBC this week.

“And the reason it’s important to both me and James is because we are [both] someone with Down syndrome, and we want to say to the world that we have a good quality of life.”

On her Facebook page, Crowter remarked that she was the first person with Down syndrome to take the British government to court to challenge them on “their perspective of people with Down’s syndrome.”

Lea-Wilson’s son Aidan, who is now 23-months-old, was not diagnosed with Down syndrome until the 34th week of gestation; his mother was offered an abortion three times before he was born, two weeks later.

“I have two sons that I love and value equally, but the law does not value them equally,” Lea-Wilson told the BBC. “My motivation for taking this joint legal action with Heidi has always been simple. As a mother, I will do all that I can to ensure the fair and equitable treatment of my son, Aidan.”

Other women in Britain have reported feeling pressured by medical professionals to agree to abortions after their children have been diagnosed with Down syndrome or other disabilities.

— 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

Crowter’s mother Liz told the U.K.’s Channel 5 News that sometimes doctors tell mothers of unborn babies diagnosed with Down syndrome that they have already booked them in for an abortion. She recommends that any parents whose child is diagnosed with Down syndrome do research to learn the realities about the condition, including reaching out to other parents.

According to the U.K.’s Right to Life association, there were 3,183 “disability-selective abortions” in England and Wales in 2019, and 656 of these infants had Down syndrome.

Heidi Crowter expressed deep satisfaction on her fundraising page about the court date.

“I feel so excited to get a court case date because I feel like there is finally a chance to fully achieve Down’s syndrome equality in this land and for our voices to be heard,” she wrote. “Thank you so much for your support so far; we are really, really grateful. We hope you are as excited as we are that we finally have a date. Would you please consider helping us to cross the finish line to the £100,000?”

To help Crowter in her campaign for the lives of disabled babies, please click HERE.

  abortion, abortion act 1967, down syndrome, heidi crowter, máire lea-wilson, uk high court


Federal court criminalizes handing out pro-life leaflets at abortion centers

The Thomas More Society is petitioning for a rehearing of this decision which, if not overturned, will ‘criminalize a wide swath of protected speech and expression.’
Wed May 5, 2021 - 2:42 pm EST
Featured Image
Planned Parenthood abortion facility Shutterstock
Clare Marie Merkowsky

NEW YORK, May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A court ruling in March criminalized the distribution of pro-life leaflets at abortion centers and restricted interactions between pro-life activists and patients or “escorts,” calling them a “physical obstruction.”

WND reported that a panel of New York judges has restricted pro-life advocacy in front of abortion clinics under the federal FACE act. Originally, the FACE act merely prohibited blocking abortion facility doorways. On March 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled to expand the act to include any “physical obstruction.”

According to the Thomas More Society, a law firm that handles pro-life cases, including pro-life activist David Daleiden’s case, this new expansion of the act forbids “approaching patients and attempting to hand them a leaflet” on the grounds that this might cause them to “deviate slightly from their path” and therefore be delayed by “one second.”

Furthermore, it is forbidden to inadvertently cause a patient to have to walk around a life-advocate as a result of the sidewalk leading to the entryway being cramped. Additionally, the act of “delivering a leaflet to the driver of a vehicle who has voluntarily stopped the car and rolled down the window to communicate with the life-advocate” is considered criminal.

Finally, a conversation with a patient or an ‘escort’ is considered “harassment” and a “use of force” if the patient even implicitly shows they do not “welcome the message.”

In response, the Thomas More Society started a petition to overturn the ruling. The decision “represents the broadest restriction of First Amendment expression ever imposed under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act,” the petition states, “and threatens vast amounts of core First Amendment activity.”

“If allowed to stand,” the petition continues, “the panel opinion will criminalize a wide swath of protected speech and expression, including holding signs on public sidewalks, attempting to distribute leaflets, and engaging in consensual conversations with vehicle passengers.”

This recent ruling is a continuation of the attacks against pro-life groups in New York. In 2017, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman labeled peaceful pro-life advocacy as “harassment” and filed a lawsuit against Pastor Griepp and nine members of his congregation.

Schneiderman petitioned the government to restrict their advocacy under the FACE act. However, Thomas More Society Senior Counsel Stephen Crampton explained, “The FACE Act specifically exempts constitutionally protected advocacy from its prohibitions.” Therefore, Schneiderman’s request was denied.

— 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 Thomas More Society continued to defend the pro-life group throughout their legal battles. In one instance, a witness fabricated a story of being harassed by members of the church, but her story was proven to be false.

The Thomas More Society will continue to defend the right to legally advocate in front of abortion clinics. They are currently appealing to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to overturn this act.

  abortion, face act, second circuit court of appeals, thomas more society


Pope to speak on Italy’s ‘demographic winter,’ offer perspective on birth rates

The Pope is to provide the opening address at the conference, for the General States of Birth, due to be held just outside the Vatican on May 14.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 2:02 pm EST
Featured Image
Pope Francis with a young child Shutterstock
Michael Haynes Michael Haynes Follow Michael
By Michael Haynes

VATICAN CITY, May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The Vatican has announced that Pope Francis will join politicians and journalists in addressing an Italian conference on the demographic crisis facing the nation, and the declining rate of births.

The Vatican’s Monday announcement noted that the Pope is to provide the opening address at the conference, for the General States of Birth, due to be held just outside the Vatican on May 14 at the Auditorium della Conciliazione.

The “Forum for Family Associations,” which organizes the conference, mentioned the “demographic winter” and the “empty cradles” which are being seen in Italy. The aim of the one-day event is to “launch an appeal for mutual responsibility to get the country moving again, beginning with new births.”

Referencing the decline in births, the Forum warned that the country could soon see a collapse of the “fundamental pillars” on which the nation is built.

The General States of Birth mentioned that 2020 had seen the continuation of a long trend of declining birth rates, with just over 404,000 births that year, which was a 3.8% drop from 2019, which had been the worst recorded year for births.

Italy has experienced a marked decrease in birth rates since 1950, with some statistical analyses putting the current birth rate at just 7.272 births per 1,000 people, compared to 18.607 in 1950.

Accompanying this, the death rate, as predicted by the same analysts, is 10.749 deaths per 1,000 people currently, compared to 10.003 per 1,000 people in 1950.

Projections for the death rate look set to rise steadily over the coming years and decades, and new data is set to be published at the conference regarding the demographic statistics of the nation.

LifeSiteNews reported early last year on the troubling situation seen in Italy, noting that at that time it had just seen its lowest number of babies born, a statistic which was then repeated in 2020.

While Pope Francis is giving the opening address, he will be accompanied by a number of Italian politicians and journalists. Elena Bonetti, the minister for families and equal opportunities, along with Patrizio Bianchi, the minister for education, and Nicola Zingaretti, the president of the Lazio Region, will join the pontiff.

Journalists and, perhaps unexpectedly, athletes also comprise the line-up of speakers who are due to appear at the event.

The conference is occurring mere days after another Vatican conference, this time a multi-day event entitled “Exploring the Mind, Body & Soul.” It will be attended by abortion advocates such as Chelsea Clinton, as well as CEOs from abortion-tainted vaccine companies Pfizer and Moderna, the director of the U.S National Institutes of Health, and pro-abortion COVID-response czar Dr. Anthony Fauci.

The conference will be guided by the Pope’s ecological encyclical Laudato Si, and aims to look at how to shape the future of the planet and of humanity.

Confusing papal history on encouraging birth rates

The Pope has given conflicting messages regarding birth rates and the growth of families. In 2015 he criticized the low birth rates in Europe as a whole, saying that children bring “joy, hope, also trouble,” but that “it’s better to have a society with these worries and problems than a sad and grey society because it has remained without children.

Children are a “great gift for humanity, but they are also greatly excluded,” said the Pope, adding that “a society can be judged by the way its children are treated.”

However, Pope Francis’ track record is confusingly mixed when it comes to the pro–life cause and abortion. He has previously presented some Catholic teaching regarding the immorality of abortion, albeit not always firmly or extensively.

At the same time, already in the first year of his pontificate, the Pope gave an interview in which he said that abortion was talked about too much in the Church.

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible,” he said. “I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that.”

The Pope continued: “The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.”

— 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

Then in a 2016 in-flight interview, the Pope famously attacked large Catholic families, saying, “God gives you methods to be responsible … Some think that, excuse me if I use that word, that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood!”

That same year, the Pope abolished the pro-life declaration which members of the Pontifical Academy for Life previously had to support, and subsequently appointed members to the academy who supported abortion.

Despite complaining about the media mis-representing him, the Pope’s own actions seem to present a different stance on abortion than the one which he claims to hold in his letter. In 2016, he publicly praised and later privately met Italy’s former Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, a leading abortion activist.

Most publicly, the Pope has sided with the United Nations (UN) and its 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which is heavily pro-abortion. He expressed support for the U.N’s goals, despite them calling for “universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programs,” which includes contraception and abortion. Pro-life organisations at the U.N. have campaigned against the goals for years.

In fact, the pontiff even called for a “special legally constituted authority” in order to implement the “supranational” U.N. goals. He has repeatedly aligned himself with those goals, particularly in the area of climate change.

On December 8, Francis joined forces with global capitalists in a venture called “Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican” in order to promote a new “economic system” of capitalism based on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

Not only this, but shortly after the media pre-emptively called the still undecided presidential election in favor of Joe Biden, the Pope called the pro-abortion candidate, “extending blessings and congratulations” to Biden. The Biden-Harris transition website reported that Biden expressed his desire to the Pope “to work together on the basis of a shared belief in the dignity and equality of all humankind on issues such as caring for the marginalized and the poor, addressing the crisis of climate change, and welcoming and integrating immigrants and refugees into our communities.”

Joe Biden has been very open about his express support for abortion as well as LGBT ideology. He recently called abortion an “essential health service” and wishes to enshrine abortion into federal law. Notwithstanding this, according to Biden, Francis has given him Holy Communion.

It remains to be seen what Pope Francis will say at the upcoming conference addressing Italy’s declining population, when he has historically given such mixed messages about promoting the growth in population.

  birth rates, catholic, demographic winter, forum for family associations, italy, pope francis


Canada’s Heritage Minister fumbles in response to question about government regulation of social media posts

The legislation, if passed, would force companies such as YouTube, Twitter, or Instagram to remove content deemed harmful within 24 hours.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 1:25 pm EST
Featured Image
Canada’s Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault (right) CBC News
Anthony Murdoch
By Anthony Murdoch

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

OTTAWA, Ontario, May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Canada’s Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault struggled to give a clear answer to justify why a committee chaired by him moved to have personal social media posts placed under government oversight. 

In an interview on the CBC show Power & Politics last Friday, Guilbeault claimed that his internet regulation Bill C-10, is about “ensuring that these platforms that act like broadcasters pay their fair share when it comes to Canadian culture….It's not about content moderation.” 

When the CBC interviewer asked Guilbeault why an original exemption in the bill for user-generated content on social media sites such as YouTube and Facebook were removed, he bumbled and fumbled his answer. 

“We're, we're, not interested. I mean, it's not, it's not what I mean, I….,” said Guilbeault.

The interviewer, not satisfied with his answer, interjected to challenge Guilbeault, “but there literally was an exclusion that was put in the original iteration of that bill, the thing that was reviewed and then it got to committee and bingo, bango, bongo, the exclusion is gone. So why was it important to put it there in the first place such that now the committee has removed it?”

To this question, Guilbeault answered, “the committee decides what they want in the bill.”

“First of all, the committee hasn't even finished doing it, doing its work in terms of, of the amendments. So, we don't have a full picture of what the bill will look like when it comes back, when it comes back to the to the to the House of Commons for, for third reading,” said Guilbeault. 

Last year, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government introduced Guilbeault’s Bill C-10, which would regulate certain online media services through the creation of a new class of broadcaster called “online undertakings.” The new regulations would be done through amendments to Canada’s Broadcasting Act

The original draft of Bill C-10 had an exemption clause called “Section 4.1” for “user content” posted on social media by individuals, meaning such posts would originally have not fallen under Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) regulations. 

The CRTC is the federal body tasked with regulating TV and radio in Canada, but up until Bill C-10 has kept a hands-off approach to regulating the internet. 

However, a recent amendment to Bill C-10 done through the Heritage Committee last Friday removed the “Section 4.1” provision, which in theory means the federal government would be able to regulate what people post online.

The legislation, if passed, would force companies such as YouTube, Twitter, or Instagram to remove content deemed harmful within 24 hours. In essence, it would let the CRTC regulate the internet along with social media in line with their regulations for broadcasting services.

In his Friday CBC interview, Guilbeault said that it's “not necessary” to add back the exclusion for user-generated content, and that the bill can always be “perfected” or “amended.”

“So, it's not required to be there because I mean, this again, this idea that the CRTC would start looking, would start doing content moderation is, has no basis in reality. In its 40 years of existence it has never done that. It doesn't have the power to do that. Bill C-10 doesn't grant the CRTC the power to do that, so this whole conversation makes no sense,” said Guilbeault.  

Recently, a former head of the CRTC  blasted the amendment to Bill C-10, saying that the removal of the original protection for user-generated content on sites such as Facebook and YouTube is something that is not “going to end well.” 

“Putting the CRTC in charge of the entire internet, I mean, that’s like putting a logging company in charge of the Great Bear Rainforest…it’s not going to end well,” said Peter Menzies, former head of the CRTC in regards to Bill C-10 in a Global News report. 

Menzies also recently said that Bill C-10 “doesn’t just infringe on free expression, it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it and, through it, the foundations of democracy.” 

During the Heritage Committee meeting last Friday regarding Bill C-10, Conservative Party MP Rachael Harder called upon her colleagues to look at whether the removal of “Section 4.1” from the Bill C-10 “fundamentally changes the legislation and dissolves the ground on which the charter statement stood to justify charter compliance.” 

— 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

However, Liberal MPs quickly voted down Harder’s motion and all debate on the bill was stopped. 

Yesterday, Harder was attacked by Guilbeault for her pro-life views in the House of Commons after she asked him if his bill would be able to stand up to a charter of rights review. 

Guilbeault said that he found Harder’s intervention “incredibly hypocritical” on the grounds that, “given the opportunity [Harder] would not hesitate one minute to remove women's right to choose.” Guilbeault described the so-called “right to choose” abortion as a “right protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms” and said that Harder was being hypocritical because she would “like us and Canadians to believe that all of the sudden, she cares deeply about said Charter.” 

CPC MP Pierre Poilievre, an outspoken critic of the Trudeau government, has launched a petition against Bill C-10 called “Stop the Censorship Bill & Protect Free Speech.” The petition calls on the Trudeau government to “immediately withdraw the censorship bill and respect free speech.”

In a statement yesterday, the Federal NDP Party said that they will be voting in favor of a motion that puts “Bill C-10 on hold while the Department of Justice conducts a new Charter compliance analysis and calls on the Minister to appear in committee.”

The NDP statement means Bill C-10 could face an uphill battle, as Trudeau Liberals need NDP support if the bill is to pass.

  bill c-10, censorship, pierre poilievre, rachael harder, steven guilbeault


Catholic Leadership Institute to feature Biden campaigner who supports compromise on contraception, abortion

The Catholic Leadership Institute is praising Carolyn Woo for her “faith” despite her campaign work for Biden and her past complicity in promoting contraception to African teens.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 11:41 am EST
Featured Image
Carolyn Woo Catholic Relief Services / YouTube
Emily Mangiaracina Emily Mangiaracina Follow


May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Carolyn Woo, a former co-chair of Catholics for Biden and former head of the contraception-promoting Catholic Relief Services (founded by the US bishops), is planned to be a guest speaker at the Catholic Leadership Institute’s (CLI) “Leadership Confessional” webinar series.

Despite her active campaigning for strongly pro-abortion and pro-LGBT Joe Biden, and her past complicity in the scandalous promotion of contraception to African teens as former CEO of Catholic Relief Services, she is being hailed by the Catholic Leadership Institute for her “impressive” “faith.”

“Former President & CEO of Catholic Relief Services, Carolyn’s resume is impressive and so is her faith. Carolyn’s journey, expertise, and leadership are admirable and inspiring,” reads the CLI promo page for the webinar, which is “reserved exclusively for monthly donors.”

Founded in 1992, the Catholic Leadership Institute aims to provide leadership formation for both clergy and laypeople, according to its website, and lists “Love of Christ and the Church” as one of its key values. Among the institution’s episcopal advisers are Cardinal Seán O’Malley of Boston, Cardinal Thomas Collins of Toronto, and USCCB president Archbishop José H. Gómez of Los Angeles.

As a co-chair of the voter outreach initiative Catholics for Biden, Woo was not “merely endorsing” Biden, as Josh Dickson, faith engagement director at Biden for President, explained. The co-chairs were to “lend their voices and their leadership” to Catholics for Biden events, including phone banks and voter turnout initiatives.

Many members of the laity and clergy, including bishops, have decried Biden’s extreme pro-abortion stance as gravely sinful. Biden goes so far as to oppose any legal measures that promote an informed and careful deliberation about the decision to choose life, while Vice President Kamala Harris earned a 100% congressional voting record from the pro-abortion group NARAL “every year she has served in the U.S. Senate.”

Biden and Harris issued a statement in January reiterating their commitment “to codifying Roe v. Wade and appointing judges that respect foundational precedents like Roe.”

Biden’s “Health Care Plan” also states that “his Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop” state laws that “so blatantly violate the constitutional right to an abortion,” such as “parental notification” and “ultrasound requirements.”

Since taking office, Biden has promoted abortion by having issued multiple executive orders that reinstate abortion funding both at home and abroad, including funding of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which partners with China despite the country’s forced abortion and sterilization practices. Under his administration, the FDA has also reversed a Trump-era decision banning the dispensation of abortion-inducing drugs by mail.

Biden has signed several executive orders that open the doors to religious oppression. One such order forces women’s athletic programs, restrooms, and locker rooms to accept gender-confused males, prompting the Christian College of the Ozarks to sue because of this policy.

The importance of conservative judges

In explaining to Michael O’Loughlin, correspondent for the Jesuit Review America, why she supports Joe Biden, Woo insisted that “life is sacred,” but that “who the president is has nothing, no impact on reducing abortion. The whole idea that Republican presidents appoint conservative judges who then reverse Roe, well, we’ve had 30 years of Republican justices and nothing has happened.”

“Really what would reduce abortion is state and local level actions,” Woo continued.

And yet, these state laws are “utterly at the mercy of federal courts,” as LifeSiteNews writer Calvin Freiburger points out. These federal courts are overseen by judicial appointees of the president himself.

Addressing those Never Trumpers who argue that the presidency plays the least importance in abortion policy, Freiburger says: “Obviously, the heroic pro-life grassroots are essential. What’s not heroic is using them as an excuse not to do all we can at the federal level. It’s simply immoral to advocate that we not resist a pro-death ticket’s takeover of the executive branch just because part of the victim pool will be saved either way… especially when that ticket’s judges will also decide the fate of laws that directly impact pro-lifers’ ability to serve their communities.”

The idea that judges have no impact on abortion policy is also contradicted by abortion researchers Wm. Robert Johnston, Ph.D., and Thomas W. Jacobson, M.A., who say their findings worldwide reveal the “greatest genocide in history” and show that “government policies, including both laws themselves and the level of enforcement, profoundly affect the level of abortion.”

Planned Parenthood itself is wary of this, having noted that “challenges” to abortion restriction laws in court “are likely to be heard by Trump-nominated federal judges,” 18 of which NARAL has pegged as firmly pro-life (in their words, “anti-choice”).

Woo’s excuse for supporting Biden, in purely practical terms, is especially questionable because of the unprecedented contrast between presidential candidates on sanctity of life policy. Whereas Trump has been hailed by the president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List and others as the “most pro-life president in history,” self-described “pro-life liberals” warned before the 2020 election that “Joe Biden would be the most pro-abortion president in history.”

Pro-life response to Woo’s claims

Michael Hichborn, President of the Lepanto Institute, refuted Woo’s claim that presidents have no impact on abortion in a comment to LifeSiteNews: “Joe Biden’s first act after being sworn in was to rescind the Mexico City Policy, allowing U.S.-funded agencies to provide and promote abortion overseas. Biden has also sworn that he would increase funding for the abortion industry’s leading retailer, Planned Parenthood, and he said that he would work to eliminate all legal obstacles, clearing the way for abortion on demand at all stages of fetal development.”

“Woo claims to have compassion for the poor, but she has no compassion for the preborn babies who are being dismembered and their body parts sold because of what she has done,” continued Hichborn.

— 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

Aside from washing over the practical impact of a pro-life president, Woo neglected to mention that Catholic teaching holds that support of pro-abortion candidates is unconscionable, regardless of the expected impact of such policies, when a pro-life alternative candidate is present.

Former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, declared in a 2004 memorandum that only “morally proportionate reasons” could justify voting for a candidate in favor of abortion.

Ratzinger explained that abortion and euthanasia are intrinsically grave sins. ”Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.”

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops also reminded the faithful in their document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” that the “moral obligation to oppose policies promoting intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions.”

“I cannot conceive of any proportionate reason that could outweigh the death of nearly 50 million children killed by abortion,” former Archbishop of Omaha Elden F. Curtiss was quoted as saying in the book Catholic Voting and Mortal Sin: How Your Vote Can Endanger Your Salvation.

Archbishop Joseph Naumann, chair of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’s (USCCB) Committee on Pro-Life Activities, is currently working on a document that, if approved, “would make clear the USCCB’s view” that Biden and other Catholic public figures who similarly promote pro-abortion policies “should not present themselves for Communion,” Naumann explained to the Associated Press.

Nauman elaborated in an interview with The Atlantic, “Obviously, the president doesn’t believe what we believe about the sacredness of human life, or he wouldn’t be taking the actions that he is. And yet, he continues to receive the Eucharist. We can’t judge his heart. But we consider the action itself a grave moral evil.”

“He’s formally cooperating in abortion by his actions. He intends to make abortion available and accessible, to promote it, even help pay for it. He wants to force everybody else to do this as well, even if it violates their consciences,” Naumann continued.

“It can create confusion ... How can he say he’s a devout Catholic and he’s doing these things that are contrary to the church’s teaching?” said Naumann.

“Biden may be able to woo some nominally Christian voters over to his side, but he certainly has no intention of governing according to the Word of the Lord,” commented blogger Elizabeth Johnston.

Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield is one of many bishops who have made clear that voting for a pro-abortion politician is not an option for Catholics. He warned in 2012 that “a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.”

Other problematic Biden policies from a Catholic perspective

This is not the only serious issue with voting for Biden, as he also defies Catholic Church by supporting same-sex “marriage” and laws which would punish Christians for living according to their religious beliefs on gender, sexuality, and the sanctity of life.

Biden admitted that as president he would force Catholic nuns to pay for contraception and abortion in spite of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in favor of their religious freedom. He has also repeatedly lauded the Equality Act, which would punish churches and other institutions for refusing to hire homosexuals, force shelters to allow men to sleep in women’s quarters, and compel doctors to perform transgender surgeries, among other anti-Christian provisions.

Woo’s support for contraception at Catholic Relief Services

And Woo’s practical opposition to Church teaching doesn’t stop at her support of Biden. As the former head of Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Woo continued the group’s practice of teaching African teens about contraception through one of its grant programs, and of heavily funding abortion and contraception-promoting groups.

Woo became President and CEO of CRS in January 2012, after having served on its Board of Directors from 2004 to 2010. In 2015, Michael Voris presented findings by Michael Hichborn and Steve Mosher that documented how CRS was directly involved in promoting contraception to Kenyan teens under the leadership of Woo in 2012, through a so-called “Healthy Choices 2” program.

On-the-ground investigative work in Kenya overseen by Steve Mosher confirmed that Healthy Choices 2 taught children ages 13 to 17 about contraception methods, including condom use.

Voris’s report shared a screenshot of the Caritas Nyeri website, speaking “on behalf of the archdiocese of Nyeri,” that verified that CRS was in charge of implementing Healthy Choices 2, and explained that the program “aims” to “promote secondary abstinence or protected sexual intercourse/safe sex.”

Michael Hichborn commented, “It’s vital to point out here that we have four independent sources that are actually verifying that CRS through the SAIDIA grant did indeed implement Healthy Choices 2.”

Voris noted that they found U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief in Kenya (PEPFAR) documents that likewise showed CRS’s role in contraception-promoting programs for fiscal years 2011 and 2013.

Voris presented documentation showing that The Movement of Men Against Aids in Kenya (MMAAK) was a sub-partner of CRS under a PEPFAR grant. He also showed posters found in MMAAK’s offices depicting “proper” condom use, and explained how an investigator spoke with MMAAK’s regional coordinator for Nairobi, a man named Philip.

“I think the most condemning thing that Philip said about CRS’s activities to our investigator was that CRS told Philip and the people working in the MMAAK program not to take Healthy Choices 2 to any Catholic school, but to stay in other Christian schools. That suggests that Catholic Relief Services knew exactly that what they were doing was a violation of Catholic Church teaching and they wanted to avoid Catholic schools and Catholic churches so that they could avoid having these things come to light,” commented Mosher.

Funding distributed by Catholic Relief Services under Woo

In addition to CRS’s involvement in managing contraception education programs, it has provided massive funds to organizations that promote the grave sins of abortion and contraception.

Michael Hichborn discussed other findings of his investigation into CRS’s funding activity. “What we found is that 86 percent of all of the domestic grants that CRS distributed for the year 2012, that’s 64-plus million dollars out of 75-plus million dollars, went to organizations that are directly funding abortion, birth control, contraception, sterilization, the whole gamut. These organizations themselves are on the ground handing out contraceptive devices.

Hichborn cited what he described as the most clear-cut example of the issues with these groups: “You look at what Population Services International (PSI) is all about, and it’s mind-blowing that CRS would say, oh, we had no idea that they were handing out abortion or that they were dispensing birth control in such a wide scale.”

“The founder of Population Services International was a major pornographer who made his millions, actually billions, in the sex toy male industry, and then he took that money to create Population Services International for the specific purpose of population control. That’s why it was created,” Hichborn continued, referring to Phil Harvey, co-founder and president of the erotica distributor Adam & Eve.

Hichborn confirmed that CRS gave a whopping $2.8 million to PSI. “CRS defended itself by saying, well, none of that money went to, you know, contraception or anything, it went towards passing out mosquito nets and things like that,” noted Niles.

“When I think about what CRS is doing and their excuses I have an analogy that I like to draw. Imagine a Catholic college was paying Planned Parenthood to come on its campus to conduct breast cancer screenings or STD tests for students. It doesn’t matter how tightly controlled those funds are for the strict purpose of the screenings or the STD tests. The prestige the college helps Planned Parenthood acquire is gravely scandalous,” commented Hichborn.

More of Woo’s positions are in conflict with Church teaching

Hichborn, who has been providing ongoing reporting and documentation of CRS’s scandalous practices for years, pointed out to LifeSiteNews that Carolyn Woo “also personally defended employing a same-sex ‘married’ senior vice president at CRS,” which Hichborn reported on in 2015.

He also noted that after leaving CRS, Woo started working with the heretical organization called FutureChurch, which Hichborn commented on in late 2016, explaining that “FutureChurch promotes same-sex ‘marriage,’ the priestly ‘ordination’ of women, and contraception.”

“Dr. Carolyn Woo's public work, whether it be at CRS, FutureChurch, or Catholics for Biden, is fraught with an attitude of compromise. In her exit speech from CRS to the 2016 USCCB Annual Assembly, Woo said, ‘the most chilling statement I ever heard’ was ‘Carolyn, we can’t compromise,’” noted Hichborn.

“She called for compromise regarding a same-sex ‘married’ senior executive vice president at CRS, and she compromised with abortion and contraception providing organizations by letting them distribute abortifacient contraception in CRS-run areas. But since then, she’s jumped full in the abortion-industry's tank by co-chairing the Catholics for Biden organization and working with an organization that directly promotes same-sex ‘marriage,’ contraception, and women’s ordination.”

“With her track record of betraying the moral teachings of the Church, it’s hard to see how she can ever possibly be considered as a speaker at the Catholic Leadership Institute,” concluded Hichborn.

LifeSiteNews has repeatedly reached out to the Catholic Leadership Institute for comment, but has not received a response.

  abortion, carolyn woo, catholic, catholic leadership institute, catholic relief services, contraception, homosexuality, joe biden


Irish police raid home, seize children of man who recorded police disrupting Mass a week before

The children, whose parents had been involved in a months-long custody dispute, have now been returned to their mother in France.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 11:10 am EST
Featured Image
Pat Sweeney Twitter screenshot
LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

Editor’s Note: The events reported below have been the subject of much flurried reporting in the last few days. Before releasing this report, LifeSiteNews examined as many facts as possible, since despite the early reports, much confusion still remains about the particulars of the case. As readers will see, a parental custody dispute is involved. LifeSiteNews will provide updates on the matter as they come to light.

DUBLIN, Ireland, May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Irish police have raided the house and removed the children of a man who one week earlier filmed the police entering a Catholic church and ordering worshippers to go home due to COVID-19 regulations.

At 3:30 a.m. on the morning of Saturday, May 1, Gardai Síochána (Irish Police) broke into the house of Pat Sweeney in Roscommon, and roused him and his two children out of bed.

The officers cited an “investigation” which they were carrying out under Section 12 of the Mental Health Act 2001, saying that they had “concerns” for his medical well-being, and for that of his children.

Promising more explanation at the station, they detained Sweeney and took him down to Longford police station. Sweeney stated that his sons, aged 11 and 5, were taken in their night clothes by officers, with the eldest being chased around the yard for some 15 minutes.

Upon arrival at the station, where he was allowed outside to smoke a cigarette, Sweeney was subsequently examined by a doctor. After being questioned by the doctor, he was declared medically fit and released, yet his children were not returned to him, due to concerns they expressed about Sweeney.

At no point was he arrested or charged with anything.

The Gardai informed Sweeney that they had responded to a call from a very concerned woman, who alleged to be worried about Sweeney and harm which he might do to his children. Law enforcement officers later disclosed that the call was reportedly from Sweeney’s mother, but Sweeney stated his mother had died in 1997.

Then, in a call to the solicitors representing Sweeney’s estranged wife, Gardai stated that they had actually been responding to a malicious call.

Multiple videos have emerged online and on social media documenting Sweeney’s interactions with the police in his attempt to discover the whereabouts of his children. Gardai were informing Sweeney that his children were under the protection of TUSLA, Ireland’s Child and Family agency, and that consequently the Gardai did not know where the children had been sent — despite taking the children from Sweeney and delivering them to TUSLA. Some have expressed concerns of corruption within TUSLA.

Despite the amount of footage, many significant details remain as yet uncertain and somewhat contradictory.

The Gardai informed Sweeney that there had been a court case on Saturday regarding the children, which Sweeney would have known about. Yet representatives from TUSLA stated that there was no court case about the children.

Following repeated questioning, and periods of being ignored by the Gardai, Sweeney was told that he had been originally detained by an inspector from nearby Castlerea Gardai, but when questioned by him, Gardai at Castlerea provided no further information.

Over the weekend, Sweeney was assisted by a number of activists and members of the National Party, in an effort to find and be re-united with his children. Among those who helped Sweeney was Justin Barrett, the leader of the conservative National Party and a pro–life advocate, and Philip Dwyer, also of the National Party.

Late in the evening of Monday, May 3, the children were finally returned to their mother, Sweeney’s ex-wife. Sweeney was not permitted to see them.

Custody confusion

Much confusion surrounds the details of parental custody of the children and what role it played in the events, as this was seemingly used by the Gardai in their justification for the detaining of Pat Sweeney.

Sweeney’s ex-wife lives in France, and the family had lived together in France until an “unhappy difference” arose, and Sweeney was “asked to leave the home.” He returned to Ireland in early 2020.

The two children had been visiting Sweeney in Ireland in October, and were due to return to France on November 1. Once Sweeney learned of the new mask rules for schoolchildren in France, which would affect his oldest child, he had changed the agreement and kept the children with him, prompting a court challenge.

Sweeney argued for the children to remain with him until the mask mandate in French schools was over, while his former wife argued for their return to school in France.

A March ruling from the High Court (obtained by LifeSiteNews) went against Sweeney, rejecting his application for them to stay in the country until the mask mandate changed in France. A subsequent ruling on April 28 by the Court of Appeals reaffirmed this, adding that arrangements for the children’s return to their mother should be presented to the court by April 29, and in the absence of such plans, the court would give directions itself to ensure the “immediate return of the children.”

It is unclear whether a specific date had been given regarding the handover of the children to their mother.

However, Rebecca Barrett (Justin Barrett’s wife), who set up a GoFundMe account to support Sweeney, stated that he “was not in breach of a custody order when his children were taken from him in the middle of the night. The court had granted him a stay on them returning to France which had not elapsed.”

Barrett wrote that a stay on the children’s return had been granted and had lapsed only on May 4, some hours after the children were re-united with their mother in Ireland, and thus the Gardai had not been acting pursuant to a court order when they detained Sweeney.

In an interview on the afternoon of May 4, Sweeney noted that he had called his ex-wife shortly after being released by the Gardai, and she flew from France to retrieve the children from TUSLA, since Sweeney was not being allowed to learn of his children’s whereabouts. He added that they were on amicable terms.

He also hinted that there was an ongoing court decision which was yet to be released at the time of his detention, since he anticipated the court was due to rule against him, ending the stay on the decision and forcing him to return the children to France.

Sweeney had not as yet seen the children since they were taken from him by the Gardai, but was on his way to hand over their passports to his former wife, so that she could take the children back to France.

As of time of writing, the GoFundMe account has now been closed, with the required funds being contributed within around 24 hours.

Sweeney was reunited with his children on the evening of May 4, when he said goodbye before they departed with their mother to their home in France.

Potential police revenge?

Several commentators have pointed to an event which took place the previous weekend as the explanation for the bizarre raid on Sweeney’s house in the early hours of this most recent weekend.

Sweeney was the (completely unknown) individual who recorded footage of Gardai breaking into a Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) church in Athlone, while Confessions were being held. Sweeney himself can be heard conversing with the officers, although his identity is not revealed to the viewers at all.

The video subsequently went viral, prompting harsh criticism against the Gardai for enforcing a police state and a quasi-religious persecution.

— 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

Members of the parish commented online that this was not the first time that the church had been reported, but due to the footage, it was the first time that news had spread in such a widespread manner. In fact, Sweeney’s footage appeared to cause awkwardness not only for the Gardai, but for the SSPX clergy themselves. One SSPX priest at the parish told LifeSiteNews that the matter had been blown out of proportion, and said that the church-raiding Gardai should actually be apologized to for how they had supposedly suffered at the hands of the media.

Days later, Sweeney’s house was raided by the police, and his children removed from his care, in what commentators have described as a revenge attack by the police in response to Sweeney’s anonymous footage of their raid in Athlone.

“This man dared to speak out against the regime and they came for his children. Have no doubt, fail to speak up now, let this continue to happen … and they will come for yours,” wrote Rebecca Barrett.

Donors to the funding page echoed Barrett’s words: “Terrorizing Mr. Sweeney was supposed to send a message to ALL of us: To never push back and defend our faith and freedom. Gardai were weaponized against the innocent for their global agenda — to make us all order follower slaves. Je suis Pat!”

It has also been suggested that since Sweeney had his children with him at confession in Athlone, he could have been considered a risk to their health and safety, since he was taking them to an event which is currently banned under the purview of COVID-19 prevention.

The Irish Students Against Globalism commented on the event: “The Irish state has made it clear with actions in Athlone that they will misuse legislation to confiscate children of political dissidents. Every fear people had about the referendum on children has been entirely validated.”

TUSLA and the abduction of Irish youth

Reporting on this incident, Anna Kavanagh of the Irish Inquiry pointed to disturbing proceedings of what amounted to child abduction by TUSLA. Partner foster care agencies are also involved, and they have custody of any children removed from their parents when TUSLA staff are off for the weekends. Kavanagh described it as a “massive, massive business.”

Speaking in general terms, she outlined the normal process when children are removed and not returned to their parents. Once the children are handed over to TUSLA, Gardai are not told what happens to the children.

For parents whose children are removed and not returned, they have to resort to a family law court, which requires them to have “very deep pockets,” in order to stand any chance against the TUSLA legal team. Even then, they could be outnumbered “by a ratio of about 1 to 10.”

TUSLA seek, and are almost guaranteed, an emergency care order which is granted on condition of parental capacity assessments. However, these are designed in such a way “that the parents fail,” stated Kavanagh.

“I have not met a single parent that has passed the parental capacity test, or the psychological report.” The process takes “years.”

If the issue is raised in the Dail (Ireland’s parliament), Kavanagh mentioned that the Minister for Justice states he can’t comment on individual matters, and that it is a matter for the Gardai. The Minister for Children replies similarly that he can’t comment on individual cases, and it is a matter for TUSLA.

The ombudsman for children is also prevented from becoming involved in the process until all other avenues have been exhausted.

Kavanagh mentioned the case of Maurice McCabe. McCabe blew the whistle on police corruption (which would ultimately lead to the resignation of the Fine Gael Minister for Justice Alan Shatter), and at the same time, TUSLA opened a file on McCabe alleging that he had sexually abused his children. A tribunal concluded that there was no collusion between the Gardai and TUSLA, but that the Gardai whistleblowing was concomitant with the allegations of child abuse.

Had Sweeney’s children not been returned to their mother, a family court would have been convened in-camera, and any members of the public who spoke publicly about the case could have faced jail time or a fine of €50,000.

Kavanagh has been trying to expose the failings of the family law courts and TUSLA for some years, and noted that the case of Pat Sweeney demonstrated how Ireland is “slipping more and more and more towards a police state.”

She urged people to email the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Children, to express one’s feelings about the events seen this past weekend at Sweeney’s house.

To send respectful communication:

Ministry of Justice: [email protected], [email protected]

Minster for Children: [email protected]

  custody, gardai, ireland, pat sweeney


Former Archbishop of Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony hit with child-abuse lawsuit

The alleged victim was 17 at the time and had just moved with his family to Los Angeles from Mexico City
Wed May 5, 2021 - 10:45 am EST
Featured Image
Cardinal Roger Mahony speaks at LA REC in Los Angeles, March 2019 Lisa Bourne /
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.

LOS ANGELES, California, May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – The disgraced former Archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony, has been hit with a lawsuit in which he stands accused of sexually abusing a 17-year-old male in 1986.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of “John Doe” by Saunders & Walker law firm in the Superior Court of California last month, alleges that Mahony, 85, used his position of spiritual authority to groom the boy who was a minor at the time.

“In approximately 1986, when Plaintiff was 17 years old and attending Cathedral Church of Saint Vibiana, Archbishop Roger Mahony repeatedly sexually assaulted, molested and abused Plaintiff,” the complaint states.

“While performing his duties as an Archbishop, and for the purpose of furthering the duties required in that role, Archbishop Roger Mahony befriended Plaintiff and gained Plaintiff’s trust and confidence as a spiritual guide, authority figure and trustworthy mentor,” it continues.

“Seeing Archbishop Roger Mahony as a trustworthy mentor, Plaintiff was conditioned to comply with Archbishop Roger Mahony’s direction and to respect him as a person of authority in spiritual, ethical, and educational matters. Archbishop Roger Mahony’s conduct constituted ‘grooming’ of Plaintiff and culminated in his sexual assault and abuse of Plaintiff,” it adds.

The complaint goes into detail regarding the abuse that is alleged to have happened to the boy who is described as someone who was raised in Mexico City and who moved to Los Angeles with his family in 1986.

A video posted to Youtube on May 1 by Clean the Church captures the Cardinal being served the complaint.

When asked to comment on the matter, a spokesman from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles told LifeSiteNews that it was his understanding that the “recent civil suit is being withdrawn.”

“There have been no credible allegations of misconduct concerning Cardinal Mahony. As Archbishop, Cardinal Mahony established the Archdiocese’s zero-tolerance policy regarding misconduct with minors and directed that a comprehensive list of accused clergy be published and updated, which included both priests and bishops. In that list, he included the past allegations made against himself that were investigated by law enforcement and found to have been unsubstantiated, with one resulting in the arrest of the accuser,” Adrian Alarcon, the Archdiocese’s Director of Media Relations, told LifeSite by email. 

— 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 Archdiocese is committed to the safety and well-being of the children and all in our parish and school communities. There are no clergy or lay persons known to have harmed a child currently serving in ministry. We take seriously every allegation of misconduct involving a minor, whether by clergy or lay person. Allegations are reported to law enforcement, and if the person is found to have harmed a child, they are permanently removed from serving in any capacity in the Archdiocese,” he added.

LifeSite reached out to the law firm of Saunders & Walker to verify the claim that the suit had been withdrawn. LifeSite will update this report as soon as the information is provided. 

Mahony was appointed Archbishop of Los Angeles in 1985. He was made a Cardinal by John Paul II in 1991. He retired in 2011. The Cardinal has a long history of advancing positions in the Catholic Church at odds with Catholic teaching, such as defending giving Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians and giving it knowingly to homosexual activists.

Mahony was barred from public ministry by his successor Archbishop Jose Gomez in 2013 after evidence surfaced of his systematic cover-up of sex abuse by priests. The Archdiocese in 2007 paid out a record $660 million settlement to over 500 victims of clergy, who, under Mahony’s supervision, were transferred from parish to parish where the priests found new victims to abuse. Despite the restriction placed on the Cardinal in 2013 by his successor, Pope Francis surprisingly rehabilitated Mahony, making him his "special envoy" at the celebration of the 150th anniversary of the U.S. Catholic diocese of Scranton.

The lawsuit states that the alleged victim, who is now 53, suffers many harms from the alleged assault, including “severe physical, psychological, emotion and economic harm, including, but not limited to symptoms of PTSD, severe anxiety, loss of interest and pleasures in activities, an inability to concentrate, feelings of self-blame, feelings of estrangement from friends and/or family, hypervigilance, a lost sense of worth, a sense of being tainted, suicidal ideation, and a loss of sexual desire.”

The lawsuit is seeking a trial by jury.

May 5, 2021, 4:40 PM EST update: This report now includes a statement from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

  archdiocese of los angeles, catholic, child abuse, homosexuality, roger mahony, sex abuse crisis in catholic church


FDA set to authorize Pfizer vaccine for adolescents, but some experts question need, ethics

The US Food and Drug Administration could by early next week expand Pfizer’s Emergency Use Authorization to include children ages 12 to 15, an age group whose risk of dying from COVID is less than 0.1%
Wed May 5, 2021 - 9:31 am EST
Featured Image
Megan Redshaw, J.D.
By Megan Redshaw J.D.

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

May 5, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) —  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is preparing to authorize use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine in adolescents 12 to 15 years old by early next week, according to federal officials familiar with the agency’s plans. The vaccine is currently authorized in the U.S for emergency use in people 16 and older.

The decision, which is likely to be supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), would allow most middle and high school students to get vaccinated before summer camps and the start of the 2021-22 school year, USA TODAY reported.

The FDA will have to amend the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s vaccine, but the process should be straightforward, said a federal official who was not authorized to speak about the process publicly and requested anonymity.

“While the FDA cannot predict how long its evaluation of the data and information will take, the agency will review the request as expeditiously as possible using its thorough and science-based approach,” the FDA said in an email to CNN last week.

The FDA is reviewing data submitted by Pfizer to support the expanded use of its experimental vaccine, including a clinical trial involving 2,260 12 to 15 year-olds. Results showed Pfizer’s vaccine was 100% effective at preventing moderate to severe COVID in an age group which, according to the CDC, experiences mostly asymptomatic infection.

Pfizer said clinical trial volunteers produced strong antibody responses and administration was well tolerated, with side effects generally consistent with those observed in participants 16 to 25 years old.

Before issuing the EUAs for the PfizerModerna and Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccines, the FDA held meetings of its independent Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) to review the data and vote on whether to recommend EUA. That will not happen in extending EUA to this younger age group. CNN reported:

“Based on an initial evaluation of the information submitted, at this time, the agency does not plan to hold a meeting of the VRBPAC on this request to amend the EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, which was discussed and recommended for authorization [for adults over the age of 18] at a VRBPAC meeting in December 2020. As with all FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines, we are committed to transparency with this EUA review process.”

Some experts are raising questions about whether COVID vaccines should be targeted to an age group that so far appears to be mostly spared from severe COVID.

“I do think we need to have a national and global conversation about the ethics of our vaccinating kids, who are low risk for serious complications from the virus, when there aren’t enough vaccines in the world to protect high-risk adults from dying,” Jennifer B. Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told The New York Times.

Dr. Rupali J. Limaye, a Johns Hopkins University researcher who studies vaccine use and hesitancy, said the U.S should not ethically be prioritizing children over people from other countries like India.

According to the CDC, between March 1 and Dec. 12, 2020, there were a total of 2,871,828 laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID in children, adolescents and young adults aged 0 to 24 years in the U.S. out of a total U.S. population of approximately 330,000 million people.

Here’s a breakdown of COVID cases by age group:

  • 1,648,429 (57.4%) cases occurred in young adults aged 18-24 years

  • 468,108(16.3%) cases occurred in children aged 14-17 years

  • 226,874 (7.9%) cases occurred in children aged 11-13 years

  • 331,029 (10.9%) cases occurred in children aged 5-10 years

  • 212,515 (7.4%) of cases occurred in children aged 0-4 years

According to CDC data, the death rate among adolescents ages 0 to 17 who get COVID and are subsequently hospitalized is 0.7%, with many experiencing either mild or no symptoms at all. The COVID death rate in all adolescent age categories is less than 0.1%.

study in the European Journal of Pediatrics confirmed hospitalization and in-hospital death are rare in children diagnosed with COVID, with complications occurring mostly in those with serious underlying medical conditions.

Herd immunity and children

As The Defender reported in February, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, admitted to The New York Times that he “nudged” the level required to achieve herd immunity up to 90% from the previously estimated 70% after he saw polls indicating growing public unwillingness to get the vaccine

Educators have been quick to reinforce Fauci’s message that young people should get the shots, stating that vaccinating students is “a crucial step in the return-to-normal for schools.”

Although health officials admit “kids do not generally suffer from severe COVID-19” and are unlikely to directly benefit from the injections, they have no intention of excluding children from their herd immunity calculus. Instead, they claim “inoculating [children] could reduce the spread to people at higher risk.”

In short, public health leaders say, parents must “vaccinate the young to protect the old.”

The federal government estimates that one vaccine injury results from every 39 vaccines administered, and recent VAERS data show 118,902 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines, including 3,544 deaths and 12,619 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and April 23.

As The Defender reported last week, the latest VAERS data included three reports of teens under age 18 who died after receiving COVID vaccines, including two 15-year-olds and one 16-year-old who died unexpectedly from a blood clot 11 days after receiving her first Pfizer dose.

A 15-year-old female died of cardiac arrest after receiving the second dose of the Moderna vaccine, and a 15-year-old male died of cardiac failure two days after receiving the Pfizer vaccine.

— 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

Pfizer cashing in on COVID vaccine

Pfizer has been vocal over the past year about its desire to create a third dose of its vaccine, market its vaccine to children as young as 12 by the time school starts in the fall and create annual boosters like influenza vaccines to create a consistent demand –– all things that are pleasing to investors.

During a virtual investor conference in March, Pfizer’s CFO, Frank D’Amelio, said the company sees “significant opportunity” for its COVID vaccine once the market shifts from a “pandemic situation to an endemic situation.”

At that point “factors like efficacy, booster ability, clinical utility will basically become very important, and we view that as, quite frankly, a significant opportunity for our vaccine from a demand perspective, from a pricing perspective, given the clinical profile of our vaccine,” D’Amelio told the analyst.

Pfizer’s first quarter revenue report released today showed $3.5 billion in revenue generated during the first three months of this year by the company’s COVID vaccine –– making it the biggest source of Pfizer’s revenue.

The company did not disclose profits, but now anticipates revenue of $26 billion for its COVID vaccine, up from its previous estimate of $15 billion. Pfizer splits its vaccine revenue with BioNTech, which will report its own first-quarter results next week. BioNTech said in March that it had locked in revenue of nearly $11.8 billion, based on vaccine orders at the time.

The vaccine is expected to keep generating significant revenue for Pfizer and BioNTech, as the company anticipates people will need annual booster shots.

© May 4, 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

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

  anthony fauci, coronavirus vaccine, fda, pfizer


35-year-old woman dies of brain hemorrhage 11 days after receiving J&J vaccine

The family of Anne VanGeest says the 35-year-old was healthy prior to being vaccinated, and that she died of complications from the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 8:45 am EST
Featured Image
Image credit: Lambert
Megan Redshaw, J.D.
By Megan Redshaw J.D.

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

May 5, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) —  The family of a Michigan woman says she died as the result of complications 11 days after receiving the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine.

Anne VanGeest, 35, died April 19 at Mercy Health Saint Mary’s hospital in Grand Rapids from an acute subarachnoid brain hemorrhage, FOX 17 reported.

“It is with profound sadness that we share the news of Anne’s passing Anne (Annie), who was 35, was a loving mother, wife, sister and daughter,” the family said in a statement provided by Lambert, a Grand Rapids public relations firm that is providing its services to the family pro bono.

VanGeest received the J&J shot on April 8, five days before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) paused the vaccine to investigate reports of potentially dangerous blood clots in women who received the shot.

VanGeest’s family said her headache started on April 16 — eight days after being vaccinated. She died three days later. Her death certificate notes a natural death, specifically from an acute subarachnoid hemorrhage, or bleeding between the brain and tissue around the brain.

Symptoms of the rare blood clots typically develop six to 15 days after getting the shot.

“These initial symptoms are fairly vague and nonspecific,” said Dr. Tom Shimabukuro of the CDC COVID-19 Response. “(It’s) mainly headache, but importantly, the headaches for these started six or more days after vaccination.”

VanGeest’s physician filed a report to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

In an email to the VanGeest family, the CDC confirmed her death had been reported to VAERS, but said the system is not designed to determine whether a reported adverse event was caused by the vaccine.

“When VAERS receives reports of serious illness or death after vaccination, VAERS staff contact the hospital where the patient was treated to obtain the associated medical records to better understand the adverse event,” the CDC said.

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

The Defender has repeatedly reached out to the CDC since March 8 to determine how investigations into reported deaths are conducted, but have yet to receive a response.

On April 13, the CDC and FDA called for an immediate halt to the use of J&J’s COVID vaccine, marketed under the company’s Janssen subsidiary, while they investigated at least six cases of a rare and serious disorder called cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT).

CVT occurs when a blood clot forms in the brain’s venous sinuses. The clot prevents blood from draining out of the brain. As a result, blood cells may break and leak blood into the brain tissues, forming a hemorrhage.

On April 14, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) postponed a vote on whether to lift the pause on the J&J vaccine, effectively extending it pending further analysis of data relating to blood clots in people who received the vaccine.

On April 23, the ACIP voted 10 – 4 to recommend lifting the pause of the J&J shot without restrictions or an additional warning about the risk of blood clotting disorders after analyzing 15 cases of rare blood clots, including three deaths, according to a slide presentation shared during the meeting.

The ACIP said the link between blood clots and J&J’s COVID vaccine was “plausible,” but concluded the vaccine’s benefits outweigh the risks. The FDA and CDC voted to lift the pause, but the FDA said it would add a warning label about potentially serious blood clotting disorders.

— 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

Denmark health officials announced Monday they would remove the J&J vaccine from the country’s vaccine program after concluding that the benefits of the vaccine do not outweigh the risk of blood clots.

On April 30 Children’s Health Defense queried the VAERS data for a series of adverse events associated with the formation of clotting disorders and other related conditions. VAERS yielded a total of 1,845 reports for all three vaccines from Dec. 14, 2020, through April 23.

Of the 1,845 cases reported, there were 655 reports attributed to Pfizer, 577 reports to Moderna and 608 reports to J&J. However, U.S. health officials only acknowledged 15 blood clot cases associated with the J&J vaccine at the April 16 meeting.

A query in VAERS for subarachnoid brain hemorrhage yielded 31 cases, eight of which were associated with J&J’s COVID vaccine.

© May 4, 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

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

  coronavirus vaccine, coronavirus vaccine deaths, johnson & johnson, vaers


Is Archbishop Cordileone’s pastoral letter on abortion Nancy Pelosi’s last warning?

'I tremble that if I do not forthrightly challenge Catholics under my pastoral care who advocate for abortion, both they and I will have to answer to God for innocent blood,' writes Archbishop Cordileone.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 3:46 pm EST
Featured Image
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) speaks during her weekly news conference at the U.S. Capitol on April 22, 2021 in Washington, DC. Drew Angerer / Staff / Getty
Phil Lawler
By Phil Lawler

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

May 5, 2021 ( – With his pastoral letter powerfully reaffirming the importance of the Church’s teaching on the dignity of human life, San Francisco’s Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone has issued a serious challenge: to all Catholics, certainly, but to his brother bishops in particular, and especially to the prominent Catholic politicians who support legal abortion—notably including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, whose residence is in the San Francisco archdiocese.

“I tremble that if I do not forthrightly challenge Catholics under my pastoral care who advocate for abortion, both they and I will have to answer to God for innocent blood,” writes Archbishop Cordileone. He mentions no names, and he emphasizes that a bishop should admonish a sinner privately before taking any public action. But this pastoral letter cannot be the work of a man who plans to issue one more public statement and leave it at that. Any reasonable reader concludes that the archbishop has already admonished Pelosi (and others, less prominent, in the same position), and is now contemplating the next step.

“Abortion is the axe laid to the roots of the tree of human rights,” Archbishop Cordileone writes; “when our culture encourages the violation of life at its youngest and most vulnerable condition, other ethical norms cannot stand for long.” So the question of abortion is not just one issue on a long list of considerations; it is — as the American bishops have said repeatedly — the pre-eminent public issue of our day.

The public debate on abortion has become confused, the archbishop acknowledges. “The topic is swathed in sophistries by its advocates and discussion about it is forbidden in many venues.” He goes on to suggest that “this conspiracy of disinformation and silence is fueled by fear of what it would mean to recognize the reality with which we are dealing.”

The archbishop’s case against abortion, while it is strong, is not unique. He repeats the argument — well-known to pro-lifers, but rarely heard in the public square — that the question of when human life begins is a medical or scientific question, not a theological or philosophical one. And the medical/scientific answer is quite clear: human life begins at conception. Cordileone knows, too, that the argument for “choice” is a cheap rhetorical ploy, because abortion advocates are not interested in giving women any “choice” but abortion.

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

But again, these arguments are (or should be) familiar. The pastoral is newsworthy primarily because the archbishop directly identifies “another source of scandal that pertains specifically to Catholics in public life: if their participation in the evil of abortion is not addressed forthrightly by their pastors, this can lead Catholics (and others) to assume that the moral teaching of the Catholic Church on the inviolate sanctity of human life is not seriously held.”

Here Archbishop Cordileone is joining a debate that has roiled the American hierarchy for years, and come to a head this year with the election of President Joe Biden, another Catholic who aggressively promotes unrestricted abortion on demand. Archbishop Samuel Aquila has addressed the question in America magazine, arguing that the Church “must be willing to challenge Catholics persisting in grave sin.” That article drew an immediate protest from Cardinal Blase Cupich, who asked for a “public clarification.” So an old debate was rewewed, between American prelates who wish to fulfill their duty to protect the sanctity of the Eucharist and the consistency of Church teaching, and those who suggest that any disciplinary action would “politicize” the Eucharist.

The point, as Father Thomas Weinandy has observed, is that the Eucharist has already been politicized, by the public figures who profess their “devout” Catholicism while defending and promoting the slaughter of unborn children. Church leaders cannot dodge the challenge by saying that no politician is perfect. As Archbishop Cordileone puts it, “We all fall short in various ways, but there is a great difference between struggling to live according to the teachings of the Church and rejecting those teachings.”

Along with his pastoral letter, Archbishop Cordileone released a very useful “Questions Answered” section explaining aspects of the document. He disclosed that he had been drafting this pastoral “for a long time, but did not want to publish it during the election year, precisely to avoid further confusion among those who would misperceive this as ‘politicizing’ the issue.”

But eventually the issue had to be addressed, the archbishop explained:

If a bishop has members of his flock who are erring and causing others to wander from the truth, he has a moral obligation to call them to account. This should be done privately at first, and with great patience. However, if every other medicine fails, it may be necessary for them to refrain from receiving the Holy Eucharist until they repent.

The main question before the American hierarchy — the question that Archbishop Aquila and Cardinal Cupich are debating this year, the very same question that then-Archbishop Burke and then-Cardinal McCarrick debated twenty years ago — is whether Catholic politicians who promote abortion should be barred from Communion. Still it is noteworthy that Archbishop Cordileone mentions another disciplinary option, with a sidebar on “The Medicine of Excommunication.”

American Catholic bishops have been issuing statements for decades now, insisting on the crucial importance of the abortion issue. But to date, most have declined to take the next step, to impose some form of discipline on the prominent Catholics who have routinely ignored the Church’s teaching — and who now compound their offense, by threatening to silence or to punish anyone who upholds that teaching.

Archbishop Cordileone has repeated and underlined the arguments for Eucharistic coherence. More important, he has made public the case for taking that crucial next step. So now, while we hope and pray that Speaker Pelosi and her colleagues will recognize the force of the arguments, we are left to wonder if and when the archbishop will take that next step.

Published with permission from

  abortion, nancy pelosi, salvatore cordileone


A case of graphical correlations: Making sense of India’s COVID-19 surge

This is supposedly Wuhan 2.0. Any social media addict would be forgiven for thinking that India’s population of 1.3 billion might suffer a dip before the year is out.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 2:30 pm EST
Featured Image
Mumbai, India - January 16, 2021: A medical worker administers a Covid-19 vaccine to Vidya Thakur (R), medical dean of the Rajawadi Hospital Manoej Paateel /
Dr. Mathew Maavak
By Mathew Maavak

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

May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – India is currently witnessing a COVID-19 surge of unprecedented proportions, with an allegedly triple-mutant strain stretching the nation’s healthcare infrastructure to the limits.  The uncertainty hanging over the nation is compounded by viral despatches of dead bodies piling up in morgues; of people dropping dead in the streets; of despondent souls jumping off their balconies; and of funeral pyres all over the country. There will be no public service-minded Big Tech censorship in this instance.  

This is supposedly Wuhan 2.0. Any social media addict would be forgiven for thinking that India’s population of 1.3 billion might suffer a dip before the year is out. 

Amidst the toxic miasma of fear-mongering, coherent explanations over this surge are hard to come by. Therefore, one needs to resort to correlations and proxies in order to gauge causations and effects. For starters, one should compare the yearly death tolls (from all causes) before and after the advent of COVID-19 in India, particularly for the year 2021. But relevant data will only be available a year from now.  Many will die as a result of continued lockdowns which generally weaken the immune system. Essential medical procedures will be deferred as hospitals are compelled to focus on COVID-19. Rising socioeconomic despair will naturally lead to a surge in suicides. In the end, not all coronavirus deaths can be directly attributed to the virus no matter how “experts” add them up. 

Other correlations must also be explored in the Indian context. India was rather late in joining the mass vaccination bandwagon. Throughout 2020, its COVID-19 mortality figures were moderate by global standards due to the efficacy of low-cost treatment protocols. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was sanctioned for early stage treatment from March 2020 onwards while a few months later, India’s most populous state of Uttar Pradesh (population 231 million) replaced HCQ with ivermectin (an anti-parasitic drug).

The results were highly encouraging. As TrialSiteNews (TSN) reported on Jan 9 2021: 

“By the end of 2020, Uttar Pradesh — which distributed free ivermectin for home care — had the second-lowest fatality rate in India at 0.26 per 100,000 residents in December. Only the state of Bihar, with 128 million residents, was lower, and it, too, recommends ivermectin.” 

Despite having the coronavirus situation under control, New Delhi was under immense pressure from various international lobbies and their local proxies to roll out a mass vaccination campaign. It can be argued that India’s ongoing oxygen shortages are the direct result of prioritizing foreign-curated experimental vaccines over local necessities.  

While the initial mass vaccination launch was pencilled for January 16th, the campaign effectively took off only in late February. With uncanny timing, the New York Times hailed India as an “unmatched vaccine manufacturing power” that could counter China in the area of vaccine diplomacy. 

As the goal of vaccinating 300 million people by August 2021 neared the midway mark however, the number of COVID-19 cases surged accordingly. The graph below broadly charts this anomaly. 


Not only has India’s COVID-19 cases surged in tandem with increased vaccination, the trajectory of infections and inoculations can be neatly superimposed as the following graph suggests. 


Can one infer that there may be a correlation between increased vaccinations and infections? This is not the first time that gene-based therapies ended up creating new viral chimeras. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recently admitted that a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF)-backed vaccine program was responsible for a new polio outbreak in Africa. The usual suspects were also behind a vaccination-linked polio surge in Pakistan and Afghanistan. 

Vaccines causing deadly outbreaks of the very diseases they are supposed to eradicate happen to be a 21st century phenomenon – brought to you by an unholy alliance of Big Tech and Big Pharma. In the process, new mutant strains or “vaccine-derived viruses” emerge, necessitating even more potent vaccines which deliver greater profits and levers of global control to Big Tech. This is how the Davos cabal tries to stay relevant in a century that should otherwise be dominated by Asia. India may end up being the first Asian victim of Big Tech’s Great Reset against the East

A recent study by Tel Aviv University may shed further light on India’s bizarre surge. It seems those who have been vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are 8 times more likely to contract the new South African variant of COVID-19 than the unvaccinated. 

The Covishield (Oxford University-AstraZeneca) and Covaxin (Bharat Biotech) vaccines used in India may have produced a similar effect. Dr. Harvey Risch, a professor of epidemiology at Yale University, has estimated that over 60 percent of all new COVID-19 cases seem to occur among the “vaccinated.” Dr. Michael Yeadon, former vice president and chief science officer for Pfizer, fears a more alarming outcome which includes the possibility of “massive-scale depopulation.” These are not your average basement-dwelling conspiratorial kooks! 

“The vaccine,” to paraphrase Francis Bacon, “is now appearing to be worse than the disease itself.” Gene-based vaccines open up a Pandora’s Box of what systems-theorists call “emergence.” The human body is a complex system that may react unpredictably to interferences at its most substrate (or genetic) levels. As a result, mutant virus strains may emerge alongside unforeseen side effects. This is what we are witnessing worldwide. 

But as the virus mutates, so does the official narrative. The Indian Medical Association (IMA) now claims that mass vaccinations in densely-packed stadiums and halls are “superspreader” events. Is the IMA suggesting that new vaccine delivery systems, as lobbied for by Big Tech, will solve this problem? Let us wait and see. Furthermore, is close proximity the prime culprit behind the super-surge in India? India is a nation where trains, busses and all forms of public spaces teem with human bodies. Yet, it did not lead to mass casualties in 2020 as many had feared.  

In the absence of a watertight scientific explanation from mainstream gatekeepers, a more plausible narrative may be sought from peripheral sources. The Daily Expose offers one such graphic-laden narrative to explain the correlation between mass vaccinations and the rising death toll in India.


While The Daily Expose concedes that correlation does not always equal causation, a similar pattern was noticed in other nations. The vaccination-mortality graph for Mongolia, for example, is particularly eye-popping.


Did Mongolia witness a near-zero to mutant COVID-19 surge just when mass vaccinations rolled out? How coincidental can that be? 

The case of America: Red vs Blue states

One may scientifically argue that India’s surge had nothing to do with ramped-up vaccinations. A new mutant virus may also somehow explain the vaccination-mortality correlations in Mongolia. 

Therefore one should resort to another layman-friendly proxy to see whether similar correlations exist elsewhere. How about a comparison within the most coronavirus-affected nation on earth – the United States of America?  

Reports thus far suggest that US States which have been resisting mass vaccinations and/or mandatory masking, at least in relative terms, are generally faring better than those adhering to draconian COVID-19 guidelines. Just weeks after Texas lifted its public mask mandate – featuring full crowds at bars, restaurants and concerts no less – COVID-19 cases as well as hospitalizations dropped to its lowest levels since October 2020. The current White House occupant, who continues to make a buzz over his mental acuity, nonetheless panned the move as a symptom of “Neanderthal thinking.”  In the meantime, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, a prominent opponent of mandatory masking, is using COVID-19 restrictions elsewhere to lure businesses to her state. Other red states such as Florida and Arizona have moved to ban the so-called vaccine passports. 

Rather coincidentally, the annual flu has virtually disappeared in the United States since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. It must be a modern medical miracle! 

— 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 will India fare? 

With the surge affecting the nation badly, the CEOs of Google, Microsoft and Apple, among others, have pledged heartfelt aid to India. With friends like these, one wonders why Indians cannot question the global COVID-19 narrative on Twitter, Facebook or YouTube without being summarily banned or censored. If India can concede the digital rights of its own citizens and the digital sovereignty of the nation to Big Tech, then how is it going to crowdsource solutions for COVID-19? Or deal with any other future crisis for that matter? An Indian scientific paper which tentatively explored a laboratory origin for COVID-19 can be summarily removed after concerted condemnation from Western academics but a similar claim made by the former head of the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) appears relatively palatable. Isn’t this a textbook example of neoliberal racism

Indians should also question why Africa has not been badly affected thus far, despite a South African variant hovering in the region. This is a continent mired in conflicts, poverty, serious healthcare deficits and other Third World-related woes. It lacks world-class scientists and institutions which India admittedly has. Is it because Africa does not pose an economic threat to the Western oligarchy the way Asia does? Or maybe, mass vaccinations haven’t yet taken off in Africa?

For the time being, India cannot reverse course on its vaccination drive and adopt measures similar to those employed by the Eisenhower administration during the 1957-58 Asian Flu pandemic. The fear genie is already out of the bottle. Big Tech controls the digital narrative in India as it does elsewhere. Even if New Delhi manages to tame the COVID-19 crisis within the next few weeks or months, Big Tech will still be around to stifle India’s destiny.  

Ultimately, this game is much bigger than COVID-19; it is about global domination through perennial mass-manufactured crises until a Great Reset is achieved.

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

  coronavirus vaccine, great reset, india, the great reset


It’s time to take a wrecking ball to the leftist education edifice in America

Re-ordering education is one of the most effective ways to counter the destruction which liberals are currently wreaking on America.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 1:12 pm EST
Featured Image
Screengrab from The War on Children
Christopher Garbacz

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

May 5, 2021 (American Thinker) – As the Biden/Harris/Obama wrecking crew seeks to destroy America, our federal system provides an effective response: The states must resist in every possible way. While there are many different items on the resistance menu let’s look at education.

For decades, the left has exercised a laser-like focus on capturing education and molding it to their design. They have been successful. If you can teach children how bad America is and promote a leftist agenda as the only answer, you are getting close to home in terms of turning the country towards a hard-left haven.

It is remarkable that any objectively educated people still exist. But thankfully, there are, and we can build on them right now to turn America around. After all, we know there are at least 75 million Trump voters and perhaps many more.

Education’s capture flows through the teacher’s unions, the state-level education departments, the local school boards, the effective opposition to education vouchers, and leftist control over state universities that “train” the teachers and subvert the overall student body in general – and most importantly through the legislatures and governors.

State legislatures control public education policy and funding. Unfortunately, conservative states pay little attention to what is really going on in public education. Legislatures in conservative states must learn from the left and laser focus on transforming education.

What should be done? Abolish teacher unions. Abolish state education departments. Take local school boards back from the left. Put education vouchers in place with no restrictions. Take back the public universities from the left.

Can teacher unions be abolished? While it may be impossible to eliminate teacher unions completely, it is possible to reign in their illegal activities and reduce their political power. For example, teacher unions often use blackmail-style strikes to secure higher pay or close schools, as we’ve seen with COVID. If teachers were fired (as air-traffic controllers once were), it would send a message that some things are off-limits. If teachers were informed of their right not to join or pay dues to unions, that would substantially curtail the union’s power to set far-left policies.

State education departments should be abolished because they serve no effective purpose. States should also decline any Federal money tied to education at the K-12 level. Catholic parochial schools get by on much less funding than public schools, and generally provide higher quality education. Public schools could get by on less funding if they followed this example. Finally, refuse to communicate with the U.S. Education Department and insist that it be abolished on constitutional grounds.

Local school boards can be taken back from the left in conservative states and even in some counties in highly progressive states. Well-organized local effort is required, but obviously quite doable. Recent organizational successes in Wisconsin provide hope for the future.

Put unrestricted education vouchers into place. While many states have voucher programs, the percentage of students enrolled is extremely low. This is causally related to hard-left opposition restricting access.

— 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 argument against vouchers is that they will destroy public education. Unfortunately, the reason we need vouchers is that public education in many cases has already destroyed itself. Public schools’ monopoly status allows them to be bad. With vouchers, public education will benefit because the product will be forced to improve if the schools want to attract students.

Leftists control almost all public universities. To take the universities back, university administrators must be replaced with people who want real education to flourish. Amazingly, this probably means that the key administrators cannot be “educators.” Universities are somewhat like the DC Swamp. You can’t appoint a card-carrying swamp dweller to run a university. You must appoint outsiders to clean up, as President Trump had begun to do in D.C.

The outsiders must have unwavering backing from the state’s governor and legislature, and from the university boards. This means that the boards must be reorganized to reflect a full-court press. The outsider agenda and message must be about control and big changes, which mean firings and reorganization – think of the Bain Capital approach to revitalizing a failing company.

Areas ripe for reorganization are those having no business on campus, such as identity politic departments, which should be closed. Deans and department chairs would be replaced in many cases. Education and journalism schools would be heavily reoriented. The curriculum would need a redo. Qualified faculty, not students, would develop the requirements to include what used to be a full university education (just review 1950s’ requirements). Unqualified faculty members would need to be fired. Let the lawsuits come.

Any viable organization in America knows how to be fair in hiring. A diversity department sends false racist signals and is totally unnecessary in the America that exists outside DC.

The new university would have to be very careful about accepting money from DC or leftist foundations. In many cases, this would mean declining to accept such money.

Can this be done? Yes, it can!

Christopher Garbacz is a former economics professor, who thinks America is not done just yet. Hold the fork.

Reprinted with permission from American Thinker

  education, k-12, liberal ideology, universities


FDA warns Dr. Mercola to stop writing about Vitamin D

'Trust the science,' they say, while simultaneously promoting scientifically unverified claims and trying to eradicate anyone who simply reports the findings that are actually published in the medical literature that may negatively impact the pharmaceutical industry.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 12:26 pm EST
Featured Image
Maxx Studio/Shutterstock
Dr. Joseph Mercola
By Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Story at a glance.

  • In the summer of 2020, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) launched a social media campaign to put an end to It now admits it pressured the FDA to issue me a warning letter to stop writing about nutritional products that can lower your risk of respiratory infections such as COVID-19
  • CSPI is a consumer advocacy group bankrolled by billionaires and their corporate ties to Monsanto, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Fund and Bloomberg Philanthropies
  • CSPI rails against published science demonstrating certain nutrients can boost your immune function and help lower your risk of severe infection, saying it discourages mask wearing, which has no published scientific evidence to back its universal use
  • CSPI has a history of promoting industry science and propaganda, having supported artificial sweeteners, trans fats, GMOs, fake meat and the low-fat myth. They’ve also actively undermined transparency in labeling efforts
  • We have fully addressed the warning letter, and put the FDA on notice that it cannot stop speech it does not like

May 5, 2021 (Mercola) – In the summer of 2020, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) — a consumer advocacy group partnered with Bill Gates’ agrichemical PR group, the Cornell Alliance for Science,1 and bankrolled by billionaires with ties to Monsanto, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Fund and Bloomberg Philanthropies2 — launched a social media campaign to put an end to

July 21, 2020, CSPI issued a press release3 in which they accused me of falsely claiming “that at least 22 vitamins, supplements and other products available for sale on his web site can prevent, treat, or cure COVID-19 infection.” This despite the fact that their Appendix of Illegal Claims4 clearly show no COVID-19-related claims exist on any of the product links.

The group also testified in a Senate hearing on the topic of COVID-19 scams and urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission to take regulatory action against me.

In an August 12, 2020, email, CSPI president Dr. Peter Lurie5 — a former FDA associate commissioner6 — made the spurious claim that I “profit from the COVID-19 pandemic” through “anti-vaccine fearmongering” and reporting of science-based nutrition shown to impact your disease risk.

Former FDA official pulls strings to target natural health

Seeing how Lurie is a former FDA official, it’s disheartening, but not surprising, that the FDA has now issued us a warning letter7 for “Unapproved and misbranded products related to COVID-19.” Lurie has publicly taken credit for the FDA’s action,8 thereby establishing the potential that CSPI is pulling strings under the new administration through relationships they did not have back in August when they first launched their assault on my free speech.

According to the FDA, vitamin C, vitamin D3 and quercetin products are “unapproved new drugs sold in violation of section 505(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” The agency is also listing on its Fraudulent COVID-19 Products page.

Lurie seems to be hinting that he also wants federal authorities to remove my StopCOVIDCold site, where you can download a free scientific report detailing the benefits of maintaining appropriate vitamin D levels to protect against viral infections. He’s also urging “state attorneys general to investigate how they may further protect consumers from Mercola’s illegal marketing.”9

“Americans are justifiably concerned about becoming infected with the coronavirus and contracting COVID-19. Being misled to believe that supplements could prevent or treat COVID-19 could cause consumers to fail to take protective measures such as mask-wearing, putting themselves and others at risk, or fail to seek actual medical treatment if sick,” Lurie writes.10

It’s ironic that Lurie dismisses offhand peer-reviewed published science demonstrating certain nutrients can boost your immune function and help lower your risk of severe infection — be it from SARS-CoV-2, the seasonal flu or anything else — and touts mask wearing, which has no published scientific evidence to back its universal use, as one of the most important prevention strategies against COVID-19.

Sadly, this is where we are nowadays. “Trust the science,” they say, while simultaneously promoting scientifically unverified claims and trying to eradicate anyone who simply reports the findings that are actually published in the medical literature that may negatively impact the pharmaceutical industry.

CSPI and FDA cannot censor speech

The CSPI is trying to censor my efforts to educate people on how to avoid vitamin D deficiency which, without doubt, places them at far higher risk of complications and death from respiratory infections. Well, I am not going to allow people to die from COVID-19 and other respiratory infections due to vitamin D deficiency.

In October 2020, I co-wrote a paper together with William Grant, Ph.D.,11 and Dr. Carol Wagner,12 both of whom are on the GrassrootsHealth vitamin D expert panel, demonstrating the clear link between vitamin D deficiency and severe cases of COVID-19. This paper was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Nutrients.13

With that, I have established my medical and scientific merit, and will continue to express my professional opinions, based on the available science, and defend my freedom of speech as the U.S. Constitution provides for.

The FDA’s warning letter highlights statements in articles on my website that are fully referenced and supported by published science. I am committed to providing truthful information, for free, to anyone that wants it, and I’m all for having a rigorous scientific debate when necessary. CSPI has taken credit for pressuring the FDA to issue this warning letter to suppress free speech. The FDA’s warning letter is simply another attempt by CSPI to smear me with false accusations.

If scientists and researchers are publishing these studies, how can it be a crime to report their findings? At the end of the day, the CSPI’s attacks on this website amounts to an effort to suppress science itself.

As CSPI well knows, thanks to the U.S. constitution and the first amendment, I have every right to speak publicly on matters regarding health, so this is nothing but another attempt to “cancel” me while concealing its own duplicity. For the record, we have fully addressed the warning letter; the FDA cannot simply stop free speech that CSPI does not like.

This is NOT the first time CSPI has endangered public health

CSPI continues to be a vitamin D denier even though overwhelming evidence points to its ability to reduce the risk of developing severe COVID-19. This isn’t surprising, coming from a Rockefeller-funded organization that pushed deadly trans fats on the American public until the facts became undeniable, at which point they simply rewrote the organization’s history on this subject to hide its past stance.

In 1986, CSPI described trans fat as “a great boon to Americans’ arteries.”14 Two years later, in 1988, they still praised trans fats,15 saying "there is little good evidence that trans fats cause any more harm than other fats" and that "much of the anxiety over trans fats stems from their reputation as 'unnatural.'" Meanwhile, in the real world, the CSPI’s highly successful trans fat campaign resulted in an epidemic of heart disease.

— 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 CSPI’s role in the promotion of trans fats and its influence on the food industry was discussed in David Schleifer’s article, “The Perfect Solution: How Trans Fats Became the Healthy Replacement for Saturated Fats,”16 in which he noted that:

“Scholars routinely argue that corporations control US food production, with negative consequences for health … However, the transition from saturated to trans fats shows how activists can be part of spurring corporations to change.”

It wasn’t until the 1990s that CSPI started reversing its position on synthetic trans fats, but the damage had already been done, and it never admitted its error. In fact, rather than openly admitting it had misled the public with erroneous claims, CSPI simply deleted sections of its previous support of trans fat from the web.17 Notice how their historical timeline18 of trans fat starts at 1993 — the year CSPI realized the jig was up and they had to support the elimination of trans fat.

CSPI then started raising money for campaigns to stop the heart disease causing substance they first promoted. How diabolical is that? Create the problem and then take money from others for the solution. 


This obfuscation was noted by Mary Enig, Ph.D., in a 2003 article, in which she wrote:19

“On October 20, 1993, CSPI had the chutzpah to call a press conference in Washington, DC and lambast the major fast-food chains for doing what CSPI coerced them into doing, namely, using partially hydrogenated vegetable oils in their deep fat-fryers.

On that date, CSPI, an eager proponent of partially hydrogenated oils for many years, even when their adverse health effects were apparent, reversed its position after an onslaught of adverse medical reports linking trans fatty acids in these processed oils to coronary heart disease and cancer …

Thanks to CSPI, healthy traditional fats have almost completely disappeared from the food supply, replaced by manufactured trans fats known to cause many diseases. By 1990, most fast food chains had switched to partially hydrogenated vegetable oil …

Who benefits? Soy, or course … [and] in CSPI’s January, 1991 newsletter, Jacobson notes that ‘our effort was ultimately joined … by the American Soybean Association.’”

Even more egregious is the CSPI’s continued recommendation to eat unsaturated fats like soy and canola oils20 and avoid butter and other healthy saturated fats, saying that “changing fats doesn’t lower the risk of dying.”21

This wholly disregards the compelling evidence showing that industrial vegetable oilsomega-6 linoleic acid in particular, pose significant health risks and contribute to chronic disease. And chronic disease, in turn, impacts mortality. 

CSPI primarily protects big business

This tendency to fall in line with industry science and propaganda has become a trend within CSPI. For example, it wasn’t until 2013 that CSPI finally downgraded the artificial sweetener Splenda from its former “safe” category to one of “caution.”22

In 2016, they downgraded it again, from “caution” to “avoid.”23 Despite that, CSPI continues to promote diet soda as a safer alternative to regular soda, saying it “does not promote diabetes, weight gain or heart disease in the way that full-calorie sodas do.”24

The group has also taken a strong pro-GMO stand and actively undermined the GMO labeling movement,25 which resulted in the U.S. being the only country in the world that does not have clear GMO labeling. In August 2001, the organization actually urged the FDA to take enforcement action against food companies using non-GMO labels, claiming such labels could “deceive consumers.”26

In a similar vein, the group opposes clear labeling of ultraprocessed fake meat. In a May 2018 letter to the FDA,27 CSPI urged the agency “to reject efforts by the United States Cattlemen’s Association to prohibit use of the terms ‘meat’ or ‘beef’ on plant-based and cultured proteins marketed as alternatives to traditional meat.” All in all, it appears the CSPI is completely against the idea of a well-informed public.

The CSPI has also been a promoter of the thoroughly debunked low-fat myth. In 1995, they launched a “1% or Less” campaign that urged everyone over the age of 2 to switch from whole and 2% milk to skim milk (also known as nonfat or fat-free milk) in order to reduce their saturated fat intake.28,29,30 

It was another successful campaign that resulted in the doubling of skim milk sales.31 However, just like their trans fat campaign, this was equally ill advised, seeing how research32,33 shows full-fat dairy actually lowers your risk of death from diabetes and cardiovascular causes such as stroke.

CSPI has repeatedly violated its mission statement

Considering the suspected, and in some cases well-verified, health hazards of trans fats, artificial sweeteners, soy, GMOs, low-fat diet and fake meat, CSPI’s intent to protect and advance public health is questionable to say the least.

It seems they’re more interested in protecting profitable industries, and the CSPI’s efforts to destroy companies selling vitamins and supplements with natural antiviral effects34 is simply more evidence of that.

The fact is, they’re seeking to bring an end to because we are such a serious threat to their agenda and they want to eliminate as many of the truth tellers as they can.

How to optimize your Vitamin D

While most people would probably benefit from a vitamin D3 supplement, it’s important to get your vitamin D level tested before you start supplementing. The reason for this is because you cannot rely on blanket dosing recommendations. The crucial factor here is your blood level, not the dose, as the dose you need is dependent on several individual factors, including your baseline blood level.

Data from GrassrootsHealth’s D*Action studies suggest the optimal level for health and disease prevention is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL, while the cutoff for sufficiency appears to be around 40 ng/mL. In Europe, the measurements you’re looking for are 150 to 200 nmol/L and 100 nmol/L respectively.

I’ve published a comprehensive vitamin D report in which I detail vitamin D’s mechanisms of action and how to ensure optimal levels. I recommend downloading and sharing that report with everyone you know. A quick summary of the key steps is as follows:

First, measure your vitamin D level — One of the easiest and most cost-effective ways of measuring your vitamin D level is to participate in the GrassrootsHealth’s personalized nutrition project, which includes a vitamin D testing kit.

Once you know what your blood level is, you can assess the dose needed to maintain or improve your level. If you cannot get enough vitamin D from the sun (you can use the DMinder app to see how much vitamin D your body can make depending on your location and other individual factors), then you’ll need an oral supplement.

Assess your individualized vitamin D dosage — To do that, you can either use the chart below, or use GrassrootsHealth’s Vitamin D*calculator. To convert ng/mL into the European measurement (nmol/L), simply multiply the ng/mL measurement by 2.5. To calculate how much vitamin D you may be getting from regular sun exposure in addition to your supplemental intake, use the DMinder app.


Retest in three to six months — Lastly, you’ll need to remeasure your vitamin D level in three to six months, to evaluate how your sun exposure and/or supplement dose is working for you.

Take your Vitamin D with magnesium and K2

As detailed in “Magnesium and K2 Optimize Your Vitamin D Supplementation,” it’s strongly recommended to take magnesium and K2 concomitant with oral vitamin D. Data from nearly 3,000 individuals reveal you need 244% more oral vitamin D if you’re not also taking magnesium and vitamin K2.

What this means in practical terms is that if you take all three supplements in combination, you need far less oral vitamin D in order to achieve a healthy vitamin D level.


1 Common Dreams January 7, 2019

2 Influence Watch CSPI

3 CSPI July 21, 2020

4 Illegal Claims Pertaining to Mercola Group Products (PDF)

5 CSPI July 19, 2017

6 Peter Lurie Bio

7 warning letter February 18, 2021

8, 9, 10 March 4, 2021

11 William Grant Bio

12 MUSC Carol Wagner MD Bio

13 Nutrients 2020; 12(11): 3361

14 The Atlantic November 8, 2013

15 CSPI, The Truth About Trans Fats 1988

16, The Perfect Solution: How Trans Fats Became the Healthy Replacement for Saturated Fats

17, 19 Weston A Price January 6, 2003

18 CSPI Timeline for Trans Fat

20 Canola Oil

21 Big Fat Myths

22 June 12, 2013

23 February 8, 2016

24 Sugary Drinks

25 Center for Food Safety July 10, 2013

26 August 14, 2001 (archived)

27 May 17, 2018

28 The 1% or Less Social Marketing Campaign (PDF)

29 The 1% or Less Handbook (PDF)

30 CSPI The 1% or Less School Kit

31 The 1% or Less Social Marketing Campaign (PDF), Effectiveness Page 2

32 The Lancet September 11, 2018; 392(10161): 2288-2297

33 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition July 11, 2018; 108(3): 476-484

34 June 4, 2020

This article was originally published by Mercola on March 15, 2021 and is reprinted here with permission. 

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

  fda, mercola, vitamin c


Why I’m removing all articles related to Vitamins D, C, Zinc and COVID-19

Why are people calling for the use of warfare tactics on American citizens that have done nothing illegal? In my case, could it be because I’ve written about the theory that SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered virus, created through gain-of-function research, and that its release was anticipated by global elites, as evidenced in Event 201?
Wed May 5, 2021 - 11:34 am EST
Featured Image
Dr. Joseph Mercola
By Dr. Joseph Mercola

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


  • Over the past year, I’ve been researching and writing as much as I can to help you take control of your health, as fearmongering media and corrupt politicians have destroyed lives and livelihoods to establish global control of the world’s population, using the COVID-19 pandemic as their justification
  • Through it all, I have refused to succumb to these relentless attacks. I have been confident and willing to defend myself in the court of law
  • Unfortunately, threats have now become very personal and have intensified to the point I can no longer preserve much of the information and research I’ve provided to you thus far. So, effective immediately, much of the information on my website will be permanently removed

May 5, 2021 (Mercola) – Over the past year, I’ve been researching and writing as much as I can to help you take control of your health, as fearmongering media and corrupt politicians have destroyed lives and livelihoods to establish global control of the world’s population, using the COVID-19 pandemic as their justification.

I’ve also kept you informed about billionaire-backed front groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a partner of Bill Gates’ Alliance for Science, both of whom have led campaigns aimed at destroying my reputation and censoring the information I share.

Other attackers include HealthGuard, which ranks health sites based on a certain set of “credibility criteria.” It has sought to discredit my website by ensuring warnings appear whenever you search for my articles or enter my website in an internet browser.

Well-organized attack partnerships have formed

HealthGuard, a niche service of NewsGuard, is funded by the pharma-funded public relations company Publicis Groupe. Publicis, in turn, is a partner of the World Economic Forum, which is leading the call for a “Great Reset” of the global economy and a complete overhaul of our way of life.

HealthGuard is also partnered with Gates’ Microsoft company, and drug advertising websites like WebMD and Medscape, as well as the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) — the progressive cancel-culture leader with extensive ties to government and global think tanks that recently labeled people questioning the COVID-19 vaccine as a national security threat.

The CCDH has published a hit list naming me as one of the top 12 individuals responsible for 65% of vaccine “disinformation” on social media, and who therefore must be deplatformed and silenced for the public good. In a March 24, 2021, letter1 to the CEO’s of Twitter and Facebook, 12 state attorneys general called for the removal of our accounts from these platforms, based on the CCDH’s report.

Two of those state attorneys general also published an April 8, 2021, op-ed2 in The Washington Post, calling on Facebook and Twitter to ban the “anti-vaxxers” identified by the CCDH. The lack of acceptance of novel gene therapy technology, they claim, is all because a small group of individuals with a social media presence — myself included — are successfully misleading the public with lies about nonexistent vaccine risks.

“The solution is not complicated. It’s time for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to turn off this toxic tap and completely remove the small handful of individuals spreading this fraudulent misinformation,” they wrote.3

Pharma-funded politicians and pharma-captured health agencies have also relentlessly attacked me and pressured tech monopolies to censor and deplatform me, removing my ability to express my opinions and speak freely over the past year.

The CCDH also somehow has been allowed to publish4 in the journal Nature Medicine, calling for the “dismantling” of the “anti-vaccine” industry. In the article, CCDH founder Imran Ahmed repeats the lie that he “attended and recorded a private, three-day meeting of the world’s most prominent anti-vaxxers,” when, in fact, what he’s referring to was a public online conference open to an international audience, all of whom had access to the recordings as part of their attendance fee. 

The CCDH is also partnered with another obscure group called Anti-Vax Watch. The picture below is from an Anti-Vax Watch demonstration outside the halls of Congress. Ironically, while the CCDH claims to be anti-extremism, you’d be hard-pressed to find a clearer example of actual extremism than this bizarre duo.5


Gates-funded doctor demands terrorist experts to attack me

Most recently, Dr. Peter Hotez, president of the Sabin Vaccine Institute,6 which has received tens of millions of dollars from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,7,8,9 — with funds from the foundation most recently being used to create a report called “Meeting the Challenge of Vaccine Hesitancy,”10,11 — also cited the CCDH in a Nature article in which he calls for cyberwarfare experts to be enlisted in the war against vaccine safety advocates and people who are “vaccine hesitant.” He writes:12

“Accurate, targeted counter-messaging from the global health community is important but insufficient, as is public pressure on social-media companies. The United Nations and the highest levels of government must take direct, even confrontational, approaches with Russia, and move to dismantle anti-vaccine groups in the United States.

Efforts must expand into the realm of cyber security, law enforcement, public education and international relations. A high-level inter-agency task force reporting to the UN secretary-general could assess the full impact of anti-vaccine aggression, and propose tough, balanced measures.

The task force should include experts who have tackled complex global threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and nuclear armament, because anti-science is now approaching similar levels of peril. It is becoming increasingly clear that advancing immunization requires a counteroffensive.”

Why is Hotez calling for the use of warfare tactics on American citizens that have done nothing illegal? In my case, could it be because I’ve written about the theory that SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered virus, created through gain-of-function research, and that its release was anticipated by global elites, as evidenced in Event 201?

It may be. At least those are some of my alleged “sins,” detailed on page 10 of the CCDH report, “Disinformation Dozen: The Sequel.”13 Coincidentally enough, the Nature journal has helped cover up gain-of-function research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, publishing a shoddy zoonotic origins study relied upon by mainstream media and others, which was riddled with problems.14,15

So, it’s not misinformation they are afraid of. They’re afraid of the truth getting out. They’re all trying to cover for the Chinese military and the dangerous mad scientists conducting gain-of-function work.

You may have noticed our website was recently unavailable; this was due to direct cyber-attacks launched against us. We have several layers of protective mechanisms to secure the website as we’ve anticipated such attacks from malevolent organizations.

What this means for you

Through these progressively increasing stringent measures, I have refused to succumb to these governmental and pharmaceutical thugs and their relentless attacks. I have been confident and willing to defend myself in the court of law, as I’ve had everything reviewed by some of the best attorneys in the country.

Unfortunately, threats have now become very personal and have intensified to the point I can no longer preserve much of the information and research I’ve provided to you thus far. These threats are not legal in nature, and I have limited ability to defend myself against them. If you can imagine what billionaires and their front groups are capable of, I can assure you they have been creative in deploying their assets to have this content removed.

Sadly, I must also remove my peer reviewed published study16 on the “Evidence Regarding Vitamin D and Risk of COVID-19 and Its Severity.” It will, however, remain in the highly-respected journal Nutrients’ website, where you can still access it for free.

The MATH+ hospital treatment protocol for COVID-19 and the iMASK+ prevention and early outpatient COVID-19 protocol — both of which are based on the use of vitamins C, D, quercetin, zinc and melatonin — are available on the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’s website. I suggest you bookmark these resources for future reference.

It is with a heavy heart that I purge my website of valuable information. As noted by Dr. Peter McCullough during a recent Texas state Senate Health and Human Services Committee hearing, data shows early treatment could have prevented up to 85% (425,000) of COVID-19 deaths.17 Yet early treatments were all heavily censored and suppressed.

— 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

McCullough, in addition to being a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the Texas A&M University Health Sciences Center, also has the distinction of having published the most papers of any person in the history of his field, and being an editor of two major medical journals. Despite that, his video, in which he went through a paper he’d published detailing effective early treatments, was summarily banned by YouTube in 2020.

“No wonder we have had 45,000 deaths in Texas. The average person in Texas thinks there’s no treatment!” McCullough told the senate panel.18 Indeed, people are in dire need of more information detailing how they can protect their health, not less. But there’s only so much I can do to protect myself against current attack strategies.

They’ve moved past censorship. Just what do you call people who advocate counteroffensive attacks by terrorism and cyberwarfare experts? You’d think we could have a debate and be protected under free speech but, no, we’re not allowed. These lunatics are dangerously unhinged.

The U.S. federal government is going along with the global Great Reset plan (promoted as “building back better”), but this plan won’t build anything but a technological prison. What we need is a massive campaign to preserve civil rights, and vote out the pawns who are destroying our freedom while concentrating wealth and power.

1 AG Letter to Tech CEOs March 24, 2021 (PDF)

2, 3 Washington Post April 8, 2021

4 Nature March 15, 2021

5 Twitter Mercola March 25, 2021

6 WHO Peter Hotez

7 PND July 1, 2011

8 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

9 Sabin Vaccine Institute February 11, 2019

10 Sabin Vaccine Institute June 2, 2020

11 Sabin Vaccine Institute May 28, 2020

12 Nature April 27, 2021

13 CCHD Disinformation Dozen: The Sequel

14 Monali Rahalkar Criticism for the Addendum: A pneumonia outbreak associated with a novel coronavirus of probable bat origin (Zhou et al 2020)

15 Monali Rahalkar Critique to the Addendum (Zhou et al 2020) and other contradictions in reporting the facts about RaTG13 and its history

16 Nutrients October 31, 2020;12, 3361; doi:10.3390/nu12113361

17, 18 April 8, 2021

This article was originally published by Mercola on May 4, 2021 and is reprinted here with permission. 

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

  censorship, coronavirus vaccines, covid-19, freedom, mercola, vitamin d, zinc


Facebook’s kangaroo court

Conservatives shouldn't legitimize today's Facebook 'ruling' regarding Donald Trump
Wed May 5, 2021 - 11:06 am EST
Featured Image
Jon Schweppe

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

May 5, 2021 (Breaking) – Facebook’s so-called “Oversight Board” will announce this morning whether or not Donald Trump will be allowed back on the company’s platform, or whether his ban will be made permanent. The decision will almost assuredly dominate today’s news cycle. Journalists, pundits and activists of all stripes will treat this ruling with the same seriousness as if it were being handed down by the Supreme Court.

This is all, for lack of a better word, extremely stupid. No one should care what the Oversight Board says or does. The point of the Oversight Board is to provide a faux veneer of expertise and legitimacy to a process that is entirely subjective and illegitimate. It’s not Facebook making an arbitrary and capricious decision, we are supposed to believe, it’s the Oversight Board, which is wholly independent! Except that the Board is selected by Facebook, paid by Facebook, subject to Facebook’s rules, and accountable only to Facebook.

Many conservatives, especially at think tanks in Washington, D.C., treated the Oversight Board as if it were an actual governmental body, submitting comments and briefs lobbying for Donald Trump’s reinstatement. Perhaps there’s merit to that, but let’s be honest about what it was: privately lobbying Facebook to reconsider an internal decision to ban the then-leader of the free world. The Oversight Board is Facebook. Facebook is the Oversight Board. They are one in the same.

And even if one wanted to pretend that the Oversight Board were independent and not subject to Mark Zuckerberg’s whims, it should concern conservatives that few if any of the members meet the definition of “conservative” in any meaningful way, and only five of its 20 members are American. Why would we concern ourselves with an international body’s opinion on American values like free speech and free expression?

Rather than going along with Facebook’s kangaroo court, my organization, American Principles Project, attacked the Board’s legitimacy in a statement back in February:

“We do not recognize the Facebook Oversight Board as having any sort of authority over what speech should or should not be allowed in the public square. Our position is that market-dominant digital platforms based in the US should generally commit to upholding First Amendment principles with regard to content moderation, as affirmed by Supreme Court jurisprudence, while providing users with as many personalized content moderation options as possible.

“We therefore refrained from submitting comments to the Oversight Board regarding President Trump’s recent suspension from the Facebook platform. Additionally, we believe that the outcome to this ‘case’ has already been determined, and we have no interest in lending credibility to a show trial. It’s bad enough one is already taking place in the halls of Congress.”

This still remains true today. Market-dominant social media platforms like Facebook are the digital public square. They should be required to carry speech that would be otherwise constitutionally protected on a public sidewalk. Allowing near-trillion dollar companies like Facebook to act as political partisans, censoring one side while amplifying the other, is tantamount to election interference and represents an existential threat to our democracy. It simply cannot be allowed to go on. We all know what happened in 2020. By censoring advertisements, banning conservative influencers, and falsely fact checking verifiably true content, Facebook and other social media companies swung the election to Joe Biden.

That’s why conservatives need to rally around Section 230 reform. My organization has endorsed H.R. 285, the CASE-IT Act, introduced by Rep. Greg Steube (R-Florida). The bill is beautiful in its simplicity: no Section 230 immunity for websites that engage in illegal conduct, and conditional Section 230 immunity for the largest platforms — they get the special government protection if they commit to First Amendment principles in their content moderation standards. And as an enforcement mechanism, the legislation creates a private right of action, letting users who have had their speech wrongly suppressed sue the platform that suppressed it.

— 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

Republicans in Congress are currently all over the place on Section 230 — there are literally dozens of bills that amend the 26-year-old statute. Given that Republicans are likely to take back the House and may very well take back the Senate, it’s important over the next several months that they coalesce behind one or two proposals so they are prepared to move reform forward in 2023.

It’s possible that Facebook will reinstate Donald Trump’s account today. I’m not betting on it. But if the company decides to let him return, hey, that’s great! But it shouldn’t matter. The problem isn’t that Facebook removed Donald Trump. The problem is that the company’s power to suppress speech, coupled with its willingness to exert that power, as it did in January, and as it did repeatedly in the months leading up to the election, is a threat to democracy that conservatives can no longer ignore. Protecting free speech, free expression, and free and fair elections is of the utmost importance. Republicans must act. The future of America depends on it.

Reprinted with permission from Breaking with Jon Schweppe

  donald trump, facebook censorship, freedom, media control, social media censorship


Vatican heavily promotes coronavirus vaccines in ‘Resource Kit for Church Leaders’

The propaganda document goes to great lengths to justify the use of the shots while making statements that are not totally accurate or that it's not qualified to make.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 9:19 pm EST
Featured Image
Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski receives COVID-19 vaccination at St. John's Nursing Center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Dec. 16, 2020.
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits

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

May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) -- The Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, created by Pope Francis in 2016 from the union of four Pontifical Councils, has published a “Resource Kit for Church Leaders” penned by the special Vatican COVID-19 Commission set up on March 20, 2020.

The document devotes a large portion of its 15 pages to promoting COVID-19 vaccines and offers material that could even be used in homilies.

Prefaced by Cardinal Peter Turkson, prefect of the Dicastery, the Resource Kit focuses almost exclusively on “vaccines” and the hope they are purported to bring, without mention of the supernatural meaning of illness, death, the sacraments and being prepared for the hereafter.

Instead, the text focuses on the “rebirth” of society as announced by Pope Francis in Fratelli Tutti, not through redemption from the effects of original sin and our personal sins but by discovering “once for all that we need one another, and that in this way our human family can experience a rebirth, with all its faces, all its hands and all its voices.”

Turkson immediately outlines the path to that rebirth: “A first step in our journey toward a more just, inclusive and equitable world is making COVID-19 vaccines available and accessible to all, as outlined in the December 2019 paper, ‘Vaccine for all: 20 points for a fairer and healthier world,’ published by the Vatican COVID-19 Commission and the Pontifical Academy for Life.”

The words “inclusive and equitable” are directly lifted from many international organizations and major corporations and their pseudo-religious insistence on well-being for all through “diversity” and special attention to “minorities,” from women, non-whites, people with disabilities to “LGBTQI communities.” While the Vatican document does not list these priorities, its adoption of a shared code of expression and its numerous links to the pro-abortion World Health Organization are cause enough for concern.

Sadly if not surprisingly, the “Resource Kit” touted by a Vatican Dicastery contains no recommendation to promote actual early treatment of COVID-19 or to work toward lifting absurd, often contradictory and generally useless sanitary regulations. Nor do its documents promote freeing the elderly, who in many countries are truly “COVID prisoners” in their nursing homes, letting go of life because they are being “protected” from their family and loved ones.

Even on the earthly plane, the Church has something to say about this dehumanization of society – but the words “freedom” and “liberty” do not appear once, not even in connection with the experimental “vaccines” and their links with the crime of abortion.

On the supernatural plane, one could have expected recommendations to priests and Church leaders to act in favor of freedom of worship, but the only “mass” the document mentions is “mass vaccination campaigns” that “it is urgent to implement” quickly.
The COVID-19 Resource Kit is tailored from end to end to present getting the vaccine as an “obligation.”

Skipping straight to the “Sample Social Media Content” toward the end of the kit, priests, families, and Church leaders are encouraged to “help share and amplify the messages about the importance of vaccination, about the responsibility to take the COVID-19 vaccines when clinically possible, and about the need to ensure equitable and fair access to these vaccines for everyone.”

Sample tweets and messages are offered to cut and paste on Twitter and other social media. Like this one: “As individuals we/I have a moral duty to protect others from #COVID19 and a vaccine is the most effective way to achieve this, which we can undergo with a clear conscience to protect not only our own health, but also out of solidarity with the most vulnerable #COVID19vaccine #VaticanCovidCommission @VaticanNews @VaticanIHD @PontAcadLife.”

Or this one: “In the spirit of #Fraternity, we cannot forget the most vulnerable and needy throughout the world. Receiving the vaccine is an act of love @VaticanNews @VaticanIHD #VaticanCovidCommission #COVID19vaccine.”

And here is the one with pro-life overtones: “Since every life is inviolable, nobody must be left out. Vaccines are a means to respect and save the gift of life @VaticanNews @iamCARITAS @VaticanIHD #VaticanCovidCommission #COVID19vaccine.”

The whole thing is in fact a propaganda handbook, at a time when attempts actively to convert non-Catholics to the faith are condemned for proselytism. It even adopts the classical “questions and answers” approach of the Catechisms of yore.

— 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 table of Contents gives the idea:

1. Recent Notes on COVID-19 Vaccines (1 page)
2. Clinical Questions About COVID-19 Vaccines (3 pages)
3. Special Questions for Church Leaders About COVID-19 Vaccines (2 pages)
4. COVID-19 Vaccines: Resources for Homilies and Conversations (3 pages)
5. A Family Guide to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) (2 pages)
6. COVID-19 Vaccines: Social Media Content (1 page)
7. Links to Resources on COVID-19 and Vaccines (1 page)

Interestingly, insofar as the first reflections are about the “morality of some anti-COVID-19 vaccines;” the document proves that the question of abortion-tainted vaccines is in fact high on the list of concerns, even though such a small number of Catholic leaders (as far as can be seen) are calling on the need for moral assessment of the experimental bio-agents that are currently being massively injected into people of all ages, and asking for clear and vocal opposition to the use of aborted fetal cells in the development, testing and production of the shots.

These are the opponents the Dicastery appears to be most worried about. Its first major quote is from the December 21, 2020 note from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith about abortion-tainted vaccines, ending with the statement that “these vaccines are not a legitimation of abortion."

But those words are not mentioned in the Resource Kit. Instead, “At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary. In any case, from the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one’s own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.”

The “Clinical Questions” chapter widely overreaches a Vatican Dicastery’s competencies regarding the assessment of the safety of particular medical devices. It boldly states, without reservation, that “vaccination is a simple, safe and effective way of protecting people against harmful diseases,” and that vaccines “do not cause the disease or put you at risk of its complications” – while acknowledging that “some people cannot get vaccinated due to health conditions or other reasons and are advised not to get certain vaccines” as a reason for “the rest of us” to get vaccinated.

But the biggest lie is perhaps this one: “Every vaccine must go through extensive and rigorous testing to ensure it is safe before it can be introduced in a country. An experimental vaccine is first tested in animals to assess its safety and potential to prevent disease. It is then tested in a number of human clinical trials, which are rigorously reviewed before a vaccine may be introduced into a national immunization programme.”

COVID-19 experimental “vaccines” are anything but tried and tested over a long period of time, so much so that the official trials will not end before 2022 or 2023 in most cases.

The “clinical” chapter then goes on to justify use of the vaccine for non-clinical reasons, such as “part of loving your neighbor” or an “act of charity” of an “act of love” for the vulnerable who cannot receive the vaccine.

When will sexual abstinence outside of marriage and chastity receive the same kind of publicity on the part of Vatican authorities as a means of protecting others from serious sexually transmitted diseases and serving the “common good?”

The document goes on to brush aside questions about the speed at which COVID-19 “vaccines” were developed, and downplaying their side effects. No mention is made of the genetic engineering used to make a totally new kind of “vaccine” and the legitimate doubts that arise about mRNA shots that lead human cells to produce part of the SARS-CoV-2 virus themselves.

The “Clinical” section of the Resource Kit does recognize that it is not known whether the novel “vaccines” protect anyone from transmitting the virus, which makes the preceding statements about “protecting the vulnerable” obsolete, nor whether the protection they afford is “long term.”

But the document adds, “Currently, there is no evidence that existing vaccines or treatments for other diseases (e.g., malaria pills) will protect against COVID-19. To be protected, you need to get one of the authorised COVID-19 vaccines and continue practicing physical distancing and hygiene measures.”

The following section addresses “Special Questions for Church Leaders,” starting with the issue of “fetal cell lines.” This is but a replay of the much-repeated sequences about “duty to protect others from infection” (which the COVID-19 experimental shots certainly do not do), to “protect life and reduce suffering.” But in justifying the use of the shots, the Resource Kit here remains absolutely silent about the duty to make one’s opposition to the use of abortion-tainted vaccine production techniques known and to encourage the development of “ethical” vaccines.

Interestingly, there is another paragraph justifying the qualifications of the Pontifical Academy for Life, a clear indication that Church leaders are facing questions on the issue. So here is was the propaganda is supposed to be answering: “The Academy is a valuable source of objective scientific information made available to the Holy See and a wider public in cooperation with the international scientific and medical community.” From objective scientific information to a form of secular infallibility there is but a step …

In the same chapter, “conspiracy theories” are addressed and ridiculed: “The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a parallel pandemic of misleading and fabricated information. Rumors, in the form of conspiracy theories, including about how the virus can be cured and who is to blame for its spread, are rampant. Like the virus, misinformation can spread quickly. It is also harmful and complicates COVID-19 pandemic response efforts.” So please turn to the World Health Organization and stop “sharing unverified information that comes from dubious sources,” says the Vatican COVID-19 Commission.

If Sunday Mass has any role to play at all – and the Resource Kit clearly does not address freedom of worship – it is to allow homilies to spread the (new improved) Good Word. A special section offers quotations that priests could work into their Sunday sermon.
Pope Francis and bishops from all parts of the world who promote the vaccines are cited in this section, which includes “just” distribution in rich and poor countries alike. The Archbishop of Dublin’s Christmas Day Sermon 2020 receives special mention in its defense of the new vaccinal duty that actually sums them up: “We have a moral responsibility, as scripture reinforces, to seize this new sense of neighborliness and understanding of the realities and suffering others are experiencing as a result of this crisis, and grasp the opportunity to each play our part in building a new and fairer society as one global family.”

Finally, two pages are devoted to ordinary people, “A Family Guide to the Coronavirus.” It is a simplified version of the preceding chapters and aims to explain “why” people should get the vaccine, but also plays on people’s suffering because of the first public response to the pandemic: “A pandemic disrupts social and family life. In order to protect people, countries have taken extreme measures like nationwide lockdowns that have had serious socioeconomic, political, ecological and psychological implications. Vaccines can do a great deal of good to stop the spread of the virus and prepare the ground for physical and socio-political healing. Therefore, receiving the vaccine, once it is available, can be considered an act of social love.”

This deserves to be translated into plain language: “Lockdowns have depressed, impoverished and hurt you. Now it’s up to you to stop this response that was decided upon by the powers that be by accepting the solution they are so altruistically offering to you, and if you don’t, you’ll be responsible for all further depression, pain, deaths and other catastrophes linked to the public health response.”
Or even into a single word: “Blackmail.”

Then comes the refrain about “safety,” “effectiveness,” “continued monitoring,” “rigorous testing” and control by the WHO, which are words to create compliance.

“All of the ingredients in vaccines — as well as the vaccines themselves — are thoroughly tested and monitored to ensure they, and the quantities in which they are used, are safe. Vaccine ingredients listed on labels can look unfamiliar, but we naturally have many of them in the body and in the environment.” 

As to the side effects, they are merely mentioned as “mild,” “mild,” and “mild” again. “There have been some reports of mild allergic reactions to specific COVID-19 vaccines.” This is even more ideological than the mainstream press itself dares to be. Or, “Currently, there is no evidence that existing vaccines or treatments for other diseases will protect against COVID-19. To be protected, you need to get one of the authorize COVID-19 vaccines and continue practicing physical distancing and hygiene measures.”

This is the point: Even families who received the vaccine should know that “Continued physical distancing and hygiene measures give you and others the best protection from catching and spreading the virus,” according to the Resource Kit. 

So why bother?

  coronavirus vaccines, covid-19 resource kit, dicastery for promoting integral human development, peter turkson, pope francis, vatican


Finnish politician now facing jail for defending biblical view of homosexuality

'I will go to the court with a peaceful and brave mind, trusting that Finland is a constitutional state where the freedoms of speech and religion, which both are guaranteed in international agreements and in our constitution, are respected.'
Wed May 5, 2021 - 12:58 pm EST
Featured Image
Päivi Räsänen ADF International / Video screen grab
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.

May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Finnish parliamentarian (and former cabinet minister) Päivi Räsänen has been persecuted by the state for years. As she told me last May in an interview for First Things, the police had interrogated her several times for hours simply for expressing her religious convictions on the sanctity of marriage. In a follow-up interview for LSN in September, Räsänen explained that she had become the subject of four separate criminal investigations. Shockingly, prosecutors have now brought three criminal charges against her. A prominent politician in a Western country has been criminally charged for quoting the Bible on sexuality. It is an unprecedented case, and Räsänen is the canary in the coal mine.

Räsänen is the wife of a Lutheran pastor, the mother of five, and the grandmother of six, and is a medical doctor as well as a politician. According to the Finnish news site YLE, however, she is a potentially dangerous criminal who made statements that the Prosecutor General called “derogatory and discriminatory against homosexuals” which “violate their equality and dignity.” Räsänen’s words, the Prosecutor General went on, “overstep the boundaries of free speech and religion and are likely to fuel intolerance, contempt, and hatred.” Again, the Prosecutor General is referring not to some hate-filled speech or videoed rant—he is referring to Räsänen’s quoting of Scripture.

For that, she faces up to two years in prison. If Räsänen is indeed jailed the impact on religious freedom in Finland and across the Western world would be staggering.

Räsänen, however, has responded by saying that she is privileged to defend Christianity and that she will do so joyfully and at every opportunity. She agreed to an interview to explain what she is being subjected to, and how she is doing. 

Previously, there had been confidence that no charges would be brought against you. What changed?

The Prosecutor General has now had over half a year to go through my final statements and the pre-trial investigation report. The decision to bring three criminal charges against me came as a shock and I did not expect it, although of course I knew it was possible. The Prosecutor General has over this time deliberated on the matter and argues that I deserve to be convicted and punished because I have threatened, insulted and slandered homosexuals. I strongly disagree on that. It did not even come to mind that my tweet or my opinions based on Christianity could be defamatory or insulting in any aspect.

What are the charges brought?

I now face three criminal charges for the same crime: I am accused of criminal agitation against a minority group. The three charges filed against me are about the following cases. Firstly, a pamphlet I wrote in 2004 "Male and female He created them - Homosexual relationships challenge the Christian concept of humanity.” The second charge is about a tweet I published 17 June 2019 on my social media accounts. In addition to Twitter, I published my tweet on Facebook and Instagram. In the tweet, I questioned the Evangelical Lutheran Church's official affiliation with Helsinki LGBT Pride 2019 and accompanied my publication with a photo of the Bible, from the Letter to the Romans 1:24-27. The third charge is about my statement in one program of the Finnish Broadcasting Corporation, when I appeared on a talk show series hosted by Ruben Stiller and discussed the topic “What would Jesus think about homosexuals?”

What is your reaction to these charges?

Being criminally charged for voicing my deeply held beliefs feels unreal. The decision of the Prosecutor General is surprising, even shocking. I do not think I have threatened, defamed or insulted a minority group. In all three cases, the question is about the Bible's teaching about marriage and sexuality. I have constantly said to respect and defend the human dignity and human rights of homosexuals and other minority groups. The Bible's teaching is, however, very clear in the teaching that marriage is a union between man and wife and that homosexual acts are against God's will.

What outcome do you face?

The application for summons has been delivered to the District Court of Helsinki. The date for the trial has not yet been decided, but I will need to give written and oral evidence and arguments. According to our criminal law, this crime carries the sentence of a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of two years.  

What outcome do you expect?

It is likely that this will be a process of several years. I expect this case to go even to the European Court of Human Rights and I am ready to defend free speech and freedom of religion as far as it needs. I will go to the court with a peaceful and brave mind, trusting that Finland is a constitutional state where the freedoms of speech and religion, which both are guaranteed in international agreements and in our constitution, are respected.

What can Christians around the world do to help you?

I believe praying is the most important thing we all can do. I want to encourage Christians to use their freedom of speech and religion. This indictment shows that right now is the time to defend these foundational freedoms and rights. The rise of “cancel culture”, the idea of publicly defaming and thrusting a person who holds certain beliefs out of social media or professional circles, is a threat to any free society that claims to be tolerant and equal. Regardless of where we live, we need to be alert and active regarding our rights as Christian citizens.

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

What does this case mean for freedom of speech in Finland?

This case is a precedent. Ultimately, the three charges brought against me have to do with whether it is allowed in Finland to express your conviction that is based on the traditional teaching of the Bible and Christian churches. Everyone should be free to express their deeply held beliefs about important issues without fear of censorship or criminal sanction. This is especially important for Christians, who are called to lift up Jesus and the Bible. There is a difficulty here far greater than the sentence of a fine or an imprisonment – there is a demand for censorship, an order to remove my social media postings, or a ban on the publication of my pamphlet. This kind of judgement would open up an avenue leading to further publication bans for similar texts and modern book burnings. It is a grave violation of the freedom of religion if the right to agree with biblical teaching is contravened.

  finland, freedom of speech, päivi räsänen, religious liberties


Some libraries stand strong against calls to remove books telling truth about transgenderism

Activists are demanding to to pull Abigail Shrier’s recent book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters.
Wed May 5, 2021 - 12:25 pm EST
Featured Image
Cover of Irreversible Damage Regnery
Jonathon Van Maren Jonathon Van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon Van Maren

May 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — For the last several years, media outlets have been openly campaigning for censorship and digital book burning on behalf of the trans movement. The New York Times does it; most recently, the Seattle Times expressed disappointment that Amazon declined to pull Abigail Shrier’s recent book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters.

A particularly egregious example of this showed up recently in the Halifax Examiner in a column advocating that Shrier’s book get pulled from library bookshelves. With the ludicrous title “If the library is safe for transphobia, it’s not safe for trans people,” the 2,600-word screed calls for Irreversible Damage to be removed from Halifax Public Libraries after trans activists were “shocked and hurt” to discover its availability.

More disturbing to some is that while Halifax Public Libraries owns two copies, 21 people have it on hold — no surprise considering the fact that many people’s daughters are being seduced by the transgender craze. Mothers of children who identify as trans promptly pulled up a letter written by one censor asking that the Ottawa Public Library decline to carry it, claiming that Shrier’s book “has the potential to cause great harm.” They then cite stats that Shrier takes pains to respond to and rebut in her book. (My interview with Shrier can be found here.)

One activist mother went so far as to write: “It surprises me that our library would carry a book that would risk the lives of trans youth simply for the sake of intellectual freedom. It is incredibly irresponsible, especially given the fact that the book in question has little to no scientific ground to stand on.” Which is an incredibly irresponsible statement to make considering the fact that the book is very well-researched and that sacrificing intellectual freedom for ideology has a dark and sordid history.

According to CTV, the parent of a child who has “presented” as “gender non-conforming” since age three is trying to get the book, which the parent has obviously not read, pulled from the Ottawa Public Library because it “builds its ideology on hate speech.” A petition of 204 signatures was sent stating that the book “is NOT neutral and ‘intellectual freedom’ is different than hate speech.” Further, the parent said: “As somebody who identifies within the trans spectrum and as somebody who has a trans child as well, it hit pretty close to home and I was really outraged about it.”

While there is more than a little to unpack there, the Ottawa Public Library is not backing down. Ann Archer, the program manager content services at the OPL stated that upon reviewing the complaints, they have decided not to remove the book as it “comes from an authoritative publisher [and] was chosen as one of the top books of 2020 by The Economist and there is a public demand for it.” In fact, six people had requested its purchase and more than thirty people are currently on the waitlist for it.

“There needs to be a legal reason at this point to remove the book,” Archer stated. “We don’t remove it because people don’t like it. There’s something to offend everyone in the library.” One suspects that the popularity of Shrier’s book — which is packed with damning evidence of the destruction of transgender ideology — is precisely what has critics so worried.

It is both encouraging and fitting that one of the last holdouts against a culture of growing censorship would be library staff. The Toronto Public Library faced enormous pressure and massive protests in 2019 when trans-critical radical feminist Meghan Murphy was invited to speak, but they held their ground nonetheless. With Amazon refusing to pull Shrier’s book and Canada’s libraries thus far following suit while dozens of people sign up for the wait list, perhaps glimmers of truth are getting out.

  censorship, libraries, library censorship