lifesitenews--2020-05-29--UN human rights group criticizes US states calling abortion ‘non-essential service’

WASHINGTON , D.C. , May 29 , 2020 ( C-Fam ) — A UN human rights group criticized several U.S. states for declaring abortion a nonessential service during the COVID-19 shutdown this week , declaring “ safe , legal abortion ” a key component of “ sexual and reproductive health services.
” The group also denounced a recent letter from the head of the U.S. foreign aid agency calling for the removal of “ sexual and reproductive health ” from a World Health Assembly resolution .
The statement came from the Working Group on discrimination against women and girls , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UN Human Rights Council .
The United States withdrew from the Council in 2018 .
The statement was then endorsed by UN special rapporteurs whose mandates cover health and violence against women .
They are part of the UN Special Procedures .
The letter from John Barsa , acting director of the United States Agency for International Development ( USAID ) , was addressed to UN Secretary-General António Guterres , urging him to ensure the UN will “ stay focused on life-saving interventions ” and not promote abortion .
In response , Guterres @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any suggestion that we are using the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to promote abortion is not correct , ” and that while supporting life-saving health care , “ we do not seek to override any national laws.
” The USAID letter provoked a backlash from pro-abortion groups .
The Inter-Agency Working Group on Reproductive Health in Crises , whose steering committee includes several UN agencies including the World Health Organization ( WHO ) , issued a statement saying the group “ applauds the UN , governments , donors and all gender and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inclusion of [ sexual and reproductive health ] services , including contraception and access to safe abortion care to the full extent of the law.
” The experts who work under Special Procedures are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work in order to ensure their independence .
Nevertheless , the opinions of independent experts working within the UN system are frequently quoted by UN agencies as well as activist groups in countries , who often treat their utterances with the same degree of deference as negotiated documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , WHO maintains a database of national abortion laws which also includes a section listing all recommendations on abortion given to countries by UN human rights treaty monitoring bodies or Special Procedures mandate holders .
When this database was launched , its stated purpose was to “ eliminate the barriers that women encounter in accessing safe abortion services , ” despite the fact that the WHO has no mandate to weigh in on abortion laws , which are a matter of national sovereignty .
The phrase “ sexual and reproductive health , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been part of UN resolutions since 1994 , when it was defined as including abortion only where legal , and with multiple additional caveats , including the warning that it should never be promoted as a method of family planning .
In the past twenty-five years , pro-abortion governments have tried in negotiations to separate “ sexual and reproductive health ” from the 1994 compromise , remove the caveats , and imply a right to abortion that has never existed in a global agreement .
Under President Donald Trump , the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the term , recognizing that , while it does not create a right to abortion , it can not be separated from abortion entirely .

The battle over abortion policy at the United Nations continues, with the U.S. representing a thorn in the pro-abortion organization's side.
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 29, 2020 (C-Fam) — A UN human rights group criticized several U.S. states for declaring abortion a nonessential service during the COVID-19 shutdown this week, declaring “safe, legal abortion” a key component of “sexual and reproductive health services.” The group also denounced a recent letter from the head of the U.S. foreign aid agency calling for the removal of “sexual and reproductive health” from a World Health Assembly resolution.
The statement came from the Working Group on discrimination against women and girls, part of the Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council. The United States withdrew from the Council in 2018. The statement was then endorsed by UN special rapporteurs whose mandates cover health and violence against women. They are part of the UN Special Procedures.
The letter from John Barsa, acting director of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), was addressed to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, urging him to ensure the UN will “stay focused on life-saving interventions” and not promote abortion.
In response, Guterres’ spokesman Stéphane Dujarric insisted that “any suggestion that we are using the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to promote abortion is not correct,” and that while supporting life-saving health care, “we do not seek to override any national laws.”
The USAID letter provoked a backlash from pro-abortion groups. The Inter-Agency Working Group on Reproductive Health in Crises, whose steering committee includes several UN agencies including the World Health Organization (WHO), issued a statement saying the group “applauds the UN, governments, donors and all gender and health advocates who have committed to the inclusion of [sexual and reproductive health] services, including contraception and access to safe abortion care to the full extent of the law.”
The experts who work under Special Procedures are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work in order to ensure their independence. Nevertheless, the opinions of independent experts working within the UN system are frequently quoted by UN agencies as well as activist groups in countries, who often treat their utterances with the same degree of deference as negotiated documents adopted by consensus.
As an example, WHO maintains a database of national abortion laws which also includes a section listing all recommendations on abortion given to countries by UN human rights treaty monitoring bodies or Special Procedures mandate holders. When this database was launched, its stated purpose was to “eliminate the barriers that women encounter in accessing safe abortion services,” despite the fact that the WHO has no mandate to weigh in on abortion laws, which are a matter of national sovereignty.
The phrase “sexual and reproductive health,” sometimes followed by “services,” has been part of UN resolutions since 1994, when it was defined as including abortion only where legal, and with multiple additional caveats, including the warning that it should never be promoted as a method of family planning.
In the past twenty-five years, pro-abortion governments have tried in negotiations to separate “sexual and reproductive health” from the 1994 compromise, remove the caveats, and imply a right to abortion that has never existed in a global agreement. Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. has increasingly called for the deletion of the term, recognizing that, while it does not create a right to abortion, it cannot be separated from abortion entirely.
Published with permission from C-Fam.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-29--UN human rights boss congratulates Costa Rica on political upheaval over gay ‘marriage’

NEW YORK , May 29 , 2020 ( C-Fam ) — The head of the UN human rights office praised the Supreme Court of Costa Rica for judicially imposing homosexual marriage , then claimed credit for the court ’ s activism in a video message this week .
“ I welcome the legalization of equal civil marriage in Costa Rica .
We are all born free and equal and have the right to live without discrimination on any grounds , ” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet tweeted on May 26 in a congratulatory video message .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ introduced homosexual marriage legislation in her own country in 2017 , is now the highest UN human rights official .
She claimed credit for the 2018 Court ruling which imposed homosexual marriage on Costa Rica .
Costa Rica ’ s laws limiting marriage exclusively to a man and woman were judicially struck down on May 26 , 2020 to allow homosexual marriage following a contested 2018 Supreme Court ruling .
In the ruling , the court ordered Costa Rica ’ s legislature to amend the country ’ s marriage and family law to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or the laws would be automatically struck down .
The 2018 decision was based on a judicial opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights .
The court based in Washington D.C. , elevated “ gender identity and sexual orientation ” as categories protected by the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights citing the non-binding recommendations of UN experts , supported by Bachelet ’ s office .
Bachelet explained how the UN human rights office she leads , and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights , worked together to put pressure on Costa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ My office had the opportunity to collaborate with the Inter-American Court sharing the United Nations standards , that as in the case of Costa Rica , can guide the states of the region in advancing the human rights of LGBTI people , ” Bachelet explained in the video .
Though UN agencies and the UN human rights system routinely maintain that LGBT rights are protected by international treaties , they are routinely contested by UN member states , who have yet to adopt a resolution which recognizes such protected status .
The Inter-American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purports to be binding on all 23 parties for the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights under a legal doctrine of “ constitutionality control.
” The Court effectively saw itself as ordering all countries in Central and South America to allow homosexual marriage , transgender laws , and government sanctioned artificial reproduction as flowing from the non-discrimination provision in the convention .
The European Court of Human Rights has been more cautious , refusing to impose homosexual marriage as the Inter-American Court and U.S. Supreme Court have done .
Costa Rica ’ s Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , fueled by ongoing constitutional debates .
Attempts to democratically adopt legislation to permit homosexual marriages and civil unions both failed in Costa Rica ’ s legislative assembly .
The country ’ s governing body for notaries reacted to the 2018 decision with an order to take away the license of any notary who recorded homosexual marriages .
That order was declared null by the Supreme Court earlier this year .
The president of the court , Fernando Castillo Viquez — a highly respected jurist who was elected by Costa Rica ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court — dissented .
He issued a separate opinion , saying he did not agree that the Supreme Court could strike down Costa Rica ’ s marriage laws based on a ruling of the Inter-American Court .
He also argued that both Costa Rica ’ s laws and International Law protect the natural family .

