Janet Morana and Georgette Forney

Ready to fight the real ‘war against women’?

Janet Morana and Georgette Forney
By Janet Morana and Georgette Forney

April 25, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Rallies are planned across the country this Saturday to give women a chance to stand united in opposition to the much-heralded “War against women”.

But is there really such a war being waged in the United States?

You bet there is. This war is evident nearly everywhere we look.

Turn on your television and you can see it raging on MTV and VH1 and CMT, where rappers, rockers and even country crooners spew misogynistic lyrics while provocatively dressed women degrade themselves with their dancing. The war is on in Hollywood, where the most common role for an actress is that of hooker with a heart of gold, and where at least one movie out of three includes a completely gratuitous scene in a strip club. It rages in the entertainment media, which delights in getting women to take their clothes off for the camera. Why do we have such a hunger to see accomplished, talented, beautiful women naked? Because it devalues them.

The war on women is waged in the tastefully appointed offices of plastic surgeons, who reap the rewards of a culture that values only large breasts and unlined faces. Did you know that most breast implants will leak or break over time, with sometimes devastating consequences? Should it matter? Does it?

Does is matter that hormonal contraceptives - the Pill and its descendants — are indisputably linked to increased risks of cardiovascular disease, cervical, liver and breast cancer, blood clots, elevated blood pressure, decreased desire, sexual dysfunction and stroke?  The Pill began its war on women in Puerto Rico in the late 1950s when it was tested on unsuspecting women - some of whom died. “Why would you want to put a Class 1 carcinogen in your body three out of four weeks, when you’re only fertile 100 hours a month,” asks Angela Lanfranchi, a New Jersey oncologist. “The Pill is bad.”

The war is carried on in the media, where female politicians - liberal and conservative - are subjected to endless critiques of their clothing choices and hairstyles that no man in the political arena has ever faced, except perhaps John Edwards and his $400 haircut.

The war against women is particularly vicious in strip clubs and on porn sets, where many of the women twirling on poles or being violated in sometimes unspeakable ways have been trafficked from distant parts of the world—places where desperation trumps common sense and women accept a stranger’s offer of a good job, only to find themselves enslaved, abused and addicted. Brothels and nude bars are full of women whose right to choose, if they ever had one, was surrendered at the border crossing, and men whose sense of entitlement enables them to overlook the humanity of the women they are victimizing.

While battles are raging on many fronts, abortion is the nuclear weapon in the arsenal of the war against women. Nowhere is the war waged as effectively, and as horrifically, as it is in the abortion clinic, where there is no “doctor-patient relationship” and where every abortion stops one heart and breaks another.

The women’s movement of the 1960s and 70s set out to prove that women can do anything men can do, and in many, many ways, that’s true. But somewhere along the way, women began to devalue their unique gift, the ability to conceive and give birth to new life. They have thrown it away in exchange for sexual liberation and a “get out of jail free card” if an “unplanned pregnancy” should intrude.

What a terrible trade-off that has turned out to be for millions of women, and their babies.

“I wish that in the 70s, when I was pro-choice and believed the jargon ‘My body My Choice’ that someone would have told me that ‘my choice’ would haunt me for the rest of my life,” said Leslie Brunolli of San Diego, a regional coordinator in the Silent No More Awareness Campaign. “That choice left a devastating imprint on my life that no other choice I have ever made compares too.” Thousands of women join Leslie every year to say they regret that choice, and millions more still suffer in silence.

The diabolical tragedy of this war on women is that we wage it, very often, on ourselves. Like Chinese women in an earlier age insisted on binding their daughters’ feet, even though they themselves were crippled; and women in some African cultures still hold their daughters down to allow the same barbaric genital mutilation they endured, many American women insist that abortion be kept legal and accessible for their daughters.

We would love to stand with our sisters on Saturday to fight this war against women, but the truth is, we are on opposite sides of the battle line.  A grass-roots effort known as UniteWomen.org is rallying troops for nationwide rallies, but for them, the enemy is the GOP, Christians and Catholics, paternalistic white men who want to keep women barefoot and pregnant, and pro-lifers. They see an abortion clinic and they think choice. We look at the same clinic, and we see the ultimate exploitation of women.

Until we can all recognize the true nature of this war, we will remain a nation divided.

Here are some of the organizations that are part of the UnitedWomen.org coalition’s “War Against Women” activitites:
Americans United For Separation of Church and State, Catholics for Choice, Feminist Peace, National Equal Rights Amendment Alliance, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, National Organization for Women, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Rock the Slut Vote, The Silver Ribbon Campaign to Trust Women, This Slut Votes

Janet Morana, executive director of Priests for Life, and Georgette Forney, president of Anglicans for Life, are the co-founders of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign.

Share this article

Featured Image
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, ,

Clinton: US needs to help refugee rape victims… by funding their abortions

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

CLINTON, Iowa, November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Sunday that U.S. taxpayers should be on the hook for abortions for refugees impregnated through rape.

"I do think we have to take a look at this for conflict zones," Clinton said at an Iowa town hall, according to CNN. "And if the United States government, because of very strong feelings against it, maintains our prohibition, then we are going to have to work through non-profit groups and work with other counties to ... provide the support and medical care that a lot of these women need."

Clinton also said that "systematic use of rape as a tool of war and subjection is one that has been around from the beginning of history" but that it has become "even more used by a lot of the most vicious militias and insurgent groups and terrorist groups."

The prohibition referenced by Clinton – and named by the woman who asked Clinton about pregnant refugees – is known as the Helms Amendment. Made into law in 1973, it prevents U.S. foreign aid funds from being used for abortion.

Abortion supporters have urged the Obama administration to unilaterally change its interpretation of the amendment to allow exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape and incest, and if the mother's life is in danger. They argue that because the law specifically states that "[n]o foreign assistance funds may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning," women who are raped should be excepted.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

In August, 81 Democrats signed a letter to President Obama that urged this course of action. CNN reported that while Clinton didn't call for the Helms Amendment to be changed or re-interpreted, she did support other actions to increase women's access to abortion facilities.

If the United States "can't help them [to get an abortion], then we have to help them in every other way and to get other people to at least provide the options" to women raped in conflict, she said.

"They will be total outcasts if they have the child of a terrorist or the child of a militia member," according to Clinton. "Their families won't take them, their communities won't take them."

A study of women who bore their rape-conceived children during the Rwanda genocide found that "motherhood played a positive role for many women, often providing a reason to live again after the genocide."

Featured Image
Cardinal George Pell Patrick Craine / LifeSiteNews
Andrew Guernsey

, ,

Cardinal Pell bets against the odds: insists Pope Francis will strongly reaffirm Catholic tradition

Andrew Guernsey
By Andrew Guernsey


ROME, November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Contradicting the statements of some of the pope’s closest advisors, the Vatican’s financial chief Cardinal George Pell has declared that Pope Francis will re-assert and “clarify” longstanding Church teaching and discipline that prohibits Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried in public adultery without sacramental confession and amendment of life.

In a homily on Monday, Pell stressed the importance of fidelity to the pope, especially today as “we continue to look also to the successor of St. Peter as that guarantee of unity in doctrine and practice.”

Pell was offering Mass at the Basilica of San Clemente in Rome on the feast of Pope St. Clement I, notable in history for being one of the first popes to exert Roman papal primacy to correct the errors in the doctrine and abuses in discipline which other bishops were allowing.

Turning to address the issues at the Synod on the Family, Pell rebuked those who “wanted to say of the recent Synod, that the Church is confused and confusing in her teaching on the question of marriage,” and he insisted that the Church will always remain faithful to “Jesus’ own teaching about adultery and divorce” and “St. Paul’s teaching on the proper dispositions to receive communion.” Pell argues that the possibility of Communion for those in adultery is “not even mentioned in the Synod document.”

Pell asserted that Pope Francis is preparing “to clarify for the faithful what it means to follow the Lord…in His Church in our World.” He said, “We now await the Holy Father’s apostolic exhortation, which will express again the Church’s essential tradition and emphasize that the appeal to discernment and the internal forum can only be used to understand better God’s will as taught in the scriptures and by the magisterium and can never be used to disregard, distort or refute established Church teaching.”

STORY: Vatican Chief of Sacraments: No pope can change divine law on Communion

The final document of the synod talks about the “internal forum” in paragraphs 84-86, refers to private discussions between a parish priest and a member of the faithful, to educate and form their consciences and to determine the “possibility of fuller participation in the life of the Church,” based on their individual circumstances and Church teaching. The selective quoting of John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio that omitted his statement ruling out the possibility of Communion for those in public adultery has given liberals hope that this “fuller participation” could include reception of Communion.

Pell’s prediction that the pope will side with the orthodox side of this controversy lends two explanations. On one reading, Pell is uncertain what the pope will do in his post-synodal exhortation, but he is using such firm language as a way of warning the pope that he must clearly uphold Church teaching and practice, or else he would risk falling into heresy at worst or grave negligence at best in upholding the unity of the Church.

On another reading, Pell may have inside information, even perhaps from the pope himself, that he will uphold Church teaching and practice on Communion for those in public adultery, that the pope’s regular confidants apparently do not have.

This hypothesis, however, is problematic in that just last week, Pope Francis suggested that Lutherans may “go forward” to receive Holy Communion, contrary to canon law, if they come to a decision on their own, which suggests agreement with the reformers’ line of argument about “conscience.” And earlier last month, the pope granted an interview to his friend Eugenio Scalfari, who quoted the pope as promising to allow those in adultery back to Communion without amendment of life, even though the Vatican refused to confirm the authenticity of the quote since Scalfari does not use notes.

If Pell actually knew for certain what the pope would do, it would also seem to put Pell’s knowledge above that of Cardinal Robert Sarah, who in what could be a warning to Pope Francis, declared last week in no uncertain terms that “Not even a pope can dispense from such a divine law” as the prohibition of public adulterers from Holy Communion.

STORY: Papal confidant signals Pope Francis will allow Communion for the ‘remarried’

Several members of the pope’s inner circle have said publicly that the controversial paragraphs 84-86 of the Synod final document have opened the door for the Holy Father to allow Communion in these cases if he so decides. Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ, a close friend of Pope Francis and the editor of La Civita Catholica, a prominent Jesuit journal in Rome reviewed by the Vatican Secretariat of State, wrote this week that the internal forum solution for the divorced in adultery is a viable one:

The Ordinary Synod has thus laid the bases for access to the sacraments [for the divorced and civilly remarried], opening a door that had remained closed in the preceding Synod. It was not even possible, one year ago, to find a clear majority with reference to the debate on this topic, but that is what happened in 2015. We are therefore entitled to speak of a new step.

Spadaro’s predictions and interpretation of the Synod are consistent with the public statements of liberal prelates, some of whom are close confidantes to Pope Francis, including Cardinal Schönborn, Cardinal Wuerl, Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Nichols, and the head of the Jesuit order, Fr. Nicolás. Fr. Nicolás, in particular, first confirmed that there would be an apostolic exhortation of the pope, and said of Communion for those in public adultery:

The Pope’s recommendation is not to make theories, such as not lumping the divorced and remarried together, because priests have to make a judgment on a case by case and see the situation, the circumstances, what happens, and depending on this decision one thing or the other. There are no general theories which translate into an iron discipline required at all. The fruit of discernment means that you study each case and try to find merciful ways out.

Although in the best analysis, Pell’s prediction about what Pope Francis may do in his post-synodal apostolic exhortation remains just that-- a prediction—he is drawing a line in the sand that if the pope chooses to cross, would bring the barque of Peter into uncharted waters, where the danger of shipwreck is a very real threat.


Featured Image
Lianne Laurence


Jennifer Lawrence just smeared traditional Christians in the worst way

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 after Davis was released from her five-day stint in jail.

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.



Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook