Ugandan gay activist killed by gay lover, not by hatred of LGBTs as Obama indicated
BRUSSELS, Belgium, July 3, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The brutal murder of David Kato - of one of the founding father’s of Uganda’s homosexual activist movement - last year, sparked a round of international criticism denouncing Uganda for it’s failure to promote acceptance of homosexuality. One of the first to blast the African nation was U.S. President Barack Obama, followed soon after by the European Parliament (EP) in the form of an official resolution.
While it is true that Kato’s life was threatened by a magazine exposing homosexual men in Uganda with the caption ‘hang them’, an investigation into Kato’s death revealed that he was killed by a male prostitute whom he failed to pay for his services. When a Ugandan ambassador pointed out the discrepancy to the EP, however, his remarks were met with disdain.
One day after Kato’s murder US President Barack Obama issued a statement connecting the bludgeoning murder to “unconscionable bullying, discrimination and hate” against LGBT persons.
Obama admonished the Ugandan government’s opposition to providing special rights based on sexual orientation and indicated his administration would continue to fund groups promoting homosexuality in the African nation. “LGBT rights are not special rights; they are human rights,” he said. “My Administration will continue to strongly support human rights and assistance work on behalf of LGBT persons abroad.”
The EP resolution went a step further with a resolution warning “political and religious leaders” in Uganda “to stop demonising sexual minorities and creating a climate of violence against LGBT people.”
Ugandan Ambassador Stephen T.K. Katenta-Apuli responded to the EP, to correct the impression that Kato had been killed “as a result of his championing the right of gays and lesbians in Uganda.” He informed the EP: “Nothing could be farther from the truth.”
Katenta-Apuli noted that an investigation revealed Kato had a male prostitute released from prison. “He took the ex-prisoner to his home and had sex with him,” stated Katenta-Apuli. Kato failed to pay for the ‘services rendered’, which angered the male prostitute, who then “hit David Kato with a blunt object, gravely injuring him” and left the house, locking Kato inside. Kato died of his injuries.
Both Obama and the EP vehemently demanded that the Ugandan government investigate Kato’s murder. But after Katenta-Apuli clarified that the killer was really an active homosexual, it appears the EP no longer wanted details about Kato’s murder brought to light.
MEP Heidi Hautala replied to Katenta-Apuli, saying that there was “a real feeling of surprise and disappointment [sic] felt in Parliament over the content of your letter.” Huatala said that Katenta-Apuli should not have revealed details concerning “sexuality and to the sexual conduct of Mr. Kato” adding that it was “not only irrelevant but inappropriate.”
The letters were brought to light last week by the Turtle Bay and Beyond blog in an article written by J.C. von Krempach, a doctor of law.
Von Krempach observes that in one sense he agrees with the EP characterization of Kato’s death as a ‘crime committed on the basis of sexual orientation’. “In a certain sense, yes, given that only homosexuals run the risk of being slain by male prostitutes whom they refuse to pay for their services,” he opined.
Moreover von Krempach says:
“With regard to Mr. Kato’s murderer, I am actually not sure whether he too was homosexual. Not all male prostitutes are. Maybe he, like so many African children, has simply been forced to sell his body for money in order to survive - to Mr. Kato and his likes. It is all the more absurd to treat Mr. Kato solely as a “victim”, when in actual fact he appears to also have been a perpetrator. I find it astonishing that the otherwise very active LGBT lobby in the European Parliament finds no words of condemnation for the sad phenomenon of male prostitution, and instead continues to praise Mr. Kato as a “human rights champion”….
In its resolution the EP went so far as to issue a thinly veiled threat of denying foreign aid for Uganda’s poor and even assistance from foreign doctors for Uganda’s sick, should the government fail to decriminalize homosexual acts. (see point 10)
In the concluding remarks of his response, the Ugandan ambassador says: “On a personal note, I think the way the (EP) are going about the interests and rights of LGBT people is not correct, is counter productive, endangering, and inciting violence against them and may not yield the intended results.”
“The bottom line,” said U.S. pro-family activist Peter LaBarbera, “is that if Kato had obeyed the laws of his nation and refrained from engaging in such dangerous sexual activity he would still be alive today.”
LaBarbera, President of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, told LifeSiteNews, “The law is a teacher and it has a restrictive effect on behavior, thus sodomy laws dissuade people from destructive behavior.” He added that he opposes the excesses of such laws, and said, “I don’t believe in the death penalty for homosexuality.”
‘Little miracles’: Mom gives birth to naturally-conceived quintuplets after refusing ‘selective reduction’
AUSTRALIA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A 26-year-old Australian mom has given birth to five healthy babies, all conceived naturally, after refusing the doctor’s advice that she must abort three of them in order to give the remaining two a better chance at life.
“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method to give 2 babies the best chance in life,” wrote mom Kim Tucci in a Facebook post last September.
“I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried. I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more. For me life starts when a heart starts beating and all I know for sure is that I will do whatever it takes to bring them into this world healthy,” she wrote.
Last Thursday Kim and her husband Vaughn welcomed the five new members into their family — one boy and four girls —increasing the number of their children from 3 to 8. The babies were born at 30 weeks, 10 weeks early, due to insufficient space in Kim’s womb. They weighed on average about 2.5 pounds.
The quintuplets’ story began last March, after Kim and Vaughn had been trying for six months to conceive just one more child for their family. Due to health complications, Kim wondered if she would ever become a mother again.
After what she thought was an extra long cycle, she decided to take a pregnancy test.
“I was feeling tired and a little nauseated and thought I would take a pregnancy test just to get the ‘what if’ out of my head. To my shock and utter excitement it was positive,” she wrote on a Facebook post.
The parents got the shock of their lives when doctors confirmed in an ultrasound examination that there was not one baby, but five.
“After a long wait for the ultrasound we finally went in. The sonographer told me there were multiple gestational sacks, but she could only see a heart beat in two. I was so excited! Twins!”
“I was moved to another machine for a clearer view and had the head doctor come in and double check the findings. She started to count, one, two, three, four, five. Did i hear that correctly? Five? My legs start to shake uncontrollably and all i can do is laugh. The sonographer then told me the term for five is ‘quintuplets,’” Kim wrote.
Even though Kim began to feel stretched to the limit with all those human lives growing inside her, she chose to focus on her babies, and not herself, referring to them as “my five little miracles.”
“It's getting harder as each day passes to push through the pain, every part of my body aches and sleeping is becoming very painful. No amount of pillows are helping support my back and belly. Sometimes I get so upset that I just want to throw my hands up and give in.”
“Sometimes my pelvis becomes so stiff I can barely walk and my hips feel like they are grinding away constantly. I'm finding it hard to eat as I basically have no room left in my stomach, and the way it is positioned it's pushed all the way back with the babies leaning against it.”
“My skin on my belly is so stretched its painful and hot to touch. It literally feels like I have hives! No amount of cream helps relieve the discomfort. I have a lot of stretch marks now. Dealing with such a huge change in my body is hard.”
“Is it all worth it? Yes!!!! I will keep pushing through,” she wrote in one Facebook post days before the babies were born.
The newborns' names are Keith, Ali, Penelope, Tiffany, and Beatrix. They were born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Subiaco, Western Australia. Mother and babies are reported to be doing well.
UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react
GENEVA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads.
The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution.
“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters.
UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.
“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.
But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it.
The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”
Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.
“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said.
While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms.
“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added.
Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born.
“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.
“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.
Hillary’s litmus test for Supreme Court picks: They must ‘preserve Roe v. Wade’
DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.
“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.
"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.
That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.
“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."
Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.
All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.
Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.
On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”
Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.
At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.
But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.