Denise J. Hunnell, MD

The Obama administration’s pursuit of an androgynous society

Denise J. Hunnell, MD
By Denise Hunnell MD

October 22, 2012 ( - The Obama administration and the Democratic Party seem to abhor the fecundity of American women. They tout hormonal contraception, abortion, and sterilization as the trifecta of optimal women’s health. They are so zealous in their pursuit of an androgynous society (deliberate or not) that they are willing to trample on religious liberty to get it as they have unquestionably proven with the HHS mandate.

This requirement that all employers provide insurance coverage for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization or face fines of $100 per day per employee provides no conscience exemption for either individual citizens or religious institutions whose religious principles are violated by complying with this mandate.

This quest to abolish distinctly feminine physiology flies in the face of reality. God did not create genderless human beings. Maleness and femaleness are not just minor incidental aspects of our identity.

Men and women are created by God to be equal in dignity but unique in our complementary natures. In Mark’s Gospel we hear Jesus say:

But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.
So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together,
no human being must separate.

Therefore, this push to erase the differences between men and women by quashing a woman’s fertility is demeaning to the dignity of women. Womanhood is not a malformation. Fertility is not a disorder. Pregnancy is not a disease.

Unfortunately, President Obama and his entire administration view contraception and abortion as the panacea for maximizing women’s health and wellbeing. One of the first acts of President Obama after his inauguration was to overturn the Mexico City Policy that banned United States foreign aid from being used to promote abortion. In doing so, President Obama aligned his policies with those advocated by the radically pro-abortion International Planned Parenthood Federation, and Marie Stopes International. They see worldwide promotion of abortion and contraception as essential for the common good.

This ideology ignores the experiences of Chile, Ireland, and Poland that clearly show the maternal mortality rate and women’s health is more closely related to the education of women and the availability of clean and competent health care facilities than it is to the availability of abortion or contraception. This ideology also denies the real health risks inherent to these population control efforts.

Using contraception and abortion to lower maternal mortality rates is akin to using starvation to cure obesity. The “cure” is more dangerous than the disease. The World Health Organization lists hormonal contraceptives as Group 1 carcinogens, the same classification as cigarettes and asbestos. The Center for Disease Control acknowledges on its website that oral contraceptives increase the risks for developing breast, cervical and liver cancers.

The younger a woman is when she begins using contraceptives, the greater her increased risk for breast cancer. Some may counter this observation with the fact that using oral contraceptives decreases the risk of ovarian cancer. While this is true, the baseline risk for ovarian cancer is much lower than that of breast cancer. The lowered risk of ovarian cancer in no way balances the increased risk of breast cancer. To suggest that it does would be like saying increasing your risk of having a fatal car accident is balanced by decreasing your risk of being hit by a train.

In addition to the increased cancer risk, contraceptives can double the rate of HIV transmission and increase the risk of blood clots, strokes, and hypertension. The increased risk of high blood pressure is most pronounced in smokers and in adolescent girls. Yet all of these risks are ignored as the Obama administration strives to put contraception into the hands of every American woman. Under the President’s health care plan, girls as young as 12 can receive these potent drugs at no cost and without parental knowledge or consent.

If an adult woman wants to use contraception she is certainly free to do so. However, to expect others to pay for her wholly elective lifestyle choice, especially when it violates their religious principles, is clearly unreasonable. No professional medical association claims that women are healthier when they use contraceptives. Rather, the medical establishment acknowledges that the risks of contraceptives are acceptable for women who freely choose to be sexually active while wanting to avoid pregnancy. In other words, contraception is not essential to women’s health.

In spite of this, the Democrats are claiming that the Catholic Church and others who oppose the HHS mandate are waging a “war on women.” Yet it is the Democrats who insist that women must endure all of the risks of contraception in order to fully participate in American society.

For example, President Obama’s campaign ad entitled “Dreams of our Daughters” repeats the canard that women cannot succeed professionally unless they are provided contraceptives at no cost. Such thinking implies that women have no choice but to be sexually active and that women bear the entire responsibility for the consequences of sexual activity. It effectively denies that men have any requirement for responsible sexual behavior.

As faithful Catholics and as Americans, we cannot allow this ideology to shape our country’s laws and policies.

We must demand respect for religious liberty.

We must insist that the sovereignty of the family be preserved and refuse to marginalize parents in the health care decisions of their children.

And most importantly, we must reject all candidates who view feminine biology as an obstacle to success, motherhood as an inferior vocation, and pregnancy as a disease that must be prevented with contraception or “cured” with abortion.

Reprinted with permission from the Truth and Charity Forum

Share this article

Featured Image
John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John

BREAKING: Planned Parenthood shooting suspect surrenders, is in custody: police

John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John
By John Jalsevac

Nov. 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Five hours after a single male shooter reportedly opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood, chatter on police radio is indicating that the suspect has now been "detained."

"We have our suspect and he says he is alone," said police on the police radio channel. 

Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers also confirmed via Twitter shortly after 7:00 pm EST that the suspect was in custody.

The news comes almost exactly an hour after the start of a 6:00 pm. press conference in which Lt. Catherine Buckley had confirmed that a single shooter was still at large, and had exchanged gunfire with police moments before.

According to Lt. Buckley, four, and possibly five police officers have been shot since the first 911 call was received at 11:38 am local time today. An unknown number of civilians have also been shot.

Although initial reports had suggested that the shooting began outside the Planned Parenthood, possibly outside a nearby bank, Lt. Buckley said that in fact the incident began at the Planned Parenthood itself.

She said that the suspect had also brought unknown "items" with him to the Planned Parenthood. 

Pro-life groups have started responding to the news, urging caution in jumping to conclusions about the motivations of the shooter, while also condemning the use of violence in promoting the pro-life cause. 

"Information is very sketchy about the currently active shooting situation in Colorado Springs," said Pavone. "The Planned Parenthood was the address given in the initial call to the police, but we still do not know what connection, if any, the shooting has to do with Planned Parenthood or abortion.

"As leaders in the pro-life movement, we call for calm and pray for a peaceful resolution of this situation."

Troy Newman of Operation Rescue and Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also issued statements.

"Operation Rescue unequivocally deplores and denounces all violence at abortion clinics and has a long history of working through peaceful channels to advocate on behalf of women and their babies," said Newman. "We express deep concern for everyone involved and are praying for the safety of those at the Planned Parenthood office and for law enforcement personnel. We pray this tragic situation can be quickly resolved without further injury to anyone."

"Although we don't know the reasons for the shooting near the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs today, the pro-life movement is praying for the safety of all involved and as a movement we have always unequivocally condemned all forms of violence at abortion clinics. We must continually as a nation stand against violence on all levels," said Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, based in Washington, D.C.


Share this article

Featured Image
Wikimedia Commons
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, , , ,

Rubio says SCOTUS didn’t ‘settle’ marriage issue: ‘God’s rules always win’

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Surging GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-FL, says that "God's law" trumps the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision imposing same-sex “marriage” nationwide.

The senator also told Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody that the Supreme Court's redefinition of marriage is not "settled," but instead "current law."

“No law is settled,” said Rubio. “Roe v. Wade is current law, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t continue to aspire to fix it, because we think it’s wrong.”

“If you live in a society where the government creates an avenue and a way for you to peacefully change the law, then you’re called to participate in that process to try to change it,” he explained, and "the proper place for that to be defined is at the state level, where marriage has always been regulated — not by the Supreme Court and not by the federal government.”

However, when laws conflict with religious beliefs, "God's rules always win," said Rubio.

“In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin — violate God’s law and sin — if we’re ordered to stop preaching the Gospel, if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that,” Rubio expounded. “We cannot abide by that because government is compelling us to sin.”

“I continue to believe that marriage law should be between one man and one woman," said the senator, who earlier in the fall was backed by billionaire GOP donor and same-sex "marriage" supporter Paul Singer.

Singer, who also backs looser immigration laws and a strong U.S.-Israel alliance, has long pushed for the GOP to change its position on marriage in part due to the sexual orientation of his son.

Despite Singer's support, Rubio's marriage stance has largely been consistent. He told Brody earlier in the year that "there isn't such a right" to same-sex "marriage."

"You have to have a ridiculous reading of the U.S. Constitution to reach the conclusion that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex."

Rubio also said religious liberty should be defended against LGBT activists he says "want to stigmatize, they want to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them as haters."

"I believe, as do a significant percentage of Americans, that the institution of marriage, an institution that existed before government, that existed before laws, that institution should remain in our laws recognized as the union of one man and one woman," he said.

Rubio also hired social conservative leader Eric Teetsel as his director of faith outreach this month.

However, things have not been entirely smooth for Rubio on marriage. Social conservatives were concerned when the executive director of the LGBT-focused Log Cabin Republicans told Reuters in the spring that the Catholic senator is "not as adamantly opposed to all things LGBT as some of his statements suggest."

The LGBT activist group had meetings with Rubio's office "going back some time," though the senator himself never attended those meetings. Rubio has publicly said that he would attend the homosexual "wedding" of a gay loved one, and also that he believed "that sexual preference is something that people are born with," as opposed to being a choice.

Additionally, days after the Supreme Court redefined marriage, Rubio said that he disagreed with the decision but that "we live in a republic and must abide by the law."

"I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman," he said. "People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court. This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years.

Rubio also said at the time that "it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood…"

“I firmly believe the question of same sex marriage is a question of the definition of an institution, not the dignity of a human being. Every American has the right to pursue happiness as they see fit. Not every American has to agree on every issue, but all of us do have to share our country. A large number of Americans will continue to believe in traditional marriage, and a large number of Americans will be pleased with the Court’s decision today. In the years ahead, it is my hope that each side will respect the dignity of the other.”

The Florida senator said in July that he opposed a constitutional marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution to leave marriage up to the states because that would involve the federal government in state marriage policies.

Featured Image
Former The View star Sherri Shepherd and then-husband Lamar Sally in 2010 s_bukley /
Steve Weatherbe

Court orders Sherri Shepherd to pay child support for surrogate son she abandoned

Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Sherri Shepherd, a Hollywood celebrity who co-hosted the popular talk show The View for seven years, has lost a maternity suit launched by her ex-husband Lamar Sally, forcing her to pay him alimony and child support for their one-year surrogate son LJ. The decision follows an unseemly fight which pro-life blogger Cassy Fiano says has exposed how surrogacy results in “commodifying” the unborn.

Shepherd, a co-host of the View from 2007 to 2014, met Sally, a screenwriter, in 2010 and they married a year later. Because her eggs were not viable, they arranged a surrogate mother in Pennsylvania to bear them a baby conceived in vitro using Sally’s sperm and a donated egg.

But the marriage soured in mid-term about the time Shepherd lost her job with The View. According to one tabloid explanation, she was worried he would contribute little to parenting responsibilities.  Sally filed for separation in 2014, Shepherd filed for divorce a few days, then Sally sued for sole custody, then alimony and child support.

Earlier this year she told PEOPLE she had gone along with the surrogacy to prevent the breakup of the marriage and had not really wanted the child.

Shepherd, an avowed Christian who once denied evolution on The View and a successful comic actor on Broadway, TV, and in film since the mid-90s, didn’t want anything to do with LJ, as Lamar named the boy, who after all carried none of her genes. She refused to be at bedside for the birth, and refused to let her name be put on the birth certificate and to shoulder any responsibility for LJ’s support.

But in April the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, and now the state’s Superior Court, ruled that Shepherd’s name must go on the birth certificate and she must pay Sally alimony and child support.

“The ultimate outcome is that this baby has two parents and the parents are Lamar Sally and Sherri Shepherd,” Shepherd’s lawyer Tiffany Palmer said.

As for the father, Sally told PEOPLE, “I'm glad it's finally over. I'm glad the judges saw through all the lies that she put out there, and the negative media attention. If she won't be there for L.J. emotionally, I'll be parent enough for the both of us.”

But Shepherd said, “I am appealing the ruling that happened,” though in the meantime, Sally will “get his settlement every month. There’s nothing I can do.”

Commented Fiano in Live Action News, “What’s so sickening about this case is that this little boy, whose life was created in a test tube, was treated as nothing more than a commodity…Saying that you don’t want a baby but will engineer one to get something you want is horrific.” As for trying to get out from child support payments now that the marriage had failed, that was “despicable.”

Fiano went on to characterize the Shepherd-Sally affair as a “notable example” of commodification of children, and “by no means an anomaly.” She cited a British report than over the past five years 123 babies conceived in vitro were callously aborted when they turned out to have Down Syndrome.

“When we’re not ready for babies, we have an abortion,” she added. “But then when we decide we are ready we manufacture them in a laboratory and destroy any extras. Children exist when we want them to exist, to fill the holes in us that we want them to fill, instead of being independent lives with their own inherent value and dignity.”

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook