Thaddeus Baklinski

News

Polish pro-lifers arrested for displaying graphic abortion posters

Thaddeus Baklinski
Image

POLAND, August 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Pro-life advocates in Poland have been arrested on two different occasions recently for displaying signs depicting babies who have been killed by abortion.

Mariusz Dzierżawski, founder of the Warsaw-based PRO Foundation and one of Poland’s most prominent and active pro-life leaders, told LifeSiteNews he and a fellow PRO Foundation member were arrested at a music festival on August 2. They were gathering petition signatures for total protection of the unborn in Poland and displaying a pro-life poster showing Hitler, pictures of aborted babies, and a child with Down syndrome.

Abortion is illegal in Poland except to save a mother’s life and health, in the case of rape or incest, or when a fetal disease or deformation is diagnosed.

Dzierżawski said the incident occurred at the Polish Woodstock Festival (Przystanek Woodstock), held in the western Polish city of Kostrzyn. The PRO Foundation has for many years set up a display of graphic abortion pictures at the event in order to promote discussion among attendees.

He noted that one woman, after viewing the pictures of aborted babies, said to him, “This is a very good place to discuss abortion because people are having fun here and certainly some of the girls will get pregnant afterwards….  They should be reminded to think about what they are doing and to be responsible.”

The two pro-lifers were hustled into a police van and their poster was confiscated, Dzierżawski said, adding that the police arrested them even though their display at the music festival was legal.

Dzierżawski said that Polish law does not require them to obtain a permit to set up their display in a public space such as this music festival, and the city authorities had been properly informed.  He said police acted after an unnamed person reported that indecent material was being shown.

“The PRO Foundation has been to court six times for showing the truth about abortion,” Dzierżawski said, “and all of the previous lawsuits were resolved in favor of the Foundation.”

“The police apprehended us under an absurd charge of presenting indecent images in public - a charge dismissed in courts on multiple occasions so far,” Dzierżawski told LifeSiteNews.

CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!

“The police are currently trying to make it seem like they never actually apprehended us, but only apprehended the banner we were holding, for further explanation. Their aim was to stop our rally.”

Dzierżawski said that he has filed a complain for “unlawful apprehension” and are “going to file a notification on suspicion of committing a criminal offense by the police officers who pre-empted a legal assembly.”

“Recently we have organized scores of pro-life exhibitions and rallies. The abortionists simply can’t stand it. They are trying to stop us using the police. We are facing an assault on free speech and the freedom of public debate. We are going to defend this freedom,” Dzierżawski said.

A retired judge told Razem TV, a Catholic internet TV service in Poland, that he believes the action of the police against the pro-lifers was illegal.

“In my opinion the police violated elementary rules of the legal order, when they shut down the pro-life exhibition,” said Wiesław Johan, retired judge of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal. “The police are to ensure order and safety for us, the citizens. The way the police acted there, was, in my opinion, against the law. Everybody has the right to protest, everybody has the right to partake in an assembly, everybody has the right to express their views. I am not making this up, these rules come from the Polish Constitution.”

He added that he hopes that protests condemning what the police did will cause the authorities to take appropriate action towards the police officers who “broke the law that day.”

In another incident that took place on August 7, a member of the PRO Foundation was arrested and charged with “showing indecent pictures in public” for organizing a graphic abortion picture exhibit in Warsaw.

An exhibit titled “Choose Life,” which uses the graphic abortion posters of the U.S. based Center for Bioethical Reform, which had been set up at a Catholic church in the Ursynów district of Warsaw, had been vandalized repeatedly, according to organizer Kinga Małecka-Prybyło.

However, when she complained to police, Mrs. Małecka-Prybyło said she herself was charged with “causing a public scandal by arranging for the placement of obscene advertisements containing pictures showing images of human fetuses and their fragments, in violation of art. 51 § 1 and in connection with art. 141 of code violations.”

Mrs. Małecka-Prybyło explained that she told the police that the “Choose Life” display was an educational exhibit that had already been shown in 300 different locations in Poland.

She said she also informed police of the six previous failed court attempts by pro-abortionists to silence the exhibit in their complaints against the Pro Foundation and the “Choose Life” display. She said that though the images are dreadful, “how else can this horrible deed be shown for what it is?”

In an interview with LifeSiteNews, Mrs. Małecka-Prybyło said it is troubling that the police are being used to silence the freedom of expression of pro-lifers by using laws enacted to fight pornography.

“It worries me a lot that charges have brought against those who are fighting to protect the weakest. And that the laws which the police are citing against us today have been instituted to protect the public space from pornography. These laws are now being used to gag people fighting for the basic human right - the right to life,” Mrs. Małecka-Prybyło said.

“Anti-abortion exhibitions provoke meaningful thoughts and debates. I hope that many people will wake up and see that we are facing a great threat to our civil liberties, including the freedom to express your views.”

Asked what she thinks about the argument that seeing graphic abortion pictures is harmful to children, Mrs. Małecka-Prybyło said, “As a mother, I think that the ‘Choose Life’ exhibition of graphic abortion pictures is a great opportunity to provoke deep and important discussions with children of all ages about the value of human life. Children who learn early on, from their parents, that human life is sacred, inviolable and must be protected from conception - will not, in the future, yield to false rhetoric about the ‘choice’ to decide about somebody else’s life.

“Even the youngest children need to see their parents’ clear and unambiguous position on these issues, and they need serious conversations with us. If you approach this subject like this, the children will surprise you with their maturity and simple reasoning on the value of life. My 3-year old son understood perfectly that some children’s lives are in danger and that it’s extremely important that we protect the babies living under their mother’s hearts, especially those, who are ill. I think we should talk to our children about life issues as early as possible, before somebody else reaches them with a completely different message.”

In an extraordinary interview with (http://razem.tv/) Razem TV, Mrs. Małecka-Prybyło’s son Maksymilian, who is now five years old, offered these insights about the pictures in the “Choose Life” exhibition. He has been helping his mom set up the graphic abortion pictures since he was three.

Question: What do you think about those pictures?

Maksymilian: I think that you really need to keep doing those exhibitions, or else it will start all over again. It is almost good now, but it will be much worse if they’re not here.

Q: But these are not pictures that children like, right? Do you like those pictures?

Maksymilian: No. But I already understand that this is evil. I didn’t understand it some time ago, but the time has come now that I do understand it.

Q: Are you interested in those issues?

Maksymilian: Yes, a little.

Q: Why?

Maksymilian: I don’t understand what this whole abortion is for. At all.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Mike Mozart, CC
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien

News,

Texas AG to Target: Show me how you’ll protect women and kids from criminals

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien

AUSTIN, Texas, May 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – The latest backlash Target received as a result of its transgender bathroom policy was a letter from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asking the company to provide its safety policies to protect women and children from “those who would use the cover of Target’s restroom policy for nefarious purposes.” 

“Target, of course, is free to choose such a policy for its Texas stores,” Paxton wrote in a letter to Target CEO Brian Cornell. He noted the possibility of the Texas Legislature addressing the issue in the future, but said, “regardless of whether Texas legislates on this topic, it is possible that allowing men in women’s restrooms could lead to criminal and otherwise unwanted activity.”

“As chief lawyer and law enforcement officer for the State of Texas, I ask that you provide the full text of Target’s safety policies regarding the protection of women and children from those who would use the cover of Target’s restroom policy for nefarious purposes,” Paxton continued.

More than 1.1 million people have pledged to boycott Target over its new policy allowing men to access women’s bathrooms.  Opponents of the policy worry that it puts women and children at risk by emboldening predators, who may now freely enter women’s restrooms. 

Target’s new policy is “inclusive,” the company claims, and they say “everyone…deserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally.” 

“Texans statewide can no longer be silent on the issue of protecting the safety of women and children,” Texas Values President and Attorney Jonathan Saenz said in a statement Wednesday urging Texans to boycott Target.  This is the first time in its history the pro-family group has called for a boycott. 

“We need all Texans to understand that Target is using this radical change in their store policy to try convince people that our laws should be changed in this dangerous direction as well,” said Saena.  “Our goal with this boycott is for Target to change its dangerous new policy, to raise awareness of the real threats to safety that these policies bring and to help businesses and lawmakers understand the significant opposition to such measures that is growing daily… Texans all across our state must join this Boycott Target effort before someone gets hurt.”

On Tuesday a male allegedly filmed an underage girl at a Frisco, Texas, Target fitting room.  Police are searching for the man. 

There have been numerous incidents of male predators across North America accessing women’s facilities and citing transgender policies as allowing them to do so.  



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Donald Trump, the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, represents virtually everything the Republican Party has typically defined itself over against a katz / Shutterstock.com
Albert Mohler

Opinion,

Christians, America has reached a crisis point. Are you ready to take up this challenge?

Albert Mohler

May 5, 2016 (Albert Mohler) -- For nearly two and a half centuries, Americans have enjoyed the enormous privilege and responsibility of forming our own government—a privilege rarely experienced throughout most of human history. For most of history, humanity has struggled with the question of how to respond to a government that was essentially forced upon them. But Americans have often struggled with a very different reality; how do we rightly respond to the government that we choose? 

To put all of this in historical perspective, the Framers of the American experiment understood that a representative democracy built on the principle of limited government would require certain virtues of its citizens. These would include a restraint of passions and an upholding of traditional moral virtues, without which democracy would not be possible. As the idea of limited government implies, the citizenry would be required to carry out the social responsibilities of the community without the intrusion of government and, thus, citizens would be expected to have the moral integrity necessary for such an arrangement. The Framers of the American Republic also agreed that it would be impossible to have a representative democracy and a limited government if the people did not elect leaders who embodied the virtues of the citizenry while also respecting and protecting society’s pre-political institutions: marriage and family, the church, and the local community.

Thus, the idea of a limited government requires that society uphold and pursue the health of its most basic institutions. When a civil society is weak, government becomes strong. When the family breaks down, government grows stronger. When the essential institutions of society are no longer respected, government demands that respect for itself. That is a recipe for tyranny.

Much of this was essentially affirmed until the early decades of the 20th century when progressivists began promoting an agenda that fundamentally redefined the role of the federal government in public life. By the middle of the 20th century, the Democratic Party had essentially embraced this progressivist agenda, becoming committed to an increasingly powerful government—a government whose powers exceeded those enumerated in the Constitution. At the same time, the Democratic Party also began advocating for a basic redefinition of the morality that shaped the common culture. By and large, however, the Republican Party continued to maintain a commitment to the vision of America’s founders, advocating for a traditional understanding of morality while also upholding the principle of limited government.

By the 1980s, the two parties represented two very different worldviews and two very different visions of American government. For decades, each party has acted rather predictably and in ways that accord with their fundamental principles. All of that, however, has now changed.

The 2016 presidential campaign has developed in an entirely unpredictable manner and, in many respects, represents a crisis in American democracy. This crisis is not limited to either party. Bernie Sanders, the Independent senator from Vermont, has won several stunning victories in the primary season over presumed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. While it is still extremely likely that Clinton will become the Democratic nominee, Sanders support among voters represents a populist flirtation with Democratic Socialism. This pattern is something few Democrats could have imagined just one year ago. What this foray into Democratic Socialism represents, then, is a radical adjustment of the Democratic Party’s basic economic principles. Thus, even if Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee, the process will likely drag her even further to the left, eventually redefining the Democratic Party before our very eyes.

But if it is remarkable to see what is happening in the Democratic Party, it is absolutely shocking to see what is happening among Republicans. Traditionally, the Republican Party has established its reputation by standing for the principles advocated by the American Founders—limited government upheld by the health of society’s primary institutions such as marriage, family, and community. Yet Donald Trump, the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, represents virtually everything the Republican Party has typically defined itself over against. Clearly, both political parties are now redefining themselves. What is not clear is where each party will ultimately end up. What is also not clear is whether the American experiment can survive such radical political change.

As already noted, the American experiment in limited government requires that the citizenry and those who hold public office honor certain moral virtues and respect the institutions that are crucial for a society to rightly function. Yet, we now find ourselves in a situation where the three leading candidates for president show little to no respect for such institutions in their articulations of public policy.

This fundamental redefinition of the American political landscape requires Christians to think carefully about their political responsibility. Make no mistake; we cannot avoid that responsibility. Even refusing to vote is itself a vote because it privileges those who do vote and increases the value of each ballot. In truth, we bear a political responsibility that cannot be dismissed or delegated to others. Every Christian must be ready to responsibly steward his or her vote at the polls.

To put the matter bluntly, we are now confronted with the reality that, in November, Hillary Clinton will likely be the Democratic nominee and Donald Trump the Republican nominee. This poses a significant problem for many Christians who believe they cannot, in good conscience, vote for either candidate. As a result, Christians are going to need a lot of careful political reflection in order to steward their vote and their political responsibility in this election cycle.

Headlines from around the world tell us that other representative democracies are at a similar moment of redefinition. Political turmoil now marks the United Kingdom and also nations like France and other key American allies. Perhaps democracy itself is now facing a crucial hour of decision and a crucial season of testing. It is no exaggeration to say that democracy is being tested around the world; it is certainly being tested here at home. Yet if this is a moment of testing for democracy, it is also a crucial moment for Christian witness. This election cycle is going to be a particular test for American Christians—and we are about to find out if Christians are up to this challenge.

Reprinted with permission from Albert Mohler.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

News

‘Sick and twisted’: Scientists keep embryos alive outside womb up to 13 days for experimentation

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

May 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Two teams of scientists have announced that they have been able to keep human embryos alive outside the womb for 13 days for the purpose of conducting scientific experiments. Some call the announcement the onset of a “Brave New World,” while others are petitioning lawmakers to lift sanctions that would keep scientists from experimenting on newly conceived babies even longer.

Researchers from Cambridge University, King's College, and Rockefeller University said in two separate reports that they stopped at 13 days only to avoid violating an internationally accepted law. At least 12 nations restrict the amount of time a newly conceived child may be kept alive in a laboratory to 14 days, the point at which scientists believe “individuality” begins.

The newest development allows scientists to observe newly conceived human beings after the point at which implantation in the womb would have occurred.

Professor Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, one of the studies' lead researchers, said her team's breakthrough could advance embryonic stem cell research and “can improve IVF success.”

Some scientists have called on the international community to extend the amount of time such experimentation can take place.

“If restrictions such as the 14-day rule are viewed as moral truths, such cynicism would be warranted,” three experts – Insoo Hyun, Amy Wilkerson, and Josephine Johnston – wrote in a commentary published yesterday in Nature magazine. “But when they are understood to be tools designed to strike a balance between enabling research and maintaining public trust, it becomes clear that, as circumstances and attitudes evolve, limits can be legitimately recalibrated.”

Pro-life experts said the experimentation destroys human life and could lead to grave ethical dilemmas by extending the research.

“No human being should be used for lethal experimentation, no matter their age or stage of development,” said Dr. David Prentice, a professor of molecular genetics and an Advisory Board Member for the Midwest Stem Cell Therapy Center. “The 14-day rule is itself arbitrary, and does not assuage those who believe life begins at the moment of sperm-egg fusion. Moreover, allowing experiments on human embryos beyond 14 days post-fertilization risks the lives of untold more human beings, because it further encourages creation and destruction for research purposes.”

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, called the experimentation “sick and twisted.”

“Science has undeniably proven that a new human life, with unrepeatable DNA, begins at conception,” she said. “There is no reason for experimentation on that human life and science itself should not be heralding thae fact that a tiny human being can survive now for two weeks outside of the womb, all for the sole purpose of experimentation.”

Dr. Prentice noted that embryonic stem cell research “has yielded no benefit thus far,” leading even its most vocal advocates, such as Michael J. Fox, to admit it has not lived up to its promise.

“If this research does not stop at 14 days, where does it stop?” asked Prentice. “This is a risky step which could encourage further eugenic attitudes and actions.”

Dr. Prentice encouraged Congress “to have a full and open debate on the issue of human embryo research before the research community moves further without oversight.”



Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook