All of yesterday's articles

April 26, 2017




The Pulse

Featured Image
Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa


Bill Nye’s changing science: from two genders only to transgenderism

Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa
By Lisa Bourne

April 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Bill Nye’s recent raunchy promotion of gender ideology doesn’t only fly in the face of dignity and science, it also conflicts with a previous program produced by the famed “Science Guy.”

“There are only two possibilities” regarding gender, an adolescent actress states in a previous episode of “Bill Nye The Science Guy” on the concept of Probability.

The girl had explained for “The Science Guy” viewers how chromosomes derived from each parent control an unborn child’s gender, before discussing the probability of becoming either a boy or girl.

The segment is clear in expressing the science of how gender is determined.

“I’m a girl,” she states. “I could have just as easily been a boy, though, because the probability of becoming a girl is always 1-in-2.”

“Your mom has two X chromosomes in all of her cells, and your dad has one X and one Y chromosome in each of his cells,” she continues.

The girl goes on to demonstrate via the visual of letter magnets on a refrigerator how before you are born your mom gives you one of her chromosomes and your dad gives you one of his.

“Mom always gives you an X,” she says, “and if dad gives you and X too, you become a girl. But if he gives you his Y, then you become a boy.”

“There are two only possibilities, XX, a girl, or XY, a boy,” the girl then states. “The chance of becoming either a boy or a girl is always 1-in-2, a 50-50 chance either way.”

She concludes with an explanation of probability as related to gender determination being like flipping a coin, “X you’re a girl, Y you’re a boy.”

A recent episode of Nye’s “Bill Nye Saves the World” Netflix series contained a crude song promoting transgenderism and the notion that gender can be changed.

Episode nine of series titled "The Sexual Spectrum" had actress Rachel Bloom singing  “My Sex Junk.”

During the number, "versatile love" is touted and the claim made that “sexuality’s a spectrum; everyone is on it ... drag queen, drag king, just do what feels right."

Nye said this was "exactly the right message."

Studies, experts and those with experience have said that encouraging transgenderism is damaging to individuals suffering with gender dysphoria, whether done through surgical intervention or otherwise living as the opposite sex.

“The Science Guy” had said in recent years in a video that laws protecting "unborn people" are "based on ignorance" and reflect a "a deep scientific lack of understanding."

If you support such laws, he said, you "literally or apparently literally don't know what you’re talking about.”

Nye’s primary argument was that human embryos don’t warrant legal protection because many of them succumb to natural causes before they implant in the womb. 

In the video, “The Science Guy” used the phrase "didn't become a human" regarding embryos, a presumption that life does not begin at fertilization, which is contrary to science.

Nye’s abortion comments came as the battle for taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood was heating up in 2015, and the video received positive coverage among liberal media.

Pro-life leaders across the board debunked Nye’s claim that life does not begin at conception by pointing to established scientific data.

The final episode of Nye’s current Netflix series promoted the idea of population control by suggesting the idea of punishing people for their “extra kids.”

In the “Earth’s People Problem” installment of  “Bill Nye Saves the World,” Nye asked, “Should we have policies that penalize people for having extra kids in the developed world?”

Featured Image
Claire Chretien / LifeSiteNews
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire


Students deliver 200K baby socks to Congress to show how many babies Planned Parenthood has killed

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire
By Claire Chretien
Sen. Ben Sasse, R-NE, speaks in front of nearly 200,000 baby socks representing children killed by Planned Parenthood.
Pro-life activists bring 88,000 baby socks to Speaker of the House Rep. Paul Ryan's office. Each sock represents one baby killed by Planned Parenthood since Trump was inaugurated.

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Students and young adults delivered 196,543 baby socks to Congress this afternoon, each one representing a baby killed by Planned Parenthood. 

After a defund Planned Parenthood rally featuring Sen. Ben Sasse, R-NE, former Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, and pro-life high school students, the group then brought 88,000 baby socks to the office of Speaker of the House Rep. Paul Ryan, R-WI. Each sock represented one baby killed by abortion at Planned Parenthood since President Trump has taken office.

"This Congress pledged to defund Planned Parenthood and the pro-life generation intends to make sure they live up to those promises," Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America (SFLA), told LifeSiteNews. "Defunding Planned Parenthood isn’t really controversial within the GOP leadership right now." The problem is "they can’t get their act together on other issues."

SFLA will continue collecting baby socks until they have 323,999 – the number of abortions Planned Parenthood commits annually.

"It’s just a devastatingly large number and we need to have images like this so that people start to reflect on the magnitude of the suffering that’s happening out there," said Sasse. He thanked those attending "for what you do to celebrate life and to celebrate a culture of life" and for their decision "to tell the story this way." 

Sasse blasted the new chairman of the Democratic Party, Tom Perez, for his recent comments saying all Democrats need to be pro-abortion and this is "not negotiable." 

"He said that the Democratic party has to be a party that doesn’t have any room for people who believe that a baby in a mom’s tummy is a baby," said Sasse. "That is bizarre. I’m a conservative Republican, but I care about a whole bunch of things far more than I care about the Republican party or the Democratic party and one of the fundamental ones should be that America exists to fight for the most vulnerable … that should be an American proposition and that should be a human proposition."

Sue Thayer, a former Planned Parenthood director who's now pro-life, also spoke at the rally. She told LifeSiteNews that when SFLA's truck full of socks arrived on Capitol Hill, she had to "just kind of step away for a little bit" because of how overwhelming the sight was.

"Each one of those socks should have a little foot in it," said Thayer.

Hawkins said when the truck arrived, she was talking to passers-by "telling them what the socks represent and people’s jaws were dropping."

Ryan apparently wasn't in his office when the pro-life students brought him laundry baskets of 88,000 socks. A staffer spoke with Hawkins and said he would convey the message to Ryan.

"Only scheduled appointments will be admitted," a sign on Ryan's office door said.

Now, "the socks will be going on the road for a little bit," Hawkins told LifeSiteNews. "We have some activism displays prepared ... I think we might be seeing these show up on college campuses in the nearby future."

An 18-year-old high school student who is currently pregnant also spoke at the rally about choosing life and rejecting Planned Parenthood's lies. Her testimony received the most applause.

Featured Image
Conservative Party leadership candidate Andrew Scheer
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne


Does Andrew Scheer’s plan to unite Conservatives leave out the unborn?

Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

OTTAWA, April 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Andrew Scheer says he wants to lead the Conservative Party of Canada so he can unite the party.

But that’s one thing the 37-year-old Saskatchewan Member of Parliament hasn’t managed for the party’s social conservatives.

With just four weeks left in the race, they’re split over the merits of Scheer’s candidacy when it comes to right-to-life, same-sex “marriage” and gender issues.

A Catholic father of five and MP since 2004, Scheer has an impeccable pro-life and pro-family voting record, but declared at the outset of his campaign that he won’t reopen the abortion debate as prime minister.

That was clear enough for Campaign Life Coalition, Canada’s national pro-life, pro-family political lobby group, which released a candidate voter guide on Monday disqualifying Scheer.

Of the 14 candidates, Campaign Life has endorsed only Saskatchewan MP Brad Trost and former Ontario MP Pierre Lemieux as supportable because of their consistently solid pro-life and pro-family campaign commitments.

Conservative Party members are voting for their new leader on a ranked ballot that allows up to 10 choices. The results will be tabulated and the winner announced at the party's convention in Toronto on May 27.

It’s a rare and critical opportunity for the pro-life movement because the next Conservative leader could shape the party for decades to come, and may well become prime minister.

Pro and con for Scheer

Campaign Life Coalition president Jim Hughes says Trost and Lemieux are the “only candidates who have publicly highlighted the injustice of abortion in Canada and have vowed to take concrete actions to address the killing of 100,000 children in the womb every year."

But while Campaign Life is not endorsing Scheer for Tory leader, a number of politicians rated by Campaign Life as pro-life are supporting him.

The Scheer campaign boasts 71 endorsements from former and current federal and provincial politicians — including eight senators and 24 sitting MPs.

Pro-lifers among them include MPs Ted Falk, Garnett Genuis, Mark Warawa, Cathay Wagantall, and Bob Zimmer; former MPs Garry Breitkreuz and Kyle Seebak; and Senators Don Plett, Betty Unger, and Norman Doyle — to name a few.

In an email to LifeSiteNews, Scheer pointed to his record — which includes speaking out against abortionist Henry Morgentaler receiving the Order of Canada — as proof of his pro-life convictions.

“My voting record on life and family issues is clear,"” wrote Scheer. “I voted according to my conscience every time.”

Campaign Life praises Scheer's record, but it says that’s not the problem.

The problem, says Hughes, is, among other issues, Scheer’s insistence that as Conservative Party leader and prime minister he will not reopen the abortion debate.

“We’re killing 100,000 babies a year and here’s a guy who won’t bring it up,” Hughes told LifeSiteNews.

“We need some courageous politicians right now: courageous people who will raise the issue and say how important it is to the whole country, and he isn’t one of them at the moment.”

What is Scheer saying?

When Scheer announced his candidacy at a September 2016 press conference, English and French reporters alike doggedly quizzed him on social conservative issues, given his known pro-life and pro-family stances.

He doggedly replied he would not reopen the abortion debate.

A reporter pointed to Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s position on abortion.

“Mr Harper, when he was governing, always refused to reopen the debate on abortion,” she said in French. “If you were to be elected as a leader, do you commit yourself not to reopen the abortion debate?”

“It’s not just the former leader, it’s our party, our caucus which decided that it wasn’t a good idea to reopen the debate, so I will maintain the same approach,” Scheer replied.

Indeed, as the party’s 2016 Policy Declaration reads: “A Conservative government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.” (No. 65)

Another reporter pressed Scheer further.

“So you’re saying that if you were leader, you would pledge not to bring forward, like as a government or party positions, anything to do with abortion laws, same-sex marriage, anything resembling Stephen Woodworth’s former motion on when life begins?” she asked.

And Scheer responded: “As leader of the Conservative Party, as prime minister of Canada, I will not, those subjects will not be reopened from the Conservative government.”

“It doesn’t advance the cause of the things that we believe in, it doesn’t advance the cause of the party to be focusing on those things that even Conservatives don’t agree on,” he later added.

‘I am pro-life’

Scheer repeated this to Rosemary Barton, host of CBC’s Power and Politics.

“It’s one of the things that held our coalition together is that some of these divisive issues were not brought forward as the government,” he told her.

“So as prime minister I would maintain that commitment to my caucus and the party that these issues wouldn’t be reopened.”

Barton asked Scheer if he believed women should have the “right” to choose abortion.

“Look, as I’ve said, my personal views on this have always been consistent. I’m an authentic person, I am pro-life, I’ve always expressed that and absolutely been consistent on that,” Scheer replied.

“But does that mean that the leader of the Conservative party or the prime minister of Canada should initiate legislation on that, to open up that issue, when our own caucus is not united on that?” he asked.

“And that’s where I think there may be a separation between myself and other candidates on this.”

What would Scheer let his caucus do?

So if a Prime Minister Scheer wouldn't bring up government legislation on abortion, would he let MPs do so?

He says yes.

“I believe 100 percent that Members of Parliament have the right to bring forward and debate any legislation of importance to them,” he told LifeSiteNews. “Debate is invaluable in a healthy democracy.”

And he proved that as Speaker of the House — a position he held from 2011 to 2015 — he says.

Scheer issued a ruling as Speaker “which upheld the rights of MPs to speak about whatever they wished and that the right to speak did not come from their party or leader, it came from being MPs,” he told LifeSiteNews. “I will absolutely continue that practice as Leader and Prime Minister.”

“Moreover, I have committed that all votes on matters of conscience will be free votes.”

That, too, is Conservative policy.

As the 2016 Declaration reads: “All votes should be free, except for the budget, main estimates, and core government initiatives.” It further states that on matters of conscience votes should be free.

But Campaign Life’s Hughes questioned just how much encouragement Scheer would give pro-life private members’ bills, given his priority of party unity.

“He probably won’t stop a backbencher from bringing it up, but he says we have to unite the party, which I would assume means, don’t bring it up.”

Campaign Life’s voter guide notes: “Scheer has stated that he would not interfere with pro-life private members bills or motions.”

Supports protections for unborn victims of crime

Scheer backs the Conservative Party’s policy, passed at the May 2016 convention, to enact laws protecting unborn victims of crime.

Policy 97 says the Party “supports legislation to ensure that individuals who commit violence against a pregnant woman would face additional charges if her unborn child was killed or injured during the commission of a crime against the mother.”

Molly's Law, a private member’s bill introduced by MP Wagantall and defeated in October 2016, tried to do just that.

Scheer was “proud to support Molly's Law,” he wrote LifeSiteNews. “That was an important piece of legislation and I’d like to see it before the House again.”

Delegates at the May 2016 convention also voted to “condemn discrimination against girls through gender selection abortions.”

But he did not answer a LifeSiteNews question on what action a Scheer government would take on sex-selection abortion.

Voted no to ‘gender identity’ bill but hasn’t promised repeal

As for Liberal Bill C-16, which adds “gender expression” and “gender identity” as prohibited grounds of discrimination, Scheer voted against it at second reading.

So far, however, Scheer has not publicly pledged to repeal Bill C-16, which is now before a Senate committee.

That lowers Scheer’s grading by Campaign Life, because “pledging to repeal C-16” is one of the criteria it uses on its voter guide to measure candidate’s supportability.

Sheer voted against C-16 because, he told LifeSiteNews, "I know Dr. [Jordan] Peterson is on the right side of history in his brave stance against political correctness run amok.”

Dr. Peterson is the University of Toronto professor who has been sounding the alarm that Bill C-16 threatens free speech.

He is “now taking a lead in the fight against political correctness to restore freedom of speech,” he wrote.

“A Scheer government will normalize diversity of thought and level the playing field so that everyone is free to express their ideas and beliefs.”

Conscience rights and tighter euthanasia laws

“I took the lead on making sure the recent euthanasia laws were tightened and restricted as much as possible to protect the vulnerable,” he told LifeSiteNews.

But given the Supreme Court decision, he doesn’t see how the Conservatives can repeal the euthanasia bill, he told Vassy Kapalos on Global’s The West Block.

“On the euthanasia front, obviously we’re dealing with a situation where the courts have struck down existing law and put in a framework of what needs to happen,” Scheer said then.

“So in terms of repealing the Liberal law, I don’t believe that’s the, legally, the best course of action to take.”

His response to euthanasia would be to “make it a tighter regime, better regime,” he added.

The Liberal legislation needs to be improved “to protect conscience rights of doctors and nurses so that no one would be forced to perform a procedure that was against their beliefs,” Scheer wrote LifeSiteNews.

“We also need to ensure protection for young people and people who struggle with mental health issues,” he added.

Scheer told Kapelos he supports conscience rights protection for institutions.

Conservative Party policy backs conscience rights for individuals (No. 57).

Same-sex "marriage" is “the law in Canada”

Scheer did not oppose a motion to delete the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman from Conservative Party policy, which delegates passed at the May 2016 convention.

Approving the motion “wasn’t the Conservative Party taking a new position on marriage, it was just deleting a clause … that in the minds of many had become a little bit anachronistic,” he said in a CPAC interview at the time.

“We had two votes in the House of Commons, we had two elections where this was a central issue,” he told CPAC. “Canadians had their say in 2004 and 2006. It’s been almost 10 years, if not more, that this has been legal.”

The Conservative Party “chose to recognize the reality that is the law in Canada,” he said. “We have a policy document that has to be reflective of that.”

Social conservative marriage defenders in the United States and Canada maintain that this issue should never be considered settled, because they view same-sex “marriage” as an impossible contradiction and an ongoing danger to natural marriage and the family.

On legalizing marijuana

More recently, on an impending Liberal government law legalizing marijuana, Scheer doesn’t seem to favour repealing the law.

“As a father of five, I’m not thrilled with the idea that this is something that could be more accessible,” he told Global’s Kapelos.

But once Canadians have legal cannabis and its attendant benefits, it will be hard to turn back the clock on this one, too.

“There’s going to be a lot of people that work for companies that distribute it, and, and retail it, and there’s going to be a lot of people who are employed throughout the … whatever it turns out to be,” Scheer said.

“So we have to be very realistic as a party as to what we’re promising Canadians going into the 2019 election,” he added.

“If this is something that, that has been legal for a period of time, it’s going to be very difficult to say, hey, we’re going to make illegal again.”

Unite under Scheer, he says

One thing Scheer is definite on is that he can unite Conservatives and lead them to victory.

“It is important that conservatives are united in order to beat Justin Trudeau in 2019,” he told LifeSiteNews.

He alluded to Trudeau’s 2014 edict as Liberal leader barring pro-lifers as Liberal Party candidates, and to the Liberal government earmarking $650 million over three years to promote abortion, including lobbying for its legalization, in developing countries.

“Where Justin Trudeau believes that in order to stand as a Liberal candidate, you must be pro-choice, all Conservatives are welcome in my caucus,” wrote Scheer.

“Where Conservatives brought forward historic initiatives to promote maternal and child health which were an example to the world, this Prime Minister is spending $650 million dollars exporting his own ideological agenda,” he added.

“Let’s be clear, we need to defeat Justin Trudeau in 2019.”

To see Campaign Life candidate voter guide, go here.


Former House speaker Andrew Scheer announces bid for Conservative leadership

Canada’s Conservatives abandon natural marriage, but adopt party’s ‘most pro-life platform’ ever

In Conservative leadership race, Trost and Lemieux firmly committed to social issues

Featured Image
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne


Indian women bring sex-selective abortion to Canada

Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

WINNIPEG, Manitoba, April 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Canadian women immigrants from India whose mother tongue is Punjabi are aborting their daughters in favor of sons, a bias so entrenched it doesn’t change no matter how long the women have lived in Canada, a new study reveals.

“We were surprised that the difference didn’t diminish” over time, Dr. Marcelo Urquia, a research scientist at the University of Manitoba Health Policy who led the study, told LifeSiteNews.

The tenacity of the cultural “son-bias” signals that “these women’s rights are maybe not being respected within the community,” he said. “Some women may be experiencing pressures to have sons and not daughters.”

“Unless we do something, nothing will change,” he added. “The only way to change this is to intervene.”  

Urquia and his team published studies in April 2016 on the practice of sex-selective abortion within Ontario’s Indian immigrant population.

“We found in a previous study that among Indian immigrant women who already had two daughters, and who underwent an abortion after 14 weeks of gestation when the sex of the fetus can be known, the sex ratio at the third birth was 663 boys for every 100 girls,” Urquia said. (CMAJ Study, Fig. 3.)

That astonishing 663 to 100 ratio “cannot be explained by natural causes,” he added.

Published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Canada (JOGC) on Monday, this study follows up on those findings but narrows the focus to immigrant sub-groups based on language.

“The language reflects more the sharing of certain meanings, and communication, and a community,” Urquia said. “These are considered as cultural practises.”

It also looked at whether the practice of sex-selective abortion decreased the longer the women lived in Canada.

The study analysed data from Ontario and focused on “women who already had two daughters,” Urquia said, “because we knew from the previous studies that this was the group of women at the highest risk” for abortion.

Indian women in Ontario whose mother tongue is Punjabi had the highest male to female ratio, with 240 boys born for every 100 girls for a third birth, according to a summary published by St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, where Urquia is affiliate scientist at the Centre for Urban Health Solutions.

If the women had immigrated to Canada within 10 years, they gave birth to 213 boys for every 100 girls; those who lived in Canada more than 10 years had a birth ratio of 270 boys to 100 girls, the summary noted.

Punjabi is the mother tongue for more than half the Indian immigrant population in Ontario, Urquia said.

For Indian immigrant women whose mother tongue is Hindi, the overall birth ratio was 163 boys for 100 girls, according to the summary.

If they had been in Canada fewer than 10 years, the ratio was 130 boys to 100 girls. It increased to 217 boys born for every 100 girls for women who had been in Canada more than 10 years.

“Son-bias appears to strengthen with previous abortions, pointing to sex selective practices,” noted the JOGC study.

Without interventions, “sex ratios will not become balanced with increasing length of residence,” it concluded.

It recommends that “gender equity promotion may focus on Punjabi- and Hindi-speaking Indian immigrant women regardless of how long they have lived in Canada.”

Urquia hopes that “different levels of government can be involved in education, counselling for immigrant families” to effect some change.

“If we adopt a ‘let nature take its course’ approach to policy or decision making with this issue, nothing will change,” he told LifeSiteNews, “because the phenomenon is not taking care of itself.”


Canadian study finds evidence of sex-selective abortion among Indian immigrants

Featured Image
Kevin O'Leary has declared his candidacy in the Conservative Party of Canada's leadership race. Sam Aronov / Shutterstock, Inc.
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne


BREAKING: Front-runner Kevin O’Leary backs out of Conservative leadership race

Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

TORONTO, April 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Kevin O’Leary has dropped out of the Conservative leadership race and thrown his support behind Quebec MP Maxime Bernier.

The shocking development, which was reported first today in the Globe and Mail, is good news for Campaign Life Coalition.

“He’s no friend of ours,” said Jeff Gunnarson, vice president of the national pro-life lobby group.

“We’re glad to see O’Leary gone. He’s got a history of hostility to social conservatives, and we rated him dead last of all the candidates in our voter’s guide.”

O’Leary cited Quebec as his nemesis.

"It's for the sake of the party that I do this, and the country,” he told the Globe. “Because I can't deliver Quebec. I can't win. That's my opinion. I wish it was different.”

With just over four weeks to go in the race, O’Leary was considered the front-runner among the 14 candidates.

Now Bernier will move into that spot, according to O’Leary, who told the Globe he thinks most of his supporters will switch to Bernier, which will give the latter a “very, very, very powerful get-out the vote team.”

A Mainstreet Research poll for iPolitics released just hours before O’Leary dropped out had O’Leary well ahead, with Saskatchewan MP Andrew Scheer a distant second and Bernier third.

An MP from Beauce, Quebec since 2006, the 54-year-old Bernier has a pro-abortion voting record. He has also marched in the pro-homosexual Pride Parade.

However, during the leadership campaign, Bernier said he’s willing to reopen the abortion debate if that’s what his caucus wants, Campaign Life notes in its candidate voter guide.

Bernier voted for the Liberal “gender rights” Bill 16, but has since pledged to repeal it on free-speech grounds. He opposes euthanasia.

“For those who support Bernier because of his outreach to social conservative voters, O’Leary’s endorsement could give them pause,” Gunnarson told LifeSiteNews.

Scheer, second in the iPolitics poll, has a pro-life voting record, opposes euthanasia, has never marched in a Pride Parade, and voted against C-16.

He hasn’t pledged to repeal C-16, and has said he won’t reopen the abortion debate.

O’Leary’s stunning game-changer comes as the remaining 13 candidates prepare for the final leadership debate in Toronto tonight.

Campaign Life has endorsed MP Brad Trost and former MP Pierre Lemieux as supportable candidates in the Conservative race, which will be decided May 27.

Featured Image
British Prime Minister Theresa May
Dorothy Cummings McLean


Shock call of UK election spurs drive to elect pro-life candidates

Dorothy Cummings McLean
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

LONDON, United Kingdom, April 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Pro-lifers in Britain have launched a campaign in response to Prime Minister Theresa May’s surprise election call. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) is asking supporters to quiz candidates on two key issues: the decriminalization of abortion and support for assisted suicide. They should then contact SPUC or SPUC Scotland to add their findings to SPUC’s databases.

“We have some MPs who are solidly pro-life,” said SPUC campaign director Antonia Tully. “But they are not very numerous and there are MPs virulently opposed to us. And there is the mushy middle. But, yes, there are a few who will honour their consciences and vote for the pro-life lobby.”

Current pro-life MPs include Fiona Bruce (Congleton), Mark Prichard (The Wrekin), John Pugh (Southport), Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent), Mary Glindon (North Tyneside), Jim Shannon (Strangford), Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsburgh) and Maria Caulfield (Lewes).

In March Caulfield boldly opposed the pro-abortion Johnson Bill, telling Parliament she was “amazed that the Bill’s backers, including private abortion providers, have the gall to propose these changes [to the existing law], which would remove regulations at a time when the UK abortion industry is knee-deep in revelations of unethical, unsafe and unprofessional practices.”  The Bill passed narrowly, with 174 MPs for and 142 MPs against it.

Although life issues are never major factors in UK elections, SPUC’s supporters remind would-be Ministers of Parliament that constituents care about them.

“This is a grassroots campaign,” said Tully. “We know that’s what works best: people leafleting their own neighbourhoods, raising awareness of the life issues and encouraging people to vote for candidates who, if elected, will protect unborn children and vulnerable people in danger of assisted suicide.”  

In 50 years, the Abortion Act (1967) has claimed the lives of over 8.7 million unborn British children.  Currently abortion is legal in the UK (except Northern Ireland) up to the 24th week of pregnancy if performed by a doctor with the permission of two doctors and meeting certain, broadly interpreted, criteria. Changes to the Act in 1990 made provisions to kill disabled children at any stage until birth.   

The pro-abortion lobby, including the British Medical Association and the Royal Society of Midwives, hopes the next government will further decriminalize abortion. According to SPUC’s Fiorella Nash, “There’s been a huge amount of pressure in the past few years to get rid of the two doctors requirement, to take abortion out of a clinical setting, and to get nurses to do them. We’re constantly seeing attempts to normalize abortion. In my personal opinion, [pro-abortion lobbyists] are doing this because there’s a shortage of doctors who want to do them.  [These lobbyists] really do not want any regulation at all. But in the end it is a surgical procedure, and it shouldn’t be treated as a lifestyle choice. No other procedure is treated like that.”

In her address to Parliament, MP Maria Caulfield said, “Too often today, debates about abortion—about the risks involved and the rights of the unborn child—are shut down; but I, and many colleagues who share my views, will not be silenced as we seek to be a voice for the voiceless, and as we argue for more modern and humane abortion law that upholds not only the dignity and rights of women but the dignity and rights of the unborn child.”

The UK’s General Election will take place on Thursday, June 8.

Featured Image
Former Grand Master of the Knights of Malta Matthew Festing with Pope Francis.
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire


Former Knights of Malta head will defy Vatican order to skip successor’s election: report

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire
By Claire Chretien

April 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – The former leader of the Knights of Malta is allegedly returning to Rome for his successor's election, despite being ordered by a papal delegate to stay away.

Fra’ Matthew Festing was the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta until Pope Francis asked him to resign from his position in January. Festing led the Order when it ousted a high-ranking official who had been distributing contraception around the world through the Order's charity.

The Order of Malta is a sovereign state. Some of its members take vows of obedience to the pope.

On April 15, Archbishop Angelo Becciu – who at the Pope's instructions is overseeing the order during this interim period – told Festing to "not come to Rome" for the election of his successor, scheduled for April 29.

"Your presence would reopen wounds, only recently healed, and would prevent the event taking place in an atmosphere of peace and regained harmony," Becciu wrote to Festing. He said he had "shared the decision with the Holy Father," and that Festing should skip his trip to Rome "as an act of obedience."

Reuters reported Wednesday that Festing is heading to Rome anyway, and that the Order of Malta confirmed this to them.

A spokesperson for the Order said Festing "had informed the group that he would come to the meeting this Saturday at its headquarters in Rome."

Ed Pentin of the National Catholic Register reported that insiders tell him Festing remains very popular within the Order and could even be re-elected. 

After Pope Francis asked Festing to step down, the Pope reinstated the fired condom promoter, Albrecht von Boeselager. Von Boeselager then said the Order's Patron, Cardinal Raymond Burke, was "de facto" suspended from his leadership of the organization. Burke has said Becciu is "the only person who can treat questions of the Order of Malta in the name of the Holy Father," even though Burke's title is still "Cardinal Patron."

In an apparent jab at von Boeselager's brother, who was recently hired by the Vatican bank, Damian Thompson of the UK Catholic Herald tweeted:

Featured Image
MPP Arthur Potts
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne


Liberal politician’s weird exchange with Christian dad: ‘What gender do you identify as?’

Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

TORONTO, April 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Tony Chow is a technical systems analyst, a Christian, a father, and an opponent of gender ideology.

He’a also among the many Ontarians warning that Liberal Bill 89 gives the state power to seize children on the grounds that opposing gender identity is a form of child abuse.

Critics warn the bill, currently before the justice committee, also allows the state to ban couples opposed to gender ideology as foster or adoptive parents.

Bill 89, which replaces the existing Child and Family Services Act, adds “gender identity” and “gender expression” as factors to be considered in determining what’s “in the best interests of the child.”

Tony Chow, Christian, father and technical systems analyst, is also a man.

That is evident, but such is the state of politics that when Chow criticized Bill 89 before the justice committee, things got personal.

“What gender do you identify as?” asked committee member Liberal MPP Arthur Potts.

“Do I identify myself?” replied Chow, evidently taken aback.

“What gender do you identify as?” asked Potts again.

“What gender myself?” asked Chow.

“Yes,” said Potts.

“I’m a male,” said Chow.

“And I identify ‘male’ as well,” said Potts.

“So when I see gender identity in this bill, I think it covers all Ontarians, and not just 99 percent who maybe have confusion about what their identity is.”

Contrary to what Potts averred, 99 percent of the population are not confused about their gender identity.

Rather, the transgender population in Canada is “between .25 percent and .1 percent, and that, I think, is inflated,” Chow pointed out in his five minutes in front of the justice committee.

He also asserted that Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberal government, in its “infinitely expensive creativity, draws up a 282-page document to include juvenile gender identity that is an absolute exception.”

Exceptions should be handled for what they are, said Chow, as exceptions.

Moreover, he questioned why children would be confused about their gender identity.

“As a jogger in the open, I watch ducks, geese and their offspring a lot,” he said. “I never saw a boy duck try to be a girl duck, or vice versa.”

“Why? Probably because they didn’t have to go through the Ontario sex education curriculum.”

Chow also blasted Bill 89 for removing “the religious faith, if any, in which the child is being raised” as a factor to be considered when deciding what’s in the best interests of the child, and replaces it with the child’s own “creed.”

The Liberals have agreed to amend “creed” to include “religion.”

But the essential flaw is not the definition of “creed,” Chow told the committee, but “the shift of focus from the parents’ faith to the child’s faith.”

A child’s faith “could be a flying spaghetti monster one day and reptilian alien gods the next,” he said.

Bill 89 “ raises questions about parental authority,” contended Chow, especially given the remarks of Minister of Child and Family Services Michel Coteau.

Coteau told QP Briefing: “I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying, no, you need to do this differently.”

Coteau added: “If it’s abuse and it’s within the definition, the child can be removed from that environment and placed into protection where the abuse stops.”

When an “honourable minister of Ontario considers that a form of abuse,” Chow said, “this has now crossed from a parental authority issue into a thought police issue.”

He believes “the reason why the Ontario government is introducing this bill, and all the language that they use, is an excuse to advance their own agenda,” Chow told the committee.

“Yes, we need to take care of the young people and children, but I personally believe that there is another agenda going on here.”

Chow is far from alone in raising these concerns.

The Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA), Parent As First Educators (PAFE), and Queenie Yu were among pro-family groups and individuals who criticized the bill at committee.

REAL Women also submitted a written brief critiquing the bill.

Tanya Granic Allen, executive director of PAFE, also disputed Coteau’s statement that it was abuse to oppose a child’s perceived identity.

I disagree with the Minister. As do the thousands of parents with whom I’ve dealt with in preparing for this Committee meeting,” she said.

Many children and teens have thoughts about their own gender or another at some point in their life because of a jealous sibling, a desire to buck social trends, a close friendship, for attention, for low self-esteem, for affirmation,” noted Granic Allen, a mother of four.

“But that does not mean parents ought to hyper-accentuate these instances.”

She told the committee that “gender dysphoria should not be treated lightly, as I would argue Bill 89 does.”

“These conversations with a gender-questioning child are best had within the family home, with parents who know their child best,” said Granic Allen.

“Let parents parent. The government should support parents, and not insert itself into the family.”

Yu and Granic Allen, who have been lobbying hard against Bill 89, as well as federal Bill C-16, since January, have produced a compelling video. In it, free speech advocate Dr. Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist and University of Toronto psychology professor, outlines the dangers of the legislation. It can be viewed here.

And ARPA’s three-minute video on Bill 89 can be viewed here.

The justice committee continues its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 89 on Thursday.

PAFE’s Granic Allen says it’s not too late to lobby against the Liberal law, which passed unanimously at second reading.

“There is still one more vote on Bill 89, so people need to contact their MPP and tell them to stop it,” she told LifeSiteNews.

Granic Allen also urged people to sign the PAFE petition, which has 5,234 signatures to date.

For contact information on committee members, go here.


‘Totalitarian’: Ontario gov’t bill makes it easier to seize children from Christian homes, say critics

Liberal bill empowers gvmt to take kids from Ontario parents who don’t accept gender ideology: legal experts

Official rips critics of bill that allows gov’t to seize children from Christian homes

Featured Image
Bill Whatcott with his flyer
Steve Weatherbe


Christian speaks out against transgender candidate in Vancouver

Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, April 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – It’s out of the frying pan and into the fire for Christian crusader Bill Whatcott. Facing a $1.4 million lawsuit for distributing flyers condemning homosexuality at last year’s Gay Pride parade in Toronto, the irrepressible former nurse is speaking out against British Columbia’s first transvestite candidate in the province’s May 9 election.

In the past, Whatcott has won several free speech cases establishing freedom of expression in public places such as university campuses and airports. He has also won a libel case against the CBC.

Whatcott is not a candidate himself. He is simply condemning the candidacy of Ronan Oger, who for the past three years has called himself Morgane. He is the New Democratic Party candidate in the downtown Vancouver-False Creek riding, presenting himself as female. The Vancouver Province and Sun praised Oger as he “makes history” as the province’s first “transgender” candidate. (A Green Party candidate has since emerged with the same claim).

The Sun/Province story relates how Oger immigrated with his father from France at age 15, excelled at high-tech subjects and jobs until settling down to run a tavern in Pender Harbour.

The story gets blurry when recounting how he married and started a family of two with his “partner. ” It does not get into the gender details that his partner was and remains a woman. Also going unreported was what part his decision to attempt a gender change played in his divorce.

Whatcott is not endorsing any other candidate. But he has decided that Oger’s candidacy is a good place to stand up for Christian belief and oppose the so-called “transgender” rights movement.

“Dear Vancouver-False Creek residents,” starts the flyer he began handing out in the riding this week. “I am writing this flyer this election to share my concern about the promotion and growth of homosexuality and transvestitism in British Columbia and how it is obscuring the immutable truth about our God-given gender.”

Whatcott goes on to explain that “Ronan Oger is a biological male who has renamed himself ‘Morgane Oger’ after he embraced a transvestite lifestyle. Ronan is running for the NDP in the Vancouver-False Creek riding and BC's media and the NDP are promoting a false narrative that Ronan is a woman born into a male body.”

Whatcott then contrasts Oger with Walt Heyer, a prominent “de-transitioned” man who now maintains a website called Heyer, who lived for many years as a female, counsels men and women who believed their psychological problems could be resolved by surgeries and hormones designed to change their gender.

“Walt,” the flyer relates, “repented of his sin, reclaimed his God-given male identity, and is now living as a born-again Christian helping others to avoid the mistake he made of embracing transgender propaganda and trying to live a lie that he was a different gender from the one God made him.

“The truth is there are only two genders, male and female, and they are God given and unchangeable.” People cannot change their gender, the flyer continues. They “can only cross dress and disfigure themselves with surgery and hormones to look like the gender they are not. This practice is harmful and displeasing to God.”

The flyer continues by listing the diseases risked by those practicing homosexual intercourse “such as HIV, syphilis, HPV of the rectum, anal gonorrhea, Hepatitis A,B & C, etc. ... Homosexuals and transgenders are also at increased risk of drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, and domestic violence.”

Whatcott’s flyer holds out hope, however: Jesus Christ will forgive those who repent and change their ways. It is a very similar message to the one Whatcott and a small group of supporters dressed in green body suits handed out in pamphlet form at Toronto’s last Gay Pride Parade. This provoked the class action lawsuit from prominent Ontario homosexuals and a court order requiring Whatcott to name all his anonymous collaborators.

Whatcott has not been sued yet in Vancouver, but the reaction has been generally hostile. “Most people are polite, at least,” he told LifeSiteNews, but few, he admits, are supportive. One person called his pamphlet “hate speech” and another called him a “moron.”

Typical of the reaction was Whatcott’s treatment on a popular talk show, Steele and Drex. The hosts interviewed him for 10 minutes  but broadcast only a few seconds of his conversation, leaving out, he later told LifeSiteNews, all the medical evidence he had cited about post-surgery transgender people having suicide rates 40 percent higher than the rest of the population.

“That’s fake news what they did. They are the real haters,” he said.

Faced with a provincial election in which Whatcott could support none of the candidates in his own riding of Surrey-Guildford, he went looking for a cause worth embracing. He picked transgenderism because. “I believe it is what God wants me to do.” The LGBT agenda has been allowed to advance to “where it is affecting everybody” including those “who don’t want to take a stand.”

He had belonged to a parish consisting largely of immigrants who tried to avoid political issues such as transgender rights. “Now one parishioner’s daughter claims she is really a man. Nobody knows what to do about it. The family is devastated.”

Nobody can escape the issue, said Whatcott. “People can either go along or take a stand.” He added that the expansion of transgender status and influence seems “irresistible.” “If I weren’t a Christian, I wouldn’t resist,” he said.

The provincial election presents a clear choice for John Hof of United for Life BC. He’ll vote Liberal because several prominent members of the current Liberal government are pro-lifers, especially his own MLA, Environment Minister Mary Pollak, and neighbouring MLA Rich Coleman, the deputy premier.

“The NDP is the antithesis of everything the pro-life movement stands for,” said Hof. “They have been since Day One.”

During their most recent time in government, 1991-2001, they installed “bubble zones” around provincial abortion clinics. Like the federal Liberals, the NDP allows no pro-life candidates.

Polls show the New Democrats are well ahead, and Ronan Oger is leading in his riding. Whoever is elected May 9, said Hof, on May 11 pro-lifers from around British Columbia will assemble on the front lawn of the Legislature in Victoria.

“We’ll be sending the message: ‘Human life matters.’”


Battle rages in New Hampshire over radical transgender rights bill

Featured Image
French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent


Two candidates remain in French presidential election, and both support abortion laws

Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits

PARIS, France, April 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — The first round of the French presidential election has come and gone, leaving the country in a quandary.

Out of 11 contenders, no candidate received a majority, leaving the finalists for a May 7 run-off as the indefinable Emmanuel Macron (24.01 percent) and nationalist Marine Le Pen (21.3 percent).

Mainstream right-wing candidate François Fillon (20.01 percent) and Communist Jean-Luc Mélenchon (19.58 percent) fell short.

The vote was incredibly close, with a large proportion of voters remaining undecided practically up to the last day. What makes the situation difficult is that Le Pen, who represents a lesser evil from the pro-life point of view and who also stands for the protection of France’s frontiers and identity, will be hard pressed to obtain a majority against Macron. He already has the support of Fillon and can count on votes from the political left and center – even though many Fillon voters will probably prefer Marine to Macron.

Macron was in fact so certain of reaching the Elysée palace – the French president’s official Paris residence – after the first round of voting that his election night address was for all intents and purposes a victory speech. It is indeed the likeliest scenario, but stranger things have happened.

What’s certain is that the election of Macron would leave France firmly on the rails established by the outgoing president, socialist François Hollande, under whose reign same-sex “marriage” was made legal, abortion “rights” were reinforced and euthanasia by stealth became a right for all in the form of terminal sedation.

Far from being an outsider standing up for renewal, as the mainstream press presented him, Macron is an establishment figure through and through. Hollande gave Macron, a former Economy minister in Hollande's government, his discreet support during the campaign while the official socialist party candidate, Benoît Hamon, was dropped by many of his colleagues in favor of Macron. Hamon ended up with a miserable 6.36 percent last Sunday night.

Macron himself has followed the well-worn track to power in France, studying at the School of Political Science and – like Hollande – obtaining his diploma from the “Ecole nationale d’administration,” which prepares brilliant students for the highest offices of the government. He also worked for several years as a well-paid investment banker for Rothschild before joining Hollande’s inner circle in 2012. Last year, Macron formed his own party that blends left and right policies.

Macron has always been close to Jacques Attali, a left-wing economist who has counseled French presidents or future presidents since 1973, including socialist François Mitterrand, liberal Nicolas Sarkozy, and Hollande. Macron invited Attali to a private dinner with his closest collaborators last Sunday after his first-round win.

Attali is a proponent of “unisex humanity,” calling the legalization of same-sex “marriage” an “anecdote of no importance” and announcing that humanity is slowly advancing toward a state where “men and women will be equal in all aspects, including that of procreation that will no longer be the privilege, or the burden of women.” And babies, he says, will be made “alone or with others, without physical relations, without anyone carrying them.” In 1981, he wrote: “Euthanasia will be a key instrument of our future societies.”

What Attali whispers in Macron’s ear is crucially important, because on many points Macron seems to have no thoughts at all, or at least he didn’t express them clearly during his presidential campaign. Its vacuity was a talking point in social media and appears to have found an echo in the minds of many after years of indoctrination in state-controlled schools and in the mainstream media.

Macron does stand clearly for abortion “rights,” “gay” marriage and LGBT rights as well as artificial procreation for lesbian couples. He is ambiguous about surrogate motherhood, which he might ban in France, but without taking measures to prevent couples from “importing” babies from countries where it is legal. He even wants to make sure the procedure is not “badly paid” instead of promoting an international ban on this modern form of slavery.

Macron has no opinion on euthanasia, except that it is urgent in his view to fully implement the present stealth law. As to parental rights and education, his “participative” platform says little. He speaks only of the public schools whose common core promotes “Green” values, abortion and contraception, and leaves high school students clueless as to the course of history and often incapable of reading and writing correctly.

Macron has made it clear on the other hand that he favors immigration at a time when France, like the rest of the European Union, is being flooded with mostly Islamic African and Middle-Eastern migrants. He is also the most compliant candidate in regard to the globalist agenda, having promised to make the implementation of the COP 21 Paris Agreement a mainstay of France’s international politics, bowing to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and their demands for “reproductive rights.”

It must be said that of the 11 candidates, not one has adopted a completely coherent pro-family and pro-life stance. Le Pen, besides wanting to protect France’s identity, frontiers and security, is the only candidate willing to abolish same-sex “marriage,” albeit by “improving” civil unions for same-sex couples. On the issues of artificial procreation, surrogate motherhood and euthanasia, she has one of the better platforms, but she is not willing to protect life, having called abortion a “woman’s right” that she will not abolish.

From a personal point of view, neither candidate is in a regular marriage. Marine Le Pen, twice married and divorced, has a partner who is currently a vice president of the National Front of which she is the figurehead. Macron, while attending a Jesuit school in Amiens, fell in love with his French literature teacher, Brigitte Trogneux, when he was 16. She was 40, married and a mother to three children. Macron married her in 2007 at age 30 – she was then 54 – after having maintained a relationship with her since high school.

But perhaps the most troublesome aspect of Macron’s personality was revealed in an interview he gave about environmental issues to the World Wildlife Fund a few months ago. He referred to “the planet that made us” and called politics “a form of magic.”

“I have always taken up the vertical, transcendental dimension, but at the same time it must be anchored in complete immanence, in materiality,” he said. “I do not believe in ethereal transcendence. … I do not separate God from the rest. I make the connection between transcendence and immanence.”

It is no wonder that many voters have no idea what his political program really contains. But if words mean anything, he is a spiritualist environmentalist who fits in perfectly with the modern idolatry of “Mother Earth.” Perhaps that is the reason this improbable candidate gained so much media and political support, wiping away the French people’s discontent with socialism, their desire to protect the country from globalism and uncontrolled immigration, and hoping to render the promise held by the Manif pour tous that put millions on the streets against “gay marriage” powerless.

Featured Image
A 'Wellness to Go' vending machine dispenses an abortion drug at UC-Davis.
Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa


University puts abortion pills in vending machine

Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa
By Lisa Bourne

DAVIS, California, April 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – A California university’s decision to make abortifacient drugs available to students via a vending machine in a study lounge has prompted criticism from pro-life and family groups.

A “Wellness To Go” vending machine that dispenses the Plan B drug was installed earlier this month at the University of California-Davis. Along with the abortifacient, it offers Advil, tampons, pregnancy tests, and condoms.

“Colleges and universities should be offering pregnant and parenting students options of housing, financial aid, diaper decks, and childcare instead of handing over abortion drugs,” Students for Life Executive Director Kristan Hawkins said.

Plan B, also known as the “morning after pill,” is referred to as “emergency contraception.” It is intended to suppress ovulation. However, studies have indicated the drug is more likely to cause an early abortion than prevent pregnancy.  

Plan B became available to women and girls of all ages without a prescription in 2013 during the Obama administration.

The abortifacient received FDA approval in 1999 for adult use by prescription. In 2006, it became available for sale over-the-counter to women over the age of 18 and for minors by prescription. Then in 2009 a federal judge ordered the FDA to make Plan B available to 17-year-olds over the counter as well.

A Christian family in Washington State has been in court since 2007 fighting the mandate to provide abortifacients Plan B and Ella in their small family-run pharmacy

The UC Davis “Wellness To Go” machine was the product of two years’ efforts by former student Parteek Singh, according to

“The more skeptical and negativity I got from other people, like ‘oh, it’s not gonna happen,’ kind of pushed me more,” he said.

The vending machine makes the California university one of about four campuses nationally to offer similar emergency contraception access, reported.

Student reaction was mixed. But Singh stated, “I feel like every college should have this.”

Christian and pro-life advocates contend that providing abortion drugs to college students is not a good idea.

“No woman should be forced to choose between the life of her child and her education,” Hawkins told EWTN News.

Human Life International (HLI) Director of Mission Communications Stephan Phelan remarked on the troubling trend of providing abortifacients to students through a vending machine.

“The modern American university, where abortifacient drugs are called "wellness," and a biological male can declare himself a "girl" and have anyone who disagrees thrown out of school,” Phelan told LifeSiteNews. “We hope parents are paying attention when deciding which schools they will support with tuition dollars and donations.”

Evangelist Franklin Graham posted on his Facebook page about the new kind of vending machine.

“Rather than pushing sugar or caffeine, this one is promoting sex,” he said.

“They call it a ‘Wellness To Go’ machine,” Graham said. “I strongly disagree.”

“There’s nothing healthy about sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman as God created it — in fact it’s dangerous,” he continued. “It is very sad and concerning to see this type of thing embraced on a university campus.”

American Life League Executive Director Jim Sedlak pointed out that those that push Plan B are among the people who continually call for students to be given "medically accurate" information. Yet they use confusing words and hide the real mechanism of Plan B.

“It is a fact that, when Plan B works, it works mostly by preventing implantation of an already created human being, not by preventing fertilization,” Sedlak told LifeSiteNews. “The actual mechanism is hidden from students by telling them Plan B will prevent pregnancy."

What is not explained, he continued, is that pregnancy has been defined since 1965 as beginning at conception, and conception was defined as implantation in the womb. So any product that acts after fertilization and before implantation is wrongly labeled as a "contraceptive."

“The fact is that most young women who buy Plan B from that vending machine will end up killing one or more of her children in the womb,” Sedlak said. “It is truly horrible that providing mothers with the means to kill their children is acceptable to our society."

Featured Image
St. Benedict's Basilica in Norcia, before and after the quake.
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete


Norcia monks will not rebuild St. Benedict’s Basilica. Archbishop plans ‘modern style’ church

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski
Norcia before the Oct. 30 quake that destroyed the town. Basilica on right.
St. Benedict's Basilica, interior. Mattis
Benedictine monk celebrates mass at the Basilica's Epiphany altar.
Benedictine refectory in 2014.

NORCIA, Italy, April 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- The Benedictine Monks of Norcia will not, as they had hoped, rebuild the Basilica of St. Benedict, site of the birthplace of the father of Western monasticism, after it was destroyed by an earthquake last October. Instead, the local archbishop has decided to rebuild the Basilica in a “modern style” and will use the quarters as his part-time residence. 

“The Archdiocese of Spoleto-Norcia, which owns the buildings, has decided that the spaces will have to be used by the diocese since all the other churches in town were also destroyed," the monks state on their website. 

The order has announced that their move after the quake to an old monastic grange on a hill above the city about two miles away will now be permanent. 

The Basilica was destroyed save the facade on October 30 after a 6.6 quake hit central Italy. The quake's epicenter was located just 6 miles away from the ancient Umbrian town.

Dr. Robert Moynihan, founder and editor-in-chief of Inside the Vatican magazine, said in an April 23 email that he had spoken with the monks about the archbishop’s decision. 

"They told me that the archbishop of Spoleto, Renato Boccardo, age 64 — who has jurisdiction over Norcia — has decided that he will rebuild the Basilica of St. Benedict in a modern style of architecture. He will also take possession of the quarters where the monks had been living from the year 2000 until October 2016. He will use the quarters as a part-time episcopal residence,” he wrote.

“So the Benedictine monks of Father Cassian will not return to the center of Norcia, to the spot where St. Benedict and his twin sister St. Scholastica were born. That period of the monastery's life is over now, it seems. The monastery will now be built on the hillside above the city, about two miles outside of the city walls," Moynihan added. 

In a blog also dated April 23, Father Benedict Nivakoff, the monastery's prior, alluded to the struggle that the archbishop's decision has caused to the community. 

"For us monks, there have been struggles: on minor things, like the type of brick to be used to the roof, but also about serious things, such as how to meet the high hopes that the community has placed in us after the earthquake," he wrote.

"The Archbishop has shared with us his concern for the pastoral needs of Norcia, and this has allowed us to understand more clearly that our task is to live more deeply the monastic life in the new monastery on the mountain, because God seems to have other plans for the oldest monastery in the city," he added. 

Prior to the quake, the monks had completed many renovations on the property, including the library, sanctuary of the basilica, monastic cells, and bell tower. They had commissioned a beautiful painting of the Crucifixion for their new and expanded refectory.

All of this has now been lost. 

The monks stated on their website that they were grateful for the support they received in rebuilding the Basilica after they had moved to Norcia from Rome in the year 2000. 

“For 16 years, the monks acted as guardians over the historic birth home of St. Benedict and his twin sister St. Scholastica. The monks are grateful to the many who helped them restore the basilica to great beauty over the course of those blessed years,” they said. 

The monks of Norcia are an international community committed to living according to the ancient observance of the Rule of St. Benedict. They are seen by faithful Catholics across the world as a lighthouse of orthodoxy and a stronghold of sanity in a Church troubled by unrest, uncertainty, and disintegration. 

The monks said that the European Union as well as the Italian state have pledged to help restore the basilica and monastery, now according to the plans of the archbishop.  

“Throughout the many years needed for the massive work of reconstruction, while the monks work to build the new monastery in Monte, their hearts will remain there in the ancient crypt of the basilica, the birth home to their great founder and father, St. Benedict,” they said. 

Fr. Benedict said in his Easter message that the hand of Divine Providence must be looked for in the archbishop’s plans for rebuilding the birthplace of the two saints.

“For the monks it is a time to focus on new building projects at our home in the Norcia mountains, following the request from the archdiocese asking us to free up space in our buildings in town (which belong to the diocese) for their own needs,” he said. 

“The archdiocese has hundreds of damaged properties and the buildings in town were among the least damaged. We see their request as a sign of God’s will as we too can begin a new chapter of our community’s life on the mountainside,” Fr. Benedict added.

Featured Image
West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin ran for office as pro-life but is now backing Planned Parenthood.
Fr. Mark Hodges


‘Pro-life’ Democratic senator caught supporting Planned Parenthood

Fr. Mark Hodges
By Fr. Mark Hodges

HUNTINGTON, West Virginia, April 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — These days, it's nearly impossible to be a Democrat and stand up for the most vulnerable people on earth. New Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez recently announced that supporting abortion is “not negotiable” to be a member of the party.  

In a recent New York state senate primary, Democratic candidate and well-respected community activist S.J. Jung was vigorously opposed by members of his own party because of his pro-life views.

It now appears that West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who ran as a pro-life candidate and still calls himself pro-life, is following the party line. He is voting in favor of abortion and has posed for a picture holding an "I Stand with Planned Parenthood" sign.

During a Huntington Town Hall last month, Manchin started with an apology for his views on the sanctity of innocent human life: "I have been a pro-life legislator for years ... It's just the way I was raised," he said.

However, Manchin admitted that he voted against defunding Planned Parenthood because, he claims, tax funding for the abortion giant only goes to legitimate healthcare.

"When it came down to it, I couldn't vote against it in all good conscience because it was being used for women's healthcare," he said.

Manchin then pledged to continue Planned Parenthood tax funding, because "we've got to take care of women's healthcare."

The "pro-life" Democrat posed for a photo with a constituent while holding a sign reading "I Stand with Planned Parenthood." The picture was quickly posted on social media by Planned Parenthood South Atlantic West Virginia.

"Senator Joe Manchin has always claimed to be pro-life, but, since going to Congress, he has not followed through on his campaign promises," Dr. Wanda Franz, president of West Virginians for Life, told LifeSiteNews. "He has supported government funding for Planned Parenthood at every opportunity, in spite of the documented facts that Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest and strongest supporter and practitioner of abortion."

Franz backed up her criticism with Manchin's documented votes.

"Joe Manchin’s voting record with the National Right to Life Committee is only 50 percent and West Virginians for Life strongly condemns this record," she said.

"His most recent votes in the 115th Congress reveals a voting record of only 33 percent — two thirds of the time he voted against life," Franz added.  "We have made his record clear to our 125,000 supporters."

Furthermore, at the St. Patrick's Day Heath Care Town Hall, Manchin propagated the abortion rhetoric that the Center for Medical Progress' undercover videos were fraudulent. Without evidence, he called the videos revealing Planned Parenthood's illegal trafficking in baby parts for profit "not accurate, and there was fraud."

“Sen. Manchin used to call himself pro-life, but this is the last straw,” Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser wrote in a press release. She pledged to “work tirelessly in the months ahead to make sure West Virginians know of this profound betrayal of the unborn and their mothers.”

Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life said Manchin's support of Planned Parenthood is a clear change in position. He warned that West Virginia voters "will face a choice next year as to whether to re-elect Sen. Manchin” and that his organization will inform them of Manchin's support for abortion.

"Last month, he voted to force states to fund the abortion giant through Title X grants," Dannenfelser pointed out. "That was only a day after new footage was released showing a former Planned Parenthood abortionist describe the force needed to dismember a five-month-old unborn child struggling to survive in the womb.”

Pavone speculated that Manchin was caving to Democrat coercion.

“The Democratic Party is, no doubt, putting pressure here on a senator who has in many instances been an exception to the rule and has taken pro-life positions,” he told

Perhaps in support of Pavone's theory, Manchin's re-election treasury is nearly entirely from outside his home state. The Charleston Gazette-Mail reported that Manchin has $235,000 raised for the 2018 midterm re-election campaign, with only about three percent ($7,900) coming from the people he serves in West Virginia.

“I urge him to resist (political) pressure," Pavone advised, "to be honest with himself and his constituents … about … this criminal, child-killing enterprise, which is more a political machine than a health organization.”

Sen. Manchin's office did not return calls from LifeSiteNews for comment.

Featured Image
Steve Weatherbe


Minnesota governor prepared to protect abortion, veto pro-life bills

Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

ST. PAUL, Minnesota, April 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – The social conservative tide that flooded America in November did not rise high enough in Minnesota to secure passage of pro-life bills to defund abortion and to regulate abortuaries.

Gov. Mark Dayton has vetoed pro-life bills in the past and has vowed to do so again if both measures, as expected, are passed in the state’s House of Representatives and Senate, said Bill Poehler, communications director of the Minnesota Concerned Citizens for Life.

In fact, both bills have already been passed in the House by wide margins (77-54 and 79-53).

“We are pretty hopeful and confident they will pass in the Senate as well,” Poehler told LifeSiteNews, but likely by a much narrower margin.

Republicans have held a majority of seats in both the House and Senate only “one other time in the last 50 or 60 years,” Poehler noted, but both bills lack the two-thirds majority in both chambers to overcome the governor’s veto.

The second measure has undergone significant amendment in order to ensure passage through both chambers and the governor’s approval. However, Dayton’s assistant chief of staff, Matt Swenson, has left little room for accommodation.

“The governor opposes any new law restricting a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions,” Swenson said.

Originally, the second bill called for abortion clinics to meet the same standards as other facilities where surgical procedures are conducted — for example, by making doorways wide enough for stretchers to be wheeled through.

But opponents say the state’s five abortion clinics are being targeted for regulations that will not be faced by some 1,250 “similar” clinics that perform  colonoscopies, knee arthroscopies, and liposuction, with the possibility of equal or more serious complication rates.

Pro-life legislators bargained down the proposed standard to those maintained by Planned Parenthood itself — but still with the state as enforcer.

"Our goal has always been to protect women, not to shut down clinics, but the other side of the aisle didn’t believe us,” said Rep. Deb Kiel, R-Crookston, as reported by the Pioneer Press.

Despite the reduced regulation, pro-abortion legislators have persisted in their opposition.

“We don’t tell women that if they want other kinds of health care, they should go seek charity to be able to have that,” said Rep. Tina Liebling, DFL-Rochester, also quoted by the Pioneer Press.

Jen Aulwes, communications director for Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, agreed.

“It’s about singling out abortion providers in an attempt to make abortion less accessible in the state and make it harder for abortion providers to provide this legal service,” she told reporters.

This makes Poehler think Gov. Dayton will veto both bills despite the changes.

Poehler said the current effort to see the two bills through the legislature was still worth making in order to publicize the issues.

The 1995 Doe v. Gomez decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court enabled Medicaid to pay for abortions for women with low incomes. In 2014, the state paid $953,187 for 3,957 abortions, or 43 percent of all abortions.

“We’re going to keep fighting. Most Minnesotans don’t realize that they are paying for so many abortions, nor that the abortion clinics are not regulated by the state,” he said.

While he knows of no recent polling, he believes pro-life support has risen since a 2002 poll that indicated only 5 percent of adult Minnesotans supported the status quo, which is abortion on demand. Fully 52 percent thought abortion should be illegal.

Nor does he think Minnesotans differ from the majority of Americans who oppose taxpayer-funded abortions.

“We see this as a pro-life state,” Poehler said.


Missouri lawmakers override governor's veto of 72-hour waiting period

Arkansas enacts 12 week abortion ban over governor's veto

Featured Image
Center for Medical Progress YouTube
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire


Planned Parenthood exec caught on tape: I think selling baby parts is ‘a great idea’

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien Follow Claire
By Claire Chretien

April 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – A new Center for Medical Progress (CMP) video shows a Planned Parenthood senior executive haggling over pricing for aborted babies' body parts, which she says she's "committed" to selling.

The video is of a conversation CMP investigators had with Dr. Mary Gatter at a Planned Parenthood conference evening reception. Gatter, who in another CMP video, joked, "I want a Lamborghini" when negotiating prices of baby parts, explains that she's "committed" to selling the bodies of aborted babies and "I think it’s a great idea."

"I did it in LA," Gatter told the undercover CMP investigators. 

Gatter was the Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles before moving to the same position at the Pasadena affiliate and then being elected President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Medical Directors’ Council. As Medical Director at PPLA, Gatter oversaw the affiliate’s partnership with Novogenix Laboratories, LLC, a local for-profit fetal organ and tissue harvesting company.

"What kind of volume do you need and what gestational ages?" asked Gatter. She said her abortion facility only does "20 cases [abortions] a week, so it's not a big volume," and that they only abort babies up to 16 weeks old.

"Most of the requests are actually like 16 weeks and above," CMP responded, but "I think it would be worth it to make the connection."

"We may have to make sure that your staff who are on site are credentialed, privleges, whatever, background checks and all that stuff," said Gatter. "You know, you have to pay a little money for the use of the space" inside the abortion facility. 

"It's not a lot, we're not greedy about that stuff," said the woman famous for her "I want a Lamborghini" quip.

"The fact that Novogenix, StemExpress, and ABR stationed their own workers inside Planned Parenthood abortion clinics to perform the harvesting, packaging, and transport of aborted baby body parts demonstrates that Planned Parenthood had no reimbursable costs under the law," said David Daleiden, project lead for CMP. 

"What we’ve been quoting is $50 per specimen," the buyer told Gatter. "I think some people are doing more, some slightly less."

"$50’s on the low end, $50 [per specimen] was like 12 years ago," Gatter replied.

The CMP investigator said what their company likes about paying per "specimen" is "that way we're not paying for material we can't use."

"Yeah, yeah, yeah," Gatter agreed. 

"If we can get a liver, a lung, and you know, a brain –" the CMP investigator begins. Gatter cut him off, asking for assurance that "you would show up to do this."

"We would send a tech in," the CMP investigator confirmed. Gatter nodded. She said at the Los Angeles Planned Parenthood they committed abortions up to 24 weeks and "we had a lovely tech" from Novogenix named Heather.

"We had Heather coming to two of our sites that went a little further along and they got a lot of [fetal] tissue from us," said Gatter while clutching a glass of wine. "Give me a call," she told the CMP investigators.

Gatter was interviewed by the U.S. House Energy & Commerce Committee in September 2015. 

"Planned Parenthood has never publicly admitted how much money total they received from the Novogenix contract," the video explains.

In December 2016, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee referred Planned Parenthood and Novogenix to the FBI for criminal prosecution. 

"The volume-based sums that Planned Parenthood charged these businesses for baby parts are criminal trafficking and profiteering in fetal body parts," said Daleiden. "The U.S. Department of Justice should take heed of the Congressional investigations’ criminal referrals and prosecute Planned Parenthood to the full extent of the law, and taxpayers must stop being forced to subsidize Planned Parenthood’s criminal abortion empire."

Featured Image
Eric Metaxas Eric Metaxas


‘The strange persistence of guilt’ in our a-moral, post-Christian society

Eric Metaxas Eric Metaxas
By Eric Metaxas

April 26, 2017 (BreakPoint) -- In 1966, Time Magazine infamously posed the question “Is God Dead?” on its cover. Recently, it ran the same cover, only with the word “Truth” instead of God.

The literal answer to both questions is, of course, “no.” But both questions point to an issue that has haunted the West for more than a century: How do you justify morality in a society that increasingly lives as if there was no one to hold them accountable and define the difference between good and evil, truth and falsehood?

Ironically, while we’ve reached the point where we’ve effectively cut the legs out from beneath the idea of sin, we are still very much in the thrall of guilt.

That was the subject of a recent column by David Brooks in the New York Times entitled “The Strange Persistence of Guilt,” which, in turn, was inspired by an article of the same name by Wilfred McClay in the Hedgehog Review.

And here’s what makes the persistence of guilt “strange”:  The dominant worldviews of our age, as Alasdair MacIntyre wrote in “After Virtue,” have turned beliefs about right and wrong, good and evil, into little more than expressions of feelings. They should have freed us from feelings of guilt.

And yet we still feel guilty.

Instead of the easy-going relativism that should logically follow from believing that right and wrong, guilt and innocence, are a matter of feelings, we live in what Brooks calls “an age of great moral pressure.” We may “lack the words to articulate it,” and “religion may be in retreat, but guilt seems as powerfully present as ever.” Thus, as McClay writes, “Whatever donation I make to a charitable organization, it can never be as much as I could have given. I can never diminish my carbon footprint enough, or give to the poor enough . . . Colonialism, slavery, structural poverty, water pollution, deforestation—there’s an endless list of items for which you and I can take the rap.”

If we are tough on ourselves, we are merciless toward others. In Brooks’ words, “society has become a free-form demolition derby of moral confrontation,” such as “the cold-eyed fanaticism of students at Middlebury College and other campuses nationwide.”

This “strange persistence” of guilt leaves contemporary Westerners living in the worst of all possible worlds. Secularism and relativism have not liberated them from the need to “feel morally justified,” nor has it freed them from feelings of guilt.

What it has done is to deprive people of the means to do anything meaningful about their sense of guilt. As Brook says “we have no clear framework or set of rituals to guide us in our quest for goodness. Worse, people have a sense of guilt and sin, but no longer a sense that they live in a loving universe marked by divine mercy, grace and forgiveness. There is sin but no formula for redemption.” That’s because if there were true forgiveness and redemption, there would have to be an acknowledgement that there was something that needed to be forgiven and something about us that needs to be redeemed.

At this point, I’m left thinking about the passage from Matthew, where we’re told that when Jesus “saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.”

Brooks ends by saying that what people need is more “than the cheap grace of instant forgiveness.” They need a way to prevent the “private guilt everybody feels” from being “transmuted into a public state of perpetual moral war.”

And they need a personal introduction—or re-introduction—to the Good Shepherd who has already shown how far He will go to love and forgive them.

Reprinted with permission from Break Point.

Featured Image
Doug Mainwaring


Elton John’s health is deteriorating. Here’s one big reason we should care

Doug Mainwaring
By Doug Mainwaring

April 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Elton John reportedly spent ten days in a hospital following a couple days in intensive care battling a serious, potentially life-threatening infection.  The enormously popular entertainer was struck with his illness earlier this month while flying home to England from Santiago, Chile.

This is only the most recent in a series of illnesses which have caused the performer to cancel gigs around the world.

In 2013, after emergency surgery for appendicitis, the now 70-year-old John told the Daily Telegraph, “This is a wake-up call. I'm 66 not 36 anymore . . . I want to spend more time with my children.”

Earlier this year, when asked about the possibility of a farewell tour, John replied, “I like playing and I'm a working musician and I love to do it . . . [but] . . . I'm not going to do it forever because I want to see my boys grow up.”

Just how likely is it that he will get to see his boys grow up?  Modern medical technology and the normalization of third party reproduction have enabled gay men and anyone else who cares to—no matter what their age—to become biological parents.  At the same time, despite ongoing medical advances, keeping older men alive while their bodies are deteriorating is still, to put it crudely, a bit of a crap shoot.

Third Party Reproduction: The Wild, Wild West

Sir Elton John was 63 years old when his first child was born through surrogacy and 65 at the birth of his second. His partner, David Furnish, was 48 and 50. When their kids were born, the pair were already old enough to be their children’s grandfather and great grandfather.  

When their younger child graduates from high school, they will be 81 and 68. At his college graduation, they’ll be 85 and 72. Children deserve biological parents—a mom and a dad—not two middle-aged guys approaching old age when the kids are infants and a decade or two past retirement age when they are teenagers.

In the United States the adoption industry has been heavily regulated for a very long time in order to protect children from harm or difficult family situations, including adoption by parents who are too old to adequately care for and/or relate to their children.

Any infertile couple working with a reputable adoption agency knows that the window of opportunity for adopting newborns closes as you approach forty years of age. After that, one is eligible to adopt only older children.

Not so in our brave new world.  The engineering of children through gamete purchase and surrogacy—womb rental—currently falls under no such restrictions.  It is a booming industry with lots of money to be made, akin to the wild, wild west or the California gold rush.  The only thing is, we’re not talking about minerals to be mined from the earth; we’re talking about children who come into the world essentially as commodified human beings.

Society’s recent quick evolution on matters relating to marriage and children is reflected in the evolution of Sir Elton John’s own thought, as his views on both gay marriage and gay parenting have changed substantially over the last decade.  

In 2008, he said that civil partnerships—not marriages—were more appropriate for gays. And as recently as 2012, John said, “It’s going to be heartbreaking for [our child] to grow up and realise he hasn’t got a mummy.”

Third party reproduction is a boon for infertile parents, but not so much for children brought into the world in that manner.  Greater government scrutiny and regulation is needed in order to bring it into line with current adoption regulations.  

For wealthy white gay males such as John and Furnish, there are no rules, only endless opportunities to acquire children.

Featured Image
Eric Metaxas Eric Metaxas


GOOD NEWS: We’re starting to win in the fight against assisted suicide

Eric Metaxas Eric Metaxas
By Eric Metaxas

April 26, 2017 (BreakPoint) -- Proponents of assisted suicide would have us believe that legalized killing is an unstoppable freight train and that those who oppose it are going to get run over. And no wonder. Last year Colorado and the District of Columbia legalized it, while California enacted a bill that had been passed in 2015. They joined Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Montana where this great evil is now legal.

That’s why I’m very pleased to tell you that reports of the demise of a culture of life have been, to borrow a phrase, greatly exaggerated. We’re starting to win again. No, this doesn’t mean we can relax, but it’s really good news—and frankly, we could use some.

Bills to legalize euthanasia “have done very poorly” in 2017, Rita Marker, executive director of the Patients Rights Council, told Baptist Press. “That has been a shock to those who are in favor of it because they thought that all of [a] sudden the dam had burst and everything would happen for them.”

So far, that has not happened. Bills to advance the idea that some lives aren’t worth living have gone down to defeat in Indiana, Mississippi, New Mexico and Tennessee. Also in New Mexico, the state senate voted 22-20 against a bill to legalize assisted suicide for people expected to die within six months. It was a bipartisan vote, with 7 Democrats joining 15 Republicans.

Similar bills stalled in Hawaii, Maryland, Utah, and Wyoming, Marker said, although it’s always possible they could be brought back. In Hawaii, a House of Representatives committee unanimously decided not to advance a proposal allowing physicians to prescribe lethal drugs on the same day a patient is diagnosed as terminally ill.

Eva Andrade of the Hawaii Family Forum said that Hawaiians should “say a prayer of thanksgiving” while remaining vigilant—because when it comes to assisted suicide bills, death is never final. “Although this may seem like the battle is over, please be advised that the battle is not over until the last day of session,” Andrade said. “And even then, the bill is still alive for next session. Even now, proponents are most likely regrouping.”

Dauneen Dolce, executive director of the Right to Life Committee of New Mexico, told the American Family Association that assisted suicide legislation likely will be introduced next year. Therefore, she said, those opposing the culture of death must remain “actively involved in some way,” by “educating yourself, or giving support to the organizations that are educating others, or [being] involved in the political arena. If you don’t do that,” she added, “you are handing over our state [and] our laws, and the culture of death will come to us—and that’ll be from apathy.”

The job is immense. According to a 2016 survey by LifeWay Research, 67 percent of Americans say it is morally acceptable for terminally ill patients to ask their physicians to help them end their lives. We must not only work to change—or block—laws in the political and legislative realms. We must also work—and pray—to change hearts and minds in our neighborhoods, in our social and work circles, and across society.

Apparently most Americans see pain and suffering as the ultimate evil and personal autonomy as the highest good. What I can only call this “sub-Christian worldview” completely misses the truth that God can and often does use the things we’d rather avoid in our lives—even at the end of life—to draw us closer to Himself.

Remember, when it comes to assisted suicide, apathy is deadly. So let’s educate our fellow Americans about the beauty and dignity of life, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death. Remember as well: “If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.”

Reprinted with permission from Break Point.

Featured Image
Gino Santa Maria /
William Dempsey

Opinion, , , ,

Notre Dame students furious that pro-life VP Mike Pence will speak at graduation

William Dempsey

April 26, 2017 (SycamoreTrust) -- Notre Dame’s honoring of President Obama in 2009 continues to dog the university. The university’s having Pence instead of Trump as commencement speaker appears designed to mollify Trump supporters while yielding to intense faculty and student hostility to Trump. Father Jenkins perhaps hoped those who might otherwise grumble about Pence would hold off in gratitude.

As we suggested in our earlier bulletin, that was unlikely to work.

It hasn’t.

As the student publication The Observer reported, the invitation divided the student body. Praise was countered by criticism from representatives of a number of student organizations who decried Trump’s positions on religious liberty and same sex marriage – “homophobic” – on abortion – “sexist” – and on immigration – “racist” and “xenophobic.”

That is, Notre Dame students condemned Pence in large measure for his support of the Church’s teachings on marriage, abortion, and religious liberty. Thus,

  • The College Democrats indicted Pence for his support of religious liberty and anti-abortion legislation (“limiting a woman’s right to control her own body”).
  • The gay student club (“PrismND”) declared:The vice president’s attitudes toward the LGBTQ community directly contradict the love of God and neighbor that Notre Dame seeks to cultivate.
  • In objecting to Pence, the president of the Black Student Association, “a lesbian herself, brought up Pence’s anti-LGBTQ track record.”
  • The Vice President of the Coalition for Immigration Advocacy called the invitation to Pence “a slap in the face.”
  • And the Diversity Council of Notre Dame was “angered” by Pence’s selection.

The recent launch of a #‎NotMyCommencementSpeaker campaign has generated the most comment. It opened with a group of students demonstrating over several days with whiteboards displaying, according to the campaign’s Facebook page“direct quotes that are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, offensive, or ostracizing to members of our community” or that show why the students “feel unsafe with the presence of Mike Pence on our campus.”

An organizer explained that this opened a campaign aimed at “giv[ing] a voice to those who have been silenced” at a school in which the “dominant narrative” is that of “white, conservative Catholics.” The whiteboard display is to be “the first step in fostering a greater dialogue about Pence’s invitation.”

The campaign is supported by a “Letter to the Class of 2017” on social media that, as of April 12, had drawn 1,651 “alumni/ae, faculty, and staff signatories.” It is addressed “particularly to those [students] who feel marginalized or threatened by” Pence, ” a person who “actively opposes [a] sense of human solidarity and concern for the common good.”

It is the bizarre notion that students could feel “threatened” by the appearance of this mild-mannered deeply Christian man that caught the public eye when it was voiced by one of the student “whiteboard” organizers. She declared:

[M]any people on our campus…feel unsafe to have someone who openly is offensive but [sic] also demeaning of their humanity and of their life and their identity.

This startling profession of fear of Pence headlined the cascade of news reports that followed and triggered a tsunami of twitter ridicule. For accounts, see The Kansas City StarThe Washington ExamineThe National ReviewNewsweekWashington TimesCanada Free Press, and Independent Journal ReviewMediaIteWestern JournalismFox News InsiderThe BlazeThe Daily CallerCampus Reform, and The College Fix.

Two recent segments on Fox TV brought this episode to national attention, one on the widely watched “The Five” and the other on the Fox Business Channel. You can see them here and here.

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

On Fox Business, after a chuckling moderator introduced the topic as “another case of college craziness run amok, ” the panelists alternated between amusement and bemusement at the image of college students being fearful of one of the “nicest guys in the world.”

“The Five” discussion was more substantial. In this lead-in segment, the moderator bitingly observed that, while Pence “has no criminal record,” he does have “certain views on same-sex marriage and abortion” that might make some students “fearful” – “students who go to the University of Notre Dame, a Catholic school!”

Another panelist read a part of Notre Dame’s mission statement and said “you could pretty much apply that to Pence.” And a liberal Democrat panelist, Juan Williams, closed with this:

Let me tell you what’s going on here. They [the students] didn’t want Trump to speak and prevented an invitation, which is almost pro forma that Notre Dame invites the new president the first year. So they get Pence in place and then get the college Democrats and the diversity council and the gays, all that. When they say I don’t want to hear you because I disagree with you, I find that appalling.

All of this is, to adapt a legal metaphor, the fruit of a poisonous tree, the Obama episode and Father Jenkins’s defense that he was simply following Notre Dame’s tradition of inviting elected presidents no matter their hostility to Church teaching. The accounts of the student anti-Pence protests regularly refer to these events as the background for the student petitions that Trump not be invited and the university’s turning to Vice President Pence instead.

That evident capitulation drew the scorn of many, including the prominent liberal political journalist and Notre Dame alumna Melinda Henneberger:

The absolute worst message for college graduates isn’t what they’d hear from Donald Trump or Mike Pence or Barack Obama or Bernie Sanders. The worst message is the one Father Jenkins sent Notre Dame students when he indulged their preference to only hear from those with whom they already agree.

Grave mistakes that are defended rather than acknowledged are likely to cause continuing damage. Had Father Jenkins confessed error in inviting Obama and scrapped the demonstrably infirm practice of honoring presidents no matter what, Trump’s election would not have cornered him. But he did not, and it did.

Reprinted with permission from Sycamore Trust.

Featured Image
Homosexual activist Dan Savage
Peter LaBarbera Peter LaBarbera Follow Peter

Blogs, ,

Dan Savage launches effort to impeach Trump by funding baby killers

Peter LaBarbera Peter LaBarbera Follow Peter
By Peter LaBarbera

April 26, 2107 (LifeSiteNews) — Anti-Christian homosexual activist Dan Savage is leading a new, leftist campaign to impeach Donald Trump, calling his profane project “Impeach the Mother [F—k-r] Already” (ITMFA).

The effort is popular on the Left, with retweets from the likes of Rosie O’Donnell. Savage has already raised $100,000 by selling “ITMFA” merchandise like hats and buttons — money he is distributing to three leftist organizations: Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and the International Refugee Assistance Project.

"We're in for a long and ugly four years, readers,” Savage writes on the ITMFA website. “Let's raise some money for groups fighting Trump, let's bring ITMFA back into our everyday vocabulary, and let's remember that we — people who voted against Trump, people who want to see him out of office as quickly as possible, people who are appalled by this and this and this and this — are the majority.”

Savage, an uber-perverse sex advice columnist living in Seattle, knows a bit about hate. His “progressive” resume of anti-conservative hate-incidents includes:

intentionally trying to give Christian conservative and then-presidential candidate Gary Bauer the flu by posing as a campaign volunteer and licking Bauer’s Iowa campaign office doorknobs while Savage had a cold (2000);

smearing pro-life and pro-family Sen. Rick Santorum by “defining” his surname online as a disgusting byproduct of homosexual sodomy (2003-present);

publicly wishing “all Republicans were [f—k—g] dead” (2011); and

calling traditional Christians “bat sh*t, a**h*le, dou**ebags” while speaking at Rhodes College?

The above is far from a comprehensive list. We’re talking prodigious hatred here.

And it keeps coming. In March, the not-too-self-aware Savage had the audacity to accuse First Lady Melanie Trump of harboring hatred in her heart. After declaring on his podcast, “I f---king hate Melania Trump,” he said, “Melania Trump is as ugly on the inside as she is pretty on the outside.”

You’ve probably figured out by now that Dan, like so many on the Left, is proficient at wielding the F-bomb, especially against anyone he despises on the Right. Quite a skill.

To be fair, there are plenty of liberals who do not appreciate Savage’s over-the-top rhetoric and tactics, but what is depressing is how many on the Left not only tolerate him but applaud him, no matter what he says or does. That includes taking cheap shots at late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a man who possessed infinitely greater class and wisdom than Savage.

The reality in America, pre- and post-Trump, is that there is now a very large minority of angry, vulgar, post-Christian leftists who hate Judeo-Christian morality. And Savage is one of their heroes. He is the modern face of the anti-Church and seems to be devoted to advancing as much sin and immorality as possible in his quickly-passing lifetime.

The media love Savage, too, and give him plenty of attention no matter how extreme or profane or scandalous his antics. Because he is a man of the Left, he is rarely scolded or de-legitimized by the media. (Note the deferential coverage of Savage, seemingly oblivious to his long history of mean-spirited, activist stunts.)

Can you imagine the outrage among liberal opinion-molders in the media if, two months into Obama’s new administration, some conservative writer-activist had launched a social media campaign, “Impeach the Mother F----r Already” targeting Obama?!

“Hate speech!” they would cry.

Savage, who also promotes amateur porn, with the media’s help, of course, is very good at marketing and his stuff gets wide play among “progressives” young and old. He has spoken on many college campuses, including corrupt institutions like Elmhurst College that claim to have a Christian foundation.

I think my friend Laurie Higgins, cultural issues writer with the Illinois Family Institute, sums up Savage’s “ITMFA” campaign quite well.

"If this campaign were not so repugnant, it would be comical that someone of Savage's base moral stature — someone whose words and deeds epitomize arrogance, ignorance, hatred, vulgarity, and perversity — would pursue the impeachment of President Trump,” Higgins told LifeSiteNews.

“How ironic that a man who revels in perverse transgressiveness and who seeks to promote it even to children would set himself up as an arbiter of ethics," she said.

Dan is proudly on the “highway to Hell,” to quote the AC/DC song — a Hell he surely doesn’t believe in as a self-described “agnostic/atheist.” But like any sinner, he can veer off that road and still experience God’s grace, forgiveness and mercy. Pray for him while opposing his wicked activism.

Here is another acronym for this spiteful, God-hating perversion promoter: DSNJ.

Dan Savage Needs Jesus.

Featured Image
Bill Nye
Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa

The Pulse, ,

Bill Nye asks panel: ‘Should we penalize people for having extra kids?

Lisa Bourne Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa
By Lisa Bourne

April 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Bill Nye, the illustrious “Science Guy,” has floated support for population control on his Netflix series, specifically the idea of punishing people in the developed world for “extra kids.”

The 13th and last episode of Nye’s “Bill Nye Saves the World” is titled “Earth’s People Problem.”

And as a post at The Federalist aptly notes, “With a name like that, you know we could be in for some ideas that border on eugenics.”

“Should we have policies that penalize people for having extra kids in the developed world?” Nye asks a panel, which includes an abortionist and also the chief of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Population Development Branch.

The despicable question is posed, but not before Nye and his correspondent, Emily Calandrelli, have an exchange designed to make the point that the absence of a federally mandated maternity leave policy in America is indicative of patriarchy in U.S. society.

A glaring irony is that in trying to contrast the U.S. being substandard in terms of guaranteed government-guaranteed maternity leave, Calandrelli includes China in a list of countries that have required paid maternity leave policies.

Never mind that for decades China had a draconian one-child policy that included forced abortion and sterilization. It was replaced in 2015 with a two-child policy.

The “Earth’s People Problem” episode begins innocuously enough, The Federalist’s columnist explains, though the program hints at what’s to come by touching on how women with educational and professional opportunities typically have fewer children.

It is later during the panel discussion when Nye asks, “What should we be doing?” that the episode’s objective fully rears its ugly head.

Access to healthcare and family planning are important, says Dr. Nerys Benfield, director of Family Planning Montefiore Medical Center. Her specialties include contraception and abortion.

Explicit mention of abortion is conspicuously absent in the discussion, though the “family planning” code word is used, and contraceptive access is touted as important.

“We need justice and we need education,” UNFPA’s Dr. Rachel Snow interjects. 

Abortion and contraception supporters often use the terms “justice” and “education” to denote access and advocacy to the things for which they advocate.

The Trump administration pulled funding from the UN population agency earlier this month due to its participation in China’s coercive abortion and sterilization policy.

Another panelist, Dr. Travis Rieder, an ethicist at the Berman Institute at Johns Hopkins University, brings up the controversial climate change issue, noting that children in developed countries use 160 times more resources than those in the developing world.

And this opens the door for Nye to suggest penalizing people for having “extra kids.”

Rieder says we should “at least consider” a form of punishment for those who have “extra kids,” and Nye makes mention of considering the means to do it.

Snow does take issue with doing “anything to incentivize fewer children or more children.” And Benfield mentions the history of compulsory sterilization in the U.S., which existed as recently as the 1970s.

Benfield adds that the concept of obligatory sterilization had not been approached from a position of “justice” in the past, raising the question of whether it would now be just.

The “Earth’s People Problem” installment of Nye’s “Bill Nye Saves the World” is even worse than the series’ foray into promoting transgenderism via the Rachel Bloom “My Sex Junk” video shown in another recent episode, The Federalist post says.

Regarding Nye’s endeavoring to put limits on humanity, the columnist writes, “This whole concept and the ease with which he discusses it is so frightening and evil that I am genuinely appalled at Netflix’s decision to air it.”

Featured Image
Leonard Zhukovsky /
Katie Yoder

The Pulse

Tennis star writes to her unborn baby: ‘I can’t wait to meet you’

Katie Yoder
By Katie Yoder

April 26, 2017 (NewsBusters) -- Although many in the media praise abortion, some Hollywood and sports stars are starting a new pro-life trend: celebrating their unborn babies on social media.

Serena Williams is the latest to join the team. On Monday, world-famous tennis player posted an Instagram picture of herself lounging at the beach. In the caption, the 35-year-old penned a heartfelt message to her unborn baby:

My Dearest Baby, 
You gave me the strength I didn’t know I had. You taught me the true meaning of serenity and peace. I can't wait to meet you. I can't wait for you to join the players box next year. But most importantly, I am so happy to share being number one in the world with you.... once again today. On @alexisohanian bday. from the world's oldest number one to the world's youngest number one. -Your Mommy

By “@alexisohanian,” Williams meant her fiancé, Reddit cofounder Alexis Ohanian.

Last week, Williams revealed her 20-week pregnancy on social media platform Snapchat. As her fans calculated, that means Williams won the Australian Open while pregnant with baby number one.

What a wonder woman.

Reprinted with permission from News Busters.

Print All Articles
View specific date