NEW YORK, May 29, 2020 (C-Fam) — The head of the UN human rights office praised the Supreme Court of Costa Rica for judicially imposing homosexual marriage, then claimed credit for the court’s activism in a video message this week.
“I welcome the legalization of equal civil marriage in Costa Rica. We are all born free and equal and have the right to live without discrimination on any grounds,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet tweeted on May 26 in a congratulatory video message.
The former president of Chile, who proudly introduced homosexual marriage legislation in her own country in 2017, is now the highest UN human rights official. She claimed credit for the 2018 Court ruling which imposed homosexual marriage on Costa Rica.
Costa Rica’s laws limiting marriage exclusively to a man and woman were judicially struck down on May 26, 2020 to allow homosexual marriage following a contested 2018 Supreme Court ruling. In the ruling, the court ordered Costa Rica’s legislature to amend the country’s marriage and family law to allow homosexual marriage by the designated date, or the laws would be automatically struck down.
The 2018 decision was based on a judicial opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The court based in Washington D.C., elevated “gender identity and sexual orientation” as categories protected by the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights citing the non-binding recommendations of UN experts, supported by Bachelet’s office.
Bachelet explained how the UN human rights office she leads, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, worked together to put pressure on Costa Rica’s Supreme Court.
“My office had the opportunity to collaborate with the Inter-American Court sharing the United Nations standards, that as in the case of Costa Rica, can guide the states of the region in advancing the human rights of LGBTI people,” Bachelet explained in the video.
Though UN agencies and the UN human rights system routinely maintain that LGBT rights are protected by international treaties, they are routinely contested by UN member states, who have yet to adopt a resolution which recognizes such protected status.
The Inter-American Court opinion for which Bachelet claimed credit purports to be binding on all 23 parties for the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights under a legal doctrine of “constitutionality control.” The Court effectively saw itself as ordering all countries in Central and South America to allow homosexual marriage, transgender laws, and government sanctioned artificial reproduction as flowing from the non-discrimination provision in the convention.
The European Court of Human Rights has been more cautious, refusing to impose homosexual marriage as the Inter-American Court and U.S. Supreme Court have done.
Costa Rica’s Supreme Court ruling caused a domestic political firestorm, fueled by ongoing constitutional debates. Attempts to democratically adopt legislation to permit homosexual marriages and civil unions both failed in Costa Rica’s legislative assembly.
The country’s governing body for notaries reacted to the 2018 decision with an order to take away the license of any notary who recorded homosexual marriages. That order was declared null by the Supreme Court earlier this year.
The president of the court, Fernando Castillo Viquez — a highly respected jurist who was elected by Costa Rica’s legislature to a second eight-year term on the court — dissented. He issued a separate opinion, saying he did not agree that the Supreme Court could strike down Costa Rica’s marriage laws based on a ruling of the Inter-American Court. He also argued that both Costa Rica’s laws and International Law protect the natural family.
Published with permission from C-Fam.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-29--Conservative Party leadership candidate Sloan ‘100% against mandatory COVID-19 vaccination’

ONTARIO , May 29 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Canadian Conservative leadership candidate Derek Sloan has taken a strong stand against mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus and is challenging his opponents to go on the record , too .
“ I am 100 % against a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination , ” Sloan said in an email to supporters May 27 .
“ Where do the other candidates stand ?
” “ Canadians should be allowed to make up their own minds when it comes to getting vaccinated , and parents — not the government — should make the decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” LifeSiteNews reached out to Dr. Leslyn Lewis , the only other officially pro-life candidate in the running for the CPC leadership , to ask her if she opposes a mandatory coronavirus vaccine .
Lewis responded that she does not support one .
“ I do not believe that the government should be allowed to force vaccinations on people , ” she said .
“ The decision whether or not to vaccinate should be made by Canadians under the advice of their personal family doctor . ''
LifeSiteNews also reached out to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ M.P .
Erin O ’ Toole and former M.P .
Peter MacKay , asking them where they stand on the issue of mandatory coronavirus vaccinations .
As of press time , there has been no response .
In his May 27 email , Sloan said individuals should be able to decide whether they can receive a coronavirus vaccine .
“ If a vaccine is developed , we should all have the opportunity to decide whether or not we want it , ” said Sloan .
He mentioned in his email that he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the premier of Alberta , Jason Kenney , who said his government would not make a coronavirus vaccine mandatory during a Facebook live event in mid-May .
“ But I will go one step further than Premier Kenney : elected officials in Canada must commit that vaccination will not be mandatory , ” said Sloan .
LifeSiteNews also reached out to the office of the prime minister of Canada , Justin Trudeau , for comment on whether his government supports a mandatory coronavirus vaccine .
PETITION : No to mandatory vaccination for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trudeau said in April that he needed “ time ” to reflect upon whether or not a coronavirus vaccine would be made mandatory in Canada .
A representative from his staff also referred our question to the office of the Canadian minister of health , Patty Hajdu .
As of press time , we have not heard a response .
Last week , Canada ’ s National Research Council ( NRC ) announced a collaboration with the Chinese firm CanSino Biologics Inc. ( CanSinoBIO ) to test its trial coronavirus vaccine , known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial vaccine Ad5-nCoV was co-developed by the Beijing Institute of Biotechnology , Academy of Military Medical Sciences , and CanSinoBIO .
It has already been used in initial human trials since mid-March in China .
LifeSiteNews reported that the vaccine candidate Ad5-nCoV uses the HEK293 cell line , which is made from fetal cells harvested from an aborted baby decades ago , and is the property of the NRC .
Trudeau announced in mid-May that Health Canada had approved the coronavirus vaccine Ad5-nCoV to be used in human clinical trials .
Sloan has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ views during his campaign in the leadership race .
Recently , he called on authorities across the country to allow churches to reopen , saying , “ God matters to many people.
” Sloan said that in Canada , “ we can all stay safe without surrendering our constitutional freedoms , including the freedom to worship in assembly.
” He sparked a media frenzy for saying in a letter and video that Dr. Theresa Tam , Canada ’ s chief medical officer , should be fired for her coronavirus response .
He recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Campaign Life Coalition ( CLC ) ’ s political operations director , Jack Fonseca , as part of the 2020 Virtual March for Life .
Sloan ’ s plan includes a ban on sex-selective abortion , a ban on partial-birth abortion , freedom of conscience for health care workers , and a review of the current euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation .
Lewis also spoke with Fonseca about her promised pro-life initiatives should she win the leadership race .
In speaking with Fonseca , Lewis went over her promised pro-life initiatives that she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said she would ban coerced and sex-selective abortions , increase funding for pregnancy crisis centers , and end federal funding for international abortions .
The petition currently has 3,830 signatures and calls on the Canadian minister of health to “ immediately discontinue all partnerships and funding involving unethical research and focus exclusively on ethical research to create a safe and morally-acceptable vaccine .
”

'Canadians should be allowed to make up their own minds when it comes to getting vaccinated,' Derek Sloan declared, 'and parents — not the government — should make the decision about getting the vaccine for their children.'
ONTARIO, May 29, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Canadian Conservative leadership candidate Derek Sloan has taken a strong stand against mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus and is challenging his opponents to go on the record, too.
“I am 100% against a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination,” Sloan said in an email to supporters May 27. “Where do the other candidates stand?”
“Canadians should be allowed to make up their own minds when it comes to getting vaccinated, and parents — not the government — should make the decision about getting the vaccine for their children.”
LifeSiteNews reached out to Dr. Leslyn Lewis, the only other officially pro-life candidate in the running for the CPC leadership, to ask her if she opposes a mandatory coronavirus vaccine. Lewis responded that she does not support one.
“I do not believe that the government should be allowed to force vaccinations on people,” she said. “The decision whether or not to vaccinate should be made by Canadians under the advice of their personal family doctor.”
LifeSiteNews also reached out to the two other approved CPC leadership candidates, M.P. Erin O’Toole and former M.P. Peter MacKay, asking them where they stand on the issue of mandatory coronavirus vaccinations. As of press time, there has been no response.
In his May 27 email, Sloan said individuals should be able to decide whether they can receive a coronavirus vaccine.
“If a vaccine is developed, we should all have the opportunity to decide whether or not we want it,” said Sloan.
He mentioned in his email that he would go “one step further” than the premier of Alberta, Jason Kenney, who said his government would not make a coronavirus vaccine mandatory during a Facebook live event in mid-May.
“But I will go one step further than Premier Kenney: elected officials in Canada must commit that vaccination will not be mandatory,” said Sloan.
LifeSiteNews also reached out to the office of the prime minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, for comment on whether his government supports a mandatory coronavirus vaccine.
PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus! Sign the petition here.
Trudeau said in April that he needed “time” to reflect upon whether or not a coronavirus vaccine would be made mandatory in Canada.
A representative from his staff also referred our question to the office of the Canadian minister of health, Patty Hajdu. As of press time, we have not heard a response.
Last week, Canada’s National Research Council (NRC) announced a collaboration with the Chinese firm CanSino Biologics Inc. (CanSinoBIO) to test its trial coronavirus vaccine, known as Ad5-nCoV, in Canada.
The trial vaccine Ad5-nCoV was co-developed by the Beijing Institute of Biotechnology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, and CanSinoBIO. It has already been used in initial human trials since mid-March in China.
LifeSiteNews reported that the vaccine candidate Ad5-nCoV uses the HEK293 cell line, which is made from fetal cells harvested from an aborted baby decades ago, and is the property of the NRC.
Trudeau announced in mid-May that Health Canada had approved the coronavirus vaccine Ad5-nCoV to be used in human clinical trials.
Sloan has been vocal about his pro-life and pro-family views during his campaign in the leadership race. Recently, he called on authorities across the country to allow churches to reopen, saying, “God matters to many people.”
Sloan said that in Canada, “we can all stay safe without surrendering our constitutional freedoms, including the freedom to worship in assembly.”
He sparked a media frenzy for saying in a letter and video that Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s chief medical officer, should be fired for her coronavirus response.
He recently spoke about his 12-point pro-life plan with Campaign Life Coalition (CLC)’s political operations director, Jack Fonseca, as part of the 2020 Virtual March for Life.
Sloan’s plan includes a ban on sex-selective abortion, a ban on partial-birth abortion, freedom of conscience for health care workers, and a review of the current euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation.
Lewis also spoke with Fonseca about her promised pro-life initiatives should she win the leadership race.
In speaking with Fonseca, Lewis went over her promised pro-life initiatives that she would enact if elected leader. Lewis said she would ban coerced and sex-selective abortions, increase funding for pregnancy crisis centers, and end federal funding for international abortions.
CLC has launched a petition titled “No vaccine from aborted babies!”
The petition currently has 3,830 signatures and calls on the Canadian minister of health to “immediately discontinue all partnerships and funding involving unethical research and focus exclusively on ethical research to create a safe and morally-acceptable vaccine.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-29--Lawsuits by Illinois churches force governor to back down on religious restrictions

ILLINOIS , May 29 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Churches in Illinois have successfully fought back against a mandatory stay-at-home order limiting congregation sizes to no more than 10 people after multiple lawsuits prompted the governor to replace the order with a set of non-mandatory guidelines .
Numerous churches in the state had filed lawsuits against Governor J.B. Pritzker ’ s stay-at-home orders limiting the size of participants at church services .
The Thomas More Society has filed suits in the past month on behalf of multiple churches in state courts .
Yesterday , Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguing that Governor J.B. Pritzker ’ s order was unconstitutional , prompting Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh yesterday to order Pritzker to respond by 8 P.M. Thursday night .
Before that deadline , Pritzker issued the new non-mandatory guidelines for places of worship .
The guidelines continue to recommend social distancing , face masks , and limiting capacity , as well as excluding singing , refreshments , and close physical contact , but church leaders are free to implement them as they see fit .
Thomas More Society vice president and senior counsel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of a shameful chapter of discrimination by the government of the Land of Lincoln against houses of worship and religious leaders.
” Liberty Counsel , the Christian non-profit organization that represented the Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church and Logos Baptist Ministries , described the outcome “ a complete victory in the near term ” but stressed that restriction on churches must be ruled as unconstitutional to prevent similar situations in the future .
“ Unless and until there is a judicial declaration that Governor Pritzker has acted unconstitutionally thus far , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind again , whether in this crisis or any future crisis , ” the organization said in a press release .
Liberty Counsel said the churches had been prompted to issue their appeal to the Supreme Court after the Chicago Department of Public Health threatened to close them down for holding services with more than 10 people .
“ Governor Pritzker has shown himself quite willing to overrule the Constitution by fiat .
In doing so , he has caused incalculable damage to the Romanian churches Liberty Counsel represents and all the houses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Counsel said it would be filing a reply to the Supreme Court , as at present there is nothing to stop Pritzker from imposing restrictions on churches again .
PETITION : Tell politicians not to discriminate against churches when reopening society !
Sign the petition here .
“ The unilateral actions of Gov .
J.B. Pritzker [ are ] the classic example of tyranny , ” Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver said .
“ He knew he did not have authority to trample on the First Amendment rights of churches and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyway and continued to do so until his case reached the U.S. Supreme Court , ” he continued .
“ He can not be trusted to obey the Constitution .
The fact that he recently said that churches would never get above 50 people for at least 12 to 18 months , and now a few hours before he had to file with the Supreme Court he removes all restrictions , illustrates that he had no basis for the orders in the first place .
The only thing that changed was he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court .
“ While we are happy that all churches and houses of worship no longer have any restrictions , we want to make sure this tyranny and abuse never happens again .
”

Numerous churches in the state had filed lawsuits against Governor J.B. Pritzker’s stay-at-home orders limiting the size of participants at church services.
ILLINOIS, May 29, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Churches in Illinois have successfully fought back against a mandatory stay-at-home order limiting congregation sizes to no more than 10 people after multiple lawsuits prompted the governor to replace the order with a set of non-mandatory guidelines.
Numerous churches in the state had filed lawsuits against Governor J.B. Pritzker’s stay-at-home orders limiting the size of participants at church services.
The Thomas More Society has filed suits in the past month on behalf of multiple churches in state courts. Yesterday, Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church and Logos Baptist Ministries filed a federal lawsuit arguing that Governor J.B. Pritzker’s order was unconstitutional, prompting Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh yesterday to order Pritzker to respond by 8 P.M. Thursday night.
Before that deadline, Pritzker issued the new non-mandatory guidelines for places of worship. The guidelines continue to recommend social distancing, face masks, and limiting capacity, as well as excluding singing, refreshments, and close physical contact, but church leaders are free to implement them as they see fit.
Thomas More Society vice president and senior counsel Peter Breen said the news “marks the end of a shameful chapter of discrimination by the government of the Land of Lincoln against houses of worship and religious leaders.”
Liberty Counsel, the Christian non-profit organization that represented the Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church and Logos Baptist Ministries, described the outcome “a complete victory in the near term” but stressed that restriction on churches must be ruled as unconstitutional to prevent similar situations in the future.
“Unless and until there is a judicial declaration that Governor Pritzker has acted unconstitutionally thus far, there is nothing keeping him from changing his mind again, whether in this crisis or any future crisis,” the organization said in a press release.
Liberty Counsel said the churches had been prompted to issue their appeal to the Supreme Court after the Chicago Department of Public Health threatened to close them down for holding services with more than 10 people.
“Governor Pritzker has shown himself quite willing to overrule the Constitution by fiat. In doing so, he has caused incalculable damage to the Romanian churches Liberty Counsel represents and all the houses of worship in the state.”
Liberty Counsel said it would be filing a reply to the Supreme Court, as at present there is nothing to stop Pritzker from imposing restrictions on churches again.
PETITION: Tell politicians not to discriminate against churches when reopening society! Sign the petition here.
“The unilateral actions of Gov. J.B. Pritzker [are] the classic example of tyranny,” Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver said.
“He knew he did not have authority to trample on the First Amendment rights of churches and houses of worship, but he did anyway and continued to do so until his case reached the U.S. Supreme Court,” he continued.
“He cannot be trusted to obey the Constitution. The fact that he recently said that churches would never get above 50 people for at least 12 to 18 months, and now a few hours before he had to file with the Supreme Court he removes all restrictions, illustrates that he had no basis for the orders in the first place. The only thing that changed was he was dragged to the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court.
“While we are happy that all churches and houses of worship no longer have any restrictions, we want to make sure this tyranny and abuse never happens again.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-29--Alberta premier has ‘no intention’ to make COVID-19 vaccine mandatory

EDMONTON , Alberta , May 29 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — The leader of one of Canada ’ s largest provinces said he has “ no intention ” of making a coronavirus vaccine mandatory , despite the fact that a law exists in his province to allow for this .
On May 21 , Jason Kenney , the premier of Alberta , said on a Facebook live event ( 26-minute mark ) that despite “ rumors ” to the contrary , a mandatory coronavirus vaccine is not something he is considering .
“ There ’ s been some misinformation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requiring mandatory vaccinations , that is completely untrue , that is just a total myth.
” “ The truth is that since 1910 , the Public Health Act , or its previous legislation , has had the ability to require mandatory inoculation .
That ’ s , as far as we know , never been used and certainly the government has no intention of making that mandatory.
” Alberta ’ s Public Health Act does allow for the provincial government to mandate a vaccine .
Kenney said , however , that should a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will “ strongly encourage people to use it as we do in flu season.
” “ We understand that there are some people for whatever reasons they may have , individual reasons may choose not to participate.
” There have been 139 deaths attributed to the coronavirus in Alberta , whose population is about 4.37 million .
Currently , there are 45 people in hospital , with five in intensive care .
On Wednesday , Kenney said in the legislature ( page 16 ) during a debate about the coronavirus that he does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public Health Emergency in the province when it is set to expire on June 15 .
He added that the reality is , figures show that coronavirus deaths in Alberta are mainly concentrated in the elderly .
“ We can not continue indefinitely to impair the social and economic as well as the mental health and physiological health of the broader population for potentially a year through measures [ to combat ] an influenza that does not generally threaten life apart from the most elderly , the immune-compromised , and those with co-morbidities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Perhaps the most important strategy as we move forward is building a wall of defense around the most vulnerable , seniors in particular.
” Kenney ’ s government is facing legal action from the Alberta-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms ( JCCF ) .
The group announced on May 1 that it will be legally challenging the Alberta government over the constitutionality of Bill 10 , the Alberta Public Health ( Emergency Powers ) Amendment Act , 2020 .
The JCCF had warned earlier that Bill 10 gives Alberta government ministers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minister can now decide unilaterally , without consultation , to impose additional laws on the citizens of Alberta , if she or he is personally of the view that doing so is in the public interest.
” PETITION : No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus !
Sign the petition here .
The JCCF also served a legal warning last week to Kenney over “ his government ’ s arbitrary and unscientific treatment of houses of worship compared to restaurants and bars.
” Alberta was the first Canadian province to launch a coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downloaded by thousands .
Jay Cameron , a lawyer for the JCCF , told LifeSiteNews that the legal group is closely keeping an eye on government-issued contact tracing apps .
“ We are watching carefully and remain concerned about the slippery slope and government comfort with accessing and utilizing personal data , ” said Cameron .
Last week , Canada ’ s National Research Council ( NRC ) announced a collaboration with the Chinese firm CanSino Biologics Inc. ( CanSinoBIO ) to test its trial coronavirus vaccine , known as Ad5-nCoV , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ co-developed by the Beijing Institute of Biotechnology , Academy of Military Medical Sciences , and CanSinoBIO .
It has already been used in initial human trials since mid-March in China .
LifeSiteNews reported that the vaccine candidate Ad5-nCoV uses the HEK293 cell line , which is made from fetal cells harvested from an aborted baby decades ago , and is the property of the NRC .
The pro-abortion prime minister of Canada , Justin Trudeau , announced in mid-May that Health Canada approved the coronavirus vaccine Ad5-nCoV to be used in human clinical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he needed to “ reflect ” upon whether or not a coronavirus vaccine would be made mandatory in Canada .
Recently , an Ontario doctor warned that the Canadian government ’ s new deal with China to produce a coronavirus vaccine is a “ dangerous endeavour ” and that “ the role of our governments is to build trust through transparency and accountability.
” Kenney defeated the left-wing , socialist , and pro-abortion New Democratic Party under Rachel Notley to take over the premiership with a majority government in 2019 .
He had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time as a federal member of Parliament , but this changed when he became a politician at the provincial level .
In 2018 , Kenney , and most of his United Conservative Party caucus , abstained from voting against a bill from the then-NDP government that banned pro-lifers from standing outside Alberta abortion facilities .
Kenney commented that he was not going to be “ playing games ” on social issues .
“ We ’ re not going to play games with divisive social issues .
We ’ re here to focus on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ] market access for energy products , ” Kenney was quoted as saying .
His comments prompted a fierce backlash from Campaign Life Coalition ’ s president , Jeff Gunnarson , who said of Kenney ’ s non-vote , “ The NDP are not playing games .
They are trampling on pro-lifers ’ rights whenever they can get away with it , and shame on Kenney for not standing up for basic human rights and freedoms.
” The petition currently has over 3,800 signatures and calls on the Canadian minister of health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discontinue all partnerships and funding involving unethical research and focus exclusively on ethical research to create a safe and morally-acceptable vaccine .
”

Jason Kenney specified that Canadian law gives him the power to force people to vaccinate, but he does not plan to take advantage.
EDMONTON, Alberta, May 29, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The leader of one of Canada’s largest provinces said he has “no intention” of making a coronavirus vaccine mandatory, despite the fact that a law exists in his province to allow for this.
On May 21, Jason Kenney, the premier of Alberta, said on a Facebook live event (26-minute mark) that despite “rumors” to the contrary, a mandatory coronavirus vaccine is not something he is considering.
“There’s been some misinformation that the government recently adopted a law requiring mandatory vaccinations, that is completely untrue, that is just a total myth.”
“The truth is that since 1910, the Public Health Act, or its previous legislation, has had the ability to require mandatory inoculation. That’s, as far as we know, never been used and certainly the government has no intention of making that mandatory.”
Alberta’s Public Health Act does allow for the provincial government to mandate a vaccine.
Kenney said, however, that should a safe vaccine become available, his government will “strongly encourage people to use it as we do in flu season.”
“We understand that there are some people for whatever reasons they may have, individual reasons may choose not to participate.”
There have been 139 deaths attributed to the coronavirus in Alberta, whose population is about 4.37 million. Currently, there are 45 people in hospital, with five in intensive care.
On Wednesday, Kenney said in the legislature (page 16) during a debate about the coronavirus that he does not plan to renew the State of Public Health Emergency in the province when it is set to expire on June 15.
He added that the reality is, figures show that coronavirus deaths in Alberta are mainly concentrated in the elderly.
“We cannot continue indefinitely to impair the social and economic as well as the mental health and physiological health of the broader population for potentially a year through measures [to combat] an influenza that does not generally threaten life apart from the most elderly, the immune-compromised, and those with co-morbidities,” said Kenney in the legislature.
“Perhaps the most important strategy as we move forward is building a wall of defense around the most vulnerable, seniors in particular.”
Kenney’s government is facing legal action from the Alberta-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF). The group announced on May 1 that it will be legally challenging the Alberta government over the constitutionality of Bill 10, the Alberta Public Health (Emergency Powers) Amendment Act, 2020.
The JCCF had warned earlier that Bill 10 gives Alberta government ministers too much power: “A cabinet minister can now decide unilaterally, without consultation, to impose additional laws on the citizens of Alberta, if she or he is personally of the view that doing so is in the public interest.”
PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus! Sign the petition here.
The JCCF also served a legal warning last week to Kenney over “his government’s arbitrary and unscientific treatment of houses of worship compared to restaurants and bars.”
Alberta was the first Canadian province to launch a coronavirus contact tracing application, which has been downloaded by thousands.
Jay Cameron, a lawyer for the JCCF, told LifeSiteNews that the legal group is closely keeping an eye on government-issued contact tracing apps.
“We are watching carefully and remain concerned about the slippery slope and government comfort with accessing and utilizing personal data,” said Cameron.
Last week, Canada’s National Research Council (NRC) announced a collaboration with the Chinese firm CanSino Biologics Inc. (CanSinoBIO) to test its trial coronavirus vaccine, known as Ad5-nCoV, in Canada.
The trial vaccine Ad5-nCoV was co-developed by the Beijing Institute of Biotechnology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, and CanSinoBIO. It has already been used in initial human trials since mid-March in China.
LifeSiteNews reported that the vaccine candidate Ad5-nCoV uses the HEK293 cell line, which is made from fetal cells harvested from an aborted baby decades ago, and is the property of the NRC.
The pro-abortion prime minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, announced in mid-May that Health Canada approved the coronavirus vaccine Ad5-nCoV to be used in human clinical trials.
In April, Trudeau said he needed to “reflect” upon whether or not a coronavirus vaccine would be made mandatory in Canada.
Recently, an Ontario doctor warned that the Canadian government’s new deal with China to produce a coronavirus vaccine is a “dangerous endeavour” and that “the role of our governments is to build trust through transparency and accountability.”
Kenney defeated the left-wing, socialist, and pro-abortion New Democratic Party under Rachel Notley to take over the premiership with a majority government in 2019. He had an excellent pro-life voting record during his time as a federal member of Parliament, but this changed when he became a politician at the provincial level.
In 2018, Kenney, and most of his United Conservative Party caucus, abstained from voting against a bill from the then-NDP government that banned pro-lifers from standing outside Alberta abortion facilities.
Kenney commented that he was not going to be “playing games” on social issues.
“We’re not going to play games with divisive social issues. We’re here to focus on job creation and economic growth, [and] market access for energy products,” Kenney was quoted as saying.
His comments prompted a fierce backlash from Campaign Life Coalition’s president, Jeff Gunnarson, who said of Kenney’s non-vote, “The NDP are not playing games. They are trampling on pro-lifers’ rights whenever they can get away with it, and shame on Kenney for not standing up for basic human rights and freedoms.”
CLC launched a petition titled “NO VACCINE FROM ABORTED BABIES!”
The petition currently has over 3,800 signatures and calls on the Canadian minister of health, Patty Hajdu, to “immediately discontinue all partnerships and funding involving unethical research and focus exclusively on ethical research to create a safe and morally-acceptable vaccine.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-29--Join our daily worldwide rosary HERE

Join our daily worldwide rosary HERE

May 29 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – In response to the coronavirus crisis , LifeSite is offering Catholics throughout the world a chance to be united in praying the rosary together , at the same time , every day at 12:00 noon EST .
The rosary is led by Father Anthony Pillari , an American priest currently in Italy .
To date , Catholics from Israel , Uganda , Italy , France , Germany , Ireland , the United Kingdom , the U.S. , Canada , Mexico , Chile , Brazil , Australia , New Zealand , the Philippines , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as other countries , have been joining in .
The whole world – including the Church – has been thrown into chaos because of the coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) .
Thousands of people have passed away as a result of the viral outbreak , while thousands more have been sickened .
And , across the world , business has come to a grinding halt , resulting in sudden job loss and threatening economic recession .
If there ever was a time for prayer , this is it .
Catholics around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sacraments , but in many places are unable to access them because of bishops ’ orders or government restrictions .
We know that community with other believers is vital all the time , but especially during this time of global calls for “ sheltering-in-place ” and quarantine .
“ The rosary is the weapon for these times , ” St. Padre Pio said .
Through prayer , we can shape history , change the world , and bring this painful crisis to an end .
Join us today !
Send photos or videos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rosary with Father Pillari to [ email protected ]

(LifeSiteNews) — In response to the crisis unfolding in our world and in the Church, LifeSite is happy to promote Regina Angelorum Press’s Daily Rosary, which is offering Catholics throughout the world the chance to be united daily in prayer, in the Our Lady of Fatima Rosary Crusade.
Catholics from all over the world — from Israel, Uganda, Italy, France, Germany, Ireland, Pakistan, Singapore, the Philippines, India, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and other countries — are gathering daily to pray the Rosary, led by Father Pillari, JCL, MCL, STL, an American priest currently studying in Italy.
The Daily Rosary is being offered each day at 12noon EST through Regina Angelorum Press’ YouTube Channel to which you can subscribe HERE.
The goal is, by means of this Daily Rosary and by embracing and living out the message given by the Virgin Mary at Fatima, the triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart.
To help obtain that goal, Bishop Athanasius Schneider graciously composed the following prayer for this worldwide Rosary crusade:
O Immaculate Heart of Mary, you are the holy Mother of God and our tender Mother. Look upon the distress in which the Church and the whole of humanity are living because of the spread of materialism and the persecution of the Church. In Fatima you warned against these errors, as you spoke about the errors of Russia. You are the Mediatrix of all graces. Implore your Divine Son to grant this special grace for the Pope: that he might consecrate Russia to your Immaculate Heart, so that Russia will be converted, a period of peace will be granted to the world, and your Immaculate Heart will triumph, through an authentic renewal of the Church in the splendor of the purity of the Catholic Faith, of the sacredness of Divine worship and of the holiness of the Christian life. O Queen of the holy Rosary and our sweet Mother, turn your merciful eyes to us and graciously hear this our trusting prayer. Amen. + Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
To learn more about the urgency of responding to Our Lady’s message at Fatima, and about what you can do, please read Cardinal Burke’s 2017 address at the Rome Life Forum.
As St. Padre Pio once said, “The Rosary is the weapon for these times.” Through prayer, God can shape history, change the world, and bring about a great time of renewal and peace for the Church and for the world, through the triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. Join us today!
If you would like to follow along with the prayers said during this Rosary, you can access them HERE. The document also includes a brief F.A.Q. pertaining to the daily Rosary.
You can send your prayer requests to https://reginangelorumpress.com/prayer-intentions/
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-29--US Dep’t of Education: Letting males compete in girls’ sports violates female athletes’ civil rights

HARTFORD , Connecticut , May 29 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The U.S. Department of Education ’ s Office for Civil Rights ( OCR ) has determined that Connecticut ’ s policy allowing boys who identify as girls to compete in girl ’ s sports violates the civil rights of female athletes .
The OCR ’ s decision was delivered in a 45-page letter of impending enforcement action following a months-long investigation into the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference ( CIAC ) and several Connecticut school districts .
Among the findings announced in the May 15 letter : Attorneys for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represent three Connecticut female high-school track competitors had requested the Department of Education ’ s Office of Civil Rights investigation after the CIAC decided to allow male students who identify as female to compete on the girls ’ athletic teams .
“ Since 2017 , males consistently deprived ADF clients Selina Soule , Alanna Smith , and Chelsea Mitchell and others of honors and opportunities to compete at elite levels , ” said the ADF statement .
‘ Finally heading in the right direction ’ “ Girls shouldn ’ t be reduced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declared ADF Legal Counsel Christiana Holcomb .
“ We ’ re encouraged that the Department of Education has officially clarified that allowing males to compete in the female category isn ’ t fair , destroys girls ’ athletic opportunities , and clearly violates federal law.
” “ Males will always have inherent physical advantages over comparably talented and trained girls—that ’ s the reason we have girls ’ sports in the first place , ” continued Holcomb .
“ In light of the department ’ s letter , we ’ re asking Connecticut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problematic policies and comply with federal law.
” “ I am extremely happy and relieved to learn that OCR found the CIAC and the school districts violated Title IX , ” said Connecticut student Chelsea Mitchell , one of the athletes represented by ADF .
“ It feels like we are finally headed in the right direction , and that we will be able to get justice for the countless girls along with myself that have faced discrimination for years .
It is liberating to know that my voice , my story , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that those championships I lost mean something .
Finally , the government has recognized that women deserve the right to compete for victory , and nothing less.
” The OCR letter gave the CIAC and six Connecticut public high schools a June 4 , 2020 deadline to bring their policies into alignment with Title IX .
The Department of Justice has already filed a brief supporting the position of ADF ’ s clients in the separate litigation challenging the same policy .
If the CIAC does not revert from its policy established in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ girls to compete in girl ’ s sporting events in violation of Title IX original , immutable meaning , the state risks losing federal funding .
“ All that today ’ s finding represents is yet another attack from the Trump administration on transgender students , ” Chase Strangio , who leads “ transgender justice ” initiatives for the American Civil Liberties Union ’ s LGBT and HIV Project , told the Associated Press .
“ Trans students belong in our schools , including on sports teams , and we aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asserted Strangio .
The CAIC is standing by its policy , adhering to the Obama Adminstration ’ s guidance which viewed the term “ sex ” in Title IX as “ ambiguous.
” “ Connecticut law is clear and students who identify as female are to be recognized as female for all purposes–including high school sports , ” said a CAIC statement issued yesterday .
“ To do otherwise would not only be discriminatory but would deprive high school students of the meaningful opportunity to participate in educational activities , including inter-scholastic sports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be prevented by Title IX and Connecticut state law.
” The federal decision carries implications beyond Connecticut , according to ADF attorney Roger Brooks .
“ Around the nation , districts are going to want to be reading this , because it does have legal implications , ” Brooks told the AP.. “ It is a first decision from the agency charged with enforcing Title IX addressing the question of whether males on the playing field or on the track are depriving girls of opportunities consistent with Title IX.
” Currently , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ males say they are female to compete in girls ’ high school sporting events .
Ten other states are judged by Transathlete.com to have discriminatory policies in place .
Idaho , the first state to outright ban boys from participating in girls ’ sports , has had its “ Fairness in Women ’ s Sports ” law challenged by ACLU Idaho and Legal Voice , a feminist group .
“ Boys are boys and girls are girls , ” State Senator Lee Heider said after the bill passed in the Senate in March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no Department of Health and Welfare is going to change that reality .
”

'Males will always have inherent physical advantages over comparably talented and trained girls—that’s the reason we have girls’ sports in the first place,' said an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney.
HARTFORD, Connecticut, May 29, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has determined that Connecticut’s policy allowing boys who identify as girls to compete in girl’s sports violates the civil rights of female athletes.
The OCR’s decision was delivered in a 45-page letter of impending enforcement action following a months-long investigation into the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) and several Connecticut school districts. Among the findings announced in the May 15 letter:
OCR determined that the CIAC, by permitting the participation of certain male student-athletes in girl’s interscholastic track in the state of Connecticut … denied female student-athletes athletic benefits and opportunities, including advancing to the finals in events, higher level competitions, awards, medals, recognition, and the possibility of greater visibility to colleges and other benefits.
Attorneys for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) who represent three Connecticut female high-school track competitors had requested the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights investigation after the CIAC decided to allow male students who identify as female to compete on the girls’ athletic teams.
“Since 2017, males consistently deprived ADF clients Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell and others of honors and opportunities to compete at elite levels,” said the ADF statement.
‘Finally heading in the right direction’
“Girls shouldn’t be reduced to spectators in their own sports,” declared ADF Legal Counsel Christiana Holcomb. “We’re encouraged that the Department of Education has officially clarified that allowing males to compete in the female category isn’t fair, destroys girls’ athletic opportunities, and clearly violates federal law.”
“Males will always have inherent physical advantages over comparably talented and trained girls—that’s the reason we have girls’ sports in the first place,” continued Holcomb. “In light of the department’s letter, we’re asking Connecticut schools and the CIAC to update their problematic policies and comply with federal law.”
“I am extremely happy and relieved to learn that OCR found the CIAC and the school districts violated Title IX,” said Connecticut student Chelsea Mitchell, one of the athletes represented by ADF. “It feels like we are finally headed in the right direction, and that we will be able to get justice for the countless girls along with myself that have faced discrimination for years. It is liberating to know that my voice, my story, my loss, has been heard; that those championships I lost mean something. Finally, the government has recognized that women deserve the right to compete for victory, and nothing less.”
The OCR letter gave the CIAC and six Connecticut public high schools a June 4, 2020 deadline to bring their policies into alignment with Title IX. The Department of Justice has already filed a brief supporting the position of ADF’s clients in the separate litigation challenging the same policy.
If the CIAC does not revert from its policy established in 2013 which permits boys who identify as girls to compete in girl’s sporting events in violation of Title IX original, immutable meaning, the state risks losing federal funding.
ACLU promises a fight
“All that today’s finding represents is yet another attack from the Trump administration on transgender students,” Chase Strangio, who leads “transgender justice” initiatives for the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBT and HIV Project, told the Associated Press.
“Trans students belong in our schools, including on sports teams, and we aren’t backing down from this fight,” asserted Strangio.
The CAIC is standing by its policy, adhering to the Obama Adminstration’s guidance which viewed the term “sex” in Title IX as “ambiguous.”
“Connecticut law is clear and students who identify as female are to be recognized as female for all purposes–including high school sports,” said a CAIC statement issued yesterday.
“To do otherwise would not only be discriminatory but would deprive high school students of the meaningful opportunity to participate in educational activities, including inter-scholastic sports, based on sex-stereotyping and prejudice sought to be prevented by Title IX and Connecticut state law.”
Decision has legal implications beyond Connecticut
The federal decision carries implications beyond Connecticut, according to ADF attorney Roger Brooks.
“Around the nation, districts are going to want to be reading this, because it does have legal implications,” Brooks told the AP.. “It is a first decision from the agency charged with enforcing Title IX addressing the question of whether males on the playing field or on the track are depriving girls of opportunities consistent with Title IX.”
Currently, 18 states and Washington, D.C. allow males say they are female to compete in girls’ high school sporting events. Ten other states are judged by Transathlete.com to have discriminatory policies in place.
Idaho, the first state to outright ban boys from participating in girls’ sports, has had its “Fairness in Women’s Sports” law challenged by ACLU Idaho and Legal Voice, a feminist group.
“Boys are boys and girls are girls,” State Senator Lee Heider said after the bill passed in the Senate in March. “No doctor, no judge, no Department of Health and Welfare is going to change that reality.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-27--The real Norma McCorvey, exposing the lies in AKA Jane Roe

A recent documentary , AKA Jane Roe , released last week claims Norma McCorvey , the Jane Roe of Roe @ @ @ @ @ to join the pro-life movement .
McCorvey ’ s friends have spoken out defending McCorvey @ @ @ @ @ these claims from her grave .
In today 's episode of The Van Maren Show @ @ @ @ @ close friends join Van Maren in speaking about her dedication to the pro-life movement .
@ @ @ @ @ , Lynn Mills , pro-life activist Karen Garnett , President of Operation Rescue Troy Newman @ @ @ @ @ Mahoney .

A recent documentary, AKA Jane Roe, released last week claims Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, was paid to join the pro-life movement.
McCorvey’s friends have spoken out defending McCorvey since she cannot refute these claims from her grave.
In today's episode of The Van Maren Show, four of McCorvey's close friends join Van Maren in speaking about her dedication to the pro-life movement. Listen to McCorvey's godmother, Lynn Mills, pro-life activist Karen Garnett, President of Operation Rescue Troy Newman, and pro-life activist Patrick Mahoney.


lifesitenews--2020-05-30--Join our daily worldwide rosary HERE

Join our daily worldwide rosary HERE

May 30 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – In response to the coronavirus crisis , LifeSite is offering Catholics throughout the world a chance to be united in praying the rosary together , at the same time , every day at 12:00 noon EST .
The rosary is led by Father Anthony Pillari , an American priest currently in Italy .
To date , Catholics from Israel , Uganda , Italy , France , Germany , Ireland , the United Kingdom , the U.S. , Canada , Mexico , Chile , Brazil , Australia , New Zealand , the Philippines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as well as other countries , have been joining in .
The whole world – including the Church – has been thrown into chaos because of the coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) .
Thousands of people have passed away as a result of the viral outbreak , while thousands more have been sickened .
And , across the world , business has come to a grinding halt , resulting in sudden job loss and threatening economic recession .
If there ever was a time for prayer , this is it .
Catholics around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Sacraments , but in many places are unable to access them because of bishops ’ orders or government restrictions .
We know that community with other believers is vital all the time , but especially during this time of global calls for “ sheltering-in-place ” and quarantine .
“ The rosary is the weapon for these times , ” St. Padre Pio said .
Through prayer , we can shape history , change the world , and bring this painful crisis to an end .
Join us today !
Send photos or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rosary with Father Pillari to [ email protected ]


lifesitenews--2020-05-30--Trudeau govt adjusts COVID-19 relief loan eligibility after LifeSite report and petition

OTTAWA , May 29 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — The Trudeau government updated eligibility requirements for a COVID-19 emergency relief business loan to explicitly recognize the legal rights of religious groups after LifeSite reported on the matter and 5,082 people signed a LifeSite petition requesting what the government ended up doing .
LifeSite reported in late April that Canada ’ s Liberals are forcing businesses , non-profits , and registered charities that apply for the Canada Emergency Business Account ( CEBA ) to confirm they do not “ discriminate ” on the basis of “ gender , ” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” among other things , in order to receive the financial help .
Applicants who don ’ t confirm the “ non-discrimination ” clause aren ’ t eligible to receive the CEBA , an interest-free loan of up to $ 40,000 that ’ s part of the Liberals ’ economic relief package for Canadians suffering hardship due to coronavirus pandemic shutdowns .
A CEBA applicant was originally asked to confirm that “ [ i ] t does not promote violence , incite hatred or discriminate on the basis of sex , gender @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , religion , culture , religion , education , age or mental or physical disability.
” LifeSite launched a petition asking the Trudeau government to add the phrase “ contrary to applicable laws ” to the clause , based on an analysis by Marty Moore , a lawyer for the Calgary-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms ( JCCF ) .
PETITION : No to mandatory contact tracing and government surveillance for the coronavirus !
Sign the petition here .
This proviso is crucial to recognizing freedom of religion and conscience in this case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ A religious organization has a legal right to hire those who align with its beliefs to carry out its religious purposes , ” he pointed out .
“ The law permits that.
” If the Liberals added “ the appropriate caveat ‘ contrary to applicable laws ’ ... in the fourth attestation , that would provide the correct legal standard , and theoretically allow non-discriminatory access to the CEBA , ” Moore observed .
But without that explicit acknowledgment , “ a religious organization that hires in accordance with its religious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this attestation , ” he said .
“ Some religious organizations are very scrupulous as to what they sign , we all learnt that from the summer jobs program ; it ’ s possible they ’ ll self-select out.
” An alert reader informed LifeSite in an email Thursday that the Liberals have heeded the request and added the critical phrase .
A CEBA applicant is now asked to confirm that it “ does not promote violence , incite hatred or discriminate on the basis of sex , gender , sexual orientation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , religion , education , age or mental or physical disability contrary to applicable laws.
” The reader also noted that the Royal Bank of Canada has not yet updated its website to reflect the change .
LifeSiteNews contacted RCB ’ s communications for comment but did not hear back .
The CEBA is available for businesses , non-profits , and registered charities that generate a portion of their income from the sale of goods and services , and appears to be the only Liberal COVID-19 economic relief measure with a “ non-discrimination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see the federal government include acknowledgement of the rule of law in its CEBA requirements , ” Moore told LifeSiteNews in an email .
“ Requiring that government decision-makers apply an objective standard of what is ‘ contrary to applicable laws ’ should provide legal protection to faith-based groups against being targeted by the subjective dislike of those exercising government authority , ” he said .
That terms like “ discrimination ” and “ hatred ” are abused by government staffers who interpret these terms subjectively has been demonstrated by federal decisions “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canada Summer Jobs grants , ” he said .
The JCCF is currently suing the Liberals on behalf of BCM International , a Christian organization that runs the Mill Stream Bible Camp & Retreat Centre in Peterborough , which was denied CSJ funding for the summer of 2019 .
With the summer jobs program , “ federal government decision-makers have demonstrated a pattern of disregarding whether or not something is ‘ contrary to applicable laws ’ in targeting religious beliefs that they dislike or do not understand , ” Moore said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not have the same disregard for this important clarification in the CEBA requirements.
” Groups or organizations that believe they are being discriminated against by the government on the basis of their religious beliefs or practices can contact JCCF , added Moore .

LifeSite had launched a petition asking the Trudeau government to add the phrase 'contrary to applicable laws' to protect religious businesses.
OTTAWA, May 29, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The Trudeau government updated eligibility requirements for a COVID-19 emergency relief business loan to explicitly recognize the legal rights of religious groups after LifeSite reported on the matter and 5,082 people signed a LifeSite petition requesting what the government ended up doing.
LifeSite reported in late April that Canada’s Liberals are forcing businesses, non-profits, and registered charities that apply for the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA) to confirm they do not “discriminate” on the basis of “gender,” “sexual orientation,” and “religion,” among other things, in order to receive the financial help.
Applicants who don’t confirm the “non-discrimination” clause aren’t eligible to receive the CEBA, an interest-free loan of up to $40,000 that’s part of the Liberals’ economic relief package for Canadians suffering hardship due to coronavirus pandemic shutdowns.
A CEBA applicant was originally asked to confirm that “[i]t does not promote violence, incite hatred or discriminate on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, culture, religion, education, age or mental or physical disability.”
LifeSite launched a petition asking the Trudeau government to add the phrase “contrary to applicable laws” to the clause, based on an analysis by Marty Moore, a lawyer for the Calgary-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF).
PETITION: No to mandatory contact tracing and government surveillance for the coronavirus! Sign the petition here.
This proviso is crucial to recognizing freedom of religion and conscience in this case, Moore told LifeSiteNews at the time.
“A religious organization has a legal right to hire those who align with its beliefs to carry out its religious purposes,” he pointed out. “The law permits that.”
If the Liberals added “the appropriate caveat ‘contrary to applicable laws’ … in the fourth attestation, that would provide the correct legal standard, and theoretically allow non-discriminatory access to the CEBA,” Moore observed.
But without that explicit acknowledgment, “a religious organization that hires in accordance with its religious beliefs may be precluded from agreeing to this attestation,” he said.
“Some religious organizations are very scrupulous as to what they sign, we all learnt that from the summer jobs program; it’s possible they’ll self-select out.”
An alert reader informed LifeSite in an email Thursday that the Liberals have heeded the request and added the critical phrase.
A CEBA applicant is now asked to confirm that it “does not promote violence, incite hatred or discriminate on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, culture, religion, education, age or mental or physical disability contrary to applicable laws.”
The reader also noted that the Royal Bank of Canada has not yet updated its website to reflect the change. LifeSiteNews contacted RCB’s communications for comment but did not hear back.
The CEBA is available for businesses, non-profits, and registered charities that generate a portion of their income from the sale of goods and services, and appears to be the only Liberal COVID-19 economic relief measure with a “non-discrimination clause.”
“We are pleased to see the federal government include acknowledgement of the rule of law in its CEBA requirements,” Moore told LifeSiteNews in an email.
“Requiring that government decision-makers apply an objective standard of what is ‘contrary to applicable laws’ should provide legal protection to faith-based groups against being targeted by the subjective dislike of those exercising government authority,” he said.
That terms like “discrimination” and “hatred” are abused by government staffers who interpret these terms subjectively has been demonstrated by federal decisions “denying religious organizations eligibility to apply for Canada Summer Jobs grants,” he said.
The JCCF is currently suing the Liberals on behalf of BCM International, a Christian organization that runs the Mill Stream Bible Camp & Retreat Centre in Peterborough, which was denied CSJ funding for the summer of 2019.
With the summer jobs program, “federal government decision-makers have demonstrated a pattern of disregarding whether or not something is ‘contrary to applicable laws’ in targeting religious beliefs that they dislike or do not understand,” Moore said.
“One hopes that the federal government will not have the same disregard for this important clarification in the CEBA requirements.”
Groups or organizations that believe they are being discriminated against by the government on the basis of their religious beliefs or practices can contact JCCF, added Moore.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-30--Trudeau govt investigates pro-life groups accused of breaking new ‘communist-type’ election law

OTTAWA , May 29 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Two pro-life political lobbying groups are under investigation for allegedly falling afoul of the Trudeau government ’ s new rules on so-called third-party advertisers during last fall ’ s election campaign .
The office of the commissioner of Canada Elections launched administrative investigations of Campaign Life Coalition and RightNow after receiving complaints that both groups breached the Elections Act during the October 2019 federal election .
Rebel News ’ s director , Ezra Levant , also allegedly violated the law for advertising his book critical of Trudeau , The Libranos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his interrogation by government agents in January .
The problem is not the political advocacy groups now under scrutiny , but the law itself , said Jeff Gunnarson , national president of Canada ’ s national pro-life , pro-family lobbying group and largest pro-life association .
The Trudeau Liberals overhauled the Election Act in December 2018 and amended it again in June 2019 , adding new third-party rules that are “ anti-democratic , and act as a gag law to small grassroots organizations like ours , ” he told LifeSiteNews .
The Stephen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election spending “ to go after the big guy , ” added Gunnarson .
“ Harper did it to get rid of the unions , he did not do it to get rid of us .
It ’ s been tightened since under the Liberals .
I think it ’ s beyond getting the big guy , it ’ s just trapping and squashing the little guy.
” As amended by the Liberals , the law requires third parties , including non-profit groups , to register with Elections Canada if they spend more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expenses , ” “ partisan advertising expenses , ” and “ election survey expenses.
” Registered third parties must open a specific bank account for contributions to election activities , and submit names and addresses of individuals and groups who contribute more than $ 200 , even when it ’ s not clear the donation was intended for this purpose .
These “ horrendous ” administration requirements are the reason Campaign Life did not register as a third party in the last election , Gunnarson told LifeSiteNews .
“ You have to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donors so they can put them on their website , ” he said .
“ We will not do that.
” Instead , Campaign Life created a closed online group “ by requiring our private list of supporters and donors to register , to attest they were supporters or donors and that they agreed with the our mission , and to pay a fee to access our website for information on where their candidates stood on life and family issues , ” Gunnarson said .
Campaign Life also mailed its voters ’ guide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re only a third party advertiser if you advertise to the world , ” he explained .
However , it turned out that the Liberals ’ 2019 amendments nixed the exemption that allowed associations to send political communiqués to members without having to register as third parties , Gunnarson told LifeSiteNews .
Campaign Life therefore received a letter in March 2020 from the commissioner stating that it was under investigation based on a complaint that it spent more than $ 500 printing and mailing out its voters ’ guide without registering with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” noted James Kitchen , a lawyer with the Calgary-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms ( JCCF ) .
“ In what free democratic society do we say , before you spend even tiny amounts to say anything about the election , you have to register with the government and supply names of donors ?
” Governments could be justified in regulating and capping third-party spending to stop wealthy groups from “ monopolizing ” the election but would need to set the bar very high , he said .
The Election Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at approximately $ 1,000,000 and at about $ 500,000 for the election period .
“ Spending caps of this amount , although a limitation of free expression , are at least understandable .
What doesn ’ t make any sense and amounts to an unacceptable chilling effect on free expression concerning elections is the requirement that groups register even if they will only spend a measly $ 500 , ” Kitchen told LifeSiteNews .
“ If a group is required to register when spending $ 250,000+ , then it begins to make some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grassroots organizations , the best thing for free speech and democracy is to leave them alone , ” he pointed out , adding that third parties being free to spend up to that amount without government interference would help , rather than harm democracy .
“ Democracy is only threatened when a group or individual is coming in and spending millions upon millions of dollars — or if , like the unions , can spend hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars every election without voluntarily raising it.
” The current law appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocacy groups , and “ if it ’ s not designed to be , then the ones who designed it are disingenuous or naive , ” he said .
As well as problems with the law , there is the possibility that the body enforcing it will be biased against conservative groups , added Kitchen .
That ’ s the concern raised by Albertos Polizogopoulos , lawyer for RightNow .
A pro-life lobby group with two full-time employees who are also its co-founders , RightNow took a significantly different path from Campaign Life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party for the last election .
To ensure that it was in compliance with the law , it contacted Elections Canada before the writ dropped and appeared to get a green light for its proposed activities , co-founder Scott Hayward told LifeSiteNews .
However , RightNow received a letter from the commissioner ’ s office in April 2020 stating that it was under an administrative investigation based on a complaint that it “ recruited , trained and coordinated volunteers that were directed to over 50 campaigns during the 43rd General Election period.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partisan benefit that circumvented the prohibition against a Third Party making a non-monetary contribution to a candidate ’ s campaign , ” wrote investigator Mylène Gigou .
Polizogopoulos requested details of the specific allegations , as well as the source and basis of them , so that RightNow could respond appropriately , but Gigou replied that the information was protected under the “ strict confidentiality provisions ” of the Elections Act .
He also made a formal request that the commissioner investigate five unions — Unifor , the Public Services Alliance of Canada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Canadian Union of Public Employees , and United Steelworkers — which encouraged members to campaign for NDP and Liberal candidates .
“ On its face , this investigation appears to be itself partisan and politically motivated , ” he wrote .
Polizogopoulos argued in his letter to Gigou that the law specifically excludes volunteers as non-monetary contributions , and RightNow is “ confident we operated legally within the confines of the Elections Canada Act as it is currently written , ” Hayward told LifeSiteNews in an email .
“ However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and is investigating both our organization and other registered third parties for the 43rd general federal election that engaged in the same or similar activities , that will have a chilling effect on Canadians engaging in the democratic process , ” Hayward said .
If Elections Canada is “ just investigating our organization ” and refuses to investigate other registered third parties that pursued the same or similar activities during the last election , that would suggest the “ investigation into our organization is politically and/or ideologically driven , which would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he added .
Campaign Life and RightNow face an “ administrative monetary penalty ” if found guilty .

One pro-life leader called the rule 'anti-democratic' and declared that it acts 'as a gag law to small grassroots organizations like ours.'
OTTAWA, May 29, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Two pro-life political lobbying groups are under investigation for allegedly falling afoul of the Trudeau government’s new rules on so-called third-party advertisers during last fall’s election campaign.
The office of the commissioner of Canada Elections launched administrative investigations of Campaign Life Coalition and RightNow after receiving complaints that both groups breached the Elections Act during the October 2019 federal election.
Rebel News’s director, Ezra Levant, also allegedly violated the law for advertising his book critical of Trudeau, The Libranos, during the campaign and secretly recorded his interrogation by government agents in January.
The problem is not the political advocacy groups now under scrutiny, but the law itself, said Jeff Gunnarson, national president of Canada’s national pro-life, pro-family lobbying group and largest pro-life association.
The Trudeau Liberals overhauled the Election Act in December 2018 and amended it again in June 2019, adding new third-party rules that are “anti-democratic, and act as a gag law to small grassroots organizations like ours,” he told LifeSiteNews.
The Stephen Harper Conservatives brought in restrictions on third-party election spending “to go after the big guy,” added Gunnarson.
“Harper did it to get rid of the unions, he did not do it to get rid of us. It’s been tightened since under the Liberals. I think it’s beyond getting the big guy, it’s just trapping and squashing the little guy.”
“Horrendous” rules include disclosing donors
As amended by the Liberals, the law requires third parties, including non-profit groups, to register with Elections Canada if they spend more than $500 on “partisan activity expenses,” “partisan advertising expenses,” and “election survey expenses.”
Registered third parties must open a specific bank account for contributions to election activities, and submit names and addresses of individuals and groups who contribute more than $200, even when it’s not clear the donation was intended for this purpose.
These “horrendous” administration requirements are the reason Campaign Life did not register as a third party in the last election, Gunnarson told LifeSiteNews.
“You have to give [Elections Canada] all of your donors so they can put them on their website,” he said. “We will not do that.”
Instead, Campaign Life created a closed online group “by requiring our private list of supporters and donors to register, to attest they were supporters or donors and that they agreed with the our mission, and to pay a fee to access our website for information on where their candidates stood on life and family issues,” Gunnarson said. Campaign Life also mailed its voters’ guide to its supporters.
“You’re only a third party advertiser if you advertise to the world,” he explained.
However, it turned out that the Liberals’ 2019 amendments nixed the exemption that allowed associations to send political communiqués to members without having to register as third parties, Gunnarson told LifeSiteNews.
Campaign Life therefore received a letter in March 2020 from the commissioner stating that it was under investigation based on a complaint that it spent more than $500 printing and mailing out its voters’ guide without registering with the government.
“Communist-type stuff”: lawyer
“This is communist-type stuff,” noted James Kitchen, a lawyer with the Calgary-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF).
“In what free democratic society do we say, before you spend even tiny amounts to say anything about the election, you have to register with the government and supply names of donors?”
Governments could be justified in regulating and capping third-party spending to stop wealthy groups from “monopolizing” the election but would need to set the bar very high, he said.
The Election Act caps third-party spending in the pre-election period at approximately $1,000,000 and at about $500,000 for the election period.
“Spending caps of this amount, although a limitation of free expression, are at least understandable. What doesn’t make any sense and amounts to an unacceptable chilling effect on free expression concerning elections is the requirement that groups register even if they will only spend a measly $500,” Kitchen told LifeSiteNews.
“If a group is required to register when spending $250,000+, then it begins to make some sense. But if they are small grassroots organizations, the best thing for free speech and democracy is to leave them alone,” he pointed out, adding that third parties being free to spend up to that amount without government interference would help, rather than harm democracy.
“Democracy is only threatened when a group or individual is coming in and spending millions upon millions of dollars — or if, like the unions, can spend hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars every election without voluntarily raising it.”
The current law appears “designed” to shut down grassroots advocacy groups, and “if it’s not designed to be, then the ones who designed it are disingenuous or naive,” he said.
As well as problems with the law, there is the possibility that the body enforcing it will be biased against conservative groups, added Kitchen.
Investigation “partisan and politically motivated”
That’s the concern raised by Albertos Polizogopoulos, lawyer for RightNow.
A pro-life lobby group with two full-time employees who are also its co-founders, RightNow took a significantly different path from Campaign Life’s and registered as a third party for the last election.
To ensure that it was in compliance with the law, it contacted Elections Canada before the writ dropped and appeared to get a green light for its proposed activities, co-founder Scott Hayward told LifeSiteNews.
However, RightNow received a letter from the commissioner’s office in April 2020 stating that it was under an administrative investigation based on a complaint that it “recruited, trained and coordinated volunteers that were directed to over 50 campaigns during the 43rd General Election period.”
This provided the campaigns “with a partisan benefit that circumvented the prohibition against a Third Party making a non-monetary contribution to a candidate’s campaign,” wrote investigator Mylène Gigou.
Polizogopoulos requested details of the specific allegations, as well as the source and basis of them, so that RightNow could respond appropriately, but Gigou replied that the information was protected under the “strict confidentiality provisions” of the Elections Act.
He also made a formal request that the commissioner investigate five unions — Unifor, the Public Services Alliance of Canada, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and United Steelworkers — which encouraged members to campaign for NDP and Liberal candidates.
“On its face, this investigation appears to be itself partisan and politically motivated,” he wrote.
Polizogopoulos argued in his letter to Gigou that the law specifically excludes volunteers as non-monetary contributions, and RightNow is “confident we operated legally within the confines of the Elections Canada Act as it is currently written,” Hayward told LifeSiteNews in an email.
“However, if Elections Canada interprets the Act differently, and is investigating both our organization and other registered third parties for the 43rd general federal election that engaged in the same or similar activities, that will have a chilling effect on Canadians engaging in the democratic process,” Hayward said.
If Elections Canada is “just investigating our organization” and refuses to investigate other registered third parties that pursued the same or similar activities during the last election, that would suggest the “investigation into our organization is politically and/or ideologically driven, which would be unbecoming of a non-partisan electoral commission,” he added.
Campaign Life and RightNow face an “administrative monetary penalty” if found guilty.
Share