Stephen Phelan

Barbara Boxer promoting abortion as ‘free speech’

Stephen Phelan
By Stephen Phelan

September 27, 2011 ( - Senator Barbara Boxer is in a tough situation: she thinks there are too many children in the developing world, she thinks abortion and contraception are the answer to this problem, and she has to try to convince the majority of Americans who are deeply offended by her views that she actually wants something good and just.

So what’s a busy, far-left California Democrat supposed to do? It’s not as if she can just come out and say that the mothers of Asia, Africa and Latin America are having more children then she would prefer. There must be a way to “spin” this.

How about recasting population control as “free speech” and “democracy promotion?” After all, who could possibly be against these essential American values?

This would be a brilliant rhetorical move if it made any sense whatsoever. Yet that is exactly what she is doing with the support of the “Catholic” John Kerry of Massachusetts and thirteen more of her Democrat colleagues in the Senate.

In case you think I’m exaggerating, below is a press release that the senator’s office released earlier this month, with some comments that might help us understand what Senator Boxer is really proposing.

Boxer Reintroduces Bill to Permanently Repeal Global Gag Rule

Legislation Would Prevent Policy From Being Reinstated By Executive Order

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and 15 other colleagues last night reintroduced the Global Democracy Promotion Act, which would permanently repeal the Global Gag Rule.

“Global Democracy Promotion Act”? Is she really proposing that the citizens of developing nations be allowed to vote on whether or not abortion should be legalized in their country with an honest, open referendum on the question? Because that’s not what happened in Kenya last year, and that’s not what is happening in the Philippines right now. In fact, no developing nation has ever voted to legalize abortion in an open vote on the subject. If this is what she means by “democracy promotion,” that would be a welcome development indeed.

Abolishing the Global Gag Rule, also known as the “Mexico City Policy,” would ensure that foreign nongovernmental organizations that use their own funds to provide comprehensive reproductive health information and services that are legal in the countries in which they operate – and legal in the United States – remain eligible to receive U.S. assistance.

So no, there will be no open democratic vote on the legalization of abortion. The Mexico City Policy is an executive order that prohibits federal funding for organizations that perform or promote abortion. First adopted by Ronald Reagan, it was kept in place by George H.W. Bush, repealed by Bill Clinton, and reinstated by George W. Bush. President Obama almost interrupted Chief Justice Roberts during his inauguration ceremony to interject that he would be repealing the pro-life policy immediately, but instead he waited until the next day. For the last three years, Senator Frank Lautenberg has tried to insert language into foreign appropriations bills that would permanently revoke the policy, but so far pro-life senators have been able to get the language removed each time.

Barbara Boxer is aware that the policy she wants to kill enjoys wide approval among the American public. So, like all promoters of abortion and population control, she changes her language, and calls it the “Global Gag Rule,” as if the issue were one of free speech, and not the destruction of unborn human beings in nations where abortion is almost always illegal. But there is a more direct deception here as well – she is asking that taxpayers’ money be given to organizations who “use their own funds” to promote and perform abortion. Even if she and her party spent many weeks and millions of dollars paying consultants to come up with this sentence, she can’t really expect anyone with more than a 4th grade education to believe it. (That is, until you pay close attention to her views on elementary education…)

Senator Boxer said, “If the Global Gag Rule were applied in the United States, it would violate the First Amendment because it restricts what organizations can do or say with their own funds. Ending this undemocratic policy is long overdue.”

This is an outright falsehood. If they were only using their own funds, this policy would not apply to them. The fact that they want taxpayers to pay for their attack on the children of the developing world is the only reason this is even an issue.

Senator Boxer’s nonsense is valuable in that it gives an insight into how the population control movement uses language. They cannot say what they really want, so they use language that still has purchase in the mainstream to hide their true goals. Apparently by “undemocratic” she means “inconvenient for me and my allies.” That’s a pretty big stretch, even for her.

The remainder of the press release continues in the same vein. Respecting other nations’ legal limits on abortion is “undemocratic.” Restricting the ability of future presidents to exercise the proper authority of their office, if they disagree with her, is “democratic.”

I think the unforgettable Inigo Montoya said it best in The Princess Bride: “You keep using that word… I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Reprinted with permission from

Share this article

Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve

Today’s chuckle: Rubio, Fiorina and Carson pardon a Thanksgiving turkey

Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve
By Steve Jalsevac

A little bit of humour now and then is a good thing.

Happy Thanksgiving to all our American readers.

Share this article

Featured Image
Building of the European Court of Human Rights.
Lianne Laurence


BREAKING: Europe’s top human rights court slaps down German ban on pro-life leafletting

Lianne Laurence
By Lianne Laurence

STRASBOURG, France, November 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday that a German regional court violated a pro-life activist’s freedom of expression when it barred him from leafleting in front of an abortion center.

It further ruled the German court’s order that Klaus Gunter Annen not list the names of two abortion doctors on his website likewise violated the 64-year-old pro-life advocate’s right to freedom of expression.

The court’s November 26 decision is “a real moral victory,” says Gregor Puppinck, director of the Strasbourg-based European Center for Law and Justice, which intervened in Annen’s case. “It really upholds the freedom of speech for pro-life activists in Europe.”

Annen, a father of two from Weinam, a mid-sized city in the Rhine-Neckar triangle, has appealed to the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights at least two times before, Puppinck told LifeSiteNews.

“This is the first time he made it,” he said, noting that this time around, Annen had support from the ECLJ and Alliance Defense Fund and the German Pro-life Federation (BVL). “I think he got more support, better arguments and so I think this helped.”

The court also ordered the German government to pay Annen costs of 13,696.87 EUR, or 14,530 USD.

Annen started distributing pamphlets outside a German abortion center ten years ago, ECLJ stated in a press release.

His leaflets contained the names and addresses of the two abortionists at the center, declared they were doing “unlawful abortions,” and stated in smaller print that, “the abortions were allowed by the German legislators and were not subject to criminal liability.”

Annen’s leaflets also stated that, “The murder of human beings in Auschwitz was unlawful, but the morally degraded NS State allowed the murder of innocent people and did not make it subject to criminal liability.” They referred to Annen’s website,, which listed a number of abortionists, including the two at the site he was leafleting.

In 2007, a German regional court barred Annen from pamphleteering in the vicinity of the abortion center, and ordered him to drop the name of the two abortion doctors from his website.

But the European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday that the German courts had "failed to strike a fair balance between [Annen’s] right to freedom of expression and the doctor’s personality rights.”

The Court stated that, “there can be no doubt as to the acute sensitivity of the moral and ethical issues raised by the question of abortion or as to the importance of the public interest at stake.”

That means, stated ECLJ, that “freedom of expression in regard to abortion shall enjoy a full protection.”

ECLJ stated that the court noted Annen’s leaflets “made clear that the abortions performed in the clinic were not subject to criminal liability. Therefore, the statement that ‘unlawful abortions’ were being performed in the clinic was correct from a legal point of view.”

As for the Holocaust reference, the court stated that, “the applicant did not – at least not explicitly – equate abortion with the Holocaust.”  Rather, the reference was “a way of creating awareness of the more general fact that law might diverge from morality.”

The November 26 decision “is a quite good level of protection of freedom of speech for pro-life people,” observed Puppinck.

First, the European Court of Human Rights has permitted leafleting “in the direct proximate vicinity of the clinic, so there is no issue of zoning,” he told LifeSiteNews. “And second, the leaflets were mentioning the names of the doctors, and moreover, were mentioning the issue of the Holocaust, which made them quite strong leaflets.”

“And the court protected that.”

Annen has persevered in his pro-life awareness campaign through the years despite the restraints on his freedom.

“He did continue, and he did adapt,” Puppinck told LifeSiteNews. “He kept his freedom of speech as much as he could, but he continued to be sanctioned by the German authorities, and each time he went to the court of human rights. And this time, he won.”

ECLJ’s statement notes that “any party” has three months to appeal the November 26 decision.

However, as it stands, the European Court of Human Rights’s ruling affects “all the national courts,” noted Puppinck, and these will now “have to protect freedom of speech, recognize the freedom of speech for pro-lifers.”

“In the past, the courts have not always been very supportive of the freedom of speech of pro-life,” he said, so the ruling is “significant.”

As for Annen’s pro-life ministry, Pubbinck added: “He can continue to go and do, and I’m sure that he does, because he always did.”  

Share this article

Featured Image
A vibrant church in Africa. Pierre-Yves Babelon /
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

, ,

‘Soft racism’: German Bishops’ website attributes African Catholics’ strong faith to simplemindedness

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

GERMANY, November 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) --  The only reason the Catholic Church is growing in Africa is because the people have a “rather low level” of education and accept “simple answers to difficult questions” involving marriage and sexuality, posited an article on the official website of the German Bishops' Conference posted yesterday. The article targeted particularly Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea, the Vatican's prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and ardent defender of Catholic tradition.

First Things blogger Leroy Huizenga, who translated a portion of the article, criticized the article's view as “soft racism.”

In his article, titled “The Romantic, Poor Church,” editor Björn Odendahl writes: 

So also in Africa. Of course the Church is growing there. It grows because the people are socially dependent and often have nothing else but their faith. It grows because the educational situation there is on average at a rather low level and the people accept simple answers to difficult questions (of faith) [sic]. Answers like those that Cardinal Sarah of Guinea provides. And even the growing number of priests is a result not only of missionary power but also a result of the fact that the priesthood is one of the few possibilities for social security on the dark continent.

Huizenga said that such an article has no place on a bishops’ conference website. 

“We all know that the German Bishops' Conference is one of the most progressive in the world. But it nevertheless beggars belief that such a statement would appear on the Conference's official website, with its lazy slander of African Christians and priests as poor and uneducated (Odendahl might as well have added ‘easy to command’) and its gratuitous swipe at Cardinal Sarah,” he wrote. 

“Natürlich progressives could never be guilty of such a sin and crime, but these words sure do suggest soft racism, the racism of elite white Western paternalism,” he added. 

African prelates have gained a solid reputation for being strong defenders of Catholic sexual morality because of their unwavering orthodox input into the recently concluded Synod on the Family in Rome. 

At one point during the Synod, Cardinal Robert Sarah urged Catholic leaders to recognize as the greatest modern enemies of the family what he called the twin “demonic” “apocalyptic beasts” of “the idolatry of Western freedom” and “Islamic fundamentalism.”

STORY: Cardinal Danneels warns African bishops to avoid ‘triumphalism’

“What Nazi-Fascism and Communism were in the 20th century, Western homosexual and abortion ideologies and Islamic fanaticism are today,” he said during his speech at the Synod last month. 

But African prelates’ adherence to orthodoxy has earned them enemies, especially from the camp of Western prelates bent on forming the Catholic Church in their own image and likeness, not according to Scripture, tradition, and the teaching magisterium of the Church. 

During last year’s Synod, German Cardinal Walter Kasper went as far as stating that the voice of African Catholics in the area of Church teaching on homosexuality should simply be dismissed.

African cardinals “should not tell us too much what we have to do,” he said in an October 2014 interview with ZENIT, adding that African countries are "very different, especially about gays.” 

Earlier this month Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, instead of praising Africa for its vibrant and flourishing Catholicism, said that African prelates will one day have to look to Europe to get what he called “useful tips” on how to deal with “secularization” and “individualism.” 

The statement was criticized by one pro-family advocate as “patronizing of the worst kind” in light of the facts that numerous European churches are practically empty, vocations to the priesthood and religious life are stagnant, and the Catholic faith in Europe, especially in Belgium, is overall in decline.

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook