All of yesterday's articles

March 23, 2017

Featured Image
Photo courtesy 'Free Speech Bus' organizers
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire

News, ,

Bus gets window smashed, graffitied in broad daylight…for saying boys and girls are different

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire
By Claire Chretien

NEW YORK, New York, March 23, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Vandals sprayed paint, used a hammer to smash, and broke the window of a "Free Speech Bus" on a tour fighting gender ideology this afternoon.

The "Free Speech Bus" is a joint project of the International Organization for the Family, CitizenGO, and the National Organization for Marriage. 

"It's biology: boys are boys...and always will be. Girls are girls...and always will be" is the message of the bus.

"The bus was on the streets of New York" in Manhattan shortly after 4:00 p.m. today, Joe Grabowski of the National Organization for Marriage told LifeSiteNews. "It was vandalized by spray paint and a hammer was taken to it on the side."

He said police are at the "crime scene" investigating.

“This is what those who pretend to preach tolerance actually feel about…other viewpoints," said Graboswki. "We’re the ones who try to have an open conversation and a dialogue with people and this is the kind of intimidation that is used to try to cow people who believe in traditional values not to speak out."

The bus tour organizers are considering it a "hate crime," according to an email from NOM President Brian Brown.

Grabowski said it was ironic that opponents of the bus claimed it would incite violence against people who identify as transgender. 

"Well, here’s the first act of violence that we’ve seen," he said. "And it’s not somebody out there attacking a trans person. It’s us getting attacked."

Some twitter users cheered the destruction of the bus. 

Grabowski said the bus tour organizers encourage any witnesses to come forward.

The bus was parked outside the United Nations earlier. It's scheduled to visit other cities on the East Coast.

Featured Image
Planned Parenthood will close its center in Easton, Pennsylvania, at the end of March. Yelp
Peter LaBarbera


Planned Parenthood to shut down two more abortion centers in Pennsylvania

Peter LaBarbera
By Peter LaBarbera

March 23, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Planned Parenthood closed two more abortion clinics in Pennsylvania after shutting three at the end of last year, an branch of the national abortion business announced March 13.t

Planned Parenthood Keystone, one of three PP branches in Pennsylvania, said it will be closing abortion clinics in Easton and Bristol in the far eastern part of the state. Neither performed surgical abortions. The Easton clinic does chemical (pill) abortions and the Bristol clinic made abortion referrals. The clinics will close for good March 30.

In December 2016, Planned Parenthood shut down clinics in Chambersburg (outside of Harrisburg), Gettysburg and Scranton.

Melissa Reed, president & CEO of Planned Parenthood Keystone, said March 13 that the life-terminating business “has made the difficult strategic decision to consolidate health services by closing two centers located in Easton and Bristol to reduce the costs of duplication associated with running two sites in close proximity to others. 

“This decision was not made lightly. It resulted from careful analysis of where our patients live and seek medical care as well as an assessment of how best to ensure the longevity and strength of existing health centers,” Reed said, noting that Planned Parenthood has been operating in Bristol and Easton “for decades.”

“Our commitment to these communities remains strong and we have every intention of making sure that we are able to continue to serve them for years to come, no matter what,” she said. Anyone who went to the Easton clinic will now have to use Planned Parenthood’s Allentown clinic.

It’s about losing federal dollars, says pro-life advocate

Diane Gramley, president of American Family Association of Pennsylvania, isn’t buying Planned Parenthood’s consolidation explanation.

"I think Planned Parenthood is in trouble even though they say these closures have nothing to do with the possibility of losing federal funds,” Gramley told LifeSiteNews.

In Pennsylvania, "Planned Parenthood receives about $11 million in Medicaid payments and serves about 30,000 Medicaid patients each year," The Allentown Morning Call reported. Such payments to Planned Parenthood Keystone amount to $2 million annually, or 30 percent of its budget.  

Gramley said pro-women reforms regulating abortion clinics, enacted by the Pennsylvania legislature after the horrific story of late-term Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell broke in 2011, have added to the pressure on Planned Parenthood. “But I think the major thing is they're afraid of losing federal dollars," she said.

The state now regulates abortion clinics for women’s health and safety factors as it does ambulatory facilities.

"This is great news that Pennsylvania has lost two more abortion clinics, after the three Planned Parenthood closed down last year,” Gramley said. She looks forward to more abortion facilities shuttering.

Number of abortions going down

The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute reported in a January 2017 "Fact Sheet" about abortions in Pennsylvania that there "was a 12 percent decline in the abortion rate in Pennsylvania between 2011 and 2014.” It said 23,030 abortions were performed in the state in 2014.

Guttmacher reported that the number of "abortion-providing facilities" (hospitals and clinics) in Pennsylvania fell from 47 in 2011 to 42 in 2014.

Get breaking pro-life news on Facebook Messenger!

That number now falls again with the two new Planned Parenthood clinic closures. Guttmacher reported that in 2014 "some 85 percent of Pennsylvania counties had no clinics that provided abortions, and 48 percent of Pennsylvania women lived in those counties.”

Nationally, Guttmacher reported on the declining abortion numbers:

“In 2011, the 63 million U.S. women of reproductive age (15–44) had six million pregnancies. Sixty-seven percent of these pregnancies resulted in live births and 18 percent in abortions; the remaining 15 percent ended in miscarriage.

“Approximately 926,200 abortions occurred in the United States in 2014. The resulting abortion rate of 14.6 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age represents a 14 percent decrease from the 2011 rate of 16.9 per 1,000 women.”

The Morning Call reported that Planned Parenthood Keystone serves 37 counties with 12 clinics, to be reduced to 10 on April 1. Another organization is opening a federally-funded women's clinic in Easton on April 5, but it will not do abortions, according to the newspaper.

Featured Image
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete


BREAKING: Canada passes motion to silence critics of Islam

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

Update March 24, 2017: See list of how MPs voted here.

OTTAWA, March 23, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- With the strong backing of Justin Trudeau's Liberal government, Canada's Parliament passed a motion this afternoon 201 to 91 that critics say singles out Islam for special protection.

As was expected, the motion was passed along party lines, with the Liberals and New Democrats supporting it, while the majority of Conservatives opposed it. Two Conservative MPs who supported the measure were PC party-leader candidate Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills) and Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North). 

Tabled by Muslim liberal MP Iqra Khalid, M-103 urges the federal government to “condemn Islamophobia” and to “develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia.”

The term “Islamophobia” is nowhere defined in the motion. 

MPs passed the bill despite a new Angus Reid poll showing that 71 percent of Canadians would not have voted for the measure. 

The poll found that “if Canadians and not their elected representatives were voting, M-103 would fail” with 42 percent voting against it and 29 percent abstaining. The poll found that only 29 percent would vote in favor. 

The vote of each MP was formally recorded after about 20 Conservative MPs (the required number was at least five) stood in the House of Commons on Tuesday to demand accountability. Motions are usually determined by which side has the loudest vocal “yes” or “no” response. 

While the motion does not change existing laws or create new ones, it empowers a committee to study the issue of “eliminating…Islamophobia” and the federal government to collect data on Islamic ‘hate crimes’ for further study.

A Conservative alternative to the motion that condemned racism and discrimination against Muslims, Jews, Christians, and other religious groups — without including the word “Islamophobia” — was defeated by the Liberals in February. Liberals argued at that time that the Tories were simply trying to “water down” the very purpose of M-103, reported Huffington Post

A number of Conservatives running for the the party's leadership have been outspoken about the problems they see in M-103. 

Brad Trost said he could not support the motion because it “will only serve to strengthen extremist elements within the Muslim community itself that seek to preserve and promote their own form of hate and intolerance.” He added that any “serious plan to combat religious discrimination in Canada should include all faith groups, including Christians and Jews.”

Pierre Lemieux said that Canadians should be wary of the language in the motion. 

“Do you have a valid concern about Islam? Do you disagree with Sharia Law? Uneasy about radical Islamic terrorism? The Liberals may very well classify you as Islamophobic,” he wrote in an email to supporters. 

Lemieux, who called on supporters to pressure MPs to force a recorded vote on M-103, called it a “great day for accountability and for freedom of speech in Canada” when almost two dozen MPs stood up on Tuesday to demand such accountability. 

Leadership contender Andrew Scheer also added his voice of opposition to the motion shortly before the vote, saying that it “could be interpreted as a step towards stifling free speech and legitimate criticism” of Islam. 

“M-103 is not inclusive. It singles out just one faith. I believe that all religions deserve the same level of respect and protection,” he wrote in an email to supporters. 

“I will be voting against it because I believe in Freedom of Speech,” he wrote. 

Conservative leadership contenders Maxime Bernier, Kellie Leitch, and Lisa Raitt have also raised concerns about the motion. 

Michael Chong is the only PC candidate who publicly committed to voting in favor of the motion. 

Critics say that the motion will have the effect of chilling free speech across the country, especially from those criticizing the radical elements of Islam that lead to terrorism in the name of “Jihad,” Holy War.

Columnist Lorne Gunter wrote in Edmonton Sun: “While purporting to oppose all forms of religious discrimination, the only form specifically mentioned is Islamophobia. And no definition of Islamophobia is given, leaving the door wide open to the broadest possible interpretations – including public statements condemning radical Islamic terrorism and even academic papers questioning whether Islam truly is a religion of peace.”

Montreal physician Sherif Emil wrote in a March 22 column in the Montreal Gazette that “Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, should stand firmly against the motion.”

“We are living in an age where depraved terrorist armies, who cite a unifying explanation for their actions in Islamic texts and doctrine, occupy large swaths of entire nations. Even if we dismiss these hundreds of thousands of extremists, and instead examine mainstream Islamic societies, what do we find? We find nation after nation where apostasy is a crime punishable by death, indigenous minorities are robbed of equal citizenship and religious dissent is considered treason. A charge of Islamophobia is used to silence, marginalize and imprison the few liberal Muslim thinkers who are attempting to reform Islam from within,” he wrote. 

“Fear of these existing realities and open discussion of their roots and implications is not irrational. If Canada joins this Islamophobia witch hunt, it will be complicit in the crimes committed in the name of preventing Islamophobia,” he added. 

Some critics see the motion as the first step in making Canada into an Islamist-favoring nation where Shariah law is given priority over secular state laws.

A petition on CitizenGo asking MPs to stop the “restrictive ‘anti-blasphemy’” motion has been signed by 79,500 people. 

“This motion will encourage legislation that would criminalize speech deemed ‘islamophobic’ and lay the groundwork for imposing what is essentially a Sharia anti-blasphemy law on all of Canada,” the petition states. 

“If that happens, criticism of Islam would constitute a speech crime in Canada,” it states, adding that this “kind of content-based, viewpoint-discriminatory censorship is unacceptable in a Western liberal democracy.”

Featured Image
Tomi Lahren
Steve Weatherbe


Tomi Lahren’s pro-choice ‘flip flop’ is totally clueless: commentator

Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

March 23, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – The Rebel media’s Faith Goldy called out Tomi Lahren this week after The Blaze host stunned conservative audiences when she came out as “pro-choice” during an appearance on ABC’s The View.

Production of the young firebrand’s own show, Tomi, on Glenn Beck’s network was suspended for a week after she made the stunning statement last Friday. Lahren justified her stance by saying “I love the constitution” and as conservative believe strongly in “limited government.”

“I can’t sit here and be a hypocrite and say I’m for limited government but say I think the government should decide what women do with their bodies,” she said at one point on the liberal-leaning show.

Goldy addressed Lahren's comments, saying at The Rebel, a conservative news source based in Canada, that she needed to correct her U.S. counterpart in the hope of saving her.

“She’s too much of an asset to our side,” said Goldy, “to see her go” over to the liberals. However, even though Goldy likes Lahren's style, she went on to “debunk every tired pro-choice argument Tomi used, and remain as nice as possible.”

Goldy began her rebuttal by showing “before” and “after” clips of Lahren. In the first clip, Lahren sounded very pro-life as she attacked feminist celebrity Lena Dunham for wishing she had had a chance to have an abortion. Lahren called her “Lena frigging Dunham wishing she could have murdered a fetus.”

The second clip was from last Friday’s spot on The View. Summing up her own views, Lahren told the hosts, “I can say that as a Republican, I can say I’m for limited government so stay out of my guns and stay out of body as well.”

Goldy promised to stay away from Lahren’s professed close relationship “with her personal savior” but framed The View views as “I love God, I love guns and I love killing babies.”

She added, “Five minutes, five minutes and that’s all it took on The View for Tomi and she shape-shifts from a brainy southern belle into a lightheaded twot about to strap on her pussy hat.”

After Goldy expressed more regret for the job she had to do — “I don’t take pleasure in shooting inside the tent” — she approached Lahren’s arguments head-on.

First, on Lahren’s argument that she was for abortion because she loved the constitution, Goldy responded, “News flash, there is no constitutional right to abortion. Roe v Wade decision was one of shystiest rulings in Supreme Court history.”

Goldy then quoted “pro-abort” legal scholar John Hart Ely from the Yale Law Journal of 1973 on the Roe v. Wade ruling the same year.

“Roe v Wade,” Ely wrote, “is bad because it is bad constitutional law or rather it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”

Next Goldy took on Lahren’s contention that her belief in “limited government” was consistent with her “pro-choice” resistance to any government telling her what to do with her body.

However, the baby is not her body, Goldy argued fiercely. “The unborn has different DNA and different blood type than the mother, not to mention the fact that its heart begins beating at four to five weeks. Point to any other organism that has two heads, four arms, four legs, two spines and two hearts. … It’s not dogma, it’s science and its not up for debate.”

Finally, Goldy argued against any libertarian defense of abortion. “Abortion violates the non-aggression principle,” she contended. This she called “the defining principle of libertarianism.”

“It’s not optional, not even for pregnant women. Human offspring are human, not a mushroom, not a cat. There is never a right to kill an innocent human.”

Goldy concluded with the comment: “Tomi can dish it out. I hope she can take it.”


Tomi Lahren defended abortion. She's wrong, and it matters

Featured Image
Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa


Student sues after school forced him to share locker room with girl

Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa
By Lisa Bourne
Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel Kellie Fiedorek speaks at a news conference.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, March 23, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – A high school student and his parents sued their school district in federal court Tuesday after he was exposed unwillingly to an undressed female classmate while changing in a locker room.

An official from the Boyertown Area School District told the male student to “tolerate” having a girl in the boys’ locker room in response to his request for help in protecting his privacy, according to Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). The official also told the boy twice to make changing with students of the opposite sex as “natural” as he can.

ADF and the Pennsylvania-based civil rights legal organization Independence Law Center (ILC) are co-counsel in the case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The suit claims sexual harassment under the federal Title IX law, violation of the fundamental right to bodily privacy under the U.S. Constitution, and violation of a state privacy law, an ADF statement said.

The minor male identified as “Joel Doe” in the lawsuit was standing in his underwear getting ready to put on gym clothes in the boys’ locker room last October when he unexpectedly encountered the undressed female student.

The boy complained to school leaders and was informed that students subjectively identifying themselves as the opposite sex were now allowed to choose the locker room they want to use. The policy change occurred without any notice to students or parents.

The school district, located about 60 miles northwest of Philadelphia, secretly opened sex-specific restrooms and locker rooms to students of the opposite sex, according to ADF.

Attorneys from both legal groups criticized the violation of the boy’s privacy rights.

“No school should rob any student of his legally protected personal privacy,” said ILC chief counsel Randall Wenger. “We trust that our children won’t be forced into emotionally vulnerable situations like this when they are in the care of our schools because it’s a school’s duty to protect and respect the bodily privacy and dignity of all students. In this case, school officials are clearly ignoring that duty.”

“Our laws and customs have long recognized that we shouldn’t have to undress in front of persons of the opposite sex,” ADF legal counsel Kellie Fiedorek said. “But now some schools are forcing our children into giving up their privacy rights even though, in this case, Pennsylvania law requires schools to have separate facilities on the basis of sex.”

ILC senior counsel Jeremy Samek added, “Respect means protecting the personal privacy of each student, not taking it away. It’s regrettable that a student would have to go to court to ensure that his well-established privacy rights aren’t tossed aside.”

The suit also argues that the district is putting gender ideology ahead of students’ rights.

The school’s policy is “grounded in gender identity theory,” it states, “which asserts that a person’s subjective perception of their own ‘gender’ should be more important in every conceivable setting than sex, one’s biological/anatomical status as either male or female.”

And it asserts that aside from purposefully violating the boy’s privacy rights, district officials “attempted to harass and coerce the minor plaintiff into further privacy violations.”

School officials are said to have told Joel Doe’s family that if he was uncomfortable undressing in front of students of the opposite sex or using the nurse’s office to change that he could withdraw and be homeschooled.

They also reportedly informed the vocational technical school the boy attends in the afternoon that he brought these concerns to them, prompting further persecution there.

The case is unique in that litigation thus far involving transgender bathroom access has typically sought to impose facility access for gender-confused individuals as opposed to blocking it. The suit seeks compensatory damages and reversal of the district’s policy.

“My client is standing up not only for himself but for those who feel bullied,” Wenger said at a press conference. “It’s an egregious violation for the school to just brush off these students and tell them their feelings don’t matter and to make it as natural as they possibly can.” 

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a case centered on a gender-confused female student identifying as a boy who wants access to the school’s male restroom facilities.

Gloucester County School Board v. Gavin Grimm had been set for a March 28 Supreme Court hearing and was being watched for implications in the push for transgender bathroom access in public schools. However, the Court remanded the case back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration.

The decision was issued "in light of the guidance document" from the Trump administration reversing former President Obama’s transgender bathroom order pushing schools to allow "transgender" students use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms.

The Boyertown Area School District has until April 4 to respond to the ADF-ILC suit. 

Featured Image
Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire


BREAKING: Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch, says senate minority leader

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire
By Claire Chretien

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 23, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, plans to lead a Democrat filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch.

"After careful deliberation, I have concluded that I cannot support Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court," Schumer said this morning. "His nomination will have a cloture vote. He will have to earn 60 votes for confirmation. My vote will be 'no' and I urge my colleagues to do the same."

This means Republicans will need to convince eight Democrats to vote in favor of confirming Gorsuch. If they are able to do that, Gorsuch will have 60 votes, a requirement for overcoming a filibuster.

Republicans may change procedural rules so that Gorsuch only needs 51 votes to be confirmed. 

Throughout Gorsuch's confirmation hearings, Democrats have grilled him on Roe v. Wade and same-sex "marriage." They have also questioned him about physician-assisted suicide, about which he wrote a book. Gorsuch's statement that "the intentional taking of a human life by private persons is always wrong" has come under fire from abortion and physician-assisted suicide-supporting Democrats.

Gorsuch has continually said he won't share how he would rule on future cases because that would be like making a "campaign promise." He has said same-sex "marriage" is "absolutely settled law" and that some people have come to reply upon it, which is an argument that can be used to defend precedent.

However, throughout the hearings, Gorsuch has also affirmed that laws and Court rulings may be challenged.

Featured Image
Fr. Mark Hodges


Bill protecting Down syndrome babies from abortion passes Oklahoma House in landslide

Fr. Mark Hodges
By Fr. Mark Hodges

OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, March 23, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — The Oklahoma House of Representatives passed a major pro-life bill on Tuesday prohibiting abortions for Down syndrome or any genetic abnormality.

House Bill 1549, known as the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, won approval in a decisive 67-17 vote. It bans all abortions for the sole purpose of a Down syndrome or genetic abnormality diagnosis.  

An abortionist who knowingly terminates a pregnancy for this reason would be liable for monetary and statutory damages and have his or her medical license suspended. Financial damages would be for "all injuries, psychological and physical" resulting from the prohibited abortion, but statutory damages are limited to "10 times the cost of the abortion."

The law would limit those who can file lawsuits to the mother of the child, the spouse, parent, guardian or licensed health-care provider of the mother, the Oklahoma Attorney General and the District Attorney in the jurisdiction where the violation occurred.

There is a specific clause in the bill stating that the mother cannot be prosecuted under this act. Her anonymity is also strictly protected.

Covered under "genetic abnormality" is "any defect, disease or disorder that is inherited," including "any physical disability, any mental disability or retardation, any physical disfigurement, scoliosis, dwarfism, Down syndrome, albinism, Amelia or any other type of physical or mental abnormality or disease."

HB-1549 has a provision that if challenged in court and found invalid for pre-viable babies it still shall legally apply for all viable pre-borns. "If this section is held invalid as applied to the period of pregnancy prior to being viable, then it shall remain applicable to the period of pregnancy subsequent to being viable" (as defined by Oklahoma statute).

Republican George Faught initiated the legislation. He also championed pro-life bills regarding the humanity of pre-borns (HB-2797), fetal tissue extraction (HB-763), a gender-segregated school bathroom bill, and a bill banning abortion.

“Life is a gift from God,” Rep. Faught said. “Today, I am thankful that the members of the House of Representatives chose to protect that gift.”

Introduced in February, the bill failed to move out of committee after a 4-4 tie, with three Republicans voting with the opposition. Then, less than a week later, the same committee approved the bill moving forward in a 5-2-1 vote as two Republicans, who changed some of the bill's wording, came on line. One was absent.

Opponents of the pro-life bill say it is unconstitutional and will cost the state in legal challenges. Rep. Mike Ritze, who voted for the bill, responded to criticism, saying that constitutionality is "not really for a legislator to decide. That’s for the courts to decide. The budget is important, but moral issues are very important to the people that elect us.”

Abortions because of predicted defects are prevalent in the Western world. In Iceland, pre-born children diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted

In Denmark, officials claim the country will be “Down syndrome free” through abortions in the next 10 years. Ninety percent of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome in the womb are aborted in Great Britain and the United States.

But studies show 99 percent of people with Down syndrome are happy with their lives, 97 percent like who they are, and 96 percent like how they look.

And genetic diagnoses are often wrong. Patricia Miles' doctor said her son had a genetic abnormality. “My health was in danger, they said. They said he was going to have Down syndrome; I should abort,” Miles said with the now-five-year-old by her side. “I was perfectly fine. He's perfectly fine.”

Faught also sponsored a bill similar to the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act last year, but it didn't pass.

HB 1549 has been sent to the Oklahoma Senate, which had the bill's first reading on Wednesday.  If the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act passes, the law would go into effect November 1, 2017.

Featured Image
Adrianne Stewart with her adopted daughter, Maria.
Nancy Flanders


Family adopts girl born without limbs: ‘Loving her was what mattered most’

Nancy Flanders
By Nancy Flanders

March 23, 2017 (LiveActionNews) -- In a village in the Philippines in 2014, a little girl was born without limbs. At six months old she was placed in an orphanage for children with special needs, where she waited for a family to adopt her.

In October of 2014, when she was nine months old, the Stewart family saw a picture of the little girl and decided to adopt her. It would take months of paperwork and a trip to the Philippines, but a year later, Adrianne and Jason Stewart were bringing little Maria home to join their family of five, including two biological daughters and an adopted son.

“When we found our daughter we did not think we were qualified or prepared enough to parent a child like her, a child born without arms and legs, but we knew that we could love her and that loving her was what mattered most,” Adrianne Stewart wrote in a post for Love What Matters.

At about two years old at the time of her adoption, CNN reports Maria was unable to hold up her head and her parents knew they had a lot of work ahead of them. She now receives speech and occupational therapy and attends preschool in an inclusive classroom.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

“She has given us far more than we will ever give her,” Maria’s mother wrote on Facebook. “She is so full of joy and light, and is an inspiration to all who meet her. We put limits on her abilities and then we see her doing exactly what we thought she was not capable of.”

Since sharing their story in hopes of inspiring other families to adopt, the Stewarts have received a lot of positive notes. However, they have also heard from mothers who have chosen abortion when their preborn children were diagnosed with conditions similar to Maria’s. These women express to the Stewarts their abortion regret. Adrianne Stewart hopes that Maria will help other expectant mothers choose life when faced with similar prenatal diagnoses.

Reprinted with permission from Live Action News.

Featured Image
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent


Catholic university investigates prof for calling abortion ‘murder’

Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits
Stéphane Mercier

March 23, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — A junior lecturer at the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium is facing backlash from university officials because he distributed a 15-page document with philosophical arguments for calling abortion “murder” to about 100 first-year engineering students.

Stéphane Mercier has not been sanctioned yet, but the authorities declared in a statement on the university’s website that they are assessing the status of his text to determine whether it was actually used as part of his philosophy course. Whether that proves to be the case or not, UCL has dissociated itself from Mercier’s stance against abortion, calling it “contrary to its values.”

The case was brought to the public’s attention by Synergie Wallonie, a Belgian association for the promotion of gender equality. Its objective is to promote “gender mainstreaming while always fostering the respect of diversity and the need to think for each category of citizens (elderly, young, handicapped, immigrants, homosexuals). Sexual stereotypes and the neutral in masculine form perpetuate inequality but also the respect of unequal cultures present in our region.”

Synergie Wallonie’s “whistle-blowing” received an immediate response from UCL officials. Tania van Hemelryck, the special adviser to the university president on gender politics, spoke to Belgian television on behalf of the university, saying: “The authorities want to find out the exact status of the text and how it was used during this course, bearing in mind that in any case UCL defends the fundamental right to abortion, and particularly women’s right to choose.”

So the Catholic university not only supports abortion but it does so in the most radical way imaginable in describing abortion itself as a “fundamental right.” A fundamental right is a right that no one can dispute and that is valid for all – as this affair demonstrates.

The official statement published by UCL on its website says much the same thing:

“Whatever the outcome of the inquiry, the right to abortion is enshrined in Belgian law and the note that was brought to the attention of UCL is at odds with the values upheld by the university. Conveying standpoints that contradict these values in the framework of a teaching course is unacceptable.”

Mercier’s text, as distributed to the 100 or so engineering students who take a philosophy course in their first year at UCL, bears the title: “Philosophy for life: against a so-called “right to choose” abortion.” It aims to help students acquire philosophical reasoning in order to “try to get to the truth about a grave issue,” which requires “hearing all sides.” “Only madmen and badly brought-up children stop their ears and start shouting when they hear something that displeases or irritates them,” Mercier writes in the early stages of his exposé.

His text is neither religious nor militant, he argues. It is a rational argument that accepts rational criticism.

“Refusing debate (…) is dangerous; banning debate is typical of totalitarianism; it is also a sign of fear: who would want to prevent someone from arguing rationally but a person who is afraid to discover that some of his opinions are groundless? If I am searching for what is true, or has a good chance of being true, I must be able to listen to the arguments that are presented to me, to accept them if they are good, and to reject them if they are erroneous or deceptive. Refusing such a state of mind is to adopt the fanatic’s posture, concerned not with truth but with the triumph of his opinion, whatever the price.”

Mercier’s objective was to make his students think, and to debate if they chose to do so. But even debating on the issue of abortion is now banned in many countries such as Belgium and France – even at a Catholic university in a country whose sovereign is a Catholic.

Mercier produced a well-reasoned paper, largely inspired, he writes, by American philosopher Peter Kreeft. Its intellectual quality probably explains the uproar with which is has been met. Its main argument is simple: If the human embryo is perfectly individualized as a human person, it is a member of our species, an innocent being that should not be killed. It addresses many of the usual arguments in favor of legal abortion and then demolishes them with plain logic and scientific fact.

Little does it matter whether the child in the mother’s womb is “completely developed or not,” the text explains. “Neither is a five year-old child.” If it’s morally wrong to kill an innocent person, then “killing a child at the embryo or fetal stage in the womb of its mother is wrong, just as it is wrong to kill it if it is five years old. Always. In every case. Just like rape. Rape is morally wrong in every case. There are no circumstances that can make this act good, or even simply acceptable. When talking of abortion or of rape, one is talking of an act that we call intrinsically wrong, an act that is wrong in itself and by itself. It is morally evil of itself, whatever the circumstances.”

And here are the words that provoked media hysteria in Belgium and beyond: “The truth is that abortion is the murder of an innocent person. It is even a particularly loathsome murder, because the innocent in question is defenseless. (…) Nowadays we hear some people saying for example that at a personal level they condemn abortion as being immoral, but that it would never occur to them to make it illegal. Such reasoning is astonishingly absurd, if one bothers to think about it. (…) Just imagine that the same individual should declare that on a personal level, he finds rape really immoral, but that ‘in order to respect every person’s liberty’ (except perhaps that of the victim) it should not on that account be made illegal. Absurd, obviously! Well, if abortion is murder, as we have said, is it not more serious, even, than rape? Rape is immoral, and thankfully it is also illegal. Should not abortion, which is even more immoral, even more so be illegal?”

The headlines in Belgium indignantly screamed: “A lecturer at UCL considers abortion to be worse than rape!”

A woman student from UCL was quoted as saying: “It shocks me, especially because in philosophy classes, you try to think, to reflect and to open your mind.” It was not clear whether she had read Stéphane Mercier’s text.

A news website for youngsters,, warned its readers against a “rather offensive” publication circulating on the Internet, giving the floor to Baptiste Dethier of Synergie Wallonie, the original informer. “According to Baptiste, the author states that abortion represents ‘the culture of death’ without ever resorting to solid arguments and that is what is ‘most dangerous,’ he says. This text does not provide a critical assessment of the issue and is not open to discussion. On the contrary, to put it like Baptiste Dethier: ‘It is very difficult for students in first year, at age 18, to adopt a critical view of the question and to be capable to bring in counterarguments.’”

Get breaking pro-life news on Facebook Messenger!

This is occurring at a Catholic university that continues to flaunt its religious identity. It has four governing bodies, of which the first is the “Board of Governors: the archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels and residential bishops of Wallonia. The Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels, who is also the University Lord Chancellor, chairs the council,” according to UCL’s website.

On its website, UCL also calls itself a “stabilizing force in an uncertain world.” “The values on which UCL’s vision is based are openness to others and to differences, solidarity, freedom and respect. Faculty enjoy academic freedom enshrined in the constitution, specifically, freedom of thought in the pursuit of truth arrived at scientifically and free from the undue influence of current trends. UCL is a cosmopolitan and intellectual human space whose diversity stimulates encounters between people of different backgrounds and with the world itself in the spirit of rational discussion and mutual enrichment. Its Christian tradition is a living heritage, a driving force of an authentic pluralism that benefits and respects all people regardless of their beliefs.”

Except for those who believe that abortion is murder?

Featured Image
Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve


I must be straightforward

Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve
By Steve Jalsevac

I’ll keep today’s letter extremely short and to the point! With just 8 days left in our spring campaign, we still have $154,181 left to raise - or 69% of our absolute minimum goal! (Click here to donate)

I have been amazed at the response so far to this campaign. Thanks to the generosity of hundreds of donors like you, we have already raised 31% of our goal! What a humbling testament to the appreciation and hunger that exists for the kind of utterly unique, and uncompromisingly pro-life and pro-family news reporting that LifeSite provides.

However, while I am confident we can reach our minimum goal in the next 8 days if everyone pitches in what they can, we still have a long way to go.

That’s why I must humbly challenge those who have not yet donated to make the most generous donation you can - even if it’s just $5 or $10 - to help us continue our news coverage for the sake of the unborn, for marriage, for faith, and for freedom!

Click here to donate

At LifeSite we are striving to do our part to create a movement of resistance to the New Intolerance of our increasingly secular culture.

Right now, everything points to an unprecedented confrontation between the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death.

Just consider the following:

  • the growing efforts to push the most extreme versions of gender ideology on our schools, business, and churches, and to punish dissent;

  • the unprecedented confusion in the Church

  • the increasing rejection of God and blatant anti-life and anti-family propaganda coming out of Hollywood, even in children’s movies

  • the growing fear among Christians and others who believe in traditional family values that they will lose their jobs, face lawsuits, or otherwise be pressured to compromise their beliefs

  • the increasingly bold efforts by anti-life and anti-family activists to paint anyone who believes in traditional marriage, or the value of life, as a de facto bigot, unworthy of participating in public life

At a time like this, it is vital that Christians and others who believe in common sense, traditional values stand together.

At LifeSite our goal is to create a movement of millions of well-informed pro-life and pro-family advocates all around the world, equipped with the knowledge and the support they need to push back and to stand strong in their beliefs.

I know you support this goal. And that’s why I feel confident asking for your help today.

Click here to donate

With some 150,000+ people reading us on a daily basis, we can easily reach our spring campaign goal! But we need everybody who reads this letter - like you! - to respond today.

To put it simply: if each person who read this one email donated whatever they could (even just $10) we would easily surpass the goal! That’s literally all it would take!

Despite what you hear from the mainstream media, there are still huge numbers of faithful people ready to stand and fight for faith, life, family, and freedom. And there are millions more who know that the values of the Culture of Death have not brought them fulfillment or peace, and who are thirsting for the truth.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the most important issues in the world, the mainstream media and entertainment industry can almost always be relied on to lie and obfuscate, advancing the life- and soul-destroying message of the Culture of Death.

This often leaves pro-life and pro-family advocates feeling alone and isolated in the midst of a hostile culture.

Your contributions to the message of LifeSite help millions of life and family defenders know that they are far from alone in this global battle (yes, it is indeed a great battle!) to uphold traditional beliefs on life and family.

With only 8 days left in our spring campaign, we still have a steep $154,181 left to raise. Please help today with the most generous donation that your circumstances permit.

Click here to donate

And if you are not able to donate, your prayers for the success of this campaign are always greatly appreciated, and absolutely necessary.

Thank you for being an essential part of the LifeSite family.  Without you this truth-in-news service could never function as well as it does in influencing the world for the good of all.

Featured Image
Campaign Life Coalition


This abortion drug has already killed 14 mothers. Why is it legal?

Campaign Life Coalition
By Campaign Life Coalition

This is the fourth in a series of videos. The first is available here, the second here, and the third here.

March 21, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — The FDA has published a study on the RU-486 abortion pill, proving that the drug combo is dangerous for women. This is proven science that feminists and the media refuse to take seriously. 

RU-486 is being sold as Mifegymiso in Canada. Campaign Life Coalition has launched a campaign called #Ru486RuCrazy to warn women about the dangers of this drug. So far, eight videos have been produced and are being released every few days.

The videos are being posted on CLCYouth’s Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. @CLCYouthProLife

Click here to view the FDA study.

Featured Image
You probably have no clue of the enormous good you do by cherishing your marriage, your spouse, and your family, and by simply living your life as a faithful Christian.
Doug Mainwaring

Opinion, ,

My wife and I were divorced. Then my son started hanging out with a local family

Doug Mainwaring
By Doug Mainwaring

March 23, 2017 (ThePublicDiscourse) -- The most riveting, wise, and helpful statement I have heard in recent years was shared by Ifeyinwa Awagu of Lagos, Nigeria, in a short video prepared for the 2014 Vatican Humanum Colloquium on the Complementarity of Man and Woman:

The couple is the locus, it’s a starting point, but it’s a ripple . . . Whatever I do in my marriage, the circle keeps increasing, keeps widening, until it covers the whole world. Marriage is beyond us. It’s about the society. It is your own project for the world.

Ify’s statement is pure gold, displaying immense truth and gravitas. To illustrate why, I begin with this example from my own life.

While my wife and I were still divorced, our younger son, Chris, would occasionally spend the weekend at the home of his middle school friend, Ray. When he arrived back home, he wouldn’t say anything in particular, but I could read his body language and perceive what was left unsaid. I didn’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand that Chris really liked spending time at Ray’s house, and the reason was clear: he loved their family life.

All I had to do was look into Chris’s eyes to see that he wished he had a family like theirs—a family with a gregarious, big-hearted, and affectionate Mom and Dad who clearly loved each other. I knew that this was precisely what I had deprived Chris and his brother of.

Through my own marriage—with all the mistakes and detours—my wife and I have created something that is irrevocable and unmovable. What we began at the altar in 1985 in front of our families, guests, and God can’t be undone.

It was this very loving marriage that first caused me to wonder if I had made a huge mistake in divorcing my wife and breaking our family apart. And after each of Chris’s subsequent visits with Ray’s family, I became more convinced of my grave error. I knew that I needed to repair what I had broken. Yet Chris never made a single direct statement about this. He never said why he enjoyed spending time with their family or explicitly compared it with ours. Although I don’t know if he could have articulated it if he had tried, I received the message loud and clear. Eventually, I realized that I had no choice but to find a way to bring our family back together.

Meanwhile, Ray’s family simply carried on life as usual. They had never made an attempt to address our family situation; they just simply lived their lives as faithful Catholics and as faithful loving spouses to each other. They had never spoken a word of judgment, encouragement, or advice to me, and I had never once said a word to them about my broken marriage. In fact, at that stage we barely knew each other except to say “Hi” at our sons’ football games. Our lives touched only through our sons, yet that was enough.

This family had no idea how much good they were doing for me and my broken family just by the way they were living their lives. Somehow, their Catholic faith, their joy, their love, and their faithfulness overflowed and cascaded into my life via my son.

Were it not for this family, I’m not sure I would ever have had that first thought implanted in my mind about bringing our family back together. Although I was completely irreligious at the time, it seems to me that this was God’s gentle way of getting me to see that I had erred and needed to do something about it. God didn’t send somebody to club me over the head or rebuke me. Instead, He brought me into indirect contact—into the distant outer orbit—of a couple whose lives deeply, quietly touched mine. I am one of the beneficiaries of the ripples emanating out from their loving marriage.

When I finally had lunch with Ray’s parents a few years later and thanked them for what they had done, they were completely taken by surprise. They had no inkling of the important role they had played in our lives.

Yet the ripples of their faithful marriage continue to expand. Not only have my wife and I been back together for nearly six years, I also returned to full communion with the Catholic Church after a nearly twenty-year absence.

None of us can truly gauge the impact of our lives on others. Yet, even without your knowing it, the witness displayed by your faithful marriage might be the lighthouse that guides and helps others to hold their marriage and family together. You could be saving a family from the destructive influence of the world. You could be leading someone to the threshold of faith, and you may never even hear about it.

Your Marriage: Ground Zero for Astounding Good

You probably have no clue of the enormous good you do by cherishing your marriage, your spouse, and your family, and by simply living your life as a faithful Christian. Your personal relationship and commitment to Christ reverberates all around you, sending out ripples that affect the lives of others in unseen and unexpected ways.

This kind of impact is extremely personal and therefore difficult to quantify or measure. Yet legitimate social science seems to bear out the point I am making. As Kay Hymowitz has observed, children “have a better chance at thriving when their own father lives with them and their mother throughout their childhood—and for boys, this is especially the case.” She continues:

A highly publicized recent study by the Equality of Opportunity Project comparing social mobility by region found that areas with high proportions of single-parent families have less mobility—including for kids whose parents are married. The reverse also held: areas with a high proportion of married-couple families improve the lot of all children. In fact, a community’s dominant family structure was the strongest predictor of mobility—bigger than race or education levels. This research suggests that having plenty of married fathers around creates cultural capital that helps every member of the Little League team.[emphasis mine]

In a miraculous manner, the blessings and benefit of intact families spills out of their homes and into surrounding households. I’m not a social scientist, but history, observation, and common sense all support Ify Awagu’s statement: “Whatever I do in my marriage, the circle keeps increasing, keeps widening, until it covers the whole world.”

Upholding the Dignity of Your Spouse

Marriage is bigger and more important than either husband or wife alone. Perhaps that more easily resonates as true for couples with kids, but it is just as true whether children are present or not. While marriage has been under attack throughout human history, beginning in the Garden of Eden, in recent decades it has suffered catastrophic blows thanks to the ongoing sexual revolution, a revolution that has produced countless casualties.

Through my own marriage—with all the mistakes and detours—my wife and I have created something that is irrevocable and unmovable. What we began at the altar in 1985 in front of our families, guests, and God can’t be undone. Two became one, and an entirely new entity came to being in the universe. Not a metaphoric creation, but a reality. A wonderful, utterly unique new alloy was forged. It can be ignored or abused, but those choices don’t undo the mandate that fell into our laps that hot July afternoon nearly thirty-two years ago. When my time on this planet has reached its end, my marriage will have been the single most important contribution I will have made.

There is never a good reason not to uphold your spouse’s dignity—in front of the kids, in front of friends and family, in private conversations with your spouse, and even in your own mind where nobody else can see or hear. Belittling, cold-shouldering, name-calling, and tearing down or undermining your spouse’s dignity in any way is always destructive and never helpful, demonstrating an absence of unconditional love. Even negative humor is far from harmless. It’s not funny; it’s a visceral personal attack on your spouse’s dignity.

In my marriage, we’ve had to deal with my same-sex attraction, family histories of addictive behavior, financial difficulties, major health issues, and much more. Sadly, a combination of those things once led to our separation and divorce, for which I take full responsibility. But, in the end, good has outweighed bad, and human dignity and love have slowly and steadily triumphed over animosity and isolation.

How do you heal a relationship that self-destructed, which had lost its moorings for more than a decade? I have no easy answer, but I do know that the first step is this: you must choose to recognize the importance and irrevocability of your covenanted relationship and to uphold the dignity of your spouse and your relationship every day, no matter what, repenting when necessary.

Since reconciling (and that’s too weak a term—it has really been a complete change of heart and a hard-fought renewal of our minds), we have continued to face both big and small challenges, one after another. Rather than allowing them to tear us apart or let our relationship fray at the edges, to give up or to say “this is too hard for me,” my wife has upheld my dignity as husband and father, and I have upheld hers as wife and mother.

My wife’s love for me, especially during the darkest times when I’ve been at my most weak and vulnerable, has been a direct conduit of God’s love to me. In fact, the greater the personal challenges I have faced, the more she has honored me with dignity and respect. There is a miraculous, inverse relationship between the weight of difficulties and weaknesses present and the degree of dignity accorded. It’s counterintuitive. It’s the opposite of the way things work in the world, but it’s a reflection of God’s unconditional love. Upholding each other’s dignity allows grace to flow into and lift our marriage day after challenging day.

So What?

For every objection or fear, worry, regret, or apprehension I can come up with, I’ve taught myself this two-word response: “So what?” Our marriage is more important than any reservation I encounter.

- I’m unhappy. So what?

I’m same-sex attracted. So what?

- I’m disappointed. So what?

- We’re having financial difficulties. So what?

- We’ve become incompatible. So what?

- We’ve gotten older and gained weight. So what?

- My spouse has developed bad habits. So what?

- I didn’t bargain for these medical or psychological problems. So what?

- I’ve met someone I like better. So what?

Here’s what I say: “I can handle that, and I do so with pleasure. We can address and overcome these problems. We’ll navigate difficult waters together, even if it falls upon me to do all the paddling and steering while plugging all the newly sprung holes in the hull.”

Instead of fretting or wistfully daydreaming about something that might have been better, realize this: there is no better option, because you have no greater, more important mission.

If it weren’t for the presence of dark times, I don’t think godly, unconditional love and dignity would have ever had a chance to take root and grow between my wife and me. Personal experience has taught me that the Church truly is a field hospital within our own home. That makes sense, because the domestic church is right up on the front lines where battles can be treacherous, and where wounds, both old and newly inflicted, can often present themselves. If willing, spouses can serve as medics. The very best medics.

Don’t be caught by surprise, don’t despair, don’t give up, and don’t be afraid. Instead, resolve with all your might to hang on to your life’s greatest mission and treasure. Even if it feels like a daily burden, it remains a pearl of great price. Ify is right: “Marriage is beyond us. It’s about the society. It is your own project for the world.”

Ify first spoke these words in Lagos, Nigeria: “Whatever I do in my marriage, the circle keeps increasing, keeps widening, until it covers the whole world.” I first heard her words in Rome, Italy, and they have continued to have enormous influence on me and my family here in the United States. I owe a debt of gratitude not only to Ray’s parents, whom I now count as friends, but to Ify and her husband, Chidi. We have never met, but their marriage has touched my life in a profound way.

Marriage is the big project that I have chosen for myself and it’s the big mission that I’ve been charged with. We have solemnly created our marriage, God has solemnly blessed it, and now we must solemnly live it. It is our project for the world.

Reprinted with permission from The Witherspoon Institute.

Featured Image
Blessed Josef Mayr-Nusser with his wife and son
Michael Cook


This man refused to take the oath to Hitler. The Catholic Church just beatified him.

Michael Cook
By Michael Cook

March 23, 2017 (MercatorNet) -- In its 11-year history, the Thousand Year Reich acquired a reputation for demonic evil unmatched by any regime before or since, from Genghis Khan’s empire to Stalin’s USSR. Too often it is believed that the German people were too cowed to protest. In fact, the Nazis executed about 20,000 people who had been condemned as deserters, conscientious objectors or traitors.

In addition to many ministers and priests, a number of them were outstanding lay men and women with deep moral and religious convictions. Fritz Gerlich, a journalist (not too many of those), was one of the first arrested after Hitler came to power and was murdered in 1934 in the Night of the Long Knives. Erich Klausener, the head of Catholic Action, and Adalbert Probst, a Catholic Youth leader, were assassinated at the same time.

“To give witness today is our only and our most effective weapon.”

Sophie Scholl, her brother Hans, and their friend Christoph Probst, university students, were guillotined in 1943 for distributing pamphlets urging resistance. Even younger was 17-year-old Helmuth Hübener, a Mormon, who distributed subversive pamphlets with news from the BBC. 

Nikolaus Gross was a trade union leader and newspaper editor who was arrested in connection with the 1944 assassination attempt on Hitler and executed in January 1945. He was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 2001. An Austrian, Franz Jägerstätter, has also been beatified. He was a simple farmer with a wife and three children who refused to fight for the Reich. Terrence Malick is working on a film about his life, Radegund.

And on Saturday, March 18, another hero of conscience was beatified in Bolzano by the Catholic Church, Josef Mayr-Nusser.

Mayr-Nusser was actually an Italian citizen from the South Tyrol, a German-speaking enclave in northern Italy. Born in 1910, the fourth of seven children, he worked as a cashier in a company in Bolzano.

He was a member of Catholic Action and St Vincent de Paul and spent much of his spare time visiting and caring for the poor. He also became passionately interested in St Thomas More, especially in his letters from prison, and the challenge of taking a stand based on conscience.

When Mussolini joined the Fascist Axis in 1939, most of the German-speaking citizens of South Tirol moved across the border into Germany. Mayr-Nusser, however, was disgusted by the Fascists and Nazis and stayed in Italy. In 1942 he married and a year later a son, Albert, was born.

In 1943 Italy switched sides and German troops occupied northern Italy. German-speakers were forced to join the Wehrmacht.

In September 1944 Josef was conscripted into the SS and taken with other recruits to Könitz in western Prussia for three weeks of training. From there he wrote to his wife: “Pray for me that in the hour of testing I may act without fear and hesitation according to the dictates of God and of my conscience.”

On October 4, his unit was to take the oath of loyalty to Adolph Hitler. But he refused. “I cannot take an oath to Hitler in the name of God,” he declared. “I cannot do it because my faith and conscience do not allow it.” He was adamant, even though his comrades tried to persuade him to take the “meaningless” oath. “If no one ever finds the courage to tell them that they don’t agree with their Nazi ideology nothing will ever change,” he told them.

He was arrested, imprisoned and transferred to Danzig for trial. Condemned in January 1945 for undermining military morale, he was sentenced to death. On the way to Dachau in a cattle car, weakened by starvation and feverish with dysentery, he died at Erlangen on February 24.

The explanation for his courageous act of resistance can be found in an observation he had once made about the Fascist cult of leadership: “To give witness today is our only and our most effective weapon.”

Reprinted with permission from MercatorNet.

Featured Image
Becky Yeh

The Pulse

Miss North Dakota speaks out against abortion: ‘We support unborn women who can’t speak for themselves’

Becky Yeh

March 23, 2017 (LiveActionNews) -- Miss North Dakota, Macy Christianson, addressed lawmakers on the Senate floor last Wednesday, thanking them for their crucial work in protecting the rights of the preborn. Christianson, who represented her state in the Miss America competition in 2016, affirmed that being pro-life is in favor of women.

“One aspect that I love in particular about being a title holder is that I represent such an amazing organization, yet I’m still an individual that can stand for things that I’m passionate about and that matters to me,” Christianson said. “I have immense respect for our state for having taken a stand for what I believe is right in regard to abortion.”

Christianson added that North Dakota is an example of a state working to protect the rights of both women and their preborn children.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

“I have had people tell me that North Dakota is against women and our rights,” she said. “I have to disagree, because not only do we support our women, but we support our women who are unborn and can’t speak for themselves.”


Forum News Service columnist Rob Port praised Christianson’s speech as courageous and refreshingly “out of the ideological mold”:

I don’t know what Christianson’s politics are, beyond her comments about abortion, but kudos to her for being willing to break out of the ideological mold liberals cast for women. I’m sure she’ll get some flak for thinking things the left feels women ought not think, but it’s high time we all stopped caring so much about the identity cages politicos try to herd us into.

Christianson also discussed her advocacy work to prevent drunk driving.

Reprinted with permission from Live Action News.

Print All Articles
View specific date