Hilary White

‘Abortion is genocide’: UK pro-lifers defend Scottish bishop’s Holocaust comparison

Hilary White
Hilary White

ST. ANDREWS Scotland, September 25, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Abortion campaigners in Britain are furious over comments made by a Scottish Catholic bishop comparing legal, state-sponsored abortion to the Nazi Holocaust. But pro-life campaigners who use graphic images, some of which make the same comparison, have said the comparison is both philosophically and historically apt and that abortionists and their defenders should think hard about their position.

Speaking about the decision given last week by a Brighton court that displaying graphic images to protest abortion is not an offence under the Public Order Act, Bishop Joseph Devine of the Motherwell diocese had said: “All who value freedom of speech and expression will welcome the dismissal of this case by the courts.”

“I have no doubt that the publication of the photographs of the victims of Auschwitz and the Burma Railway brought home the horrors of such evil catastrophes far more effectively than a million pleading words. 200,000 abortions take place in Britain each year,” Bishop Devine continued.

“Why is the pro-choice lobby so desperate to hide the truth about abortion from the public?”

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service, still stinging from the court decision exonerating Abort 67 and the use of graphic images, reacted with fury, calling the comments “very warped.”

“It is staggering that those who invoke morality are comfortable with waving large banners of dismembered foetuses” said Clare Murphy, BPAS Director of External Affairs.

However, Andrew Stephenson, the founder of Abort 67 and the man against whom the charges were laid at the behest of BPAS, told LifeSiteNews.com that the bishop’s comment is spot on.

“Is it wrong to compare abortion with the Holocaust? No one argues that abortion is the same as the Holocaust but to deny they are comparable shows an ignorance of history and the reality of abortion,” Stephenson said.

Ann Furedi chief executive of BPAS has said, “We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it, it’s clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil and we can recognise that it is human life….but the point is not when does life begin but when does it begin to matter.”

Stephenson said that the question ought to be, “Matters to whom?”


“Consider the vocabulary of the Third Reich when dehumanising Jews by calling them ‘Life, unworthy of life’ or ‘parasites’ or ‘useless eaters’ and you may feel a slight crawling sensation under your skin,” he said.

It is this sensation, he said, that is the basis of abortionists’ outrage at the comparison of abortion with the Holocaust and other historic atrocities like the slave trade. These comparisons form the basis of the Genocide Awareness Project’s displays used by Stephenson and his colleagues, who are pioneers in the use of the GAP in Britain.

Founded in the US, GAP is being hailed by those who use it as one of the most effective tools ever created to communicate the pro-life message to the public.

Gregg Cunningham, the founder of the GAP, flew to Britain to give testimony on the project at Stephenson’s trial. People who use the GAP displays, most often at university campuses across the US and Canada, say that accusations of “insensitivity” for talking about the similarities between abortion and the Holocaust, are among the most common objections to their work. But Cunningham says that the differences are only matters of form. Abortion, he says, is simply an as-yet unrecognised form of genocide, no different in outcome for its victims.

On the CBR website, the group quotes Webster’s New World Encyclopedia, 1992, that defines “genocide” as “The deliberate and systematic destruction of a national, racial, religious, political, cultural, ethnic, or other group defined by the exterminators as undesirable.”

“That definition readily applies to abortion,” the group says. In the case of abortion, the “national group” is “unwanted” unborn children “and they are now being destroyed at the rate of nearly 1 out of every 3 conceived”.

“They are being terminated in an elaborate network of killing centers.”

Stephenson says his British group always welcomes opposition, which gives the group more opportunities to explain why abortion is a form of genocide.

“Compare abortion provider’s literature sanitizing the process of abortion with calming keywords like ‘Gentle,’ ‘safe’ and ‘healthcare’ with the Waffen SS calming Jews entering the gas chambers, disguising them as ‘showers’ we might be forgiven for thinking there are some moral similarities here,” Stephenson told LSN.

“Abortion providers want their work hidden from public view because when it is seen it is despised.

“Of course in a ‘Me’ culture the response to seeing abortion imagery is often ‘That’s disgusting…you shouldn’t show it’ as opposed to ‘That’s disgusting…they shouldn’t do it.’”

A major part of Stephenson’s winning argument in court was that the pictures are, simply, the truth, and as such cannot be a form of “abuse” as the police had charged.

It was later revealed that police only made the arrest after PBAS had pressured the local council into acting against the pro-life group, raising the suggestion that they are feeling the pinch in their business because of the demonstrations. BPAS, officially a registered charity, listed their income with the Charity Commission last year as a total £25.536 million. 

Clare Murphy, Stephenson said, is upset that these “distressing” images are being shown to women coming to BPAS for abortions. But in doing so, she is merely admitting that abortion, when it is clearly and accurately depicted, is deeply upsetting.

But having made the admission, Murphy and her BPAS colleagues will only question the “morality of those showing the pictures,” not her own in condoning the act they depict, said Stephenson.

“She wants exclusive access to these vulnerable women with no accountability.”

“Clare Murphy and Ann Furedi don’t want you to see what they will do to the unborn child because they don’t want to defend genocide.”

Share this article

Featured Image
John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John

BREAKING: Planned Parenthood shooting suspect surrenders, is in custody: police

John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John
By John Jalsevac

Nov. 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Five hours after a single male shooter reportedly opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood, chatter on police radio is indicating that the suspect has now been "detained."

"We have our suspect and he says he is alone," said police on the police radio channel. 

Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers also confirmed via Twitter shortly after 7:00 pm EST that the suspect was in custody.

The news comes almost exactly an hour after the start of a 6:00 pm. press conference in which Lt. Catherine Buckley had confirmed that a single shooter was still at large, and had exchanged gunfire with police moments before.

According to Lt. Buckley, four, and possibly five police officers have been shot since the first 911 call was received at 11:38 am local time today. An unknown number of civilians have also been shot.

Although initial reports had suggested that the shooting began outside the Planned Parenthood, possibly outside a nearby bank, Lt. Buckley said that in fact the incident began at the Planned Parenthood itself.

She said that the suspect had also brought unknown "items" with him to the Planned Parenthood. 

Pro-life groups have started responding to the news, urging caution in jumping to conclusions about the motivations of the shooter, while also condemning the use of violence in promoting the pro-life cause. 

"Information is very sketchy about the currently active shooting situation in Colorado Springs," said Pavone. "The Planned Parenthood was the address given in the initial call to the police, but we still do not know what connection, if any, the shooting has to do with Planned Parenthood or abortion.

"As leaders in the pro-life movement, we call for calm and pray for a peaceful resolution of this situation."

Troy Newman of Operation Rescue and Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also issued statements.

"Operation Rescue unequivocally deplores and denounces all violence at abortion clinics and has a long history of working through peaceful channels to advocate on behalf of women and their babies," said Newman. "We express deep concern for everyone involved and are praying for the safety of those at the Planned Parenthood office and for law enforcement personnel. We pray this tragic situation can be quickly resolved without further injury to anyone."

"Although we don't know the reasons for the shooting near the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs today, the pro-life movement is praying for the safety of all involved and as a movement we have always unequivocally condemned all forms of violence at abortion clinics. We must continually as a nation stand against violence on all levels," said Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, based in Washington, D.C.


Share this article

Featured Image
Wikimedia Commons
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, , , ,

Rubio says SCOTUS didn’t ‘settle’ marriage issue: ‘God’s rules always win’

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Surging GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-FL, says that "God's law" trumps the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision imposing same-sex “marriage” nationwide.

The senator also told Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody that the Supreme Court's redefinition of marriage is not "settled," but instead "current law."

“No law is settled,” said Rubio. “Roe v. Wade is current law, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t continue to aspire to fix it, because we think it’s wrong.”

“If you live in a society where the government creates an avenue and a way for you to peacefully change the law, then you’re called to participate in that process to try to change it,” he explained, and "the proper place for that to be defined is at the state level, where marriage has always been regulated — not by the Supreme Court and not by the federal government.”

However, when laws conflict with religious beliefs, "God's rules always win," said Rubio.

“In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin — violate God’s law and sin — if we’re ordered to stop preaching the Gospel, if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that,” Rubio expounded. “We cannot abide by that because government is compelling us to sin.”

“I continue to believe that marriage law should be between one man and one woman," said the senator, who earlier in the fall was backed by billionaire GOP donor and same-sex "marriage" supporter Paul Singer.

Singer, who also backs looser immigration laws and a strong U.S.-Israel alliance, has long pushed for the GOP to change its position on marriage in part due to the sexual orientation of his son.

Despite Singer's support, Rubio's marriage stance has largely been consistent. He told Brody earlier in the year that "there isn't such a right" to same-sex "marriage."

"You have to have a ridiculous reading of the U.S. Constitution to reach the conclusion that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex."

Rubio also said religious liberty should be defended against LGBT activists he says "want to stigmatize, they want to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them as haters."

"I believe, as do a significant percentage of Americans, that the institution of marriage, an institution that existed before government, that existed before laws, that institution should remain in our laws recognized as the union of one man and one woman," he said.

Rubio also hired social conservative leader Eric Teetsel as his director of faith outreach this month.

However, things have not been entirely smooth for Rubio on marriage. Social conservatives were concerned when the executive director of the LGBT-focused Log Cabin Republicans told Reuters in the spring that the Catholic senator is "not as adamantly opposed to all things LGBT as some of his statements suggest."

The LGBT activist group had meetings with Rubio's office "going back some time," though the senator himself never attended those meetings. Rubio has publicly said that he would attend the homosexual "wedding" of a gay loved one, and also that he believed "that sexual preference is something that people are born with," as opposed to being a choice.

Additionally, days after the Supreme Court redefined marriage, Rubio said that he disagreed with the decision but that "we live in a republic and must abide by the law."

"I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman," he said. "People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court. This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years.

Rubio also said at the time that "it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood…"

“I firmly believe the question of same sex marriage is a question of the definition of an institution, not the dignity of a human being. Every American has the right to pursue happiness as they see fit. Not every American has to agree on every issue, but all of us do have to share our country. A large number of Americans will continue to believe in traditional marriage, and a large number of Americans will be pleased with the Court’s decision today. In the years ahead, it is my hope that each side will respect the dignity of the other.”

The Florida senator said in July that he opposed a constitutional marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution to leave marriage up to the states because that would involve the federal government in state marriage policies.

Featured Image
Former The View star Sherri Shepherd and then-husband Lamar Sally in 2010 s_bukley / Shutterstock.com
Steve Weatherbe

Court orders Sherri Shepherd to pay child support for surrogate son she abandoned

Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Sherri Shepherd, a Hollywood celebrity who co-hosted the popular talk show The View for seven years, has lost a maternity suit launched by her ex-husband Lamar Sally, forcing her to pay him alimony and child support for their one-year surrogate son LJ. The decision follows an unseemly fight which pro-life blogger Cassy Fiano says has exposed how surrogacy results in “commodifying” the unborn.

Shepherd, a co-host of the View from 2007 to 2014, met Sally, a screenwriter, in 2010 and they married a year later. Because her eggs were not viable, they arranged a surrogate mother in Pennsylvania to bear them a baby conceived in vitro using Sally’s sperm and a donated egg.

But the marriage soured in mid-term about the time Shepherd lost her job with The View. According to one tabloid explanation, she was worried he would contribute little to parenting responsibilities.  Sally filed for separation in 2014, Shepherd filed for divorce a few days, then Sally sued for sole custody, then alimony and child support.

Earlier this year she told PEOPLE she had gone along with the surrogacy to prevent the breakup of the marriage and had not really wanted the child.

Shepherd, an avowed Christian who once denied evolution on The View and a successful comic actor on Broadway, TV, and in film since the mid-90s, didn’t want anything to do with LJ, as Lamar named the boy, who after all carried none of her genes. She refused to be at bedside for the birth, and refused to let her name be put on the birth certificate and to shoulder any responsibility for LJ’s support.

But in April the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, and now the state’s Superior Court, ruled that Shepherd’s name must go on the birth certificate and she must pay Sally alimony and child support.

“The ultimate outcome is that this baby has two parents and the parents are Lamar Sally and Sherri Shepherd,” Shepherd’s lawyer Tiffany Palmer said.

As for the father, Sally told PEOPLE, “I'm glad it's finally over. I'm glad the judges saw through all the lies that she put out there, and the negative media attention. If she won't be there for L.J. emotionally, I'll be parent enough for the both of us.”

But Shepherd said, “I am appealing the ruling that happened,” though in the meantime, Sally will “get his settlement every month. There’s nothing I can do.”

Commented Fiano in Live Action News, “What’s so sickening about this case is that this little boy, whose life was created in a test tube, was treated as nothing more than a commodity…Saying that you don’t want a baby but will engineer one to get something you want is horrific.” As for trying to get out from child support payments now that the marriage had failed, that was “despicable.”

Fiano went on to characterize the Shepherd-Sally affair as a “notable example” of commodification of children, and “by no means an anomaly.” She cited a British report than over the past five years 123 babies conceived in vitro were callously aborted when they turned out to have Down Syndrome.

“When we’re not ready for babies, we have an abortion,” she added. “But then when we decide we are ready we manufacture them in a laboratory and destroy any extras. Children exist when we want them to exist, to fill the holes in us that we want them to fill, instead of being independent lives with their own inherent value and dignity.”

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook