lifesitenews--2020-01-08--Spanish archdiocese abruptly cancels requiem Mass for abortion victims

SEVILLE , Spain , January 8 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A requiem Mass for victims of abortion and to pray for women in danger of aborting their children was abruptly canceled by the Archdiocese of Seville in Spain , according to organizers of the event .
Members of the Spanish pro-life political party Vox had planned to gather at a church in Gelves , a suburb of Seville , on December 28 , for the special Mass .
On this date , the Catholic Church commemorates the slaughter of innocent children in Bethlehem by the evil King Herod @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear that the baby Jesus would supplant him on the throne .
“ Due to causes beyond our control , the Mass that had been scheduled for tomorrow for the unborn and women facing difficulties has been canceled , ” read a communique from the Vox party .
While the party did not directly criticize Archbishop Juan José Asenjo Pelegrina , Vox declared , “ Despite the tepidity on the part of many , we remain firm in defending life.
” The Mass was intended as a requiem for babies killed by abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all women endangered by isolation and thoughts of abortion.
” Archdiocesan authorities did not respond to an email from LifeSiteNews asking for clarification about the Mass and its cancellation .
According to Vox , the Mass was canceled at the request of archdiocesan officials because of controversy over the commemoration .
While Vox declared that it respects the decision by the archdiocese , it stated that its members were “ surprised ” by the cancellation .
“ We did not intend to engage in politics , ” the party stated .
A priest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scheduled as normal for the annual commemoration of the Holy Innocents would be celebrated .
Representatives of Vox rallied , despite the special Mass being canceled , on December 28 in Seville , where they distributed hundreds of small plastic figurines that represent unborn babies at 14 weeks of gestation .
At the rally , Seville city council member Cristina Peláez stated for Vox that “ abortion is the worst violation of human rights occurring in society today , ” while lamenting that “ every year , 55 million little human beings are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wombs ” and end up in “ garbage disposals.
” Peláez called on her fellow citizens to denounce abortion , noting that more than “ 100,000 Spanish children are not born because of the law that fails to protect them.
” “ That unacceptable number is an indication of the moral and political disorder that must be combatted , ” Pelaez said .
“ In the future , in much the same way that we are now horrified by the slavery and human sacrifice that were practiced in the past , mankind will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inside their mothers ' wombs.
” Pelaez pointed out that it was the totalitarian Soviet Union , not any democratic society , that first legalized abortion on demand .
Democratic countries , she said , have been hypocritical in fostering abortion and thus denying the right to life of the most vulnerable citizens .
She also noted that Hungary , Poland , and several U.S. states have introduced restrictions on abortion .
“ It is not true that the future belongs to the culture of death , ” she said , adding , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the murder of children in their mother ’ s womb.
” Pelaez warned that in the face of a “ demographic winter , ” in which deaths outpace births , “ only those countries that respect life will survive.
” Vox is the only pro-life party currently represented in Spain ’ s congress .

The Mass was intended as a requiem for babies killed by abortion throughout 2019, and to support 'all women endangered by isolation and thoughts of abortion.'
SEVILLE, Spain, January 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A requiem Mass for victims of abortion and to pray for women in danger of aborting their children was abruptly canceled by the Archdiocese of Seville in Spain, according to organizers of the event.
Members of the Spanish pro-life political party Vox had planned to gather at a church in Gelves, a suburb of Seville, on December 28, for the special Mass. On this date, the Catholic Church commemorates the slaughter of innocent children in Bethlehem by the evil King Herod. Herod ordered the massacre out of fear that the baby Jesus would supplant him on the throne.
“Due to causes beyond our control, the Mass that had been scheduled for tomorrow for the unborn and women facing difficulties has been canceled,” read a communique from the Vox party. While the party did not directly criticize Archbishop Juan José Asenjo Pelegrina, Vox declared, “Despite the tepidity on the part of many, we remain firm in defending life.”
The Mass was intended as a requiem for babies killed by abortion throughout 2019, and to support “all women endangered by isolation and thoughts of abortion.”
Archdiocesan authorities did not respond to an email from LifeSiteNews asking for clarification about the Mass and its cancellation.
According to Vox, the Mass was canceled at the request of archdiocesan officials because of controversy over the commemoration. While Vox declared that it respects the decision by the archdiocese, it stated that its members were “surprised” by the cancellation.
“We did not intend to engage in politics,” the party stated. A priest said that a Mass that was already scheduled as normal for the annual commemoration of the Holy Innocents would be celebrated.
Representatives of Vox rallied, despite the special Mass being canceled, on December 28 in Seville, where they distributed hundreds of small plastic figurines that represent unborn babies at 14 weeks of gestation. At the rally, Seville city council member Cristina Peláez stated for Vox that “abortion is the worst violation of human rights occurring in society today,” while lamenting that “every year, 55 million little human beings are destroyed every year in their mothers’ wombs” and end up in “garbage disposals.”
Peláez called on her fellow citizens to denounce abortion, noting that more than “100,000 Spanish children are not born because of the law that fails to protect them.”
“That unacceptable number is an indication of the moral and political disorder that must be combatted,” Pelaez said. “In the future, in much the same way that we are now horrified by the slavery and human sacrifice that were practiced in the past, mankind will be astonished that we could kill babies inside their mothers' wombs.”
Pelaez pointed out that it was the totalitarian Soviet Union, not any democratic society, that first legalized abortion on demand. Democratic countries, she said, have been hypocritical in fostering abortion and thus denying the right to life of the most vulnerable citizens. She also noted that Hungary, Poland, and several U.S. states have introduced restrictions on abortion. “It is not true that the future belongs to the culture of death,” she said, adding, “civilized countries don’t allow the murder of children in their mother’s womb.”
Pelaez warned that in the face of a “demographic winter,” in which deaths outpace births, “only those countries that respect life will survive.”
Vox is the only pro-life party currently represented in Spain’s congress.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-08--Cold showers, fasting, prayer: 90-day Catholic bootcamp helps free men enslaved to sin

Sign up for the January 13th Exodus 90 program that runs until Easter !
Click here .
January 8 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — The modern world seeks to ensnare souls in sin and drag them to hell .
Lurid movies , immodest clothing , and our culture ’ s celebration of drunkenness and sexual conquests entice persons , especially men , to indulge in what is opposed to the laws of Jesus Christ .
It ’ s sometimes difficult to come across solid Catholic resources geared towards helping men overcome these things .
This lack of instruction has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contributing to the loss of true masculinity in today 's church .
Fortunately , Catholics have not been abandoned entirely .
Exodus 90 is a three-month-long spiritual program that serves as a unique gift in these times .
It ’ s aim is to provide Catholic men with the tools to rediscover their faith and embrace true freedom by ditching the trappings and distractions of the world so they can grow in humility and love of God .
Originally part of a seminary program by Fr .
Brian Doerr at Mount St. Mary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maryland , Exodus 90 has since exploded into a full-blown non-profit ministry that has helped more than 20,000 men over the last five years .
James Baxter is the young man who helped co-found and now serves as the Executive Director of Exodus 90 .
“ If these seminarians were in need of this life-giving and liberating spiritual exercise , what about laymen everywhere who do not have the luxury of a formation house ?
” he asked .
In a recent interview , Baxter , a former seminarian , said that Exodus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a path to freedom through prayer , asceticism , and fraternity .
“ Every man comes to Exodus for different reasons .
But the common thread is a desire for greater freedom .
Most men are deeply motivated to become better husbands for their wives and fathers for their children or priests for the Church.
” Baxter believes that a man “ should sign up to embrace his calling to become the spiritual leader in his home that God has called him to be.
” Exodus 90 asks men to engage in new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to give up certain comforts .
Taking cold showers , not drinking alcohol , fasting , limited technology use , exercising regularly , and committing to a daily holy hour are just a few of its requirements .
Baxter told LifeSite co-founder John-Henry Westen that it ’ s not always easy to accomplish this and that there are definite ebbs and flows of spiritual warfare over the 90 days .
But local , face-to-face meet ups with other Exodus 90 participants help hold everyone accountable .
Men who sign up for Exodus 90 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from their diocese or parish .
Most men are “ very isolated , very alone , ” Baxter believes .
“ Fraternity doesn ’ t exist in the contemporary church.
” The meet ups , when possible , are essential and help build relationships .
Dependencies are halved in the 90 days , Baxter says .
What 's unique about Exodus 90 is that it ’ s highly popular among ecclesial groups and younger Catholics , even priests .
Over 50 % of those who sign up for it are under the age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men are from outside the United States .
Exodus membership is $ 10 each month , which includes unlimited access and over 3 years of `` Day 91 '' spiritual exercises , whch walk you through all 14 narrative books of the Bible to help men preserve their freedom and build upon their formation .
Another feature of Exodus 90 is its mobile app , which sends you daily messages and Scripture passages .
This year , the Lenten Exodus 90 program begins on January 13 and ends on Easter .
Visit Exodus90.com @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mobile app in the App Store or Google Play Store .
`` Like '' Exodus 90 on Facebook and `` follow '' them on Twitter .

Exodus 90 is a three-month long program that is a unique gift for men who want to serve and love God
Sign up for the January 13th Exodus 90 program that runs until Easter! Click here.
January 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The modern world seeks to ensnare souls in sin and drag them to hell. Lurid movies, immodest clothing, and our culture’s celebration of drunkenness and sexual conquests entice persons, especially men, to indulge in what is opposed to the laws of Jesus Christ.
It’s sometimes difficult to come across solid Catholic resources geared towards helping men overcome these things. This lack of instruction has arguably been one of the primary factors contributing to the loss of true masculinity in today's church. Fortunately, Catholics have not been abandoned entirely.
Exodus 90 is a three-month-long spiritual program that serves as a unique gift in these times. It’s aim is to provide Catholic men with the tools to rediscover their faith and embrace true freedom by ditching the trappings and distractions of the world so they can grow in humility and love of God.
Originally part of a seminary program by Fr. Brian Doerr at Mount St. Mary’s Theological Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, Exodus 90 has since exploded into a full-blown non-profit ministry that has helped more than 20,000 men over the last five years. James Baxter is the young man who helped co-found and now serves as the Executive Director of Exodus 90.
“If these seminarians were in need of this life-giving and liberating spiritual exercise, what about laymen everywhere who do not have the luxury of a formation house?” he asked.
In a recent interview, Baxter, a former seminarian, said that Exodus 90’s mission is to provide a path to freedom through prayer, asceticism, and fraternity.
“Every man comes to Exodus for different reasons. But the common thread is a desire for greater freedom. Most men are deeply motivated to become better husbands for their wives and fathers for their children or priests for the Church.”
Baxter believes that a man “should sign up to embrace his calling to become the spiritual leader in his home that God has called him to be.”
Exodus 90 asks men to engage in new spiritual practices. It also requires them to give up certain comforts. Taking cold showers, not drinking alcohol, fasting, limited technology use, exercising regularly, and committing to a daily holy hour are just a few of its requirements.
Baxter told LifeSite co-founder John-Henry Westen that it’s not always easy to accomplish this and that there are definite ebbs and flows of spiritual warfare over the 90 days. But local, face-to-face meet ups with other Exodus 90 participants help hold everyone accountable.
Men who sign up for Exodus 90 typically do so with 5-7 other men from their diocese or parish. Most men are “very isolated, very alone,” Baxter believes. “Fraternity doesn’t exist in the contemporary church.” The meet ups, when possible, are essential and help build relationships. Dependencies are halved in the 90 days, Baxter says.
What's unique about Exodus 90 is that it’s highly popular among ecclesial groups and younger Catholics, even priests. Over 50% of those who sign up for it are under the age of 34. 25% of the men are from outside the United States.
Exodus membership is $10 each month, which includes unlimited access to Exodus 90 and over 3 years of “Day 91” spiritual exercises, which walk men through all 14 narrative books of the Bible to help them to preserve their freedom and build upon their formation.
This year, the Lenten Exodus 90 program begins on January 13 and ends on Easter. Visit Exodus90.com for more information, or download the mobile app in the App Store or Google Play Store. “Like” Exodus 90 on Facebook and “follow” them on Twitter.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-08--Abortion discriminates against black moms, black pro-life leaders tell Supreme Court

January 8 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A coalition of African-American pro-life leaders including Alevda King , Ryan Bomberger , and Stacey Washington has submitted its own amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a Louisiana law imposing medical standards on abortion facilities , taking the opportunity to raise awareness of abortion ’ s disproportionate harm to black women .
In March , the nation ’ s highest court will hear arguments in June Medical Services LLC v. Gee , which concerns Louisiana ’ s requirement that abortion centers make arrangements for admitting women to nearby hospitals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion industry ’ s attorneys argue the law is no different from the Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in 2016 ’ s Whole Woman ’ s Health v. Hellerstedt ; pro-lifers argue that not only was Hellerstedt wrongly decided but that the Louisiana law is different from the Texas one .
The Daily Wire reported that the groups Radiance Foundation , Civil Rights for the Unborn , Douglass Leadership Institute , Restoration Project , Issues4Life Foundation , Frederick Douglass Foundation , National Black Pro-Life Union , Everlasting Light Ministries , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case , arguing that a “ long history involving unqualified and uncredentialed abortion providers disproportionately harming black women ” is among the reasons Louisiana ’ s law is necessary .
“ Until Act 620 , Louisiana ’ s abortion clinics were exempt from the admitting privileges requirement that applies to other outpatient and ambulatory surgical centers in the state , ” the brief argues .
“ This disparity is significant to black women , who make up the majority of abortion clinic patients and thus bear most of the known risks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are life-threatening to mothers.
” The brief notes that the Louisiana law was partly a response to the Kermit Gosnell scandal , in which the grand jury found that “ white women were attended to by a doctor ( , ) and black women were pawned off on clueless untrained staffers.
” Gosnell was black but believed “ that ’ s the way of the world , ” according to the testimony of a former employee .
The brief also details numerous deaths of black women from abortion complications , which “ are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and uncredentialed abortion providers disproportionately harming black women.
” The admitting privileges mandate in Louisiana , however , “ created a means for reports about individual doctors to be checked against a national database — for the benefit of all patients , of all races , equally.
” Other pro-life briefs in the case have been filed by the Trump administration , American Freedom Law Center ( representing Priests for Life and Rachel ’ s Vineyard ) , and more than 200 members of Congress .
The case is likely to at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which has been used to invalidate a broad range of modest abortion regulations as “ undue burdens ” on women .
It remains to be seen whether the court takes the opportunity to make a broader determination on the underlying legitimacy of Roe or Planned Parenthood v. Casey , which force all 50 states to permit most abortions .
Roe is largely defended not on its legal merits ( numerous pro-abortion legal minds , including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself , have acknowledged the ruling ’ s flaws ) , but on its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interpretation of the stare decisis doctrine holding that Roe ’ s lengthy history staying on the books grants it added weight .
Justice Clarence Thomas has forcefully rejected such arguments ; it remains to be seen how Chief Justice John Roberts or President Trump ’ s two SCOTUS appointees , Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh , will weigh Roe ’ s precedent versus its substance .
Either way , a ruling in the case is likely to be handed down during this already-contentious election year , in which abortion and judicial nominations will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrat nominee .

African-American groups have added their own legal brief in support of a Louisiana law that imposes medical standards on abortion facilities.
January 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A coalition of African-American pro-life leaders including Alevda King, Ryan Bomberger, and Stacey Washington has submitted its own amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a Louisiana law imposing medical standards on abortion facilities, taking the opportunity to raise awareness of abortion’s disproportionate harm to black women.
In March, the nation’s highest court will hear arguments in June Medical Services LLC v. Gee, which concerns Louisiana’s requirement that abortion centers make arrangements for admitting women to nearby hospitals in cases of life-threatening complications. The abortion industry’s attorneys argue the law is no different from the Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in 2016’s Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt; pro-lifers argue that not only was Hellerstedt wrongly decided but that the Louisiana law is different from the Texas one.
The Daily Wire reported that the groups Radiance Foundation, Civil Rights for the Unborn, Douglass Leadership Institute, Restoration Project, Issues4Life Foundation, Frederick Douglass Foundation, National Black Pro-Life Union, Everlasting Light Ministries, and Project 21 have filed a brief in the case, arguing that a “long history involving unqualified and uncredentialed abortion providers disproportionately harming black women” is among the reasons Louisiana’s law is necessary.
“Until Act 620, Louisiana’s abortion clinics were exempt from the admitting privileges requirement that applies to other outpatient and ambulatory surgical centers in the state,” the brief argues. “This disparity is significant to black women, who make up the majority of abortion clinic patients and thus bear most of the known risks of abortion in Louisiana. These known risks are life-threatening to mothers.”
The brief notes that the Louisiana law was partly a response to the Kermit Gosnell scandal, in which the grand jury found that “white women were attended to by a doctor(,) and black women were pawned off on clueless untrained staffers.” Gosnell was black but believed “that’s the way of the world,” according to the testimony of a former employee.
The brief also details numerous deaths of black women from abortion complications, which “are part of a long history involving unqualified and uncredentialed abortion providers disproportionately harming black women.” The admitting privileges mandate in Louisiana, however, “created a means for reports about individual doctors to be checked against a national database — for the benefit of all patients, of all races, equally.”
Other pro-life briefs in the case have been filed by the Trump administration, American Freedom Law Center (representing Priests for Life and Rachel’s Vineyard), and more than 200 members of Congress.
The case is likely to at the very least impact the Hellerstedt precedent, which has been used to invalidate a broad range of modest abortion regulations as “undue burdens” on women. It remains to be seen whether the court takes the opportunity to make a broader determination on the underlying legitimacy of Roe or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which force all 50 states to permit most abortions.
Roe is largely defended not on its legal merits (numerous pro-abortion legal minds, including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself, have acknowledged the ruling’s flaws), but on its status as precedent, with the contemporary interpretation of the stare decisis doctrine holding that Roe’s lengthy history staying on the books grants it added weight. Justice Clarence Thomas has forcefully rejected such arguments; it remains to be seen how Chief Justice John Roberts or President Trump’s two SCOTUS appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, will weigh Roe’s precedent versus its substance.
Either way, a ruling in the case is likely to be handed down during this already-contentious election year, in which abortion and judicial nominations will be major issues for both Trump and the Democrat nominee.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-08--Former New Age adherent spells out why ‘New Age’ is spirituality of post-Christian West

January 8 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – In 2015 , Catholic convert Roger Buck published The Gentle Traditionalist , a work of apologetics in a dialogue form which , like some of Plato ’ s dialogues , is flavoured by a fictional dramatic setting set out at the beginning and the end .
Despite its classical antecedents this is an unusual format , but Buck ’ s work was very successful .
I have been recommending it to everyone ever since , as the ideal non-threatening introduction to traditional Catholic concerns on culture , education , and politics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Evelyn Waugh .
The Gentle Traditionalist was followed in 2016 by Buck ’ s magnum opus , the 450-page Cor Jesu Sacratissimum : From Secularism and the New Age to Christendom Renewed .
This is partly autobiographical , featuring Buck ’ s former life as a New Age practitioner and activist .
Buck ’ s latest book , The Gentle Traditionalist Returns : A Catholic Knight ’ s Tale from Ireland , returns to the characters and format of the first book but more of the issues of the second .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Age as it is invading a newly-post-Christian Ireland , Buck ’ s adoptive country , in the context of the abortion referendum of 2016 .
In Cor Jesu Buck argues that the New Age ( or whatever term its adherents might prefer ) has caught on most successfully in the cultural milieu created by Protestantism .
In secularising countries with a strong Catholic heritage , those looking for spirituality and the supernatural know where it is to be found : in the Church .
In secularising Protestant countries , including Scandinavia but most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cultural understanding of Christianity is dominated by liberal low-church Protestantism , the religion of ( at best ) worldly concerns and human community .
Those looking for spirituality and the supernatural are therefore more likely to seek it in Eastern mysticism , the occult , and the New Age .
It is easy to dismiss the New Age as a fringe movement inhabited by cranks , but that image is out of date .
‘ Mindfulness ’ sessions have found their way into the schedules of multi-national corporations , and the environmentalism promoted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religion .
The New Age is the spirituality of the post-Christian West .
When people imagine a ‘ spiritual person ’ , or would like to be more ‘ spiritual ’ themselves , they increasingly do so using New Age categories : reincarnation , monism , pantheism , the rejection of ‘ dogma ’ ( while having lots , usually wrapped up in abstruse vocabulary ) , the possibility of ‘ getting in touch ’ with Something through meditation , and the ‘ all religions are really one ’ thesis .
The last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as ‘ religious indifferentism ’ , has indeed become the basis of public policy throughout the West .
It is particularly sad to see this movement invading Ireland .
Ireland had a unique position as a Catholic , English-speaking country , but for many years its political and cultural elite have found this uncomfortable .
Among their American and British peers , the last thing many Irish diplomats , statesmen , and celebrities want to do is to marginalise themselves by affirming Catholic teaching on marriage and abortion , or anything else .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ identification and practice following the clerical abuse scandals , and a desire by Ireland ’ s elite to copy British and American trends , the scene is set for the New Age to become the go-to spirituality of a de-spiritualised Irish culture .
Readers might wonder how the New Age can prosper in the context of widespread moral and philosophical materialism .
Buck explains that while many , perhaps most , people in positions of influence think the New Age stuff is drivel , they go along with the mindfulness workshops and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religion fundamentally compatible with capitalism and individual sexual liberty .
Indeed , the New Age fits right in to the commercialised spirituality of generations of American snake-oil salesmen and cult leaders , while rejecting traditional morality as ( as best ) outdated and oppressive .
In a 50-page Afterword , Buck backs up the claims made in the body of the book with his own knowledge and experience , and some scholarly research .
The foundational texts of the New Age have escaped much critical scrutiny because they are long , technical , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being , on the face of it , farragoes of rambling nonsense .
They have been absorbed , however , by a small cadre of New Age writers who have re-packaged the ideas and practical proposals contained in them for a wider public .
New Age practitioners have seldom been confronted with the disturbing links between their ideas and the occult , Freemasonry , and even Bolshevism , and many works which do attempt to make these connections ( by Evangelical Christians , for example ) , are poorly researched .
We are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a profound understanding of the New Age movement and literature , to explain the complex development of the movement and its world-view to a Catholic audience .

January 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In 2015, Catholic convert Roger Buck published The Gentle Traditionalist, a work of apologetics in a dialogue form which, like some of Plato’s dialogues, is flavoured by a fictional dramatic setting set out at the beginning and the end. Despite its classical antecedents this is an unusual format, but Buck’s work was very successful. I have been recommending it to everyone ever since, as the ideal non-threatening introduction to traditional Catholic concerns on culture, education, and politics, the issues which motivated Chesterton, Belloc, and Evelyn Waugh.
The Gentle Traditionalist was followed in 2016 by Buck’s magnum opus, the 450-page Cor Jesu Sacratissimum: From Secularism and the New Age to Christendom Renewed. This is partly autobiographical, featuring Buck’s former life as a New Age practitioner and activist. Buck’s latest book, The Gentle Traditionalist Returns: A Catholic Knight’s Tale from Ireland, returns to the characters and format of the first book but more of the issues of the second. It is an exploration of the New Age as it is invading a newly-post-Christian Ireland, Buck’s adoptive country, in the context of the abortion referendum of 2016.
In Cor Jesu Buck argues that the New Age (or whatever term its adherents might prefer) has caught on most successfully in the cultural milieu created by Protestantism. In secularising countries with a strong Catholic heritage, those looking for spirituality and the supernatural know where it is to be found: in the Church. In secularising Protestant countries, including Scandinavia but most of all the English-speaking world, the cultural understanding of Christianity is dominated by liberal low-church Protestantism, the religion of (at best) worldly concerns and human community. Those looking for spirituality and the supernatural are therefore more likely to seek it in Eastern mysticism, the occult, and the New Age.
It is easy to dismiss the New Age as a fringe movement inhabited by cranks, but that image is out of date. ‘Mindfulness’ sessions have found their way into the schedules of multi-national corporations, and the environmentalism promoted by governments and schools increasingly resembles a religion. The New Age is the spirituality of the post-Christian West. When people imagine a ‘spiritual person’, or would like to be more ‘spiritual’ themselves, they increasingly do so using New Age categories: reincarnation, monism, pantheism, the rejection of ‘dogma’ (while having lots, usually wrapped up in abstruse vocabulary), the possibility of ‘getting in touch’ with Something through meditation, and the ‘all religions are really one’ thesis. The last idea, condemned by so many popes as ‘religious indifferentism’, has indeed become the basis of public policy throughout the West.
It is particularly sad to see this movement invading Ireland. Ireland had a unique position as a Catholic, English-speaking country, but for many years its political and cultural elite have found this uncomfortable. Among their American and British peers, the last thing many Irish diplomats, statesmen, and celebrities want to do is to marginalise themselves by affirming Catholic teaching on marriage and abortion, or anything else.
With the accelerating collapse of Irish Catholic identification and practice following the clerical abuse scandals, and a desire by Ireland’s elite to copy British and American trends, the scene is set for the New Age to become the go-to spirituality of a de-spiritualised Irish culture.
Readers might wonder how the New Age can prosper in the context of widespread moral and philosophical materialism. Buck explains that while many, perhaps most, people in positions of influence think the New Age stuff is drivel, they go along with the mindfulness workshops and the tree-hugging because this is a kind of religion fundamentally compatible with capitalism and individual sexual liberty. Indeed, the New Age fits right in to the commercialised spirituality of generations of American snake-oil salesmen and cult leaders, while rejecting traditional morality as (as best) outdated and oppressive.
In a 50-page Afterword, Buck backs up the claims made in the body of the book with his own knowledge and experience, and some scholarly research. The foundational texts of the New Age have escaped much critical scrutiny because they are long, technical, and mind-numbingly boring, as well as being, on the face of it, farragoes of rambling nonsense. They have been absorbed, however, by a small cadre of New Age writers who have re-packaged the ideas and practical proposals contained in them for a wider public. New Age practitioners have seldom been confronted with the disturbing links between their ideas and the occult, Freemasonry, and even Bolshevism, and many works which do attempt to make these connections (by Evangelical Christians, for example), are poorly researched. We are fortunate indeed to have Roger Buck, with a profound understanding of the New Age movement and literature, to explain the complex development of the movement and its world-view to a Catholic audience.
Follow Joseph Dr Joseph Shaw has a Doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford University, where he also gained a first degree in Politics and Philosophy and a graduate Diploma in Theology. He has published on Ethics and Philosophy of Religion and is the editor of The Case for Liturgical Restoration: Una Voce Position Papers on the Extraordinary Form (Angelico Press). He is the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales and Secretary of Una Voce International. He teaches Philosophy in Oxford University and lives nearby with his wife and nine children.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-08--Cdl Zen urges cardinals to stop the ‘murder of the Church in China’

ROME , January 8 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Cardinal Joseph Zen , the leading voice for persecuted Catholics in China , has sent a letter to the College of Cardinals imploring them to denounce the recent agreement the Vatican signed with China ’ s communist government .
Together with the letter , the 87-year-old bishop emeritus of Hong Kong has also shared with his brother cardinals several “ dubia ” that he gave to Pope Francis in July 2019 , following the Vatican ’ s June release of new guidelines concerning the civil registration of clergy in China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last July in an article by Bree Dail .
In his missive , Cardinal Zen notes the pope ’ s continued silence despite expressing initial interest in the cardinal ’ s analysis of the document .
The letter , dated September 27 , 2019 , was published this morning by Italian journalist Marco Tosatti ( in Italian ) and Infovaticana ( in Spanish ) and was picked up by the Vatican aggregator Il Sismografo .
Tosatti notes that Cardinal Zen has decided to make the letter public , likely in view of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following the Vatican-China deal .
Here below is an English translation of the letter and dubia sent by Cardinal Joseph Zen to the cardinals of the Catholic Church .
Pardon the inconvenience my letter will cause you .
It is just that , in conscience , I believe that the problem I present here concerns not only the Church in China , but the whole Church , and we cardinals have the grave responsibility to help the Holy Father in guiding the Church .
From my analysis of the document of the Holy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Pastoral guidelines of the Holy See concerning the civil registration of clergy in China , ” it is quite clear that it encourages the faithful in China to enter a schismatic church ( independent of the pope and under the orders of the Communist Party ) .
On July 10 , I presented my “ dubia ” to the Pope .
His Holiness , on July 3 , had promised to take an interest in them , but to this day I have still not heard anything .
Cardinal Parolin says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independent Church , this independence should no longer be understood as absolute , because the agreement recognizes the role of the pope in the Catholic Church .
First of all , I can not believe that there is such a statement in the agreement , and I do not see it there .
( By the way , why must such an agreement be secret , and why is it not granted even to me , a Chinese cardinal , to see it ? )
But , even more clearly , the whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows that nothing has changed .
Cardinal Parolin quotes a sentence from Pope Benedict ’ s letter completely out of context — indeed , diametrically opposed to the whole paragraph .
This manipulation of the pope emeritus ’ s thought is gravely disrespectful ; indeed , it is a deplorable insult to the person of such a meek pope , who is still alive .
But it also disgusts me that they often declare that what they are doing is in continuity with the thought of the previous pope , while the opposite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe ( and I hope one day to be able to prove with archival documents ) that the agreement signed is the same one that Pope Benedict had , at the time , refused to sign .
Your Eminence , can we passively witness the murder of the Church in China by those who should protect and defend her from her enemies ?
Begging on my knees , your brother , Dubia of the cardinal regarding “ Pastoral guidelines of the Holy See concerning the civil registration of clergy in China ” ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First of all , it seems strange that such an important document is issued by the “ Holy See , ” without specifying from which dicastery and with no signature of the responsible authority .
In paragraphs 1 and 2 , the document sets out the problem and the general solution .
1 .
The problem is that the government reneges on its promises to respect Catholic doctrine and in the civil registration of clergy almost always requires one to accept the principle of independence , autonomy , and self-administration of the Church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with what Pope Benedict XVI ’ s letter says in paragraph 7 , 8 about “ adopt [ ing ] attitudes , mak [ ing ] gestures and undertak [ ing ] commitments that are contrary to the dictates of their conscience as Catholics.
” 2 .
Faced with the complex situation that is not always the same everywhere , the Holy See gives a general line of how to behave : — on the one hand , it does not intend to force consciences and therefore asks ( failing to explicitly say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Catholic conscience be respected ; — on the other hand , it sets as a general principle that “ the experience of clandestinity is not a normal feature of the Church ’ s life ” ( Letter of Pope Benedict 8.10 ) — i.e.
, it is normal for the Church to come out of it .
With regard to the quotation from Pope Benedict XVI ’ s Letter in point 8.10 , allow me to transcribe here almost the entire paragraph : ( a ) “ Some of them ( bishops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to undue control exercised over the life of the Church , and eager to maintain total fidelity to the Successor of Peter and to Catholic doctrine , have felt themselves constrained to opt for clandestine consecration.
” ( b ) “ The clandestine condition is not a normal feature of the Church ’ s life , ” ( c ) “ and history shows that Pastors and faithful have recourse to it only amid suffering , in the desire to maintain the integrity of their faith , ” ( d ) “ and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters pertaining intimately to the Church ’ s life.
” P. Jeroom Heyndrickx and Cardinal Parolin love to mention only part ( b ) ; Pope Francis ( in his message of Sept. 26 , 2018 ) also adds part ( c ) ; but it seems to me that part ( a ) and ( d ) are also important .
The paragraph clearly shows that non-normality is not a choice of those who are clandestine ; the choice is inevitable .
It is the situation that is abnormal !
Has this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The long paragraph 3 seeks to prove that what is suggested in paragraph 5 is justified .
I ask : But what does the long history of persecution tell us , despite the Constitution ?
Second proof : “ Logically , ” after the Agreement , independence must no longer be understood as absolute independence , but only relative to the political sphere .
First of all , I say : without seeing the text of the Agreement , I find it hard to believe that they really recognized the “ special role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then ask : Is there anything logical about totalitarian systems ?
Their only logic is that , when Deng Xiaoping says it , “ a white cat is equal to a black cat ” as long as it serves the purposes of the Party .
In the immediate aftermath of the Agreement , nothing has been changed in the religious policy of the Party ; everything has been officially reaffirmed , and the facts prove it .
Third proof : The context of “ strengthened ” dialogue I ask : But does the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reneged on its promises , as stated both in the first paragraph and in paragraph 9 of this document ?
Fourth proof : All of the bishops have been made legitimate .
This is evidence only of the infinite generosity of the pope or perhaps the omnipotent pressure of the government , but in the forgiven and “ rewarded , ” we see no change , no sign of repentance , but clear acts of bold triumph , laughing at others who have bet on the wrong horse .
4 .
Paragraph 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new attitude .
Here at least there is honesty in saying that what is proposed is new , and that therefore it is not in continuity with the past , but rejecting the past as already in the past — that is , as no longer valid .
It is also said that the Holy See is trying to agree with the government on a formula ( i.e.
, turning lemons into lemonade ) .
But we ask ourselves : “ A formula ” ?
What the government is asking for is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all a system , in which pastoral freedom will no longer exist , but in everything the Party ’ s orders will be followed , including the prohibition of minors under 18 years of age from participating in any religious activity .
5 .
In paragraph 5 there are the true pastoral guidelines .
In short : Everything that the government requires should also be signed , possibly with a written clarification that denies what is signed .
If the written clarification is not possible , it should be done verbally , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sufficient that there is the intention not to have accepted in conscience what you have in fact signed .
You sign a text against the Faith , and you declare that the intention is to promote the good of the community , a more appropriate evangelization , the responsible management of the goods of the Church .
This general norm is obviously against any principle of morality .
If accepted , it would justify apostasy .
6 .
In paragraph 6 , it is said that the Holy See understands and respects those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above rule .
Obviously , this is compassion toward a “ stubborn ” minority that still can not understand the new rule .
Their attitude is wrong , but the Holy See “ provisionally ” tolerates them .
7 .
Paragraph 7 speaks of certain duties of the bishops , citing a document that has nothing to do with our issue .
8 .
Paragraph 8 says the faithful accept the decision of their pastors .
What does this mean ?
That they do not have the individual freedom to choose ?
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be respected ?
To the brethren who ask me what to do , I have always given the answer : respect the choices of others and remain firm in the conviction of one ’ s own conscience .
This is because I have no authority to impose my judgments on others about what is right or wrong .
But does the Holy See not have the authority , and therefore the duty to clarify for the members of the Church what is right and what is wrong ?
Has it done so with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to be encouraged , remaining clandestinity is to be tolerated ?
Bishops and priests have the choice , and the faithful do not ?
9 .
In paragraph 9 it is said that the Holy See in the meantime asks ( and again omits the word “ the government ” ) that no intimidating pressure be put on the unofficial Catholic communities , as has already happened .
( The fact of not mentioning the word “ government ” is almost like the traditional reverence of not mentioning the name of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommended to discern God ’ s will with “ patience and humility.
” But I ask myself : Have we left behind blessing steadfastness in the faith ?
Then it says that “ the present path is also marked by many hopes , despite the difficulties.
” It seems to me , instead , that the facts destroy every foundation of human hope .
As for hope in God , it can never be separated from the sincere willingness to suffer according to His will .
This document has radically overturned what is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a matter of duty , and what is to be tolerated .
The hope of its editors is perhaps that the pitied minority will die a natural death .
By this minority I mean not only the clandestine priests ( to whom not only no bishops are given when the elderly ones die , but not even delegates , because the official bishop of the diocese is already legitimate ) , but also many brethren in the official community who with great tenacity have worked for change , hoping to be supported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead encouraged to accept submission to the government and are mocked by the victorious opportunists .
May the Lord not allow the fulfillment of these desires , of those who desire the death of the true faith in my dear homeland .
Lord , have mercy !
HOLY SEE TEXT : “ Pastoral guidelines of the Holy See concerning the civil registration of clergy in China ”

'Your Eminence, can we passively witness the murder of the Church in China by those who should protect and defend her from her enemies?'
ROME, January 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Cardinal Joseph Zen, the leading voice for persecuted Catholics in China, has sent a letter to the College of Cardinals imploring them to denounce the recent agreement the Vatican signed with China’s communist government.
Together with the letter, the 87-year-old bishop emeritus of Hong Kong has also shared with his brother cardinals several “dubia” that he gave to Pope Francis in July 2019, following the Vatican’s June release of new guidelines concerning the civil registration of clergy in China. Those dubia were published on LifeSite last July.
In his missive, Cardinal Zen notes the pope’s continued silence despite expressing initial interest in the cardinal’s analysis of the document.
The letter, dated September 27, 2019, was published this morning by Italian journalist Marco Tosatti (in Italian) and Infovaticana (in Spanish) and was picked up by the Vatican aggregator Il Sismografo.
Tosatti notes that Cardinal Zen has decided to make the letter public, likely in view of the escalating persecution of Catholics by Chinese communists following the Vatican-China deal.
Here below is an English translation of the letter and dubia sent by Cardinal Joseph Zen to the cardinals of the Catholic Church.
PETITION: Support Cardinal Zen's plea to stop the “murder of the Church in China” Sign the petition here.
Your Eminence,
Pardon the inconvenience my letter will cause you. It is just that, in conscience, I believe that the problem I present here concerns not only the Church in China, but the whole Church, and we cardinals have the grave responsibility to help the Holy Father in guiding the Church.
From my analysis of the document of the Holy See (June 28, 2019), “Pastoral guidelines of the Holy See concerning the civil registration of clergy in China,” it is quite clear that it encourages the faithful in China to enter a schismatic church (independent of the pope and under the orders of the Communist Party).
On July 10, I presented my “dubia” to the Pope. His Holiness, on July 3, had promised to take an interest in them, but to this day I have still not heard anything.
Cardinal Parolin says that today when we talk about the independent Church, this independence should no longer be understood as absolute, because the agreement recognizes the role of the pope in the Catholic Church.
First of all, I cannot believe that there is such a statement in the agreement, and I do not see it there. (By the way, why must such an agreement be secret, and why is it not granted even to me, a Chinese cardinal, to see it?) But, even more clearly, the whole reality after the signing of the agreement shows that nothing has changed. Cardinal Parolin quotes a sentence from Pope Benedict’s letter completely out of context — indeed, diametrically opposed to the whole paragraph. This manipulation of the pope emeritus’s thought is gravely disrespectful; indeed, it is a deplorable insult to the person of such a meek pope, who is still alive.
But it also disgusts me that they often declare that what they are doing is in continuity with the thought of the previous pope, while the opposite is true. I have reason to believe (and I hope one day to be able to prove with archival documents) that the agreement signed is the same one that Pope Benedict had, at the time, refused to sign.
Your Eminence, can we passively witness the murder of the Church in China by those who should protect and defend her from her enemies?
Begging on my knees, your brother,
Card. Joseph ZEN, SDB
Dubia of the cardinal regarding “Pastoral guidelines of the Holy See concerning the civil registration of clergy in China” (updated July 8, 2019):
First of all, it seems strange that such an important document is issued by the “Holy See,” without specifying from which dicastery and with no signature of the responsible authority.
In paragraphs 1 and 2, the document sets out the problem and the general solution.
1. The problem is that the government reneges on its promises to respect Catholic doctrine and in the civil registration of clergy almost always requires one to accept the principle of independence, autonomy, and self-administration of the Church in China (it should be completed with what Pope Benedict XVI’s letter says in paragraph 7, 8 about “adopt[ing] attitudes, mak[ing] gestures and undertak[ing] commitments that are contrary to the dictates of their conscience as Catholics.”
2. Faced with the complex situation that is not always the same everywhere, the Holy See gives a general line of how to behave:
— on the one hand, it does not intend to force consciences and therefore asks (failing to explicitly say “to the government”) that the Catholic conscience be respected;
— on the other hand, it sets as a general principle that “the experience of clandestinity is not a normal feature of the Church’s life” (Letter of Pope Benedict 8.10) — i.e., it is normal for the Church to come out of it.
With regard to the quotation from Pope Benedict XVI’s Letter in point 8.10, allow me to transcribe here almost the entire paragraph:
(a) “Some of them (bishops), not wishing to be subjected to undue control exercised over the life of the Church, and eager to maintain total fidelity to the Successor of Peter and to Catholic doctrine, have felt themselves constrained to opt for clandestine consecration.”
(b) “The clandestine condition is not a normal feature of the Church’s life,”
(c) “and history shows that Pastors and faithful have recourse to it only amid suffering, in the desire to maintain the integrity of their faith,”
(d) “and to resist interference from State agencies in matters pertaining intimately to the Church’s life.”
P. Jeroom Heyndrickx and Cardinal Parolin love to mention only part (b); Pope Francis (in his message of Sept. 26, 2018) also adds part (c); but it seems to me that part (a) and (d) are also important.
The paragraph clearly shows that non-normality is not a choice of those who are clandestine; the choice is inevitable. It is the situation that is abnormal! Has this situation perhaps changed today?
3. The long paragraph 3 seeks to prove that what is suggested in paragraph 5 is justified.
First proof: The Constitution guarantees religious freedom.
I ask: But what does the long history of persecution tell us, despite the Constitution?
Second proof: “Logically,” after the Agreement, independence must no longer be understood as absolute independence, but only relative to the political sphere.
First of all, I say: without seeing the text of the Agreement, I find it hard to believe that they really recognized the “special role of the successor of Peter.”
I then ask: Is there anything logical about totalitarian systems? Their only logic is that, when Deng Xiaoping says it, “a white cat is equal to a black cat” as long as it serves the purposes of the Party.
In the immediate aftermath of the Agreement, nothing has been changed in the religious policy of the Party; everything has been officially reaffirmed, and the facts prove it.
Third proof: The context of “strengthened” dialogue
I ask: But does the document not recognize that the government has reneged on its promises, as stated both in the first paragraph and in paragraph 9 of this document?
Fourth proof: All of the bishops have been made legitimate.
This is evidence only of the infinite generosity of the pope or perhaps the omnipotent pressure of the government, but in the forgiven and “rewarded,” we see no change, no sign of repentance, but clear acts of bold triumph, laughing at others who have bet on the wrong horse.
4. Paragraph 4 says that the reasons above justify a new attitude. Here at least there is honesty in saying that what is proposed is new, and that therefore it is not in continuity with the past, but rejecting the past as already in the past — that is, as no longer valid.
It is also said that the Holy See is trying to agree with the government on a formula (having it both ways).
But we ask ourselves: “A formula”? What the government is asking for is not a statement of theory; it is all a system, in which pastoral freedom will no longer exist, but in everything the Party’s orders will be followed, including the prohibition of minors under 18 years of age from participating in any religious activity.
5. In paragraph 5 there are the true pastoral guidelines. In short: Everything that the government requires should also be signed, possibly with a written clarification that denies what is signed. If the written clarification is not possible, it should be done verbally, with or without a witness. It is sufficient that there is the intention not to have accepted in conscience what you have in fact signed.
You sign a text against the Faith, and you declare that the intention is to promote the good of the community, a more appropriate evangelization, the responsible management of the goods of the Church. This general norm is obviously against any principle of morality. If accepted, it would justify apostasy.
6. In paragraph 6, it is said that the Holy See understands and respects those who in conscience do not accept the above rule. Obviously, this is compassion toward a “stubborn” minority that still cannot understand the new rule. Their attitude is wrong, but the Holy See “provisionally” tolerates them.
7. Paragraph 7 speaks of certain duties of the bishops, citing a document that has nothing to do with our issue.
8. Paragraph 8 says the faithful accept the decision of their pastors. What does this mean? That they do not have the individual freedom to choose? And that their conscience does not have to be respected? To the brethren who ask me what to do, I have always given the answer: respect the choices of others and remain firm in the conviction of one’s own conscience. This is because I have no authority to impose my judgments on others about what is right or wrong.
But does the Holy See not have the authority, and therefore the duty to clarify for the members of the Church what is right and what is wrong? Has it done so with these “Guidelines”? Leaving clandestinity is to be encouraged, remaining clandestinity is to be tolerated? Bishops and priests have the choice, and the faithful do not?
9. In paragraph 9 it is said that the Holy See in the meantime asks (and again omits the word “the government”) that no intimidating pressure be put on the unofficial Catholic communities, as has already happened. (The fact of not mentioning the word “government” is almost like the traditional reverence of not mentioning the name of the emperor.) Lastly, everyone is recommended to discern God’s will with “patience and humility.” But I ask myself: Have we left behind blessing steadfastness in the faith?
Then it says that “the present path is also marked by many hopes, despite the difficulties.” It seems to me, instead, that the facts destroy every foundation of human hope. As for hope in God, it can never be separated from the sincere willingness to suffer according to His will.
Conclusion
This document has radically overturned what is normal and what is abnormal, what is a matter of duty, and what is to be tolerated.
The hope of its editors is perhaps that the pitied minority will die a natural death. By this minority I mean not only the clandestine priests (to whom not only no bishops are given when the elderly ones die, but not even delegates, because the official bishop of the diocese is already legitimate), but also many brethren in the official community who with great tenacity have worked for change, hoping to be supported by the Holy See, but are instead encouraged to accept submission to the government and are mocked by the victorious opportunists.
May the Lord not allow the fulfillment of these desires, of those who desire the death of the true faith in my dear homeland. Lord, have mercy!
HOLY SEE TEXT: “Pastoral guidelines of the Holy See concerning the civil registration of clergy in China”
Translation by Diane Montagna of LifeSiteNews.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-08--Trans activist who demanded genitals be waxed now suing salon for refusing to wax his legs

PETITION : Tell Twitter to unlock LifeSite account now !
Sign the petition here .
VANCOUVER , British Columbia , January 7 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Canadian transgender activist Jonathan “ Jessica ” Yaniv , infamous for unsuccessful human rights complaints against beauticians who refused to wax his genitalia , is taking another beauty salon to the human rights tribunal , this time for allegedly refusing to wax his legs .
The Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms ( JCCF ) announced Tuesday in a press release that it is defending Vancouver-based salon She Point Beauty Studio against a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal .
Yaniv is well known for , among other things , filing human rights complaints against more than a dozen beauticians in 2018 , alleging that their refusal to give him a “ Brazilian ” bikini wax was discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression .
JCCF defended five of these estheticians , and after the tribunal heard three of Yaniv ’ s complaints in July 2019 , it dismissed them in an October , ruling that “ human rights legislation does not require a service provider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not trained for and have not consented to wax.
” The ruling , penned by tribunal member Devyn Cousineau , also found that Yaniv “ engaged in improper conduct ” and filed complaints “ for an improper purpose ” and ordered him to pay costs of $ 2,000 to each of the three estheticians , for a total of $ 6,000 — a sum the JCCF says Yaniv has to date refused to pay .
Cousineau took Yaniv to task for his demonstrable “ grievance ” against certain ethnic groups , noting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racial animus to ‘ punish ’ them for their cultural and religious views , ” according to JCCF ’ s release .
“ Yaniv has made derogatory public comments about East Indians and Sikhs , as well as immigrants generally , ” it stated .
The ruling cites Yaniv ’ s comment : “ We have a lot of immigrants here who gawk and judge and aren ’ t exactly the cleanest people .
They ’ re also verbally and physically abusive , that ’ s one main reason why I joined a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ -- - , they ’ ll do anything to support their own kind and make things miserable for everyone else.
” Yaniv ’ s new complaint targets She Point Beauty Studio , a salon owned and operated by East Indian women of the Sikh faith , according to JCCF ’ s release In August , Yaniv asked the salon to give him a “ Brazilian ” bikini wax and was refused , JCCF states .
Yaniv then asked for a leg wax and was again turned down .
In Yaniv ’ s tweets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ screenshot presumably of his texts to the salon representative in which he asks : “ But am I a lady ?
” — he emphasizes that he ’ s asking for a leg wax .
He tweets from Cousineau ’ s judgment that Cousineau agrees generally with Yaniv “ that a person who customarily offers women the service of waxing their arms or legs can not discriminate between cisgender and transgender women [ sic ] absent a bona fide reasonable justification.
” Cousineau then adds that she dismissed the complaints “ on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improper motives or in bad faith.
” In response to this point , Yaniv tweets : “ I have hair coming out of my legs…like any female .
Got to get that removed .
How is that bad faith ?
My legs are normal female legs.
” But JCCF notes in its press release that “ [ l ] eg waxing takes place in private with the customer in their underwear or nude from the waist down.
” She Point Beauty Studio “ rejected Yaniv ’ s request for services due to religious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the salon services are specialized to women , ” it states .
“ Women have a constitutional right not to be compelled to touch biological males in an intimate or highly personal manner if they are not comfortable doing so , ” notes Jay Cameron , the JCCF lawyer who acted for five estheticians in 2019 .
“ Like male genital waxing , our client does not offer male leg waxing services to the public , and we intend to vigorously defend against this targeted harassment on behalf of our client.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tribunal to hear the complaint sometime this year .
Yaniv , a self-described “ proud lesbian ” who runs the Vancouver-based tech consulting business Trusted Nerd , is also notorious for social media posts that reveal a disturbing interest in the menstruation and nude bodies of 10- and 12-year-old girls .
Long before he filed his waxing complaints , allegations circulated online that Yaniv was claiming to be transgender to gain access to women-only spaces so he could contact young girls and ask them leading questions .
In July , Yaniv applied unsuccessfully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permit to host a “ topless ” LGBT swim party for “ people aged 12+ ” that banned parents .
The same month , Jessica Rumpel filed a child sexual exploitation report against Yaniv with CyberTips for allegedly sexually harassing her when she was between the ages of 14 and 15 .
“ Yaniv ’ s reported online activity reflects an interest in young teenage girls that predated his interest in transgenderism , ” noted Doug Mainwaring of LifeSiteNews when reporting on Rumpel ’ s complaint .
Most recently , the 32-year-old Yaniv @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Provincial Court on January 13 on two counts of possessing a prohibited weapon .
Yaniv was arrested August 6 after he fired a Taser during a livestreamed YouTube debate and charged December 16 .
LifeSite has been locked out of Twitter since December after tweeting its report that Yaniv was “ shocked ” that a gynecologists ’ office refused his request for an examination .
Twitter presumably locked out LifeSite for referring to Yaniv as “ he.
” LifeSite has refused to remove the tweet as requested and is appealing the decision .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ LifeSite ’ s account here .

Jonathan Yaniv previously and unsuccessfully filed complaints against multiple beauticians for refusing to perform a Brazilian wax on him.
PETITION: Tell Twitter to unlock LifeSite account now! Sign the petition here.
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, January 7, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Canadian transgender activist Jonathan “Jessica” Yaniv, infamous for unsuccessful human rights complaints against beauticians who refused to wax his genitalia, is taking another beauty salon to the human rights tribunal, this time for allegedly refusing to wax his legs.
The Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) announced Tuesday in a press release that it is defending Vancouver-based salon She Point Beauty Studio against a complaint Yaniv filed in October with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
Yaniv is well known for, among other things, filing human rights complaints against more than a dozen beauticians in 2018, alleging that their refusal to give him a “Brazilian” bikini wax was discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression.
JCCF defended five of these estheticians, and after the tribunal heard three of Yaniv’s complaints in July 2019, it dismissed them in an October, ruling that “human rights legislation does not require a service provider to wax a type of genitals they are not trained for and have not consented to wax.”
The ruling, penned by tribunal member Devyn Cousineau, also found that Yaniv “engaged in improper conduct” and filed complaints “for an improper purpose” and ordered him to pay costs of $2,000 to each of the three estheticians, for a total of $6,000 — a sum the JCCF says Yaniv has to date refused to pay.
Cousineau took Yaniv to task for his demonstrable “grievance” against certain ethnic groups, noting that he “targeted them out of racial animus to ‘punish’ them for their cultural and religious views,” according to JCCF’s release.
“Yaniv has made derogatory public comments about East Indians and Sikhs, as well as immigrants generally,” it stated.
The ruling cites Yaniv’s comment: “We have a lot of immigrants here who gawk and judge and aren’t exactly the cleanest people. They’re also verbally and physically abusive, that’s one main reason why I joined a girls gym…They lie about s—, they’ll do anything to support their own kind and make things miserable for everyone else.”
Yaniv’s new complaint targets She Point Beauty Studio, a salon owned and operated by East Indian women of the Sikh faith, according to JCCF’s release
In August, Yaniv asked the salon to give him a “Brazilian” bikini wax and was refused, JCCF states. Yaniv then asked for a leg wax and was again turned down.
Asked for a leg wax… not a Brazilian �� pic.twitter.com/qM4mkfzT56 — Jessica Yaniv (@trustednerd) January 7, 2020
In Yaniv’s tweets about the case — which include a screenshot presumably of his texts to the salon representative in which he asks: “But am I a lady?” — he emphasizes that he’s asking for a leg wax.
He tweets from Cousineau’s judgment that Cousineau agrees generally with Yaniv “that a person who customarily offers women the service of waxing their arms or legs cannot discriminate between cisgender and transgender women [sic] absent a bona fide reasonable justification.”
Cousineau then adds that she dismissed the complaints “on the basis that they have been filed for improper motives or in bad faith.”
In response to this point, Yaniv tweets: “I have hair coming out of my legs…like any female. Got to get that removed. How is that bad faith? My legs are normal female legs.”
I have hair coming out of my legs… like any female. Got to get that removed. How is that bad faith? My legs are normal female legs. — Jessica Yaniv (@trustednerd) January 7, 2020
But JCCF notes in its press release that “[l]eg waxing takes place in private with the customer in their underwear or nude from the waist down.”
She Point Beauty Studio “rejected Yaniv’s request for services due to religious, cultural and safety reasons, and because the salon services are specialized to women,” it states.
“Women have a constitutional right not to be compelled to touch biological males in an intimate or highly personal manner if they are not comfortable doing so,” notes Jay Cameron, the JCCF lawyer who acted for five estheticians in 2019.
“Like male genital waxing, our client does not offer male leg waxing services to the public, and we intend to vigorously defend against this targeted harassment on behalf of our client.”
JCCF expects the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal to hear the complaint sometime this year.
Yaniv, a self-described “proud lesbian” who runs the Vancouver-based tech consulting business Trusted Nerd, is also notorious for social media posts that reveal a disturbing interest in the menstruation and nude bodies of 10- and 12-year-old girls. Long before he filed his waxing complaints, allegations circulated online that Yaniv was claiming to be transgender to gain access to women-only spaces so he could contact young girls and ask them leading questions.
In July, Yaniv applied unsuccessfully to the Township of Langley for a permit to host a “topless” LGBT swim party for “people aged 12+” that banned parents.
The same month, Jessica Rumpel filed a child sexual exploitation report against Yaniv with CyberTips for allegedly sexually harassing her when she was between the ages of 14 and 15.
“Yaniv’s reported online activity reflects an interest in young teenage girls that predated his interest in transgenderism,” noted Doug Mainwaring of LifeSiteNews when reporting on Rumpel’s complaint.
Most recently, the 32-year-old Yaniv is scheduled to appear at the Surrey Provincial Court on January 13 on two counts of possessing a prohibited weapon. Yaniv was arrested August 6 after he fired a Taser during a livestreamed YouTube debate and charged December 16.
LifeSite has been locked out of Twitter since December after tweeting its report that Yaniv was “shocked” that a gynecologists’ office refused his request for an examination.
Twitter presumably locked out LifeSite for referring to Yaniv as “he.” LifeSite has refused to remove the tweet as requested and is appealing the decision.
Sign the petition asking Twitter to unlock LifeSite’s account here.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-08--CNN reporter takes aim at conservative satire site Babylon Bee for ‘misinformation’

WASHINGTON , D.C. , January 7 , 2019 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A CNN reporter expressed alarm on Twitter that Christian conservative satire site Babylon Bee was peddling “ misinformation ” in a stinging piece that had Democrats flying the American flag at half-mast in honor of a terrorist who had been targeted and killed by the U.S. military .
Reporter Donie O ’ Sullivan , who notes on Twitter that he covers “ disinformation ” for CNN , stated on Twitter that he was concerned that more people were reading Babylon Bee ’ s satire about the death of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Call for Flags to Be Flown aAt Half-Mast to Grieve Death of Soleimani ” — than reports about the event put out by the N.Y. Times and CNN .
The article appeared after news came that the United States had killed Iranian general Soleimani in a drone strike in Iraq that congressional Democrats claim was unwarranted .
In response to Cindy Otis , an author and former CIA official , who worried that Republicans on Facebook were circulating the satirical article as if it were a legitimate news story , O ’ Sullivan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perspective , this is the same number of engagements the top NY Times and CNN stories on Facebook had over the past week.
” O ’ Sullivan added , “ A lot of people sharing this ‘ satirical ’ story on Facebook do n't know it is satire.
” He appeared to suggest that The Babylon Bee was less than honest about its identity as a satirical website .
“ Having a disclaimer buried somewhere on your site that says it ’ s ‘ satire ’ seems like a good way to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has made to reduce the spread of clickbait and misinformation , ” O ’ Sullivan wrote .
He also asserted that some social media users apparently believe that The Babylon Bee ’ s satire is real news .
In a response to LifeSiteNews , Babylon Bee founder Adam Ford wrote : “ It ’ s fascinating to me that Mr. O ’ Sullivan ca n't recognize the doublethink required to publicly accuse the Babylon Bee of insidiousness while at the same time being a vocal fan of the Onion.
” Babylon Bee capitalized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ piece titled “ CNN Attacks Babylon Bee : ‘ The Internet Is Only Big Enough for One Fake News Site ’ .
” In his newsletter to subscribers , Ford wrote that “ it never , ever ceases to amaze me how many of these liberals can ’ t see that the only reason they hate the Bee is because we are conservative , popular , and effective .
That ’ s the only reason they hate us .
If we were a progressive satire site , they would cherish us as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ford is also the founder of the news site Disrn .
“ I can ’ t believe this thread isn ’ t satire , ” National Review senior writer David Harsanyi quipped on social media .
In an article titled “ Attacks on the Babylon Bee Are Attacks on Free Expression , ” Harsanyi wrote : “ The Babylon Bee ’ s real crime , of course , is that it mocks all the wrong people .
Many of the people it mocks , incidentally , are now part of a concerted effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shame tech companies into inhibiting political speech.
” Labeling liberals ’ criticism as “ cynical partisanship , ” Harsanyi went on to write that liberals believe that conservatives are susceptible to deception .
He wrote : “ I mean , how else could these people possibly believe the dumb things they do — right ?
” On social media , Ford wrote that O ’ Sullivan complained about the wide circulation enjoyed by The Babylon Bee , noting that its articles are “ shared a lot and some people think they 're real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
” After asking whether O ’ Sullivan may have similarly criticized The Onion ( a liberal satirical website ) , Ford found that O ’ Sullivan is a follower .
Ford wrote on Twitter : “ As it turns out , Mr. O'Sullivan HAS tweeted about the Onion .
But it looks like he ’ s quite the fan !
” and pointed out that O ’ Sullivan made several posts on Twitter in praise of The Onion .
In 2019 , The Babylon Bee retained legal counsel following a probe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a liberal bias , Snopes bills itself as the “ internet 's go-to source for discerning what is true and what is total nonsense.
” At issue was a spoof article published by the Babylon Bee about Georgia state representative Erica Thomas ( D ) .
Thomas had made news for claiming that a white man at a grocery checkout lane had supposedly told her to leave the country .
In reality , the man had complained that Thomas was using the express lane despite having too many items to purchase .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have heard him correctly , saying , “ I don ’ t know if he said ‘ go back , ’ or those types of words.
” The Babylon Bee satire article portrayed Thomas broadcasting that Chick-fil-A employees had told her to “ go back to your country ” when what they had said to her was the company ’ s employees ’ well known “ my pleasure ” for serving her .
In addition to mocking Rep. Thomas , the spoof alluded to liberal targeting of Chick-fil-A , which had long been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While Snopes did identify The Babylon Bee as a satirical website , it nonetheless rated the article as “ False ” and claimed that the “ line between fact and fiction here is a bit blurry.
” Snopes accused the satirical site of “ an apparent attempt to maximize the online indignation ” and editorialized in its sub-headline , “ We ’ re not sure if fanning the flames of controversy and muddying the details of a news story classify an article as ‘ satire.
’ ” Concerned over a possible drop in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denounced Snopes and its “ fact-check ” in several social media posts , criticizing Snopes for its omission of key details of the real Thomas story and for attributing malicious intent to the satirical outlet , even while it framed spoofs by The Onion much more favorably .

Donie O'Sullivan of CNN tweeted his doubts that the people sharing the satirical article, which made fun of Democrats, know it's satire.
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 7, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — A CNN reporter expressed alarm on Twitter that Christian conservative satire site Babylon Bee was peddling “misinformation” in a stinging piece that had Democrats flying the American flag at half-mast in honor of a terrorist who had been targeted and killed by the U.S. military.
Reporter Donie O’Sullivan, who notes on Twitter that he covers “disinformation” for CNN, stated on Twitter that he was concerned that more people were reading Babylon Bee’s satire about the death of terrorist Qassem Soleimani — titled “Democrats Call for Flags to Be Flown aAt Half-Mast to Grieve Death of Soleimani” — than reports about the event put out by the N.Y. Times and CNN. The article appeared after news came that the United States had killed Iranian general Soleimani in a drone strike in Iraq that congressional Democrats claim was unwarranted.
In response to Cindy Otis, an author and former CIA official, who worried that Republicans on Facebook were circulating the satirical article as if it were a legitimate news story, O’Sullivan tweeted: “To put this in perspective, this is the same number of engagements the top NY Times and CNN stories on Facebook had over the past week.”
To put this in perspective, this is the same number of engagements the top NY Times and CNN stories on Facebook had over the past week. A lot of people sharing this “satirical” story on Facebook don't know it is satire. https://t.co/HnDjuqw2si — Donie O'Sullivan (@donie) January 5, 2020
O’Sullivan added, “A lot of people sharing this ‘satirical’ story on Facebook don't know it is satire.” He appeared to suggest that The Babylon Bee was less than honest about its identity as a satirical website.
“Having a disclaimer buried somewhere on your site that says it’s ‘satire’ seems like a good way to get around a lot of the changes Facebook has made to reduce the spread of clickbait and misinformation,” O’Sullivan wrote. He also asserted that some social media users apparently believe that The Babylon Bee’s satire is real news.
Having a disclaimer buried somewhere on your site that says it’s “satire” seems like a good way to get around a lot of the changes Facebook has made to reduce the spread of clickbait and misinformation. — Donie O'Sullivan (@donie) January 5, 2020
In a response to LifeSiteNews, Babylon Bee founder Adam Ford wrote: “It’s fascinating to me that Mr. O’Sullivan can't recognize the doublethink required to publicly accuse the Babylon Bee of insidiousness while at the same time being a vocal fan of the Onion.”
Babylon Bee capitalized on the situation, putting out a piece titled “CNN Attacks Babylon Bee: ‘The Internet Is Only Big Enough for One Fake News Site’.”
CNN Attacks Babylon Bee: 'The Internet Is Only Big Enough For One Fake News Site' https://t.co/Mq0IAYhwAf — The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) January 7, 2020
In his newsletter to subscribers, Ford wrote that “it never, ever ceases to amaze me how many of these liberals can’t see that the only reason they hate the Bee is because we are conservative, popular, and effective. That’s the only reason they hate us. If we were a progressive satire site, they would cherish us as a national treasure.” A pro-life Christian, Ford is also the founder of the news site Disrn.
“I can’t believe this thread isn’t satire,” National Review senior writer David Harsanyi quipped on social media. In an article titled “Attacks on the Babylon Bee Are Attacks on Free Expression,” Harsanyi wrote: “The Babylon Bee’s real crime, of course, is that it mocks all the wrong people. Many of the people it mocks, incidentally, are now part of a concerted effort to inhibit political speech — or to shame tech companies into inhibiting political speech.”
Labeling liberals’ criticism as “cynical partisanship,” Harsanyi went on to write that liberals believe that conservatives are susceptible to deception. He wrote: “I mean, how else could these people possibly believe the dumb things they do — right?”
On social media, Ford wrote that O’Sullivan complained about the wide circulation enjoyed by The Babylon Bee, noting that its articles are “shared a lot and some people think they're real (which will always happen with satire).” After asking whether O’Sullivan may have similarly criticized The Onion (a liberal satirical website), Ford found that O’Sullivan is a follower. Ford wrote on Twitter: “As it turns out, Mr. O'Sullivan HAS tweeted about the Onion. But it looks like he’s quite the fan!” and pointed out that O’Sullivan made several posts on Twitter in praise of The Onion.
In 2019, The Babylon Bee retained legal counsel following a probe by the investigative website Snopes. Known for a liberal bias, Snopes bills itself as the “internet's go-to source for discerning what is true and what is total nonsense.”
At issue was a spoof article published by the Babylon Bee about Georgia state representative Erica Thomas (D). Thomas had made news for claiming that a white man at a grocery checkout lane had supposedly told her to leave the country. In reality, the man had complained that Thomas was using the express lane despite having too many items to purchase. Thomas eventually conceded that she may not have heard him correctly, saying, “I don’t know if he said ‘go back,’ or those types of words.”
The Babylon Bee satire article portrayed Thomas broadcasting that Chick-fil-A employees had told her to “go back to your country” when what they had said to her was the company’s employees’ well known “my pleasure” for serving her. In addition to mocking Rep. Thomas, the spoof alluded to liberal targeting of Chick-fil-A, which had long been identified with Christians and family values.
While Snopes did identify The Babylon Bee as a satirical website, it nonetheless rated the article as “False” and claimed that the “line between fact and fiction here is a bit blurry.” Snopes accused the satirical site of “an apparent attempt to maximize the online indignation” and editorialized in its sub-headline, “We’re not sure if fanning the flames of controversy and muddying the details of a news story classify an article as ‘satire.’”
Concerned over a possible drop in revenue, Babylon Bee founder Adam Ford denounced Snopes and its “fact-check” in several social media posts, criticizing Snopes for its omission of key details of the real Thomas story and for attributing malicious intent to the satirical outlet, even while it framed spoofs by The Onion much more favorably.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-07--Trump admin tells Supreme Court: Women must be protected from dangerous abortionists

January 7 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The Trump administration , Priests for Life , and Rachel ’ s Vineyard have submitted amicus briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a Louisiana law imposing medical standards on abortion facilities .
In March , the nation ’ s highest court will hear arguments in June Medical Services LLC v. Gee , which concerns Louisiana ’ s requirement that abortion centers make arrangements for admitting women to nearby hospitals in cases of life-threatening complications .
The abortion industry ’ s attorneys argue the law is no different from the Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 ’ s Whole Woman ’ s Health v. Hellerstedt ; pro-lifers argue that not only was Hellerstedt wrongly decided , but that the Louisiana law is different from the Texas one .
On Friday , the Trump administration filed a brief arguing that the so-called “ burdens ” imposed by the law , namely a “ modest increase in the waiting time ( less than an hour ) to obtain an abortion , ” pale in comparison to the benefits of ensuring abortion facilities are held to rigorous medical standards – especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns presented by atrocities at abortion clinics like those run by Kermit Gosnell.
” Last week , the American Freedom Law Center ( AFLC ) filed a brief on behalf of Priests for Life and Rachel ’ s Vineyard arguing that Louisiana has a “ paramount right to protect the health and safety of its citizens , ” including by “ enacting regulations to raise the standard and quality of care for women seeking abortions.
” The brief also includes “ testimonies of victims of abortion from states across the country , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profound way by this deadly procedure.
” '' I went to a place in Baton Rouge .
I do n't remember the name .
It was absolutely demonic , ” testified “ Carmen ” about her 1978 abortion , five years after Roe v. Wade supposedly made the practice safe .
“ I remember lying on the table and saying to the nurse , ' I 'm not sure I want to do this .
I 'm killing my baby . '
She just looked at me , cold and silent .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he came into the room , he was laughing .
There was definitely an evil spirit there . ''
“ One who reads carefully the dozens of abortion decisions the Supreme Court has issued since Roe vs. Wade can see that the Court ’ s jurisprudence on this topic is rudderless and arbitrary , ” said Priests for Life national director Fr .
Frank Pavone .
“ Given that this is the first Supreme Court abortion case which both Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh will hear , we can hope that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has overstepped its bounds in many ways on this issue , and will begin to introduce , step by step , more sanity into our public policy on abortion.
” Last week , more than 200 members of Congress signed another amicus brief calling on the Supreme Court to take the Gee case as an opportunity to review its entire body of abortion precedent , all the way back to Roe v. Wade .
The case is likely to at the very least impact the Hellerstedt precedent , which has been used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulations as “ undue burdens ” on women .
It remains to be seen whether the court takes the opportunity to make a broader determination on the underlying legitimacy of Roe or Planned Parenthood v. Casey , which force all 50 states to permit most abortions .
Roe is largely defended not on its legal merits ( numerous pro-abortion legal minds , including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself , have acknowledged the ruling ’ s flaws ) , but on its status as precedent , with the contemporary interpretation of the stare decisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history staying on the books grants it added weight .
Justice Clarence Thomas has forcefully rejected such arguments ; it remains to be seen how Chief Justice John Roberts or President Trump ’ s two SCOTUS appointees , Neil Gorscuh and Brett Kavanaugh , will weigh Roe ’ s precedent versus its substance .
Either way , a ruling in the case is likely to be handed down during this already-contentious election year , in which abortion and judicial nominations will be major issues for both Trump and the Democrat nominee .

January 7, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The Trump administration, Priests for Life, and Rachel’s Vineyard have submitted amicus briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a Louisiana law imposing medical standards on abortion facilities.
In March, the nation’s highest court will hear arguments in June Medical Services LLC v. Gee, which concerns Louisiana’s requirement that abortion centers make arrangements for admitting women to nearby hospitals in cases of life-threatening complications. The abortion industry’s attorneys argue the law is no different from the Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in 2016’s Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt; pro-lifers argue that not only was Hellerstedt wrongly decided, but that the Louisiana law is different from the Texas one.
On Friday, the Trump administration filed a brief arguing that the so-called “burdens” imposed by the law, namely a “modest increase in the waiting time (less than an hour) to obtain an abortion,” pale in comparison to the benefits of ensuring abortion facilities are held to rigorous medical standards – especially in light of the “profound ethical concerns presented by atrocities at abortion clinics like those run by Kermit Gosnell.”
Last week, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed a brief on behalf of Priests for Life and Rachel’s Vineyard arguing that Louisiana has a “paramount right to protect the health and safety of its citizens,” including by “enacting regulations to raise the standard and quality of care for women seeking abortions.” The brief also includes “testimonies of victims of abortion from states across the country,” who “have been harmed in a profound way by this deadly procedure.”
“I went to a place in Baton Rouge. I don't remember the name. It was absolutely demonic,” testified “Carmen” about her 1978 abortion, five years after Roe v. Wade supposedly made the practice safe. “I remember lying on the table and saying to the nurse, 'I'm not sure I want to do this. I'm killing my baby.' She just looked at me, cold and silent. I remember the doctor's face. When he came into the room, he was laughing. There was definitely an evil spirit there.”
“One who reads carefully the dozens of abortion decisions the Supreme Court has issued since Roe vs. Wade can see that the Court’s jurisprudence on this topic is rudderless and arbitrary,” said Priests for Life national director Fr. Frank Pavone. “Given that this is the first Supreme Court abortion case which both Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh will hear, we can hope that the Court will begin to acknowledge that it has overstepped its bounds in many ways on this issue, and will begin to introduce, step by step, more sanity into our public policy on abortion.”
Last week, more than 200 members of Congress signed another amicus brief calling on the Supreme Court to take the Gee case as an opportunity to review its entire body of abortion precedent, all the way back to Roe v. Wade.
The case is likely to at the very least impact the Hellerstedt precedent, which has been used to invalidate a broad range of modest abortion regulations as “undue burdens” on women. It remains to be seen whether the court takes the opportunity to make a broader determination on the underlying legitimacy of Roe or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which force all 50 states to permit most abortions.
Roe is largely defended not on its legal merits (numerous pro-abortion legal minds, including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself, have acknowledged the ruling’s flaws), but on its status as precedent, with the contemporary interpretation of the stare decisis doctrine holding that Roe’s lengthy history staying on the books grants it added weight. Justice Clarence Thomas has forcefully rejected such arguments; it remains to be seen how Chief Justice John Roberts or President Trump’s two SCOTUS appointees, Neil Gorscuh and Brett Kavanaugh, will weigh Roe’s precedent versus its substance.
Either way, a ruling in the case is likely to be handed down during this already-contentious election year, in which abortion and judicial nominations will be major issues for both Trump and the Democrat nominee.
Share