lifesitenews--2020-03-25--NYC health dep’t encourages masturbation, tells people to ‘avoid group sex’ during pandemic

NEW YORK , New York , March 25 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – New York City ’ s health department has recommended masturbation as the safest sexual activity during the COVID-19 outbreak .
In what the New York Post has described as a “ coronavirus sex memo , ” the Department of Health also cautions people against acts involving “ mouth on anus ” because feces can spread the coronavirus .
“ If you usually meet your sex partners online or make a living by having sex , consider taking a break from in-person dates , ” it suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was as joke , ” said Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse , Ph.D. , “ but New York City ’ s health department really did issue guidelines on containing the Wuhan virus which recommend masturbation and warn against group sex , at least while the crisis lasts.
” The health department memo says , “ Masturbation will not spread COVID-19 , especially if you wash your hands ( and any sex toys ) with soap and water for at least 20 seconds before and after.
” “ The next safest partner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city advises .
“ If you do have sex , have as few partners as possible.
” “ Make sure you have an effective form of birth control for the coming weeks , ” the memo adds .
Morse , whose organization defends the family , commented , “ Normal people know they should not participate in life-threatening activities .
Do the residents of New York need to be told to abstain from casual sex , sex with strangers , and orgies during this major public health crisis ?
” “ Memo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has ever died from abstaining from sex , ” said Morse .
“ If you think you ’ ll die without sex , you are probably a sex addict .
It appears that the Department is run by and for sex addicts .
It assumes that group sex , casual sex and orgies are normal.
” Morse continued : “ This is all depressingly typical of the Sexual Revolution , which treats sex as a mere bodily function .
It maintains that people have a right to sex , as much and any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is the perspective that allows the New York Health Department to think they are making a bold move .
Recommending limits of any kind , but only for the duration of the pandemic , that ’ s a radical step for them.
” “ One thing they never do is discuss sex in a moral context , ” Morse observed .
“ For them , talking about sex and morality in the same breath is puritanical and obsessive .
But since the Centers for Disease Control says there are 20 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s something to be said for self-restraint.
” Morse concluded : “ Other casualties of the Sexual Revolution include divorce , failure to achieve intimacy , fatherless families , declining fertility , and a pornified culture .
It ’ s unlikely that the New York City Department of Health has put out memos on any of this.
” The Ruth Institute ’ s upcoming Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution – Protecting Children and Families ( July 17-18 in Lake Charles , Louisiana ) will examine many of these issues @

'This is all depressingly typical of the Sexual Revolution, which treats sex as a mere bodily function,' commented pro-family expert Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute.
NEW YORK, New York, March 25, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – New York City’s health department has recommended masturbation as the safest sexual activity during the COVID-19 outbreak.
In what the New York Post has described as a “coronavirus sex memo,” the Department of Health also cautions people against acts involving “mouth on anus” because feces can spread the coronavirus.
“If you usually meet your sex partners online or make a living by having sex, consider taking a break from in-person dates,” it suggests.
“At first I thought it was as joke,” said Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., “but New York City’s health department really did issue guidelines on containing the Wuhan virus which recommend masturbation and warn against group sex, at least while the crisis lasts.”
The health department memo says, “Masturbation will not spread COVID-19, especially if you wash your hands (and any sex toys) with soap and water for at least 20 seconds before and after.”
“The next safest partner is someone you live with,” the city advises. “If you do have sex, have as few partners as possible.”
“Make sure you have an effective form of birth control for the coming weeks,” the memo adds.
Morse, whose organization defends the family, commented, “Normal people know they should not participate in life-threatening activities. Do the residents of New York need to be told to abstain from casual sex, sex with strangers, and orgies during this major public health crisis?”
“Memo to NYC Health Department: no one has ever died from abstaining from sex,” said Morse. “If you think you’ll die without sex, you are probably a sex addict. It appears that the Department is run by and for sex addicts. It assumes that group sex, casual sex and orgies are normal.”
Morse continued: “This is all depressingly typical of the Sexual Revolution, which treats sex as a mere bodily function. It maintains that people have a right to sex, as much and any way they want, free of consequences. This is the perspective that allows the New York Health Department to think they are making a bold move. Recommending limits of any kind, but only for the duration of the pandemic, that’s a radical step for them.”
“One thing they never do is discuss sex in a moral context,” Morse observed. “For them, talking about sex and morality in the same breath is puritanical and obsessive. But since the Centers for Disease Control says there are 20 million new STD infections each year, maybe there’s something to be said for self-restraint.”
Morse concluded: “Other casualties of the Sexual Revolution include divorce, failure to achieve intimacy, fatherless families, declining fertility, and a pornified culture. It’s unlikely that the New York City Department of Health has put out memos on any of this.”
The Ruth Institute’s upcoming Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution – Protecting Children and Families (July 17-18 in Lake Charles, Louisiana) will examine many of these issues.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-25--Texas halts all abortions due to coronavirus crisis

COLUMBUS , Ohio , March 25 , 2020 ( Created Equal ) — Phone calls to all the abortion facilities in Texas demonstrate that these centers have ceased performing abortions .
This comes in the wake of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton ’ s warning to Texas abortion businesses that they are not exempt from executive orders to cease non-essential procedures .
For now , Texas is abortion free !
According to the calls made to Texas abortion centers , the facilities have ceased not only surgical abortions but also RU-486 medical abortions .
While Ohio , Texas , Louisiana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ orders for abortion facilities to comply with public health directives ... only Texas has enforced it .
Here is a brief summary of the current status of # StopTheSpread in various states ( the situation is developing , so the status changes daily ) : All or at least surgical abortions have been specifically ordered to stop in four states ( TX , LA , OH , MS ) .
Abortions were stopped in two of these states ( TX , LA ) , but are now being scheduled in one of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have banned elective surgeries , yet abortions continue ( MD , FL , CO , MI , VT , NY , AK , AZ ) .
One state pulled its ban on elective surgeries ( MN ) , and another has no order in place , but hospitals are taking initiative to cancel elective surgeries ( GA ) .
Abortions continue in both states .
Four states banned elective surgeries , but made a special exception for abortions ( MA , WA , IL , NJ ) .
We are following these developments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Phone calls to all the abortion facilities in Texas demonstrate that these centers have ceased performing abortions.
PETITION: Urge state governors to stop abortions during coronavirus crisis Sign the petition here.
COLUMBUS, Ohio, March 25, 2020 (Created Equal) — Phone calls to all the abortion facilities in Texas demonstrate that these centers have ceased performing abortions. This comes in the wake of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s warning to Texas abortion businesses that they are not exempt from executive orders to cease non-essential procedures. For now, Texas is abortion free!
Video: TX Abortions Halted Due to Coronavirus
According to the calls made to Texas abortion centers, the facilities have ceased not only surgical abortions but also RU-486 medical abortions.
While Ohio, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Maryland have issued orders for abortion facilities to comply with public health directives … only Texas has enforced it.
Here is a brief summary of the current status of #StopTheSpread in various states (the situation is developing, so the status changes daily):
All or at least surgical abortions have been specifically ordered to stop in four states (TX, LA, OH, MS). Abortions were stopped in two of these states (TX, LA), but are now being scheduled in one of them (LA).
Eight other states have banned elective surgeries, yet abortions continue (MD, FL, CO, MI, VT, NY, AK, AZ).
One state pulled its ban on elective surgeries (MN), and another has no order in place, but hospitals are taking initiative to cancel elective surgeries (GA). Abortions continue in both states.
Four states banned elective surgeries, but made a special exception for abortions (MA, WA, IL, NJ).
We are following these developments closely. Stay tuned for more information.
Published with permission from Created Equal.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-25--Liberals taking advantage of coronavirus crisis to sneak abortion legalization

March 25 , 2020 ( Christian Concern ) — Pavel is a political exile of Putin ’ s Russia , having fled to the UK after his research as a historian put his life and liberty at risk .
He then studied law at King ’ s College London and University of Law .
He now works as a legal consultant for Christian Legal Centre .
Let us be very clear about what happened this week with the abortive imposition of DIY abortions under the pretext of fighting coronavirus .
On Monday afternoon , the gov.uk website published an official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substance of the law with immediate effect .
The document read as follows : The Abortion Act 1967 — Approval of a Class of Places This approval supersedes the approval of 27 December 2018 .
The Secretary of State makes the following approval in exercise of the powers conferred by section 1 ( 3 ) and ( 3A ) 1of the Abortion Act 19672 : 1 .
In this approval – “ home ” means , in the case of a pregnant woman , the place in England where a pregnant woman has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the case of a registered medical practitioner , the place in England where a registered medical practitioner has their permanent address or usually resides ; “ approved place ” means a hospital in England , as authorised under section 1 ( 3 ) of the Abortion Act 1967 , or a place in England approved under that section .
2 .
The home of a registered medical practitioner is approved as a class of place for treatment for the termination of pregnancy for the purposes only of prescribing the medicines known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in treatment carried out in the manner specified in paragraph 4 .
3 .
The home of a pregnant woman who is undergoing treatment for the purposes of termination of her pregnancy is approved as a class of place where the treatment for termination of pregnancy may be carried out where that treatment is carried out in the manner specified in paragraph 4 .
4 .
The treatment must be carried out in the following manner- ii ) had a consultation with an approved place via video link , telephone conference or other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a consultation with a registered medical practitioner via video link , telephone conference or other electronic means ; and b ) the pregnant woman is prescribed Mifepristone and Misoprostol to be taken for the purposes of the termination of her pregnancy .
1 Section 1 ( 3A ) was inserted by section 37 ( 3 ) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 ( c. 37 ) .
Mr Davies ’ s signature was clearly visible on the pdf version published .
Pushed when national attention was elsewhere These were the very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lobby had been lusting after for many years .
As long as we had a properly functioning democracy , they had no success .
Now that the voters have other things on their minds , it was imposed on us overnight — without debate , without vote , without publicity — insidiously slipped and shuffled into the pack of other measures we are told we need to survive .
The moment was chosen very carefully — the day when everyone ’ s attention was completely consumed by Boris Johnson ’ s address to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calculation evidently was that nobody would notice , and once the wheels were in motion , it would be too late to protest .
Thankfully , this was not to be .
The publication was spotted by a few pro-life groups ( including Christian Concern ) , who promptly published protests .
At some point overnight , one of those messages reached someone senior enough in the government to pull the brake .
On Tuesday morning , the document was gone from the website , replaced by the inelegantly worded , obviously rushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ page has been removed because it was published in error .
“ This was published in error .
There will be no changes to abortion regulations.
” Do not be fooled by the understandable attempts to play this down .
It was not an error of sending a wrong tweet : for a few hours , there was formal legislation in place which legalised DIY abortions .
If , heaven forbid , such an abortion took place on Monday evening , it would have been legal .
What has happened was not an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sinister attempt by the pro-abortion forces to exploit the epidemic as a narrow opportunity to bypass democracy , and achieve their long-standing objective by the back door .
This is very serious in itself ; but the significance of this extends beyond the all-important issue of abortion , wherever you stand on it .
Our ability to cope with the coronavirus crisis depends entirely on people ’ s trust in the national leadership .
It is remarkable how the country dutifully shut itself down on a say so of Boris Johnson ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to all creeds ) .
However , once the government attempts to exploit that crisis to implement an agenda which has nothing to do with coronavirus , that trust is lost .
The consequences for the epidemic would be catastrophic .
That would cost lives .
Whoever in the government has pulled the brake on the abortion coup d ’ état on Monday night deserves much credit for that .
However , two further things need to happen before the trust can be restored .
Scandal must not be swept under the carpet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swept under the carpet as an ‘ administrative error ’ .
It must be thoroughly , transparently investigated .
Those responsible for abuse of power , and for sabotaging the national effort to resist the dangerous epidemic , must be named and sacked without delay .
Secondly , the government ’ s Coronavirus Bill ( and its wider ‘ Coronavirus policy ’ ) must be urgently reviewed to identify and remove all similar abuses .
DIY abortions was not the only drastic measure there which had nothing whatsoever to do with coronavirus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s liberties .
Doctors will have power to section people indefinitely The Coronavirus Bill ( which is being passed into law this week at breakneck speed ) will , among other things , ( 1 ) authorise a forcible detention of people on mental health grounds ( ‘ sectioning ’ ) on the opinion of any one doctor ( rather than two , as previously required ) and ( 2 ) abolish the six-month time limit on ‘ sectioning ’ .
Any one doctor will have the power to lock you up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the interests of your own and others ’ safety .
It is well-known , and self-evident , that forcible psychiatric detention is an area which is open to abuse in the absence of effective safeguards .
In the Soviet Union , it was used simply as a tool to suppress political dissent .
This may be an extreme example , but where is the guarantee that one rogue doctor or another will not , once in a while , abuse his newly found unlimited power ?
For very good reasons , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law .
Now they are being urgently abolished — supposedly as an obstacle to our survival of the epidemic .
How exactly are they such an obstacle ?
It should be stressed that this has nothing to do with increasing doctors ’ capacity to deal with coronavirus patients .
A psychiatrist is not much help in treating a respiratory disease .
In fact , he would be as useful as a gynaecologist .
Just like gynaecologists can safely continue to supervise ( and hopefully , sometimes refuse to authorise ) abortions , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry on doing their usual job — which includes , most importantly , protecting people from arbitrary detention on unsound psychiatric grounds .
Those duties are not expendable luxuries , but are vital safeguards of liberty .
Another frightening power-grab in the Coronavirus Bill is the expansion of the power to appoint temporary judicial commissioners , with the powers to issue warrants for surveillance , under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 .
The threat to civil liberty is obvious ; and this has nothing to do with coronavirus .
Given those examples , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea that the government knows best about its other measures which ostensibly have something to do with coronavirus .
Things like prolonging local councillors ’ term in office for a whole year without a democratic mandate ; police power to detain anyone for up to 48 hours on suspicion of a threat to public health ; Ministers ’ authority to ban mass gatherings ; or court trials by skype .
Are all those things really necessary ?
Or have some civil servants simply been waiting ( heaven knows for how long ) for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provoking mass protests on the streets ?
For example , skype trials in court sound sensible at the time of an epidemic , but the very first reported trial is a rather frightening one .
That is a Court of Protection trial last week to decide the fate of an anonymous man in his ’ 70s , whose GP wants to switch off his life support to let him die ‘ in dignity ’ , and whose family objects .
Remember all the debates and protests over the cases of Charlie Gard and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vincent Lambert in France ?
Under the new regime , decisions on life and death cases of this kind are being made on a skype call .
No proper trial , no ‘ army ’ of protesters , no real media coverage .
It was only reported as a technological curiosity — the first major trial taking place by skype .
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance These and other measures are meant to be introduced only on a temporary basis .
There is a sunset clause in the Bill , whereby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after two years unless Parliament votes to extend them beyond that period .
Amendments are being debated to shorten that period .
However , this does not answer the concern that some of the most drastic innovations in the Act are clearly not necessary to contain coronavirus at all .
If in those two years , someone is wrongly ‘ sectioned ’ in a lunatic asylum , it is small comfort to them that this practice will cease in 2022 .
Further , as a general rule of constitutional history , temporary limitations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are convenient for the state .
We still live today with all sorts of draconian laws introduced as a matter of emergency after 11 September 2001 .
Come 2022 , the Coronavirus Bill powers may also be extended on whatever pretext .
Indeed , section 90 of the Bill even permits the extension of those powers without a vote in Parliament .
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance .
Many dictatorships originate in people ’ s panicked enthusiasm for drastic measures to deal with a genuine crisis .
Putin ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took hold because people trusted their democratically elected president to do whatever it takes to defeat the threat of terrorism .
Eventually , when Putin responded to another terrorist attack by replacing regional elections with appointed governors , that trust was largely lost — but it was too late .
It is no surprise that when we see fairly similar moves attempted in this country , our trust in the government hangs in the balance .
At least in terms of public trust , the next few days will be crucial for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epidemic .
If the government is serious about it , its legislation must be cleansed of all disingenuous attempts to take advantage .
And if they are not serious about it , nobody else will be .
Published with permission from the Christian Concern .

Let us be very clear about what happened this week with the abortive imposition of DIY abortions under the pretext of fighting coronavirus.
March 25, 2020 (Christian Concern) — Pavel is a political exile of Putin’s Russia, having fled to the UK after his research as a historian put his life and liberty at risk. He then studied law at King’s College London and University of Law. He now works as a legal consultant for Christian Legal Centre.
Let us be very clear about what happened this week with the abortive imposition of DIY abortions under the pretext of fighting coronavirus. On Monday afternoon, the gov.uk website published an official legislative document, which drastically changed the substance of the law with immediate effect. The document read as follows:
The Abortion Act 1967 — Approval of a Class of Places This approval supersedes the approval of 27 December 2018. The Secretary of State makes the following approval in exercise of the powers
conferred by section 1(3) and (3A) 1of the Abortion Act 19672: Interpretation 1. In this approval –
“home” means, in the case of a pregnant woman, the place in England where a
pregnant woman has her permanent address or usually resides or, in the case of a
registered medical practitioner, the place in England where a registered medical
practitioner has their permanent address or usually resides; “approved place” means a hospital in England, as authorised under section 1(3) of
the Abortion Act 1967, or a place in England approved under that section. Approval of class of place 2. The home of a registered medical practitioner is approved as a class of place for
treatment for the termination of pregnancy for the purposes only of prescribing the
medicines known as Mifepristone and Misoprostol to be used in treatment carried out
in the manner specified in paragraph 4. 3. The home of a pregnant woman who is undergoing treatment for the purposes of
termination of her pregnancy is approved as a class of place where the treatment for
termination of pregnancy may be carried out where that treatment is carried out in
the manner specified in paragraph 4. 4. The treatment must be carried out in the following manner- a) the pregnant woman has- i) attended an approved place; ii) had a consultation with an approved place via video link, telephone
conference or other electronic means, or iii) had a consultation with a registered medical practitioner via video link,
telephone conference or other electronic means; and b) the pregnant woman is prescribed Mifepristone and Misoprostol to be taken for
the purposes of the termination of her pregnancy. Mark Davies
Director, Population Health
20 March 2020 1 Section 1(3A) was inserted by section 37(3) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (c. 37). 2 1967 c. 87.
Mr Davies’s signature was clearly visible on the pdf version published.
Pushed when national attention was elsewhere
These were the very DIY abortions on demand which the pro-death lobby had been lusting after for many years. As long as we had a properly functioning democracy, they had no success. Now that the voters have other things on their minds, it was imposed on us overnight — without debate, without vote, without publicity — insidiously slipped and shuffled into the pack of other measures we are told we need to survive. The moment was chosen very carefully — the day when everyone’s attention was completely consumed by Boris Johnson’s address to the nation announcing the lock-down. The calculation evidently was that nobody would notice, and once the wheels were in motion, it would be too late to protest.
Thankfully, this was not to be. The publication was spotted by a few pro-life groups (including Christian Concern), who promptly published protests. At some point overnight, one of those messages reached someone senior enough in the government to pull the brake. On Tuesday morning, the document was gone from the website, replaced by the inelegantly worded, obviously rushed notice:
“The information on this page has been removed because it was published in error.
“This was published in error. There will be no changes to abortion regulations.”
There was formal legislation
Do not be fooled by the understandable attempts to play this down. It was not an error of sending a wrong tweet: for a few hours, there was formal legislation in place which legalised DIY abortions. If, heaven forbid, such an abortion took place on Monday evening, it would have been legal. What has happened was not an administrative error. This was a disingenuous and sinister attempt by the pro-abortion forces to exploit the epidemic as a narrow opportunity to bypass democracy, and achieve their long-standing objective by the back door.
This is very serious in itself; but the significance of this extends beyond the all-important issue of abortion, wherever you stand on it. Our ability to cope with the coronavirus crisis depends entirely on people’s trust in the national leadership. It is remarkable how the country dutifully shut itself down on a say so of Boris Johnson (hardly the most non-controversial leader to appeal to all creeds). However, once the government attempts to exploit that crisis to implement an agenda which has nothing to do with coronavirus, that trust is lost. The consequences for the epidemic would be catastrophic. That would cost lives.
Whoever in the government has pulled the brake on the abortion coup d’état on Monday night deserves much credit for that. However, two further things need to happen before the trust can be restored.
Scandal must not be swept under the carpet
Firstly, this scandal must not be swept under the carpet as an ‘administrative error’. It must be thoroughly, transparently investigated. Those responsible for abuse of power, and for sabotaging the national effort to resist the dangerous epidemic, must be named and sacked without delay.
Secondly, the government’s Coronavirus Bill (and its wider ‘Coronavirus policy’) must be urgently reviewed to identify and remove all similar abuses. DIY abortions was not the only drastic measure there which had nothing whatsoever to do with coronavirus, and everything to do with stealing people’s liberties.
Doctors will have power to section people indefinitely
The Coronavirus Bill (which is being passed into law this week at breakneck speed) will, among other things, (1) authorise a forcible detention of people on mental health grounds (‘sectioning’) on the opinion of any one doctor (rather than two, as previously required) and (2) abolish the six-month time limit on ‘sectioning’. Any one doctor will have the power to lock you up in a lunatic asylum indefinitely — all in the interests of your own and others’ safety.
It is well-known, and self-evident, that forcible psychiatric detention is an area which is open to abuse in the absence of effective safeguards. In the Soviet Union, it was used simply as a tool to suppress political dissent. This may be an extreme example, but where is the guarantee that one rogue doctor or another will not, once in a while, abuse his newly found unlimited power? For very good reasons, we have had safeguards against that in our law. Now they are being urgently abolished — supposedly as an obstacle to our survival of the epidemic. How exactly are they such an obstacle?
It should be stressed that this has nothing to do with increasing doctors’ capacity to deal with coronavirus patients. A psychiatrist is not much help in treating a respiratory disease. In fact, he would be as useful as a gynaecologist. Just like gynaecologists can safely continue to supervise (and hopefully, sometimes refuse to authorise) abortions, there is no reason why psychiatrists cannot carry on doing their usual job — which includes, most importantly, protecting people from arbitrary detention on unsound psychiatric grounds. Those duties are not expendable luxuries, but are vital safeguards of liberty.
Powers to issue warrants for surveillance
Another frightening power-grab in the Coronavirus Bill is the expansion of the power to appoint temporary judicial commissioners, with the powers to issue warrants for surveillance, under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The threat to civil liberty is obvious; and this has nothing to do with coronavirus.
Given those examples, one inevitably looks more sceptically at the idea that the government knows best about its other measures which ostensibly have something to do with coronavirus. Things like prolonging local councillors’ term in office for a whole year without a democratic mandate; police power to detain anyone for up to 48 hours on suspicion of a threat to public health; Ministers’ authority to ban mass gatherings; or court trials by skype. Are all those things really necessary? Or have some civil servants simply been waiting (heaven knows for how long) for a convenient moment to introduce them without provoking mass protests on the streets?
For example, skype trials in court sound sensible at the time of an epidemic, but the very first reported trial is a rather frightening one. That is a Court of Protection trial last week to decide the fate of an anonymous man in his ’70s, whose GP wants to switch off his life support to let him die ‘in dignity’, and whose family objects. Remember all the debates and protests over the cases of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans in this country, and Vincent Lambert in France? Under the new regime, decisions on life and death cases of this kind are being made on a skype call. No proper trial, no ‘army’ of protesters, no real media coverage. It was only reported as a technological curiosity — the first major trial taking place by skype.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance
These and other measures are meant to be introduced only on a temporary basis. There is a sunset clause in the Bill, whereby these new laws will automatically lose force after two years unless Parliament votes to extend them beyond that period. Amendments are being debated to shorten that period. However, this does not answer the concern that some of the most drastic innovations in the Act are clearly not necessary to contain coronavirus at all. If in those two years, someone is wrongly ‘sectioned’ in a lunatic asylum, it is small comfort to them that this practice will cease in 2022. Further, as a general rule of constitutional history, temporary limitations on liberty tend to become permanent whenever they are convenient for the state. We still live today with all sorts of draconian laws introduced as a matter of emergency after 11 September 2001. Come 2022, the Coronavirus Bill powers may also be extended on whatever pretext. Indeed, section 90 of the Bill even permits the extension of those powers without a vote in Parliament.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Many dictatorships originate in people’s panicked enthusiasm for drastic measures to deal with a genuine crisis. Putin’s regime in Russia, for example, took hold because people trusted their democratically elected president to do whatever it takes to defeat the threat of terrorism. Eventually, when Putin responded to another terrorist attack by replacing regional elections with appointed governors, that trust was largely lost — but it was too late. It is no surprise that when we see fairly similar moves attempted in this country, our trust in the government hangs in the balance.
At least in terms of public trust, the next few days will be crucial for the government’s efforts to control the epidemic. If the government is serious about it, its legislation must be cleansed of all disingenuous attempts to take advantage. And if they are not serious about it, nobody else will be.
Published with permission from the Christian Concern.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-25--Pro-abortion Biden uses pro-life talking points to defend coronavirus economic lockdown

March 25 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – As policymakers debate the wisdom of forcing millions of Americans to stop working indefinitely in the name of halting the spread of the coronavirus , some politicians have taken to employing rhetoric at odds with their most divisive stances .
Pushing back against the notion that lockdowns should be halted soon due to the threat they pose to the economy , former Vice President and Democrat presidential frontrunner Joe Biden declared that “ no one is expendable ” regardless of age , and that “ no life is worth losing to add @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a similar vein , pro-abortion New York Democrat Gov .
Andrew Cuomo stressed that “ we will not put a dollar figure on human life.
” These politicians ’ odes to the sanctity of human life struck an odd tone to many observers in light of their opposition to virtually any limits on sacrificing human life in abortion .
Biden is running on a platform that includes direct taxpayer funding of abortion and federal action to block states from enacting even modest abortion restrictions , including parental notification requirements , ultrasound laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Biden ’ s declaration of solidarity with the elderly might not sit well with his own health advisor , Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel , who wrote in 2014 that “ living too long ” ( defined as past age 75 ) renders people “ faltering and declining , ” and that a “ younger person who has yet to live a complete life ” should “ certainly ” be prioritized for “ vaccine or any antiviral drugs ” during a pandemic .
Cuomo , meanwhile , is the governor who infamously signed last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to third-trimester abortions , erasing the state ’ s recognition of preborn babies as potential homicide victims , removing abortion from the penal code entirely , and allowing non-doctors to commit abortions .
As for the substance of their remarks , critics argue that pitting human life against the economy is a false choice for multiple reasons : first , that economic hardship without a clear path to recovery imperils lives too ( as evidence by a 300 % spike in calls to the National Suicide Prevention Hotline ) ; and second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the elderly is entirely possible while allowing the younger and healthier to go about their lives .
Lockdown opponents further note that deaths and hospitalization numbers so far have been dramatically lower than the computer projections that inspired the lockdowns in the first place .
Some argue that the United States should instead be following the strategy articulated by Israeli Defense Minister Naftali Benett , which is to isolate the vulnerable and allow the rest of the population to develop herd immunity .
“ So what we need to do over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care of grandma and grandpa from far away , ” he said .
“ Lots of WhatsApp and Skype and you name it .
Bring them food , clean the box before you leave , and then they take it in the house .
But do not enter the house , do not hug them , because you 're risking them.
” “ Over the next few months , gradually the rest of the population , want it or not , is going to get the coronavirus , ” Benett continued .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who get the coronavirus , wo n't even know it .
It will take three or four weeks , they wo n't know they have the virus , and by the end of those four weeks , they 'll be immune.
” Readers can click here for LifeSiteNews ’ live updates on the coronavirus and its impact all over the world .

Biden ironically said that 'no life is worth losing to add one more point to the Dow’ and that ‘no one is expendable, no matter your age’
March 25, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – As policymakers debate the wisdom of forcing millions of Americans to stop working indefinitely in the name of halting the spread of the coronavirus, some politicians have taken to employing rhetoric at odds with their most divisive stances.
Pushing back against the notion that lockdowns should be halted soon due to the threat they pose to the economy, former Vice President and Democrat presidential frontrunner Joe Biden declared that “no one is expendable” regardless of age, and that “no life is worth losing to add one more point to the Dow.”
Let me be very clear: No one is expendable. No matter your age, race, gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or disability. No life is worth losing to add one more point to the Dow. — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) March 25, 2020
In a similar vein, pro-abortion New York Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo stressed that “we will not put a dollar figure on human life.”
My mother is not expendable. Your mother is not expendable. We will not put a dollar figure on human life. We can have a public health strategy that is consistent with an economic one. No one should be talking about social darwinism for the sake of the stock market. — Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) March 24, 2020
These politicians’ odes to the sanctity of human life struck an odd tone to many observers in light of their opposition to virtually any limits on sacrificing human life in abortion. Biden is running on a platform that includes direct taxpayer funding of abortion and federal action to block states from enacting even modest abortion restrictions, including parental notification requirements, ultrasound laws, and waiting periods.
Beyond abortion, Biden’s declaration of solidarity with the elderly might not sit well with his own health advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who wrote in 2014 that “living too long” (defined as past age 75) renders people “faltering and declining,” and that a “younger person who has yet to live a complete life” should “certainly” be prioritized for “vaccine or any antiviral drugs” during a pandemic.
Cuomo, meanwhile, is the governor who infamously signed last year a law codifying a “right” to third-trimester abortions, erasing the state’s recognition of preborn babies as potential homicide victims, removing abortion from the penal code entirely, and allowing non-doctors to commit abortions.
As for the substance of their remarks, critics argue that pitting human life against the economy is a false choice for multiple reasons: first, that economic hardship without a clear path to recovery imperils lives too (as evidence by a 300% spike in calls to the National Suicide Prevention Hotline); and second, that targeted isolation of and care for the elderly is entirely possible while allowing the younger and healthier to go about their lives.
Lockdown opponents further note that deaths and hospitalization numbers so far have been dramatically lower than the computer projections that inspired the lockdowns in the first place. Some argue that the United States should instead be following the strategy articulated by Israeli Defense Minister Naftali Benett, which is to isolate the vulnerable and allow the rest of the population to develop herd immunity.
“So what we need to do over the next period of time is to take care of grandma and grandpa from far away,” he said. “Lots of WhatsApp and Skype and you name it. Bring them food, clean the box before you leave, and then they take it in the house. But do not enter the house, do not hug them, because you're risking them.”
“Over the next few months, gradually the rest of the population, want it or not, is going to get the coronavirus,” Benett continued. “Most, the overwhelming majority of people who get the coronavirus, won't even know it. It will take three or four weeks, they won't know they have the virus, and by the end of those four weeks, they'll be immune.”
Readers can click here for LifeSiteNews’ live updates on the coronavirus and its impact all over the world.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-25--Socialist Canada is a warning sign for Americans

In today ’ s episode of The Van Maren Show , author of The Trouble with Canada William Gairdner , @ @ @ @ @ business man , and former Olympian , joins Jonathon to discuss how socialism has taken @ @ @ @ @ Canada and the impacts it has had on the country .
Gairdner and Jonathon discuss @ @ @ @ @ do , but they see Canada as a warning for the US and other countries @ @ @ @ @

In today’s episode of The Van Maren Show, author of The Trouble with Canada William Gairdner, a Canadian political philosopher, business man, and former Olympian, joins Jonathon to discuss how socialism has taken such a strong hold in Canada and the impacts it has had on the country.
Gairdner and Jonathon discuss not only what Canadians can do, but they see Canada as a warning for the US and other countries that are glorifying socialism.


lifesitenews--2020-03-25--Pro-life org raises alarm over Trudeau using coronavirus for ‘totalitarian power grab’

OTTAWA , Ontario , March 25 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The pro-abortion Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau ’ s $ 82-billion coronavirus bill received Royal Assent to become law today after concessions were made to the opposition Conservatives who demanded it be amended to remove , as much as possible , “ undemocratic power grab ” sections of the bill .
Concerns remain that Bill C-13 might still give the government too much “ dictatorial power ” despite revisions to the bill .
Many Members of Parliament ( MPs ) voiced opposition to portions of Bill C-13 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bill in detail earlier in the week .
To pass the legislation , the Canadian Parliament was recalled Tuesday after being in recess since March 13 .
A limited number of Members of Parliament ( MPs ) from each party were present Tuesday .
MPs were outraged at its apparent abuse of authority , which included sections 2 , 4 and 9 .
This portion would have given unlimited spending and taxing powers to the minister of finance Bill Morneau until January 1 , 2022 , with no approval from parliament .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he was pleased concessions were made to the bill to rectify most of their concerns , most notably the removal of section 2 .
“ What we were not prepared for was the government ’ s attempted undemocratic power grab , ” said Scheer in a Conservative Party statement today .
“ The Liberals shamefully tried to use a public health crisis to give themselves the powers to raise taxes , debt and spending without parliamentary approval until January 1 , 2022 .
But after hours of negotiation , the government has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that parliament alone has the power regarding taxation and the approval of spending .
Jack Fonseca , Director of Political Operations for Campaign Life Coalition , said to LifeSiteNews that despite the concessions made , concerns remain that Bill C-13 might still give Trudeau too much power .
“ I do know from inside sources , that the Conservatives were very worried that Trudeau ’ s allies in the mainstream Liberal media were successfully spinning the story to paint them as the villains who are “ holding up financial relief ” that Canadians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For that reason , I fear that the compromise legislation that the Conservatives finally agreed to , may potentially still end up giving Trudeau too much dictatorial power .
However , I applaud what must have been a herculean effort to roll back Trudeau ’ s power grab as much as they did , and thank God for that.
” The Conservative Party statement sent out today says that in addition to the removal of section 2 , the party was able to get the government to roll back their unlimited spending powers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available for a six-month time frame ending on September 30 , 2020 , instead of January 1 , 2022 .
The Conservative Party was also able to get the special warrants timeline window pushed to June 23 , 2020 , instead of September 30 , 2020 .
Special warrants are given by the Governor-General so that funds can be obtained for the government 's urgent needs when Parliament is not sitting .
Additionally , the government agreed to “ include explicit reference to putting taxpayers ’ rights first ” and that sunset clauses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clause in the bill repeals the legislation on September 30 , 2020 .
Lastly , the Conservative Party was able to get the government to “ be accountable to Parliament through regular reports to the House of Commons Health and Finance committees and that the Finance Committee has the right to recall Parliament if we identify any abuses.
” When speaking about the bill to LifeSiteNews after information first broke of its concerning sections , Fonseca said Bill C-13 shows once and for all that Trudeau is a danger to Canadian democracy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mussolini .
It ’ s frightening , really .
He ’ s using the cover of the coronavirus panic to seize dictatorial power .
This is further evidence for my position that Justin Trudeau is the most dangerous man in Canadian political history.
” “ Trudeau , the unrepentant admirer of China 's ‘ basic dictatorship ’ and Cuba ’ s mass-murdering dictator Fidel Castro , can not be trusted , ” said Fonseca .
Trudeau famously praised China ’ s ‘ basic dictatorship ’ in speaking at a Liberal party fundraising event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him which country besides Canada he most admires .
In response to the reporter , Trudeau said : “ There is a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime ...
I mean there is a flexibility that I know Stephen Harper must dream about , of having a dictatorship that he can do everything he wanted that I find quite interesting .
Fonseca warned that Trudeau 's “ totalitarian power grab ” could potentially affect all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down the road , given Trudeau ’ s “ obsession with promoting abortion and homosexuality using taxpayer money.
” He warned that all Canadian pro-life and pro-family advocates should pay close attention to this issue .
All parties initially agreed to pass spending measures announced last week by Trudeau to assist Canadian individuals and businesses cope with the fallout of the coronavirus epidemic .
In a statement sent out on March 23 , Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer did not mince words in regards to the proposed legislation and his opposition to parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was being used as a “ power grab.
” “ Conservatives are ready to work to support Canadians in this time of crisis .
But we will not give the government unlimited power to raise taxes without a parliamentary vote .
We will authorize whatever spending measures are justified in response , but not sign a blank cheque , ” said Scheer .
Scheer initially announced that he was willing to approve spending measures , so long as the bill did not grant “ the government unprecedented powers.
” Trudeau then agreed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multiple Canadian media outlets , who managed to obtain embargoed drafts of the legislation , highlighted the contentious section in reports .
In its original form , Bill-C-13 contained 20 sections in total .
One section which remains in place creates the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act .
This allows any Liberal cabinet minister , with finance minister ’ s Bill Morneau ’ s approval , to spend as much money as required to combat a public health emergency .
At his daily press conference from his residence while in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on with the rest of his legislation , saying these types of spending measures are needed to combat the “ exceptional situation ” the nation is in .
“ We recognize that this pandemic is moving extremely quickly and it is an exceptional situation that requires extreme flexibility and rapidity of response by governments to be able to help Canadians and react to a situation that we ’ ve seen is moving quickly every single day.
” Many opposition MPs such as Conservative Derek Sloan who is a nominee in the running for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s aid package as an affront to democracy .
“ The fact that Trudeau even proposed this patently unconstitutional power grab in the middle of a crisis should concern us all , ” said Sloan via Twitter Tuesday .
Yes , there seem to be some good and necessary components to help fight COVID-19 .
But this bill goes far beyond that .
This bill grants sweeping powers to Trudeau and his team to do pretty much whatever they like for the next 18 months , including unlimited ability to tax .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ yesterday that never in Canada ’ s history has a bill like Trudeau ’ s “ been done before.
” “ Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer who reviewed a draft of the bill called the new powers ‘ unprecedented , ’ ” he said .
“ Maybe Trudeau sees this as his chance to bring to fruition the dictatorships he so admires.
” Leslyn Lewis , another nominee in the running for the Conservative party leadership , called the bill as proposed by Trudeau ’ s Liberals “ unacceptable ” since it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for 21 months.
” In emails to supporters , she accused Trudeau of using the coronavirus to “ advance undemocratic agendas.
” Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre and Shadow Minister of Finance was direct in saying his party would not support any legislation if sections which remove the parliamentary process are not taken out .
“ Scheer 's message is simple : approve aid to families & businesses immediately .
Take out any sections of the bill that rob Parliament to give unprecedented powers to Trudeau .
Give help to Canadians not power to @ @ @ @ @ @

'Trudeau has let out his inner Mussolini. It’s frightening, really. He’s using the cover of the coronavirus panic to seize dictatorial power.'
OTTAWA, Ontario, March 25, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The pro-abortion Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau’s $82-billion coronavirus bill received Royal Assent to become law today after concessions were made to the opposition Conservatives who demanded it be amended to remove, as much as possible, “undemocratic power grab” sections of the bill.
Concerns remain that Bill C-13 might still give the government too much “dictatorial power” despite revisions to the bill.
Many Members of Parliament (MPs) voiced opposition to portions of Bill C-13, after reading the first draft of the bill in detail earlier in the week. To pass the legislation, the Canadian Parliament was recalled Tuesday after being in recess since March 13. A limited number of Members of Parliament (MPs) from each party were present Tuesday.
MPs were outraged at its apparent abuse of authority, which included sections 2, 4 and 9. This portion would have given unlimited spending and taxing powers to the minister of finance Bill Morneau until January 1, 2022, with no approval from parliament.
Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer announced today that he was pleased concessions were made to the bill to rectify most of their concerns, most notably the removal of section 2.
“What we were not prepared for was the government’s attempted undemocratic power grab,” said Scheer in a Conservative Party statement today.
“The Liberals shamefully tried to use a public health crisis to give themselves the powers to raise taxes, debt and spending without parliamentary approval until January 1, 2022. But after hours of negotiation, the government has backed down.”
The Canadian Constitution states that parliament alone has the power regarding taxation and the approval of spending.
Jack Fonseca, Director of Political Operations for Campaign Life Coalition, said to LifeSiteNews that despite the concessions made, concerns remain that Bill C-13 might still give Trudeau too much power.
“I do know from inside sources, that the Conservatives were very worried that Trudeau’s allies in the mainstream Liberal media were successfully spinning the story to paint them as the villains who are “holding up financial relief” that Canadians need,” said Fonseca.
“For that reason, I fear that the compromise legislation that the Conservatives finally agreed to, may potentially still end up giving Trudeau too much dictatorial power. However, I applaud what must have been a herculean effort to roll back Trudeau’s power grab as much as they did, and thank God for that.”
The Conservative Party statement sent out today says that in addition to the removal of section 2, the party was able to get the government to roll back their unlimited spending powers. These powers will now be only available for a six-month time frame ending on September 30, 2020, instead of January 1, 2022.
The Conservative Party was also able to get the special warrants timeline window pushed to June 23, 2020, instead of September 30, 2020. Special warrants are given by the Governor-General so that funds can be obtained for the government's urgent needs when Parliament is not sitting.
Additionally, the government agreed to “include explicit reference to putting taxpayers’ rights first” and that sunset clauses be placed in legislation. The sunset clause in the bill repeals the legislation on September 30, 2020.
Lastly, the Conservative Party was able to get the government to “be accountable to Parliament through regular reports to the House of Commons Health and Finance committees and that the Finance Committee has the right to recall Parliament if we identify any abuses.”
When speaking about the bill to LifeSiteNews after information first broke of its concerning sections, Fonseca said Bill C-13 shows once and for all that Trudeau is a danger to Canadian democracy.
“Trudeau has let out his inner Mussolini. It’s frightening, really. He’s using the cover of the coronavirus panic to seize dictatorial power. This is further evidence for my position that Justin Trudeau is the most dangerous man in Canadian political history.”
Fonseca then noted Trudeau’s love of China.
“Trudeau, the unrepentant admirer of China's ‘basic dictatorship’ and Cuba’s mass-murdering dictator Fidel Castro, cannot be trusted,” said Fonseca.
Trudeau famously praised China’s ‘basic dictatorship’ in speaking at a Liberal party fundraising event in 2013, after a reporter asked him which country besides Canada he most admires.
In response to the reporter, Trudeau said: “There is a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime… I mean there is a flexibility that I know Stephen Harper must dream about, of having a dictatorship that he can do everything he wanted that I find quite interesting.
Fonseca warned that Trudeau's “totalitarian power grab” could potentially affect all future family and life issues in Canada down the road, given Trudeau’s “obsession with promoting abortion and homosexuality using taxpayer money.”
He warned that all Canadian pro-life and pro-family advocates should pay close attention to this issue.
Background to Bill C-13’s passage
All parties initially agreed to pass spending measures announced last week by Trudeau to assist Canadian individuals and businesses cope with the fallout of the coronavirus epidemic.
In a statement sent out on March 23, Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer did not mince words in regards to the proposed legislation and his opposition to parts of it after it became clear it was being used as a “power grab.”
“Conservatives are ready to work to support Canadians in this time of crisis. But we will not give the government unlimited power to raise taxes without a parliamentary vote. We will authorize whatever spending measures are justified in response, but not sign a blank cheque,” said Scheer.
Scheer initially announced that he was willing to approve spending measures, so long as the bill did not grant “the government unprecedented powers.”
Trudeau then agreed to remove section 2 on Tuesday, after multiple Canadian media outlets, who managed to obtain embargoed drafts of the legislation, highlighted the contentious section in reports.
In its original form, Bill-C-13 contained 20 sections in total. One section which remains in place creates the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act. This allows any Liberal cabinet minister, with finance minister’s Bill Morneau’s approval, to spend as much money as required to combat a public health emergency.
At his daily press conference from his residence while in self-isolation on Tuesday, Trudeau nevertheless pressed on with the rest of his legislation, saying these types of spending measures are needed to combat the “exceptional situation” the nation is in.
“We recognize that this pandemic is moving extremely quickly and it is an exceptional situation that requires extreme flexibility and rapidity of response by governments to be able to help Canadians and react to a situation that we’ve seen is moving quickly every single day.”
Many opposition MPs such as Conservative Derek Sloan who is a nominee in the running for the party leadership, called out Trudeau’s aid package as an affront to democracy.
“The fact that Trudeau even proposed this patently unconstitutional power grab in the middle of a crisis should concern us all,” said Sloan via Twitter Tuesday.
Yes, there seem to be some good and necessary components to help fight COVID-19. But this bill goes far beyond that. This bill grants sweeping powers to Trudeau and his team to do pretty much whatever they like for the next 18 months, including unlimited ability to tax.
Sloan said in an email to supporters yesterday that never in Canada’s history has a bill like Trudeau’s “been done before.”
“Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer who reviewed a draft of the bill called the new powers ‘unprecedented,’” he said. “Maybe Trudeau sees this as his chance to bring to fruition the dictatorships he so admires.”
Leslyn Lewis, another nominee in the running for the Conservative party leadership, called the bill as proposed by Trudeau’s Liberals “unacceptable” since it would give the Liberals a “blank cheque for 21 months.”
In emails to supporters, she accused Trudeau of using the coronavirus to “advance undemocratic agendas.”
Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre and Shadow Minister of Finance was direct in saying his party would not support any legislation if sections which remove the parliamentary process are not taken out.
“Scheer's message is simple: approve aid to families & businesses immediately. Take out any sections of the bill that rob Parliament to give unprecedented powers to Trudeau. Give help to Canadians not power to government. #HellNo.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-25--Catholic Tanzanian president on coronavirus: ‘We didn’t close down churches’

March 25 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Amid the dire messaging and drastic steps of world leaders to separate citizens to stem the spread of the coronavirus – including the shutting down of Catholic Masses throughout the western world – the president of Tanzania told the people of his nation , “ We [ don ’ t ] close down churches.
” President John Magufuli , leader of a country of 57 million people located on the east coast of Africa , is a Catholic .
He spoke at St. Paul 's Cathedral in the nation ’ s capital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow Christians and even [ Muslims ] , do not be afraid , do not stop gathering yourself to glorify God and praise Him , ” said Magufuli .
“ That is why as a government we didn ’ t close down churches or mosques.
” “ Instead , they should be always open for the people to seek refuge to God , ” Magufuli insisted .
“ Churches are places where people could seek the true healing , because there the True God resides .
Do not ... be afraid of praising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Church.
” “ The Coronavirus can not survive in the Eucharistic body of Christ ; it will soon be burnt away , ” he declared .
“ That is exactly why I did not panic while taking the Holy Communion , because I knew , with Jesus in the Eucharist I am safe , ” said President Magufuli .
“ This is the time of building our faith in God.
” In a previous display of his Catholic faith , in 2018 Magufuli encouraged Tanzanians to disregard the pressure coming from pro-contraception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for International Development ( USAID ) – and continue reproducing .
He promised that the government would improve healthcare , specifically maternal health with the building of 67 new hospitals .
The Tanzanian president questioned the merits of so-called family planning and expressed concern over low birth rates experienced by many countries .
“ I have traveled to Europe and elsewhere and have seen the harmful effects of birth control .
Some countries are now facing declining population growth .
They are short on manpower , ” said Magufuli .

'They should be always open for the people to seek refuge to God.'
PRAYER PLEDGE: Rally around the daily Rosary to stop the coronavirus Sign the petition here.
March 25, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Amid the dire messaging and drastic steps of world leaders to separate citizens to stem the spread of the coronavirus – including the shutting down of Catholic Masses throughout the western world – the president of Tanzania told the people of his nation, “We [don’t] close down churches.”
President John Magufuli, leader of a country of 57 million people located on the east coast of Africa, is a Catholic. He spoke at St. Paul's Cathedral in the nation’s capital.
“I insist upon you my fellow Christians and even [Muslims], do not be afraid, do not stop gathering yourself to glorify God and praise Him,” said Magufuli. “That is why as a government we didn’t close down churches or mosques.”
“Instead, they should be always open for the people to seek refuge to God,” Magufuli insisted. “Churches are places where people could seek the true healing, because there the True God resides. Do not…be afraid of praising and seeking God’s face in the Church.”
“The Coronavirus cannot survive in the Eucharistic body of Christ; it will soon be burnt away,” he declared.
“That is exactly why I did not panic while taking the Holy Communion, because I knew, with Jesus in the Eucharist I am safe,” said President Magufuli. “This is the time of building our faith in God.”
President Magufuli delivered his remarks on March 22, Laetare Sunday.
In a previous display of his Catholic faith, in 2018 Magufuli encouraged Tanzanians to disregard the pressure coming from pro-contraception foreigners – including the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) – and continue reproducing. He promised that the government would improve healthcare, specifically maternal health with the building of 67 new hospitals.
The Tanzanian president questioned the merits of so-called family planning and expressed concern over low birth rates experienced by many countries.
“I have traveled to Europe and elsewhere and have seen the harmful effects of birth control. Some countries are now facing declining population growth. They are short on manpower,” said Magufuli.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-25--Large families shopping during COVID-19 met with ‘distrust, aggression’

March 25 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A pro-family organization in Germany reported that large families shopping during the coronavirus pandemic , which is causing shortages of some items in stores , experience “ a lack of understanding , distrust , and even direct aggression.
” Some families were even asked to prove how many children they have to care for .
They were then faced with doubts regarding the truth of their statements .
“ If a family has five children , they need 1 kilo of pasta and two cans of tomatoes for one meal , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kinderreicher Familien Deutschland ( KRFD ) .
“ What for others is a purchase to stock up is a normal weekend shopping trip for families with several children , ” she explained .
Instead of being frowned upon while shopping , parents of large families “ need solidarity , understanding and respect for the task of providing food and care , ” Müller continued .
“ In the current situation , parents are under enormous pressure.
” Annika Kröller , who also works for KRFD , said parents need to be true all-rounders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cook , teach , do handicrafts , read , play , clean up , and always have to plan for the next few days.
” She pointed out that parents “ don ’ t have time to rest or think calmly , and in many families the corona crisis also triggers existential fears , because the savings account is rarely overflowing.
” While children in large families are not bothered by the fact that all schools and child care facilities are closed in Germany , since they always have someone to play with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure , ” Kröller said .
In the context of shopping for large families , KRFD stated that a “ multi-child family card , ” some sort of identification card on which all children belonging to the family are listed , “ has proven to be very useful.
” Already in use in Thuringia , KRFD “ urgently ” recommended the adoption of similar cards in all parts of Germany .
Originally , KRFD had intended to have an alternative to “ family passes ” to amusement parks or cultural institutions , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two children .
However , following the coronavirus outbreak , “ it is becoming more and more important for families to acquire sufficient food and necessities.
” For this reason , the website of the “ multi-child family card ” in Thuringia explained , “ the card now serves as a family record of the persons living within the family and is intended to make it easier for families with many children to purchase basic food , necessities and hygiene products for the coming weeks.
” The “ multi-child family card ” is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognized by the state of Thuringia in Germany , as well as many organizations representing all kinds of businesses and individual institutions .
In fact , even far-left prime minister Bodo Ramelow praised the card .
“ The abundance of children is a blessing for our society , a statement that is actually self-evident , and yet it is not uncommon for everyday life to present a different picture , ” he said in 2019 , when the card was first introduced .
Regarding the importance of family life , especially during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a reliable place of retreat and support .
“ The period of the coronavirus should encourage us as a society to think about what is really important in life and what is important when everyday life is so radically questioned.
” In Germany , current rules state that “ visiting public places is only permitted alone , with one other person who does not live in your household , or when accompanied by the members of your own household.
” Restaurants and service providers like hairdressers are closed for at least two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Germany have tested positive for coronavirus , and the country is reporting 149 deaths so far .
Death rates in other countries , including the United States , are significantly higher .

Some families are being asked to prove how many children they have to care for.
March 25, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A pro-family organization in Germany reported that large families shopping during the coronavirus pandemic, which is causing shortages of some items in stores, experience “a lack of understanding, distrust, and even direct aggression.”
Some families were even asked to prove how many children they have to care for. They were then faced with doubts regarding the truth of their statements.
“If a family has five children, they need 1 kilo of pasta and two cans of tomatoes for one meal,” said Elisabeth Müller, head of Verband kinderreicher Familien Deutschland (KRFD). “What for others is a purchase to stock up is a normal weekend shopping trip for families with several children,” she explained.
Instead of being frowned upon while shopping, parents of large families “need solidarity, understanding and respect for the task of providing food and care,” Müller continued. “In the current situation, parents are under enormous pressure.”
Annika Kröller, who also works for KRFD, said parents need to be true all-rounders in the current situation. “They cook, teach, do handicrafts, read, play, clean up, and always have to plan for the next few days.”
She pointed out that parents “don’t have time to rest or think calmly, and in many families the corona crisis also triggers existential fears, because the savings account is rarely overflowing.”
While children in large families are not bothered by the fact that all schools and child care facilities are closed in Germany, since they always have someone to play with, parents are under “enormous psychological pressure,” Kröller said.
In the context of shopping for large families, KRFD stated that a “multi-child family card,” some sort of identification card on which all children belonging to the family are listed, “has proven to be very useful.” Already in use in Thuringia, KRFD “urgently” recommended the adoption of similar cards in all parts of Germany.
Originally, KRFD had intended to have an alternative to “family passes” to amusement parks or cultural institutions, which usually include admission for only up to two children.
However, following the coronavirus outbreak, “it is becoming more and more important for families to acquire sufficient food and necessities.”
For this reason, the website of the “multi-child family card” in Thuringia explained, “the card now serves as a family record of the persons living within the family and is intended to make it easier for families with many children to purchase basic food, necessities and hygiene products for the coming weeks.”
The “multi-child family card” is a private initiative, but it is recognized by the state of Thuringia in Germany, as well as many organizations representing all kinds of businesses and individual institutions.
In fact, even far-left prime minister Bodo Ramelow praised the card. “The abundance of children is a blessing for our society, a statement that is actually self-evident, and yet it is not uncommon for everyday life to present a different picture,” he said in 2019, when the card was first introduced.
Regarding the importance of family life, especially during the coronavirus pandemic, Müller said the family was a reliable place of retreat and support. “The period of the coronavirus should encourage us as a society to think about what is really important in life and what is important when everyday life is so radically questioned.”
In Germany, current rules state that “visiting public places is only permitted alone, with one other person who does not live in your household, or when accompanied by the members of your own household.” Restaurants and service providers like hairdressers are closed for at least two weeks.
More than 31,000 people in Germany have tested positive for coronavirus, and the country is reporting 149 deaths so far. Death rates in other countries, including the United States, are significantly higher.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-25--Lawyers warn against health care rationing based on age, disability: It violates civil rights law

March 25 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A group of U.S. lawyers have warned that rationing health care based on disability or age during the coronavirus outbreak violates federal civil rights law .
“ Federal law requires that decisions regarding the critical care of patients during the current crisis not discriminate on the basis of disability or age , ” lawyers representing the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund and the Thomas More Society wrote in a March 23 memorandum .
“ In this respect , anticipated longevity or quality of life are inappropriate issues for consideration.
” “ Decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as to which patients have the greatest need and the best prospect of a good medical outcome .
Therefore , disability and age should not be used as categorical exclusions in making these critical decisions.
” Charles LiMandri , Partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP , and who also serves as Special Counsel of both groups , served as the lead attorney on the legal memorandum .
The memo was prepared at the request of three scholars from prominent American universities .
The scholars requested the legal memo in light of reports that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weigh their options of introducing the rationing of health care based on age or disability , in light of the coronavirus epidemic .
The term “ health care rationing ” has been touted by some in the mainstream media as something that could become the new norm in the United States should hospital beds become scarce .
In his legal analysis , LiMandri says that trying to justify policies of health care rationing “ on the basis of disability or age ” in light of the coronavirus would “ violate federal law regarding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would also “ open up the purveyors of those policies to legal liability which will likely be exploited.
” “ We ’ re reading the unthinkable—the Seattle Times reported that Washington State and hospital officials have been meeting to consider how to decide who lives and dies , ” commented Thomas More Society Vice President Peter Breen .
“ In our nation ’ s capital , the Washington Post is running editorials about the ‘ nightmare ’ of rationing health care , as is the National Review in the hard-hit state of New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care from someone because they are elderly or disabled , is untenable and represents a giant step in the devaluation of each and every human life in America.
” LiMandri ’ s analysis cites current federal legislation that would govern matters relating to the denial of medical care based on a patient ’ s age or disability .
The memorandum cites the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 , which “ prohibits age discrimination in programs or activities that receive financial assistance from the federal government , including Health and Human Services ( HHS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act of 1973 , which “ prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs conducted by federal agencies or programs receiving federal financial assistance ” ; and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 , which prohibits any discrimination based on disability in the private sphere and by state and local governments .
LiMandri ’ s analysis says that the Affordable Care Act ( Obamacare ) “ extends the above protections against discrimination based on disability or age to individuals participating in any health program or activity administered by HHS or that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March 24 , there were currently 44,183 cases of the coronavirus in the U.S. with 544 deaths .
In a March 24 opinion piece for LifeSiteNews , Steven Mosher , an expert on China and the President of the Population Research Institute , explained how coronavirus statistics can be distorted resulting in overblown projections .

'We’re reading the unthinkable—the Seattle Times reported that Washington State and hospital officials have been meeting to consider how to decide who lives and dies,' commented Thomas More Society Vice President Peter Breen.
March 25, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A group of U.S. lawyers have warned that rationing health care based on disability or age during the coronavirus outbreak violates federal civil rights law.
“Federal law requires that decisions regarding the critical care of patients during the current crisis not discriminate on the basis of disability or age,” lawyers representing the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund and the Thomas More Society wrote in a March 23 memorandum. “In this respect, anticipated longevity or quality of life are inappropriate issues for consideration.”
“Decisions must be made solely on clinical factors as to which patients have the greatest need and the best prospect of a good medical outcome. Therefore, disability and age should not be used as categorical exclusions in making these critical decisions.”
Charles LiMandri, Partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP, and who also serves as Special Counsel of both groups, served as the lead attorney on the legal memorandum. The memo was prepared at the request of three scholars from prominent American universities.
The scholars requested the legal memo in light of reports that many American state-level authorities are beginning to weigh their options of introducing the rationing of health care based on age or disability, in light of the coronavirus epidemic.
The term “health care rationing” has been touted by some in the mainstream media as something that could become the new norm in the United States should hospital beds become scarce.
In his legal analysis, LiMandri says that trying to justify policies of health care rationing “on the basis of disability or age” in light of the coronavirus would “violate federal law regarding invidious discrimination.”
LiMandri adds that it would also “open up the purveyors of those policies to legal liability which will likely be exploited.”
“We’re reading the unthinkable—the Seattle Times reported that Washington State and hospital officials have been meeting to consider how to decide who lives and dies,” commented Thomas More Society Vice President Peter Breen. “In our nation’s capital, the Washington Post is running editorials about the ‘nightmare’ of rationing health care, as is the National Review in the hard-hit state of New York. The horrific idea of withholding care from someone because they are elderly or disabled, is untenable and represents a giant step in the devaluation of each and every human life in America.”
LiMandri’s analysis cites current federal legislation that would govern matters relating to the denial of medical care based on a patient’s age or disability.
The memorandum cites the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, which “prohibits age discrimination in programs or activities that receive financial assistance from the federal government, including Health and Human Services (HHS) funding”; the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which “prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs conducted by federal agencies or programs receiving federal financial assistance”; and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which prohibits any discrimination based on disability in the private sphere and by state and local governments.
LiMandri’s analysis says that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) “extends the above protections against discrimination based on disability or age to individuals participating in any health program or activity administered by HHS or that receives funding from HHS.”
As of March 24, there were currently 44,183 cases of the coronavirus in the U.S. with 544 deaths.
In a March 24 opinion piece for LifeSiteNews, Steven Mosher, an expert on China and the President of the Population Research Institute, explained how coronavirus statistics can be distorted resulting in overblown projections.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-25--Ontario Catholic churches locked, beer and pot stores stay open

PRAYER PLEDGE : Rally around the daily Rosary to stop the coronavirus Sign the petition here .
TORONTO , March 25 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — At least four Ontario Catholic archdioceses — including the province ’ s largest dioceses of Ottawa and Toronto — have locked their churches indefinitely in the face of the Wuhan flu pandemic even as the province ’ s pot , beer , and liquor stores remain open .
Premier Doug Ford ’ s government ordered a mandatory shutdown of all non-essential services that begins at midnight March 24 and will last at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses or services deemed “ essential ” — including beer stores , the provincial Liquor Control Board of Ontario ( LCBO ) outlets , and cannabis stores .
But it is not clear at this point exactly what health authority ordered the closure of churches in particular regions , and specifically in Toronto .
Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa directed his priests Monday to close down all churches — even for private prayer — in his diocese , citing an order from Dr. Paul Roumeliotis , medical officer of health for the Eastern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the counties of Stormont , Dundas and Glengarry ; the counties of Prescott-Russell ; and the city of Cornwall .
A spokesperson for health minister Christine Elliott confirmed with LifeSiteNews in an email that the province ’ s chief medical officer did not order Ottawa to shut its churches .
Roumeliotis ’ s March 22 directive shuts down all “ churches , mosques , synagogues and other places of worship , ” as well as all daycares , gyms and recreational centers , and personal services settings , such as tattoo and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hairdressing salons , within his jurisdiction .
Corporations that violate the order , which does not have an expiration date , could be fined up to $ 250,000 daily .
Cardinal Thomas Collins of Toronto issued a March 24 directive to his priests to close all churches in his archdiocese immediately .
However , Collins ’ s statement does not , as does Prendergast ’ s , refer to an order by a health authority who has jurisdiction over Toronto — which Roumeliotis does not .
Although Elliott ’ s spokesperson confirmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Ottawa area churches closed , a Canadian Press story published March 25 claimed that it was because of a provincial directive that Collins ordered Toronto churches shut .
LifeSiteNews asked the health minister to confirm if the province ordered the shutdown for Toronto but had not heard back by deadline .
Archdiocese spokesman Neil McCarthy did not answer LifeSiteNews ’ s question as to what health authority ordered the closure of churches in the Toronto archdiocese , but instead referred to the public statement .
All public Masses were canceled in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when Ford declared a state of emergency , but up to this point , churches had remained open .
Meanwhile , the Sault Ste-Marie diocese , under Bishop Marcel Damphousse , closed all churches March 24 , citing as its reason the provincial shutdown of non-essential services .
Bishop Ronald Fabbro closed all churches in the London diocese March 20 .
LifeSiteNews asked Roumeliotis in his daily press briefing Tuesday why Catholics could not be allowed to visit the Blessed Sacrament if the parishes could ensure keeping social distancing protocol — particularly when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ My theory is that it ’ s hard to control the number of people going in , number one .
Number two , it ’ s also hard to control the age of the people going in , and you don ’ t want to put vulnerable people there , ” Roumeliotis said .
“ I do understand and respect the religious approach , but I had to take a stand on these issues that had nothing to do with being anti-religious or anything like that ; I ’ m looking at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added .
Moreover , he doesn ’ t have “ any say about the licensed LCBO and marijuana [ stores ] , ” he said .
“ Is liquor an essential product ?
I don ’ t think so .
I don ’ t drink , ” Roumeliotis said .
“ But I can see the dichotomy there .
I see the irony.
” Ford defended keeping Ontario ’ s pot and liquor stores open at a press conference Tuesday , stating that mental health experts advised the government that access to these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We met and heard ... from mental health and addiction that it ’ s absolutely critical to keep that open , ” he told reporters .
“ They don ’ t want to put more of a burden on the health care system .
And I know some people at home are sitting back and thinking you know , how ... does that work , well , there are people out there with addictions .
We ’ re there to help them , we ’ re there to support them , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential services “ can be adjusted either way ... it ’ s an open list , ” he added .
Meanwhile , R.R .
Reno , editor of American magazine First Things , criticized the hierarchy in a March 17 column for this response to the coronavirus pandemic .
“ Closing churches is utterly unnecessary .
People can gather to pray before the reserved sacrament while maintaining the ‘ social distancing ’ advised by public health experts , ” wrote Reno .
“ Modest-sized Masses can be conducted in ways that do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same holds for baptisms and funerals .
In some circumstances , pastors can limit attendance to immediate family , ” he added .
“ But simply suspending the sacraments suggests that the Church lives in accord with the world ’ s priorities , ” which regard “ the prospect of death as the supreme evil to be avoided at all costs , ” Reno wrote .
“ The Church ’ s concern should be to sustain the spiritual health of those entrusted to her care .
Closing churches and cancelling services betrays this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ In a time of pandemic — a time when Satan whips up in us all fears of isolation , abandonment , and death — churches must not join the stampede of fear.
” To express your concern , leave messages here :

It is not clear at this point exactly what health authority ordered the closure of churches in particular regions, and specifically in Toronto.
PRAYER PLEDGE: Rally around the daily Rosary to stop the coronavirus Sign the petition here.
TORONTO, March 25, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — At least four Ontario Catholic archdioceses — including the province’s largest dioceses of Ottawa and Toronto — have locked their churches indefinitely in the face of the Wuhan flu pandemic even as the province’s pot, beer, and liquor stores remain open.
Premier Doug Ford’s government ordered a mandatory shutdown of all non-essential services that begins at midnight March 24 and will last at least 14 days, and which exempts 74 businesses or services deemed “essential” — including beer stores, the provincial Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) outlets, and cannabis stores.
But it is not clear at this point exactly what health authority ordered the closure of churches in particular regions, and specifically in Toronto.
Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa directed his priests Monday to close down all churches — even for private prayer — in his diocese, citing an order from Dr. Paul Roumeliotis, medical officer of health for the Eastern Ontario Health Unit, who has authority over the counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry; the counties of Prescott-Russell; and the city of Cornwall.
A spokesperson for health minister Christine Elliott confirmed with LifeSiteNews in an email that the province’s chief medical officer did not order Ottawa to shut its churches.
Roumeliotis’s March 22 directive shuts down all “churches, mosques, synagogues and other places of worship,” as well as all daycares, gyms and recreational centers, and personal services settings, such as tattoo and body piercing parlors, manicure spas, and hairdressing salons, within his jurisdiction.
Corporations that violate the order, which does not have an expiration date, could be fined up to $250,000 daily.
Cardinal Thomas Collins of Toronto issued a March 24 directive to his priests to close all churches in his archdiocese immediately.
However, Collins’s statement does not, as does Prendergast’s, refer to an order by a health authority who has jurisdiction over Toronto — which Roumeliotis does not.
Although Elliott’s spokesperson confirmed Tuesday that the province did not order the Ottawa area churches closed, a Canadian Press story published March 25 claimed that it was because of a provincial directive that Collins ordered Toronto churches shut.
LifeSiteNews asked the health minister to confirm if the province ordered the shutdown for Toronto but had not heard back by deadline.
Archdiocese spokesman Neil McCarthy did not answer LifeSiteNews’s question as to what health authority ordered the closure of churches in the Toronto archdiocese, but instead referred to the public statement.
All public Masses were canceled in the Toronto and Ottawa archdioceses March 17, when Ford declared a state of emergency, but up to this point, churches had remained open.
Meanwhile, the Sault Ste-Marie diocese, under Bishop Marcel Damphousse, closed all churches March 24, citing as its reason the provincial shutdown of non-essential services. Bishop Ronald Fabbro closed all churches in the London diocese March 20.
LifeSiteNews asked Roumeliotis in his daily press briefing Tuesday why Catholics could not be allowed to visit the Blessed Sacrament if the parishes could ensure keeping social distancing protocol — particularly when liquor and cannabis stores remain open.
“My theory is that it’s hard to control the number of people going in, number one. Number two, it’s also hard to control the age of the people going in, and you don’t want to put vulnerable people there,” Roumeliotis said.
“I do understand and respect the religious approach, but I had to take a stand on these issues that had nothing to do with being anti-religious or anything like that; I’m looking at the public good here,” he added.
Moreover, he doesn’t have “any say about the licensed LCBO and marijuana [stores],” he said.
“Is liquor an essential product? I don’t think so. I don’t drink,” Roumeliotis said. “But I can see the dichotomy there. I see the irony.”
Ford defended keeping Ontario’s pot and liquor stores open at a press conference Tuesday, stating that mental health experts advised the government that access to these substances is necessary for persons with addictions.
“We met and heard … from mental health and addiction that it’s absolutely critical to keep that open,” he told reporters.
“They don’t want to put more of a burden on the health care system. And I know some people at home are sitting back and thinking you know, how…does that work, well, there are people out there with addictions. We’re there to help them, we’re there to support them,” Ford said.
The list of essential services “can be adjusted either way…it’s an open list,” he added.
Meanwhile, R.R. Reno, editor of American magazine First Things, criticized the hierarchy in a March 17 column for this response to the coronavirus pandemic.
“Closing churches is utterly unnecessary. People can gather to pray before the reserved sacrament while maintaining the ‘social distancing’ advised by public health experts,” wrote Reno.
“Modest-sized Masses can be conducted in ways that do not irresponsibly risk spreading the virus. The same holds for baptisms and funerals. In some circumstances, pastors can limit attendance to immediate family,” he added.
“But simply suspending the sacraments suggests that the Church lives in accord with the world’s priorities,” which regard “the prospect of death as the supreme evil to be avoided at all costs,” Reno wrote.
“The Church’s concern should be to sustain the spiritual health of those entrusted to her care. Closing churches and cancelling services betrays this duty of spiritual care,” he said.
“In a time of pandemic — a time when Satan whips up in us all fears of isolation, abandonment, and death — churches must not join the stampede of fear.”
Please contact your MPP asking him or her to designate churches as an essential service. To find the name and address of your MPP, go to the Campaign Life website, here, or the Legislative Assembly of Ontario website, here.
To express your concern to the Church, leave messages here:
Cardinal Thomas Collins
Phone: 416-934-0606, ext. 609
email:[email protected]
Archbishop Terrence Prendergast
Phone: (613) 738-5025
[email protected]
Share