Kaleena Barnett

A broken heart restored after abortion

Kaleena Barnett
By Kaleena Barnett

January 11, 2013 (LiveActionNews.org) - I had an abortion.

I was 20 years old and pregnant. Scared. Angry. Confused. I was completely alone.

This is my story.

I was working at a local bar. I was going to college. Living on my own. I met a guy and we were just friends. Having fun. One night we were careless and had sex. A few weeks later, sick as a dog and so not thinking I was pregnant, I went to the school clinic.

“You are pregnant.” I still hear those words over and over again. I passed out. So overwhelmed I went home scared and went to bed for days.

Finally I had to face the day and went to class, but I could not think. What in the world was I going to do? I’m 20. Pregnant. In school. In debt. A waitress. Alone.

A week passed, and I was a wreck and still sick. I went back to the doctor, and they asked me to go speak to someone. A counselor. Ugh. Now I am pregnant and apparently crazy!

I went. I told her my sad sob story, and how I had not slept or eaten in days because I was so sick. She was so sweet. She got me a sprite and crackers, and she held me while I cried. I still remember how gentle she was and how she didn’t judge me or shame me. It felt like motherly concern.

She gave me the names and numbers of several places to call and to explore all options. She never persuaded me one way or another. I knew she couldn’t. I wish she had.

One place – adoption

Another place – a midwife, doctor, gyno

The last – abortion clinic

I went home and cried, and at the time not a “believer,” I asked God to kill me. I believed only that He hated me and was continually cursing my life. I was a nobody to Him. Man, the lies I believed!

The next day, I visited one place that was very pro-life. This place showed me an abortion video the first five minutes I was there. I was still so sick I could not even watch it. I stood up, puked, and went running out.

I went to the school campus and did an amazing amount of research. I look back now, and I am sure it was all wrong info. I went back and forth for weeks on what to do.

I finally made the hardest choice and called my mom. Now, let me tell you, my home life while growing up was not happy. I couldn’t wait to leave, and by calling home, I was expecting the worst.

My mom was very supportive in any choice I wanted to make. I could come home. My dad just said, “Whatever you want to do…but don’t let one night ruin your life, and it’s not really a baby.” I know now he was wrong. But I hung up, still thinking, well, if I do this, I will just go back home. Their reaction was not what I had expected. I will keep the baby and move home.

“Don’t let one night ruin your life” – it rang so loud. I could not make my choice. Confusion came from his words, out of desperation or maybe from fear. Suicidal thoughts were consuming me.

Click “like” if you are PRO-LIFE!

Somewhere in all this mess, the guy shows up. He is so mad at me and says he can’t be a dad and won’t help…etc., etc.

I am still seeing the counselor, and some days, she just holds me while I cry. I was running out of time. I changed my mind.

So I scheduled the appointment. By now, two friends know. One is super-against it but loves me…but she is mad. One is super-”whatever you want to do, I will love you and be there for you.” Their hearts were added to the long list of hearts I was breaking.

So my super-supportive friend, she took me. We went and had lunch before; she was still trying to stop me, but supportive. We finally went. I don’t remember much. I do remember the heartbeat. I remember the sono. Twins. Pregnant not with one, but with two. Was this the reason I was so sick? Maybe. I remember the pain during and the color pink. All I could see all around was pink. I cried. And cried. And as soon as it was done, I left. I did not wait. My friend carried me out. I went home and cried and was alone. She had to go to work. She left crying. She had tried to stop me after the sono. Why hadn’t I just left? Not just a murder of one, but two.

I threw up all night and drowned my sorrows with every alcohol that was in my tiny apartment. My super-supportive, totally against the abortion friend showed up and just held me. To this day I am grateful for her love in the moment when I needed it most. She knew God, and I believe He used her to come and save me.

Somewhere in all this mess I had to continue school. And work. And try to function. I continued to drink more and just shove all that pain, shame, guilt, grief, and failure deep down. Hating myself. Unforgiving of myself and of many others. I turned ice-cold. My smile gone. Negativity set in.

One day the guy showed up, and things went really bad. He said he would have paid for it. Or if I had just given him more time he would have come around and would have helped. We could have been parents. More time. Trust me, dude, I wish I had more time. I wish I had walked out the day of the sono. I wish I had taken more time to think. I wish I had found a support group, or called my grandmother or some more family. I wish I had had more time.

I went and saw the one safe person I had during that time, my counselor. I cried, and she listened. I felt such shame, and I didn’t know how to go back living life as a murderer. I asked for any type of drugs to make the pain stop! She looked at me, crying herself (first time I had ever even noticed her emotions), and she spoke life over me. I had made a choice. But I didn’t make it lightly like many others she had seen. I had been changed. I was older than my age, and she was so proud of me. I was still going to be a world-changer, and I was going to save lives. We cried and cried until there was a tap at the door. The janitor. I had been in her office for over four hours. I believe that God sent her to me. I never saw her again. I never understood her words in that moment. But now I believe she planted some seeds.

I never could see the guy again without major drama. I had to quit my job and start somewhere new. I had to change my degree. I still couldn’t get rid of the thoughts or memories of these sweet babies I had denied life to. I could change everything about my life and myself, but I was haunted by what choice I made.

I drank. And drank. My relationships in my life got worse. My emotions were even worse. I cried very easily and was a wreck. I had two stuffed animals I had bought in their memory, but even that became so painful. I shoved them in a box along with my broken heart. My sono. My hopes and dreams and desires. My pain.

Somewhere in all that mess, I met a new guy and – you guessed it – got pregnant. Not even two years after the abortion. Before, I told my new boyfriend I made a choice: no matter what, I would have this baby. Or babies. I prayed for two. Two. I needed two.

This time my story ends very differently. The guy and I had this baby. I love him and protect him with everything I have. The guy and I moved, got married, and God redeemed us. God saved us both. This man loves me. Loves his son. He never ran away. His daddy had left his mom when she was pregnant. She had been brave. Why hadn’t I?

I got pregnant again and had a baby girl. I love her and protect her with everything I have. Her daddy didn’t run away. Why did I run away from my first two?

After her birth I was thankful for two. For God trusting me with two lives again. But even then I still carried heavy grief. Heavy chains of shame.

That is when He met me one night. He asked me to finally open that box and deal with my pain. I woke up sick. I dreamed about that choice almost nightly. Those babies had truly never left me. The next day, I looked for the box. The box was gone. No sono. No animals. I thought even worse of myself. How could I have gotten rid of all that! The box is gone, but my brokenness remains. I could never be set free from my choice.

For days I relived my choice. I recalled all the details that for years I could not remember. I once again was a mess. No forgiveness. I had made a choice. I had no choice but to live with it. Bed for days!

So God asked me again to trust Him. It was time to let go. I had no idea how or where to do this. I needed a safe place. That week, at a church, there was an announcement on an abortion class. Rachel’s Freedom. I e-mailed while I was still in the church parking lot. I drove home in fear and pain. That night I told my husband I felt like God wants me to deal with this wound. He was very supportive. I went to bed thinking, God, if you want me to do this class, you better show me a sign.

Middle of the night, I had a dream. I dreamed of the box. The color. The location. The contents. My hubby got up, went to the attic, and the box was there! In the wee hours of the morning, I rejoiced. In the same moment, I realized it was time. Opening the actual box opened up the box in my heart. I wept for hours. How could I have been so stupid? So selfish?

Now, after two kids, I know they are babies from day one! My choice was not right.

I took the class and dealt with my pain. Forgiveness came! Shame left! God showed up and showed where he had been during this painful time in my life. The color pink – yep, that was Him. He was there. He never left. It didn’t happen overnight, but He came to me every night offering love, hope, and forgiveness. Eventually I asked him, and he broke those heavy chains off me!

I received forgiveness and forgave myself. I received a vision of my daughter and son playing in heaven. On a swing. Whole. Healthy. Peaceful. I doubted for a long time this vision. A son. A daughter. But confirmation came with the stuffed animals in the box. A boy and girl stuffed animal. God had never left me.

I am pro-life now. It was my choice. The wrong choice. I will never judge or shame another individual for her choice, but I will speak up for babies who still have a chance. I will speak up to the mommas who still have a chance. I will tell them about my pain and the grief and the shame that came with wrong choice. I will share my story of being restored. I will encourage the mommas. He is the great I am. He is the One who will provide. He is the One who has good plans for us. He is the One who loves us. I will walk alongside others who make that choice and show them to the One who will never forsake them. Show them to the One who will forgive them and break off those chains. I will make sure that no girl ever feels alone or feels like the wrong choice is the only option.

I share my testimony so other precious lives will be saved. That is the best choice I can make from all this.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.org

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, , ,

‘Every life matters’: Rick Santorum announces new bid for president

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson
Image

CABOT, PA, May 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Many questions surrounded today's announcement that Rick Santorum is running for the Republican presidential nomination, but none of them were about where he stands. Santorum, who is well known as a rock-ribbed social conservative, emphasized the value of life and family in a campaign kickoff that played up the senator's blue collar economic message.

Surrounded by his wife, Karen, and six of his seven living children, Santorum began by introducing “our sweet daughter Bella, who just turned seven a couple of weeks ago.” Bella, who has beaten the life expectancy of a child born with Trisomy-18, smiled broadly as the audience applauded her.

The senator still spoke about life and faith, issues that came to define him in 2012. “As president I will stand for the principle that every life matters – the poor, the disabled, and the unborn,” he vowed. Touting his record, he said, “I went [to Washington] to end partial birth abortion, and I delivered.”

Taking aim at Barack Obama's reduction of the First Amendment to a “freedom of worship,” Santorum said, “I will also fight for the freedom for you to believe what you are called to believe, not just in your places of worship but outside your places of worship, too.” The message comes amid a brewing controversy over religious business owners being forced to participate in homosexual “weddings” or be sued, perhaps prosecuted by the state. Some of his fellow Republicans have shied away from backing religious freedom legislation to ensure those rights.

The message was further driven home by the speech's backdrop. Penn United Technologies, an oil and gas manufacturing company, was founded as a “Christian company” and proclaims, “We exist to glorify God.”

Standing before his hometown of Cabot in western Pennsylvania, Santorum promoted “stronger families” through better schools. “Every child deserves her birthright to be raised by her parents in a healthy home,” he said. “The first step in that process is to join with me to drive a stake in the heart of Common Core.”

 

Yet everything about Santorum's message sought to broaden his support beyond social issues by placing economic populism at the heart of his message. 

From a dais surrounded by industrial equipment, Santorum held up a large piece of coal and an American flag as symbols of the nation's one-time industrial might and her enduring freedom.

His grandfather emigrated from Italy to mine coal and seek freedom. “My dad grew up in a coal town, actually a company town, with no indoor plumbing,” he said.

Men like his grandfather “built this nation” through selfless toil. But the Rust Belt suffered “economic devastation...particularly in the area of manufacturing, as a result of the excesses and indifference of Big Labor, Big Government, and yes, Big Business.”

An outsourcing economy left American workers bloodied by a steady erosion of jobs, and “both parties left them behind on the economic battlefield,” he said. “They had no plan, and they provided no hope. And to that I say: No longer.”

He proposed an economic plan to revive American manufacturing, the heart of the middle class for much of the last century. He also pledged “to give America a simple, fair, flat tax.” He is scheduled to unveil his “20/20” economic proposal shortly.

The former senator from Pennsylvania opposes free trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), backs policies to revive U.S. manufacturing industries, and supports a modest increase to the minimum wage.

To massive cheers, he also promised that, as president, he “will revoke every executive order and regulation that costs American jobs,” such as Barack Obama's carbon emissions standards, which threaten to shutter the nation's traditional, coal-burning energy plants.

As manufacturing jobs have been exported, low-wage workers have arrived on American shores to take the remaining jobs, he said. “Over the last 20 years, we’ve brought into this country – legally and illegally – 35 million mostly unskilled workers. And the result? Over that same period of time, workers' wages and family incomes have flatlined.”

“Hillary Clinton and Big Business” – names booed almost as harshly as Bella had been cheered – “have called for a massive influx in unskilled labor,” Santorum said. “Their priorities are profits and power. My priority is you, the American worker.”

Santorum's immigration plan calls for reducing legal immigration from the record-high level of one million a year to 750,000 annually. NumbersUSA, an immigration reform group, gave Santorum a B-minus for his overall Congressional record.

“We can't succeed unless we strengthen the first economy, the American family,” he said.

Santorum also burnished his hawkish foreign policy credentials. “As you've seen, commander-in-chief is not an entry-level position,” he said, underscoring his commitment to maintaining a close relationship between the United States and Israel. He has not feared to propose new wars, including sending 10,000 ground troops to the Middle East to fight the Islamic State (ISIS). Santorum said if Islamic fundamentalists “want to return to a 7th Century version of Islam, then let’s load up our bombers and bomb them back to the 7th Century.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The emphasis, if not the issues, are different than his last race four years ago against Mitt Romney, when the 57-year-old won contests in 11 states and received nearly four million votes.

Despite a vote count marred by irregularities that included county vote totals mysteriously going missing, Rick Santorum actually won the 2012 Iowa caucuses by a razor-thin, 34-vote margin. However, the results were not announced for more than two weeks, which prevented him from becoming the anti-Romney candidate during the early weeks of the race.

“You gotta do well in Iowa,” Santorum told George Stephanopoulos today. “You gotta win on election night, as opposed to two weeks later.”

This time out, he will vie for their support against fellow Iowa caucuses winner Mike Huckabee, as well as Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Dr. Ben Carson, and Rick Perry.

That backing will be vital, since the first GOP presidential debate will be limited to the top 10 candidates in the polls. With today's announcement, Santorum became the seventh Republican to officially announce that he is running for president. However, many others are expected – including an announcement on Thursday from former New York Gov. George Pataki, who calls himself a “pro-choice” Republican.

Although the Republican Party often rewards those who run a second or third time – such as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney – Santorum's polling numbers leave little room for anything but improvement. Yet he rests with confidence in his positions, his hard-working campaign style, and in his Catholic faith.

The conclusion of his speech came full-circle, as he asked his supporters to intercede for divine guidance. “There's much that we can do, but first we need to pray for the same kind of Great Awakening that inspired our founders to come to this country, and heal our land,” he said.

“Karen and I have learned a lot in our lifetime. If there's one thing we have learned it is that man is limited, and God is not,” he said.

“The last race we changed the debate. This race, with your help and God's grace, we can change this nation.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Maike Hickson

Criticisms of Pope Francis from within the Vatican Curia made public

Maike Hickson
By Maike Hickson

May 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- The prominent German monthly journal, Cicero, a secular-intellectual publication, has entitled its May issue “The Struggle for Rome” (“Der Kampf um Rom”) and has dedicated it to the papacy of Pope Francis. In it, Guiseppe Rusconi, the well-respected Swiss Rome-Correspondent and journalist  for  Inside the Vatican, reports on the internal criticisms of Pope Francis as they were privately and candidly disclosed to him from within the Roman Curia itself.

Rusconi's revelations caused an immediate stir in Rome, since he simultaneously posted the Italian version of his article on his own website, rossoporpora.org, where he summed up and specifically quoted forthright comments made by high-ranking clergymen from the Roman Curia who also openly revealed to him the atmosphere within the Vatican. They spoke with the explicit request that they should remain anonymous.

Rusconi starts his article with the stunning quote from one of his sources: “Francis has remained with his heart and mind the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. That would also be fine, if he were not, for two years now, the Bishop of Rome and therewith Pope of the Universal Church.”

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

As Rusconi says, many Curial members are still indignant about Pope Francis' last Christmas address in 2014 to the Roman Curia:

The large stomach of the Vatican still has not yet digested the last address of Pope Francis to the Curia on December 22 of last year. […] The address still burns under the skin of many Curials. 'If someone would have had the courage to get off his chair and to leave the Sala Clementina while the Pope was presenting his list [of reproaches and accusations], then, I think, all – or nearly all – would have left: right-wing or left-wing, young or old,' comments which came from my first interlocutor with the bitterness of a man who feels wounded. And he earnestly requested once more: 'That my name will not be made public! Can I rely on that?'

Rusconi describes the atmosphere within the Curia, as follows: “The Curia finds itself in an uncomfortable, even insecure situation.” He describes the intensification of conflicts in Rome:

Today, with the distance of two years, some of those wearers of the purple color who were then joining in jubilation might regret to have given their own vote to the then-76-year-old Archbishop. A struggle for Rome has started, and it is not  at all clear who stands where – also because Francis himself speaks in a contradictory way. But there is already taking place  a wrestling [a grappling]. And from October 4 on when between 200 and 300 bishops will meet in Rome for the [2015] Synod in order to speak about family questions, it could come to even harder fights.

Rusconi also reveals how Curial members have expressed compassion with faithful Catholics who feel themselves insulted by the pope:

The men of the Church who speak with me under the condition of anonymity give examples. For example, my first interlocutor says: 'Ideally, a family should have three children? That is what he [Pope Francis] said, during the press conference on the flight back from the trip to the Philippines. I am not astonished that many good Catholics felt offended.'

Pope Francis' expression of “Who am I to judge?” also finds much criticism:

With this renunciation to judge, this 'sentence which has been abused by many media, Pope Francis did damage to the Church,' stressed another interlocutor from the Vatican with whom I met for lunch in Trastevere. 'He has, without intending it, favored the advance of the homosexual lobby which he claims to fight.'

Concerning the question of the family, many members of the Curia do not understand Pope Francis' intentions. As one source says to Rusconi: “One simply does not understand what Pope Francis' aims are. After a very firm principled declaration, he follows up with words and gestures that cause insecurity and confusion among orthodox Catholics.” In the eyes of this man, Pope Francis is tempted “to want to win the hearts of those who are, according to the current teaching, living in an irregular situation [i.e., remarried couples].”

Rusconi discusses some of those Cardinals who push for a liberalizing agenda with respect to the Church's moral teaching, namely, Reinhard Cardinal Marx and Walter Cardinal Kasper, both of whom are now meeting with resistance and adverse criticism. For example, he says about Cardinal Marx himself:

The President of the German Bishops' Conference [Cardinal Marx] does not have an easy status and standing in Rome these days, since he has claimed for the German Church the right to go its own pastoral ways with respect to the problem of the remarried divorcees, and independently of any majority of the Synod. 'We are not a subsidiary of Rome,' Marx has declared. The Swiss Curial Cardinal, Kurt Koch, promptly felt reminded of the 'German Christians' who bowed down to the Nazis during the Third Reich. In the same way, the German Curial Cardinal, Paul Josef Cordes, also disapproved of the ideas of Marx. He declared in the newspaper Die Tagespost: 'As a social ethicist, Cardinal Marx might have some knowledge about the [commercial-financial] dependencies of subsidiaries toward their mother company. But, in the context of the Church, such comments should rather be left to the village pub.'

One of Rusconi's interlocutors criticizes Pope Francis for trying to fight material poverty while omitting to speak about the danger of spiritual poverty, and even the loss of Faith. He says:

But the Church is universal, and the greatest poverty is the spiritual poverty, as one sees it especially in the Occident, where the number of Catholics is continually dwindling. Unfortunately, the Pope has very little interest in Europe.

The same source, as presented by Rusconi, comments on the Synod of the Family:

I think, he [Pope Francis] wants to lead the forthcoming Synod on the Family in October onto a certain path so that the Synod Fathers feel urged to choose [putatively] merciful solutions – which would be, in my eyes, not be a true mercy – especially with regard to the question whether remarried people shall be admitted to Holy Communion.

The journalist Rusconi concludes his very important synopsis of some of the internal criticisms from within the Curia with these words: “The dispute in the fall, however, could turn out just the same: sour and sharp.”

Not a pretty picture; and not an edifying example or ethos, is it?

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Maria Madise

, , ,

Strong winds blowing from the UN to change climate at the Vatican

Maria Madise
By Maria Madise

Editor’s note: Voice of the Family’s Maria Madise gave the following talk at the Rome Life Forum on May 8.

ROME, May 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- On Tuesday last week, a symposium was held at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences called “Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity. The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Development.” This workshop featured two of the world’s leading population control advocates Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary General, and Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute. The event was jointly hosted by Pontifical Academy for Sciences (PAS), Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) and Religions for Peace in anticipation of the new papal encyclical on the environment.

The desired outcome of the last week’s symposium was a joint statement on the moral and religious imperative of sustainable development, highlighting the intrinsic connection between “respect for the environment and respect for people.”

This declaration of an intrinsic connection is very deceptive and links a real human crisis of poverty and modern slavery with certain theories about climate change. The participants in the Vatican workshop aimed to “raise awareness and build a consensus that the values of sustainable development cohere with values of the leading religious traditions, with a special focus on the most vulnerable.”

We in the pro-life and pro-family lobby are entitled to ask the question, what are the implications of this “special focus on the most vulnerable”? Pro-life and pro-family advocates who lobby at the UN, several of whom are present here today, know all too well how environmental issues have become an umbrella to cover a wide spectrum of attacks on human life and the family. These attacks pose an immediate threat to the lives of the most vulnerable – the unborn, the disabled and the elderly – as well as grave violations of parental rights as the primary educators of their children.

In light of the attacks on innocent human life witnessed at the UN under the guise of environmental concerns, it is very troubling to note the desire as stated in the agenda of this workshop “to help build a global movement across all religions for sustainable development and climate change throughout 2015 and beyond.”

It is even more troubling that this timetable exactly coincides with the negotiations of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the UN, which include these very attacks on the most vulnerable members of the world’s population. The SDG negotiations that will culminate in June and July will determine the direction and financial aid for the third world countries for the next 15 years. By the time of these negotiations we should have a papal encyclical on – environmentalism.

Understandably the population control, pro-abortion lobby must be feeling very much empowered by the influence being exercised in the Vatican by two of the culture of death’s leading figures, Ban Ki Moon and Professor Jeffrey Sachs, especially just before the publication of an encyclical on the environment. The UN must eagerly await the papal encyclical on environment and hope that it will help to provide moral justification for imposing the Sustainable Development Goals on the world. If the encyclical remains silent on the hidden UN agenda, one can be quite certain that the UN and Obama administration will find ways how to use the encyclical to promote the sustainable development goals.

Who are the people advising the guardians of the Church teaching, whose job it is to guide and protect the faithful in the loving truth of Christ?

Ban Ki-Moon has on many occasions promoted the “right” to abortion worldwide. He also issued a controversial report this year on sexual violence in conflict zones, which was critical of the lack of so-called “safe abortion” in many conflict situations. The directive openly defies the consensus at the UN that abortion is an issue that should be left to individual nations.

Dr Jeffrey Sachs is a well-known international proponent of population control and abortion. He is the man sowing panic and fear that the world is overpopulated and that fertility rates must be lowered. In 2007 Sachs claimed “we are bursting at the seams.”

Last week I had a pleasure of hearing an excellent briefing by Elizabeth Yore, a noted children’s rights advocate, on the genesis and development of his agenda. She explained how Sachs’ forerunner Paul Ehrlich offered “solutions” from birth control in drinking water to coercive sterilisations to control population growth. She also discussed how, despite the fact that Ehrlich’s doomsday prophecy was a fraud, the UN began on its course of world wide reproductive edicts to reduce fertility, including contraception, sterilization and abortion.

In a recent article on a well known Italian site La Bussola, Riccardo Cascioli writes: “I got to meet Sachs a few years ago at [a] Meeting in Rimini, where he was one of the speakers, and [when a] question arose on this issue, he replied with a smile: ‘I have spoken with many bishops on birth control and they have told me in private that they agree with me though for obvious reasons cannot say openly.’” The “obvious reasons” are, of course, the Magisterium of the Church, the doctrine that holds every human life sacred without exception.

Dr Sachs is one of the architects of the millennium development goals and a member of the Executive Board of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Continuing Paul Ehrlich’s line of overpopulation he uses human trafficking, and climate change to justify the urgency of abortion and sterilization tools to achieve the UN proposed SDGs. The Network to which Sachs belongs has proposed draft Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which contain provisions that are radically antagonistic to the right to life from conception to natural death, to the rights and dignity of the family and to the rights of parents as the primary educators of their children.

These meetings that are happening in the shadow of the family synod, aim to bring the language of the papal documents in line with the UN directives. The language that we are opposing at the UN, with the Holy See being the only delegation clearly rejecting the UN’s population control plans for 20 years, is now being given some credence before the publication of a new papal document.

The final document of SDGs at the UN is going to be signed in September. Pope Francis is going to address the UN General Assembly in September on - environmentalism. Very sadly, it is all too obvious that his address could be seen as providing acceptance or validation by the Catholic Church of the global population-control agenda. Pope Francis is already on record as saying that humanity and mankind are behind 99% of the climate change.

Without prejudice to the validity or otherwise of the many theories about climate change, they should not be exploited to bring into question or deny the inviolability and the sanctity of each and every human life, unborn or born, healthy or sick any more than they can justify the rethinking of marriage, the family and parents’ rights or the absence of 200 million Asian girls.

Most of you present know, how laws and practices are formed and manipulated through language.

Environmental issues in international negotiations are not about planting trees, but killing babies, the infirm and the elderly. There is no poor family in the world, whose happiness index arises, when they get rid of their babies and grandparents. The human drama and despair that this language is ultimately bound to bring is unspeakable. Yet these ambassadors of the culture of death are welcomed to advise our pope.

The holding of this vitally important conference in the Vatican at this crucial time in- between the two family synods and in the lead-up to the publication of the Sustainable Development Goals, and with the participation of these leading international pro-abortion advocates, is all the more worrying in the light of the most recent statement of Hillary Clinton saying, effectively, that opposition to abortion must cease to exist, even in the teaching of the Church.

Earlier this year the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency’s Secretary, Gina McCarthy visited the Vatican to coordinate the their environmental agenda with the upcoming papal environment encyclical. Upon her arrival at the Vatican, McCarthy acknowledged that the Obama administration is “aligned with Francis on climate change.”

Liz Yore writes in the Remnant Newspaper that Tim Wirth, former Clinton State Department population control chief “who proudly displayed a tree made of condoms in his office,” has been among the Vatican’s invited guests this year.

To sum up, the thought that the UN and Obama administration foresee a shared solution with the Vatican for the problems troubling the modern world should set alarm bells ringing for everyone in the pro-life and pro-family movement. It is a schizophrenic situation, where collaboration is pursued between those who see life as gift from God and those who see it as a burden on the planet.

We must remain strong and faithful in the loving truth of Christ also in this storm. We must not despair or be afraid, but we must strengthen ourselves and those close to us to face this turbulence prayerfully and courageously and to insist with all the means at our disposal that any discussion on the environment must stem from understanding that the family, defined correctly, is the key to sustainable development, particularly at this time when the Synod on the Family has been called by Pope Francis to consider problems facing the family.

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook