Peter Baklinski

Physician conscience rights still officially protected in Canada, but increasingly threatened

Peter Baklinski
Peter Baklinski

POWELL RIVER, British Columbia, August 28, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – After the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) voted two weeks ago to support the wording of the country’s Criminal Code which states that a baby becomes a “human being” only after being born, LifeSiteNews decided to track down where the CMA stands with regard to conscious rights for doctors who believe that babies are human before being born and want nothing to do with abortion.

CMA’s current 1988 policy for “induced abortion” in relation to doctors states that a physician “whose moral or religious beliefs prevent him or her from recommending or performing an abortion should inform the patient of this so that she may consult another physician.”

The CMA policy moreover clarifies that “no discrimination should be directed against doctors who do not perform or assist at induced abortions. Respect for the right of personal decision in this area must be stressed, particularly for doctors training in obstetrics and gynecology, and anesthesia.”

While the written policy sounds like it does protect pro-life physicians, LifeSiteNews contacted Sean Murphy, administrator for the Protection of Conscience Project (PCP), to find out more about how the policy is applied in practice, and about freedom of conscience for physicians in general in Canada.

LSN: Even the CMA, which holds rigorous views on abortion, still believes in conscience rights, but not completely. In 2007, Jeff Blackmer, executive director of the Office of Ethics for the CMA, wrote a piece titled “Clarification of the CMA’s position concerning induced abortion” wherein he states that a doctor “should not interfere in any way with this patient’s right to obtain the abortion. At the patient’s request, you [the doctor] should also indicate alternative sources where she might obtain a referral.”

PCP: This statement was published because of a controversy that erupted over a 2006 guest editorial in the CMA Journal by Professor Jocelyn Downie of Dalhousie University and Sanda Rogers of the University of Ottawa. They claimed that physicians were obliged to refer for abortion. Responses from the CPC and others are here.

Dr. Blackmer’s statement is not considered an assertion that physicians are obliged to refer for abortion. It would be sufficient for a physician to indicate that if the patient wished to pursue the matter she could contact other physicians or the College of Physicians and surgeons, or consult a telephone book. In my experience, physicians who object to referral for reasons of conscience (not all do) do not normally object to providing this kind of information.

In June, 1977, the CMA revised its Code of Ethics to include a clause that imposed an obligation to refer for morally contested procedures (abortion was not specifically named). The clause was removed the following year because of opposition from CMA members. David Williams, then CMA director of ethics, told me in 2000 that the policy was dropped because there was no ethical consensus to support it. Nothing has changed in this respect.

The issue of referral has appropriately been described as an intractable problem by Holly Fernandez-Lynch in Conflicts of Conscience in Health Care: An Institutional Compromise. See the PCP review here. It was highly controversial for the CMA in 1977, and it still is. Indeed, given Carter v Canada, [a case that recently legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada but was appealed by the government of Canada] it may become even more controversial. (see below)

LSN: How do you see the state of conscience rights for doctors in Canada?

PCP: ‘Rights’ language is problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the use of rights language to justify ethical aggression and ethical cleansing of professions. The issue is better expressed in terms of fundamental human freedom.

The situation is precarious because much depends upon the attitude of the legal and human rights establishment, which both appear to be developing attitudes that are increasingly hostile to the exercise of freedom of conscience when the exercise expresses what might be termed politically incorrect views.

The underlying problem is disagreement about the nature of human rights. The foundational problem is disagreement about the nature of the human person.

Physicians are in a better position to defend their fundamental freedoms than most other health care workers because of their professional dominance and relative independence. A physician who has completed the educational and regulatory requirements for practice can, if need be, begin to practise independently. A qualified nurse, on the other hand, must find an employer in order to work, and remains dependent on an employer in order to continue to work and advance in the profession. Pharmacists are similarly disadvantaged.

LSN: Do you see an erosion happening with regard to conscience rights for doctors in Canada?

PCP: This is difficult to assess because factors that can contribute to erosion may operate out of the public eye: in law schools, in committees of Colleges of Physicians or associations, in seminars or meetings of ‘rights’ groups, and in government bureaucracies.

For example:

• Prof. Sanda Rogers was reported to have told a class at the University of Ottawa on 28 October, 2004, that a physician is required by law to refer patients for abortion, even if the physician objects to the procedure for reasons of conscience. The Dean of the Faculty of Medicine denied that the statement was made. However, the CMA Journal editorial she co-authored with Jocelyn Downie in 2006 appears to reflect the position attributed to her two years earlier. We do not know how often this kind of statement is made in post-secondary classrooms across the country.

• In 2008, the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons very nearly adopted a policy to prohibit physicians in the province from acting on their moral, ethical or religious beliefs. This was the result of pressure from the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Most physicians in the province were unaware that this was happening until the day before the deadline for comment on the policy. The PCP issued a news release and alerted its contacts after being called by a physician who discovered the draft policy by accident.

The resulting uproar forced the College to backpedal somewhat. However, its revised draft was completed before the deadline for public consultation had expired, and the College refused to release the revised draft until the eve of the Council meeting that was to consider it, effectively precluding further critical comment on the document that the Council was to consider. Despite calls from the Ontario Medical Association and the PCP to postpone the vote, the policy was adopted. The most blatantly provocative sections were removed, but the amended policy is less than satisfactory.

• Another important consideration is the potential effect of Carter v. Canada, the BC Supreme Court judgement that proposes to legalize physician assisted suicide and therapeutic homicide (the term used by a CMA Journal editorial). The Royal Society of Canada “expert panel” on euthanasia and assisted suicide recommended that objecting physicians be forced to refer for the procedures. Three of the authors of that report were witnesses for the plaintiffs in Carter v. Canada, and a fourth, Joceyln Downie, instructed the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. 

As noted above, Downie has long been a proponent of compulsory referral for abortion. The PCP does not take a position on the morality or desirability of assisted suicide or therapeutic homicide, but is concerned that legalization of the procedures would threaten freedom of conscience for health care workers. A response to the judgement from the CPC dealing with this issue is in preparation.

LSN: Do we need laws that affirm conscience rights? If so, what should those laws look like?

PCP: Yes, we need laws that affirm conscience rights. Laws can be general or procedure-specific. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. See the Model Statute on the PCP website and examples of other proposed or existing legislation.

LSN: What can a doctor do to keep his job who has made the decision to be no part of a process that ends the life of a child in the womb?

PCP: It is a serious mistake to confine concerns about freedom of conscience to abortion.

• In the case of a morally contested procedure or service, an objecting physician should first ensure that he has a solid understanding of the essential facts concerning it, based on sound science and the latest reliable research.

• Academic discipline requires an ability to distinguish between what lies within the province of science and what lies elsewhere. “Personhood,” for example, can have distinctive philosophical or legal meanings, but it is not a scientific concept at all. Whether or not something “ought” to be done is a subject for philosophy, religion, or ethics - not science. Keeping clear about this is essential for good communication with patients and colleagues.

• Obtain copies of the policies of regulatory and licensing authorities and study them. Do not ignore the policies of specialist associations that may have considerable influence in setting ‘standards of care.’

• Some objectors encounter problems primarily because of the way they communicate with patients, colleagues or others. If it is necessary to explain your position, it must be done so in a way that refers to your own moral responsibility, not that of the patient or colleague. Avoid expressions that impute wrongdoing to others or that might come across as “preaching”.

• Conscientious objection is likely to make colleagues who do not share your views uncomfortable because it implies that what they are doing is wrong. It is unwise to increase their discomfort by making statements that will be perceived as questioning their moral judgement, as they are then likely to become hostile. Take note of their discomfort - “You seem troubled/ disturbed/surprised” and invite dialogue - “Have I offended you?”

• In addition to discomfort, you may encounter a belligerent challenge, contempt or condescension. If you are taken by surprise or become flustered, no harm is done by admitting the fact and suggesting that time should be made for an uninterrupted chat.

• Don’t rush into what might prove to be a contentious discussion simply to counter an offensive or ill-timed remark. Everyone will benefit if even a few minutes is taken to reflect and relax.

• Resist the urge to explain or defend yourself. Instead, ask your interlocutor to explain his concerns. Listen carefully, and ask questions, not to challenge his views, but to clarify the issues and identify any unexamined presuppositions that are governing his approach to them.

• There is no point exasperating a colleague by attempting to argue from incorrect assumptions about what he knows or believes. Let him tell you. Identify points of agreement and points of contention, and work together from there.

• The notion of working together with your critic is important. The goal is authentic and respectful communication, even if it involves serious argument and fundamental disagreements.

• If you are uncertain about how to reply to facts or an argument presented by your critic, you should simply admit it and promise to continue the discussion after you have had time to think further about it or research the problem. Offer your critic the same courtesy, unasked for, if need be. There is no need to resolve everything at once. In fact, it may prove difficult to resolve even preliminary matters in the first encounter.

• Long before a crisis looms you should seek the fellowship of students and professionals from other religious traditions (or none) who have a common interest in securing freedom of conscience in health care. You may be surprised to find that someone from a completely different faith and culture is more supportive of your views than a co-religionist who lives down the street.

Dr. Will Johnston, president of Canadian Physicians for Life recently told LifeSiteNews that Canadian doctors who want a “serious alternative” to the conversation provided by the CMA “can find it in Canadian Physicians for Life.”

Help us expose Planned Parenthood

$5 helps us reach 1,000 more people with the truth!


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Fr. Mark Hodges

, , ,

NY court lets woman refuse vaccine made with aborted baby tissue

Fr. Mark Hodges
By Fr. Mark Hodges

NEW YORK, September 3, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – An Orthodox Christian woman has won the right to refuse a vaccine developed using aborted babies' tissue, based on her religious beliefs.

The vaccine is for measles/mumps/rubella and is required by New York City law for all schoolchildren. It was developed from fetal tissue procured from abortions, hence the moral dilemma for practicing Christians.

The woman, who remains anonymous, said her Christian beliefs against abortion compel her to have nothing to do with vaccines made using aborted fetal tissue.

"Abortion is clearly a mortal sin and is [an] abhorrent act to any Christian," the New York mom said in her petition for exemption, according to the New York Post. "The vaccine manufacturers' use of aborted fetal cells in its products and research means that I cannot associate with them or support them financially (by buying their products), for such support would make me complicit to their sin."

New York State Department of Education Commissioner Mary Ellen Elia concluded in the woman's favor, explaining, "The weight of the evidence supports petitioner's contentions that her opposition to the MMR vaccine stems from sincerely held religious beliefs."

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Christianity has always opposed abortion, from the time of the New Testament.  The Bible teaches that from conception, the womb holds a human person, calling pregnancy "to be with child" (Isaiah 7:14). Many biblical individuals are explicitly described as called or known from the womb, such as Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:4-5), Isaiah (Isaiah 44:2;  49:1), Job (Job 10:8-12), Paul (Gal. 1:15), and John the Baptist (Lk. 1:15). The New Testament also condemns abortifacients (Galatians 5:20;  Revelation 9:21, 18:23, 21:8, 22:15).

Other early Church documents condemning abortion include the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle to Diognetus, the Apocalypse of Peter, St. Athenagoras's writings, the letters of St. Clement of Alexandria, the Apostolic Constitutions, Tertullian, Hippolytus's Apostolic Traditions. Additionally, every early Church council says likewise. 

Every ancient Christian leader unequivocally wrote that abortion, without exception, is against Christian belief and practice. Those who wrote extensively on the topic include St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Augustine, St. John the Faster, and the sixth worldwide Great Ecumenical Council (691).

This conviction continues to the present day. The Congress of the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America stated, "The Orthodox Church has a definite, formal, and intended attitude toward abortion. It condemns all procedures purporting to abort the embryo or fetus, whether by surgical or medical means. The Orthodox Church brands abortion as murder, that is, the premeditated termination of the life of a human being.  Decisions of the Supreme Court and state legislatures by which abortion is allowed, with or without restrictions, should be viewed by practicing Christians as an affront to their beliefs in the sanctity of life."

Thus, New York admitted that the woman's beliefs were in line with her religion.  Nevertheless, pro-abortionists say the First Amendment's assurance of the free exercise of religion should not include parents choosing whether to vaccinate their children.

Pro-abortionists sharply criticized the decision. "If we allow people to opt-out of vaccination, it puts other people's children at risk," says Sharon Levin of the pro-abortion National Women's Law Center.  "I think this decision is just one can in a crate of a can of worms that have been opened since the Hobby Lobby decision."

Levin was referring to Hobby Lobby's legal attempt to opt out of Obamacare's mandatory abortion/sterilization/contraception coverage, which violated the family-owned and operated corporation's religious convictions.

Yahoo Health writer Jennifer Gerson Uffalussy reports that undercover Planned Parenthood videos "have pushed questions regarding fetal tissue-based biomedical research to the forefront."

Advertisement
Featured Image
Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY, speaking at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland. Gage Skidmore / Flickr
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

‘It’s absurd’: Rand Paul blasts Kim Davis’ jailing over gay ‘marriage’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

ASHLAND, KY, September 3, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has been arrested and taken to jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples this afternoon. After repeatedly refusing to give such a license to gays and lesbians, a federal judge found her in contempt of court and sentenced her to jail time rather than assessing a fine. 

As she was escorted out of the courtroom to jail, homosexuals began chanting, "Love won! Love won!" 

As the scene played out, her U.S. senator, Republican presidential hopeful Rand Paul, said the decision was unwarranted, violated religious liberty, and would further polarize the country on the issue of same-sex "marriage."

"I think it's absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberty," Sen. Paul, R-KY, told CNN. "If you want to convince people that same-sex 'marriage' is something that's acceptable I would say try to persuade people" instead of using state force.

He also warned such heavy-handed tactics would backfire on LGBT activists. "If we're going to use the federal government, and we're going to get involved in every state and locality, you know what's going to happen? It's going to harden people's resolve on this issue," Paul added. "There's going to be no open-mindedness on this."

"I think it's a real mistake to be doing this," he said.

He said if state force continued to be exerted against Christian believers, "I think what's going to happen as a result of this is states and localities are just going to opt out of the marriage business completely."  

U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning - a George W. Bush appointee and the son of former moderate Republican Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky - had ordered Davis to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples but was repeatedly rebuffed.

"The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order," Judge Bunning said in issuing the arrest order. "If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that's what potentially causes problems."

Bunning ordered Davis imprisoned, rather than imposing a fine, because he said her fellow believers would take up a collection and pay her fine. 

Similar tactics were applied when Christians who refused to participate in same-sex "marriages" tried to raise funds via crowdfunding platforms.

Paul's rivals for the 2016 Republican nomination - Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio - have also voiced their support for the now-incarcerated Davis. 

"We should seek a balance between government's responsibility to abide by the laws of our republic and allowing people to stand by their religious convictions," Rubio said yesterday. "There should be a way to protect the religious freedom and conscience rights of individuals working in the office."

But her opponents say they demand nothing unreasonable of her. ACLU attorney Heather Weaver said, "Its not making someone a martyr to ask someone to do their job and follow the law."

Republican presidential candidates Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham, and Carly Fiorina have agreed that clerks who have deeply held religious beliefs must enforce the law. Christie underscored his resistance to finding any accommodation for public officials.

The prospect of jail does not frighten Davis, a born again Christian, who says iron bars cannot separate her from the Savior Who dwells in her heart, nor does prison compare to the punishment that she believes awaits should she participate in legitimizing sin.

"I've weighed the cost and I'm prepared to go to jail," Davis told Fox News yesterday. "This is a Heaven-or-Hell issue for me and for every other Christian that believes. This is a fight worth fighting."

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Hundreds of thousands of people join the 'Manif pour tous' march in Paris supporting natural family in 2014.
Gabriele Kuby

, ,

Alarmed report details Sexual Left’s agenda to defeat surging European family movement

Gabriele Kuby
By Gabriele Kuby

September 3, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- The world-wide operating Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) is the intellectual activist centre of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) which presently governs Germany in a coalition with the Christian Democratic Party under Chancellor Angela Merkel. As their publications and conferences reflect, the FES pushes for same-sex “marriage,“ reproductive rights, biotechnology, sexual diversity, gender equality, and sexual education. It also publishes reports with the intention of “naming and shaming” individuals, organizations, parties, and networks which work on behalf of life and the family.

The FES’s latest publication takes an international approach, describing anti-gender activists and actions in France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. Titled Gender as Symbolic Glue: The position and role of conservative and far-right parties in the anti-gender mobilizations in Europethe report was published by something called the Foundation for European Progressive Studies – “with the financial support of the European Parliament” and the Budapest branch of the FES.

The authors are alarmed over the growing resistance to ‘gender politics’ seen at the grass-roots level (e.g. La Manif pour tous movement in France and Demo für alle in Germany) and expressed in referendums held in several countries across Europe. In addition, they cite the opposition of political parties at the local and European levels, and the ‘anti-gender’ declarations of Bishop’s Conferences. What is seen as a dangerous development by the sexual left is really a testimony to the success of the pro-life and pro-family movement in Europe. The authors say:

Anti-gender movements want to claim that gender equality is an ‘ideology’, and introduce the misleading terms ‘gender ideology’ or ‘gender theory’ which distort the achievements of gender equality … This phenomenon has negative consequences for the legislation on gender equality.

The Symbolic Glue report then provides “policy recommendations for the progressive side to stand up against fundamentalist political activism.”

The individual country reports on the “reactionary backlash” against gender politics in France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia give a good overview of the situation in each country and the positions of the conservative and right-wing parties. In contrast to previous publications from the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, which tried to defame and stigmatize conservative individuals as right-wing radicals, bigots, and family-fundamentalists, the Symbolic Glue report largely refrains from such slanderous language. In fact, the authors sound worried that conservative activists are acquiring dominance in public debates, and are influencing party politics and legislation by: 

  • coining the terms “gender-ideology” and “genderism”;
  • giving “scientific” evidence against “gender ideology”;
  • mobilizing at the grass-roots level through “fear-managing language”;
  • making use of “authoritarian themes” such as the polemic against the French schoolbook Tous à poil (All naked);
  • creating “moral panic” that “allows socialist officials to be accused of … jeopardising the future of society”;
  • re-articulating “parent-power” or parental involvement in “promoting the parents as actors of the restoration of authority and traditional values at school”;
  • the “gradual subordination of educational institutions to Christian conservative worldview, carried out by local authorities in cooperation with the Catholic Church and religion-based organisations”;
  • utilizing “hate-speech towards Gender Studies” (as an academic subject) and relying on “freedom fighter rhetoric”;
  • pointing to the EU as a “cultural coloniser”;
  • leading successful constitutional referendums for defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Symbolic Glue also analyses the deficiencies of the sexual left. It is difficult to say whether this self-critical stance is a tactical device to arouse sympathy and motivate people to engage in the anti-anti-gender battle, or whether it is really dawning on the authors that anti-gender movements can have “grave consequences not only to women’s and LGBT rights but to the emancipatory promise of the Left altogether.”

The sexual left, according to the authors’ own evaluation, seems to be missing ‘symbolic glue’. They see:

  • “difficulties of building an ideological response to conservatives”;
  • “lack of public campaign against the anti-gender discourse”;
  • “the inability to articulate a progressive agenda in the concrete experience of “ordinary people”;
  • the counter-reactions of leftist parties to the anti-gender mobilisation being “one step behind those of extra-parliamentary forces”.

The ultimate intention of the authors is to cure “progressives” of these deficiencies. But it is good that they also let conservatives know how they want to achieve this. 

Indeed, it is difficult to convince “ordinary people” of the notion of gender theory, and that the traditional identity of man and woman are restrictions on human freedom that must be overcome by voluntarily choosing one’s gender identity according to one’s feelings. Since the authors supply no definition for the concept of gender identity, we have to refer to the Preamble of The Yogyakarta Principlessince it is one of the rare places where a definition is given:

‘Gender identity’ … [refers] to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms.

The solution to the incompatibility of gender theory with common sense – rooted in nature – is apparently to drop the concept of gender entirely. "Using the concept of gender as a technical category in the long run can be more self-destructive than useful while encountering this new political challenge." The progressives intend to move away from a “framework of identity politics” and reclaim the “real leftist values, using the language of solidarity” by “creating a counter-language, which reflects the emotional-fear language of the rightists.” Furthermore, “Instead of putting the emphasis on ‘human nature’ or ‘traditional values’, progressive actors have to take advantage of other aspects of ‘common sense’:  us/them distribution of power and wealth. Defining political antagonism is a pathway to hegemony.” The authors recognize that the opposition is composed of hard to control grass-roots movements and, therefore, advise progressive actors and left-wing parties to “strongly connect to grassroots [sic] organisations, local and individual initiatives.”

Furthermore, the public is to be provided “with concrete information about gender studies and policies through academic conferences, articles and statements from gender experts.” But in addition to conferences and a public dialogue between feminists and Catholics in order to “ridicule the anti-gender campaign”, an “e-learning course on … gender equality”, developed in Slovakia, is recommended as “best practice”, targeting administration staff, students, and the general public.

The authors of the Symbolic Glue report also sound somewhat startled to see a “paradigm change in science as we know it.” They describe the science they know as the “post-modern turn of modernity … where science became a moral and normative category acknowledging the positionality of the knower. This approach also questions the subject-object division and brings in new symbols, new myths and redefinitions.”

It is worth noting that with the exception of Andrea Petö who wrote the Epilogue, the report’s authors are all young women who belong to the “millennial” generation born around 1980. Several of them are in the process of obtaining a Ph.D., so their academic formation took place during the last ten years. This is precisely the period during which “gender studies” was established as an academic subject at the universities. (In German-speaking countries there are more than 200 professors for “gender” or “queer studies”, nearly all of them women.) “Gender studies” was and is a wide open door for female careers and a booming market for jobs.

These young women only know a “science” which is subordinated to the aim of effecting a political change in society – and academics is seen as an instrument for serving the cause of feminist and LGBT-interests. This so-called “science” has completely severed the academic commitment to the search for truth – which is – or was – the moving force behind the unfolding of European culture.

In general, Gender as symbolic glue, which was published by a foundation with a certain scientific claim, does not show the slightest intention of dealing with arguments on their merit; it just wants to pillory the enemy. Twenty-three individuals – perceived as enemies of the sexual left – are presented in an “Index” at the end of the book. (Wasn’t there an aversion to Catholic “indices” among enlightened liberals?)

In the end, the report says more about the weaknesses of the gender identity movement than about its opponents. The young authors must feel that their ‘intellectual house’ is built on sand, otherwise they wouldn’t express such worried dismay over the opposition they are facing. After all, international institutions like the UN and the EU – with their sub-agencies like the Fundamental Rights Agency and European Institute for Gender Equality – and national governments, with the superpower U.S. leading the way, as well as global corporations like Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook, and global NGOs like IPPF and ILGA, to name but a few, all with billions of dollars at their disposal, are on the side of the gender identity activists in this cultural war.

So why are these young women worried about the opposition of twenty-three people and a few comparatively tiny organisations with extremely small budgets? The answer is simple: Because they feel that the truth is on their side.

Gabriele Kuby is a sociologist, international speaker, and author of Die Gender-Revolution – Relativismus in Aktion, 2006, and Die globale sexuelle Revolution – Zerstörung der Freiheit im Namen der Freiheit, 2012. Both books have been translated into several languages and are referred to in the Symbolic Glue report. Die globale sexuelle Revolution will be published in the U.S. by Angelico Press in the fall of 2015.

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook