Ben Johnson


Planned Parenthood speaker: Good parents let teens have sex at home

Ben Johnson
Ben Johnson

IRVINE, CALIFORNIA, March 20, 2012, ( – As critics accuse Planned Parenthood of trying to facilitate the sex lives of minors, a featured speaker at one of the abortion provider’s local affiliates has suggested parents allow their teenage children to have sex in their home.

Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernadino Counties invited Amy T. Schalet, author of Not Under My Roof: Parents, Teens, and the Culture of Sex, to keynote the organization’s “Consider This” luncheon last week.

Dr. Schalet, an assistant sociology professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, said American parents should be more like their counterparts in the Netherlands, who allow teenagers to have sex openly under their roof.

Schalet told local media she finds it unfortunate that America, girls believe “in their parents’ eyes they would be a disappointment if they were to engage in sex.”

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

“In the Netherlands if a girl is in a relationship, she’s not a slut for wanting sex, for making decisions about sex,” she said. Most parents deem teen sexuality a “part of your life that you are allowed to own and make choices about.”

The sociologist, who spent part of her life in the Netherlands, said Dutch parents consider children ready for intercourse at age 16. “Teen pregnancy rates are about four times as high here. Birth rates about eight times as high.”

She added nearly 60 percent of Dutch teens are taking contraceptives by the time they begin having sex.

As she did in a New York Times op-ed, last year Schalet suggested parents who allowed open sexual activity in their homes exercised greater parental control over their children than those who preached abstinence. Schalet wrote that a Dutch teenager who told her parents about her sexual relationship with her boyfriend “enjoyed time and a new closeness with her family.”

“Obviously sleepovers aren’t a direct route to family happiness,” Schalet wrote. “But even the most traditional parents can appreciate the virtue of having their children be comfortable bringing a girlfriend or boyfriend home, rather than have them sneak around.” Unlike the American teenagers I interviewed, who said they felt they had to split their burgeoning sexual selves from their family roles, the Dutch teens had a chance to integrate different parts of themselves into their family life.”

Much of Schalet’s work is funded by the Ford Foundation.

In a CNN interview, she said if a child’s parents would not have a “wholistic” discussion of sex, which by definition includes methods of contraception, the young person should speak to “clinicians.”

The speech adds fuel to those who say Planned Parenthood is trying to get American children “hooked on sex.”

“American Life League has been spreading the word for decades that Planned Parenthood’s game plan is to sexualize children in order to build lifetime customers for its sex and abortion business,” Rita Diller, the national director of the American Life League’s Stop Planned Parenthood project, said in a statement e-mailed to “Certainly, Planned Parenthood’s promotion of Amy Schalet’s ideal of a ‘sex playhouse’ for teens in the family home is one more manifestation of its tireless quest to promote sex among unmarried youth.”

“Planned Parenthood has long sought  to duplicate the European model, which succeeded in gaining public approval of sex between unmarried young people,” she added.

She highlighed its 2002 publication We Can Do Better: Oregon Team Report on Western Europe’s Successful Approaches to Adolescent Sexuality which states: “It is the societal thinking—the norms—that make the Dutch, German and French successes possible. It is the openness and the acceptance that young people will have intimate sexual relationships without being married and that these relationships are natural and contribute to maturing into a sexually healthy adult.”

“Good parents and morality are stumbling blocks to Planned Parenthood,” Diller told LifeSiteNews. “This is one more example of the abortion giant’s never-ending attempt to create a society that will accept the unthinkable and embrace it as perfectly normal.”


Featured Image
Lianne Laurence


Mega-star Jennifer Lawrence slams Christians: Kim Davis supporters use crucifixes like ‘pitchforks’

Lianne Laurence
By Lianne Laurence

November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – It’s no surprise that yet another Hollywood star is mouthing the usual liberal platitudes, but the fact that this time around it’s Jennifer Lawrence, a mega-star and lead in blockbuster series Hunger Games, brings a particular sting of disappointment.

That’s because the 25-year-old, effervescent and immensely talented star often comes across not only as very likable, but also as someone capable of independent thought.

But apparently not.

Or at least not when it comes to Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk famously thrown in jail for refusing to obey a judge’s order that she sign marriage licenses for homosexual couples.

Davis, Lawrence tells Vogue in its November issue, is that “lady who makes me embarrassed to be from Kentucky.”

“Don’t even say her name in this house,” the actress told Vogue writer Jonathan van Meter in an interview that happened to take place the day Davis was released from jail after five days.

Lawrence then went on a “rant” about “all those people holding their crucifixes, which may as well be pitchforks, thinking they’re fighting the good fight.”

RELATED STORY: Wrong, Jennifer Lawrence! Real men don’t need porn, and women don’t need to give it to them

She was brought up Republican, she told van Meter, “but I just can’t imagine supporting a party that doesn’t support women’s basic rights. It’s 2015 and gay people can get married and we think that we’ve come so far, so, yay! But have we? I don’t want to stay quiet about that stuff.”

After conjuring up images of Christians as bug-eyed hillbillies on a witchhunt with her reference to “crucifixes as pitchforks,” Lawrence added darkly: “I grew up in Kentucky. I know how they are.”

Perhaps one should infer that it’s lucky for Lawrence she escaped to Los Angeles and its enlightened culture. That hallowed place where, according to van Meter, Kris Jenner (former spouse of Bruce Jenner, who infamously declared himself a woman) brought Lawrence a cake for her birthday that was shaped like excrement and inscribed: “Happy birthday, you piece of sh*t!”

Lawrence is reportedly now Hollywood’s most highly paid actress. Not only is she the star of the hugely popular and lucrative Hunger Games franchise -- the last installment of which, Mockingjay, Part 2 opened November 20 -- but she won an Oscar for Silver Linings Playbook and starred in several others since her breakout role in the 2010 moving and moody indie film, Winter’s Bone.

Lawrence has every right to express her opinion, although no doubt it will be given more weight than it deserves. It is unfortunate, however, that she’s chosen to wield her fame, shall we say, as a pitchfork against Christian moral truths.


Featured Image
Edward Peters

, ,

New ‘solution’ for remarried Catholics is, quite simply, a license to sin

Edward Peters

November 25, 2015 (CanonLawBlog) -- There is, I fear, no end in sight of the nonsensical nonsense being unleashed in the wake of various high-level ecclesiastic dalliances with doctrinal ambiguity and disciplinary confusion in regard to holy Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics. Call it Life in this Valley of Tears. Anyway, Pope Francis is going to do about this whatever he is going to about it and the Church will respond to whatever he does in due course. For now, I simply write to urge caution about some proposals to facilitate irregular reception of the Sacrament in these cases even if such proposals are couched in apparently sophisticated scholarly terms.

For example, an Australian theologian has proposed a rescript to be issued by a bishop in accord with norms supposedly to be devised by Pope Francis, granting permission for divorced-and-remarried Catholics to take holy Communion. The proposal includes impressive vocabulary such as “juridical” and “administrative” and “canons”; it sports footnotes to “assessors” and “salus animarum” and warns about “anomalies”; it underscores Church teaching on the permanence of marriage and assures readers that it offers no doctrinal or canonical changes to this teaching.

Balderdash. Pure, unadulterated, balderdash. This proposed rescript is really a license to sin.

More specifically, this rescript would (purport to) grant permission to ignore one sin (adultery) and to commit another (sacrilegious reception of holy Communion). It even manages to suggest a third sin (attempting sacramental Confession without firm purpose of amendment)! Couched in mellifluous pastoral, sacramental, and canonical language, to be issued on arch/diocesan letterhead, such a letter, expressly invoking Our Lord’s teaching on marriage and to be signed by a Successor of the Apostles in the name of Christ, who—I kid you not—congratulates the couple on their perseverance in allowing the Church to grant them this favor(!), would constitute, I suggest, a blasphemy (CCC 2148).

As I and many others have said from the outset of this mess, holy Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics—except for those committed to living as brother-and-sister, and besides some (vanishingly rare, if correctly understood) ‘internal forum’ cases—cannot legitimately be approved unless marriage is not what Jesus plainly said it was, and/or adultery is not what Jesus plainly said it was, and/or the Eucharist is not what Jesus plainly said it was. Every attempt I’ve seen so far to prove otherwise rests on doctrinal and disciplinary interpretations so tortured they would make a Pharisee blush.

If it matters, the article published in support of this proposed rescript is also a hodge-podge of amateur’s errors, including: claiming that mental instability (whatever exactly that is) is a “diriment impediment” to marriage; misreading Mitis to authorize its shorter process only in documentary cases; not realizing that “administrative” acts ARE “juridical” acts; dragging Canon 59 into a discussion of “privileges of the faith” cases; and so on. While some sentences are just funny (“Such administrative acts may address canonically irregular and practically messy situations in respect of which a moderated pastoral response is prudent”) others, such as the paragraph beginning “Such undesirable prospects…” are, well, I don’t know what they are, except that most can mean a fantastically large number of things, and I don’t feel like guessing which points might be uppermost in the author’s mind. But it doesn’t really matter.

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

The bottom line remains the bottom line: anyone who claims that holy Communion may be approved for divorced-and-remarried Catholics without repudiating one of the three fundamental assertions above simply does not know, or care, what he is talking about. I do not know how many ways there are left to re-state this point. Personally, I’ve about run out.

Still, there is, I suppose, one way to secure holy Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics without attacking any of the fundamental assertions upon which the current prohibitory discipline rests: Simply refuse to defend the doctrine or, less obviously, just decline to enforce the discipline. Don’t change anything; just, you know, ignore certain things, like, say, Canons 915, 916, and 987 in light of, say, Canons 1055 and 1085.

That approach is greatly to be feared.

Dr. Edward Peters has held the Edmund Cdl. Szoka Chair at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit since 2005. He earned a J. D. from the Univ. of Missouri at Columbia (1982) and a J. C. D. from the Catholic Univ. of America (1991). In 2010, he was appointed a Referendary of the Apostolic Signatura by Pope Benedict XVI. This article was reprinted with permission from his blog, In the Light of the Law

Share this article

Featured Image
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

Lazy, incompetent, and ideologically driven: the mainstream media on pro-life issues

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

Nov. 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Conservatives don’t like the media.

I’ve noted before that the Right and the Left have managed to construct nearly air-tight bubbles for people, in which they only ever read or hear things that confirm their point of view. FOX News versus MSNBC, the cable news networks versus AM radio, versus The Blaze. The 24-7 non-stop ideology outrage machine has helped create a chasm between conservatives and liberals that is often impossible to bridge with facts—which is why the Left doesn’t care that Hillary Clinton is a phenomenally corrupt hack who lies to committees and in hearings as a matter of course, and a certain segment of the Right doesn’t seem to care that Donald Trump has no idea what he’s talking about, and is making things up as he goes along.

The divide goes deeper. Conservatives don’t trust the media because for a very long time, the media hasn’t shown any interest in accurately telling their stories. Pro-lifers, for example, are almost always painted in caricature. I’ve seen TV reporters go from door to door, looking for someone who was upset with pro-life literature being distributed, and refusing to interview those who said the literature had changed their mind about abortion. We’ve been told point-blank by reporters that when it comes to pro-life issues, “We don’t cover those kinds of stories.” I’ve had reporters ask me the same question—word for word—four or five times in order to see if they could get me to stumble. They weren’t interested in our point of view, they were interested in making us look bad. That is why pictures of abortion victims will inevitably be labeled “obscene” and “inappropriate” by the media, but drag queens waving their genitals at crowds filled with children and families during Pride Week will be labeled “celebratory” and “exuberant.”

Other times, reporters will show up to cover pro-life rallies or pro-life outreach, interview people, take pictures, take camera footage, and then never run a story. If the pro-life movement is going to look good, you can bet editors are going to spike the story. And if the pro-choice movement is going to look bad, you can bet that editors are going to spike that story, too. When the Planned Parenthood scandal broke a few months ago, a reporter from CBC Saskatoon called me to ask whether I thought that the abortion industry was providing baby body parts to researchers in Canada, as well. I directed him to statements made by Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada admitting that yes, they do. The reporter was stunned. “Wow. I didn’t think this kind of thing happened here. I’ll talk to my editor and call you sometime next week.” No, you won’t, I thought. And he didn’t.

It’s not that the Left is never outraged about anything and the Right is. We’re just outraged about fundamentally different things. Leftists work themselves into a hysterical lather over “cultural appropriation” in the form of people doing yoga or wearing sombreros at Halloween. Conservatives like myself see a lot more to be angry about when we hear that Planned Parenthood is shipping cases of chopped-up fetuses to research labs. Conservatives are often incredibly frustrated by liberals, because while liberals find racism everywhere and manage to interpret virtually any statement as a dog-whistle alerting us all to the seething racism just below the surface of society, they refuse to see brutal realities unfolding right in front of them. Abortionists killing babies and selling their corpses. Porn fueling misogyny—and yes, even racism and rape culture. Horrific sexual violence celebrated in mainstream television shows. You know, real problems.

To be fair, many journalists are as much lazy and incompetent as they are ideologically driven. When it comes to stories about conservatives or pro-lifers, it seems as if the barest minimum of research is done, if any. The pro-life organization I work for, the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, has been covered by the media around 150 times so far this year. Only once did a reporter—from the National Post—call me back to fact-check something an abortion activist had said about us. I appreciated it, and told him so. “Well,” he replied, “reporting the facts is just our job.” That may be true, but many journalists don’t care to make the calls or Google searches it takes to confirm facts before reporting them.

Beyond that, the Left-Right divide also breaks down over more fundamental differences. The enormously popular content aggregator Upworthy, for example, seeks to push feel-good stories and activist material and help certain good causes go viral. At the end of the day, though, they would have a much different definition of the word “good” than a Christian would. They push abortion, for example, as well as the sexual anarchy currently being propagated in the form of dozens of new “orientations.” When we’ve polarized to the point where we can’t even agree on whether or not something is “good” or “bad,” you know that the chasm is long and deep.

And one final point: Why does almost every news outlet, from the Huffington Post to to even FOX News seem to think that nonstop articles titled “176 Tips for Mind-Blowing Sex” are somehow news? Scrolling through my newsfeed, I sometimes feel like I’m looking at Cosmopolitan or some other soft-core smut rather than the news sites I actually signed up for. Sex tips are not news. Stories about that one weird sex thing you did is also not news, and writing about it makes you a weird exhibitionist. Reporting on what people are doing in the bedroom every day is getting tiresome. If only our infantile culture could stop playing with themselves for five minutes, maybe they could pay more attention to the important things going on.

To be well-informed, read beyond the headlines. Read both sides of every story, and then fact-check it. I’m tired of conspiracy theorists who think George Bush blew up the World Trade Centre because it’s easier to watch a video on YouTube than it is to read the brick-sized 9/11 Commission. In the Information Age, it’s essential to find rigorously researched sources that you can depend on. 

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook