lifesitenews--2020-10-13--Thousands demonstrate against France law that erases fathers from some children’s lineage

October 13 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Thousands and thousands of demonstrators joined over 60 rallies in France ’ s major cities and towns on Saturday , asking for the withdrawal of a bioethics law presently under discussion in Parliament , or at the very least the indefinite postponement of discussions as long as the COVID crisis and its severe economic and social consequences should require all the government ’ s attention .
The draft bioethics law is best known for its aim to legalize access to medically assisted procreation ( “ PMA ” ) for lesbian couples and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the procedure by the French Social Security , but it also affirms the principle of embryo research , which would only be subject to an official declaration of projects instead of needing to obtain prior approval if the text becomes law .
This would later inevitably lead to the legalization of surrogate motherhood in the name of “ equal rights ” for male homosexuals .
The bioethics law also allows genetic engineering of human embryos , the creation of chimeras and the selection of “ medicine babies ” conceived in test tubes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make-up allows them to be “ used ” later on for a marrow transplant for a severely ill older sibling .
When the law was adopted in its second hearing by the National Assembly , only a handful of deputies being present , an additional monstrosity was included : the possibility to perform “ medical ” abortions up to nine months of pregnancy because of “ psychosocial distress ” of the mother .
The demonstrations were organized by the “ Manif pour tous ” which played a major role in the fight against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2013 , putting up to a million – predominantly youthful – opponents in the streets of Paris .
They were joined by other groups , including the “ Veilleurs ” ( the “ Wakers ” ) and the “ Sentinelles ” whose actions focus on silent witness or the reading of cultural texts .
COVID restrictions precluded a national march this year .
In Paris , only 1,000 people were allowed to join the static demonstration on place Vendôme which besides being the address of the most expensive jewelers in Paris also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other cities , restrictions are of varying severity in order to stave off a so-called “ second wave ” of the Wuhan coronavirus which to date , is causing ten times less hospitalizations and deaths than in March and April .
Despite the government-fuelled paranoia , scrapping public events altogether has proved impossible , and “ protest rallies ” are legal .
In Versailles , 20 km from Paris , 1,700 demonstrators joined the local static demonstration .
In Toulouse , Dijon , and many other towns , demonstrators marched through the streets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Marchons enfants ” – “ Children , let us walk.
” Their banners read : “ Liberty , Equality , Paternity , ” in protest against laws that are effectively erasing fathers from children 's ’ lineage .
An exceptionally large rally was held in Lyon , with the presence of the National Assembly member Xavier Breton who has been on the frontlines of the fight against this “ barbaric ” law .
As in Versailles , the demonstration included the presence of young girls wearing the characteristic red “ Phrygian bonnet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regrettable wink to the “ Liberty , Equality , Fraternity ” slogan of the 1789 revolutionaries .
In many places , counter-demonstrations were held by LGBT groups .
In La Roche-sur-Yon , where a group of youths including students from the Catholic university ICES was targeted by the university authorities in May 2019 for having created a rumpus against an LGBT exhibition in town and later acquitted of all charges by the French courts , the LGBT activists carried signs saying : “ Crève l ’ ICES : ” “ Die , ICES.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was invited to speak to the hundreds of people gathered in a large modern square after having been refused their intended meeting place in front of the town hall , the LGBT activists were allowed to approach the official rally of “ Marchons enfants , ” separated only by a line of riot police , shouting hateful slogans and trying to cover the legal meeting ’ s speeches and music with their noise .
This was despite the fact that the LGBT counter-demonstrators had obtained permission from the local “ prefecture ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the city center where the pro-lifers originally intended to demonstrate .
As far as can be known the LGBT activists were not fined for their illegal demonstration .
They did attack one of the speakers at the “ Marchons enfants ” rally shortly after he left the official platform to catch a train to Nantes , further south , where he was also expected to speak : Guillaume Bernard , a respected law historian and university lecturer at the ICES , was carrying a demonstration flag that was stolen by LGBT activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done as he was escorted by young men of the demonstration ’ s security force .
Bernard had set the tone of the rally by underscoring that it is useless to complain about embryo research and late-term abortion if one is not prepared to oppose abortion .
The official “ party line ” of the “ Marchons enfants ” demonstrations was to insist on fighting artificial procreation “ without fathers ” and surrogate motherhood .
The full pro-life stance is seen as potentially divisive and many more mainstream opponents against the latest transgressions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the more stringent conditions of the original 1974 abortion law named “ loi Veil ” after the woman politician who defended it in Parliament as Health minister at the time .
Guillaume Bernard underscored that we should not submit to what is called the “ ratchet effect ” in France : combatting each new transgression but taking the existing culture of death laws as a given against which it would be too late to campaign .
This was also the stance taken by French philosopher Thibaud Collin who observed , days before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Veil law was adopted as a “ lesser evil.
” “ But killing the innocent can never be a lesser evil , ” he wrote .
In fact , the addition of the nine-month abortion exception in the bioethics law , plus the recent adoption of a law extending free access to abortion from 12 to 14 weeks gestation , put the abortion issue at the center of French politics , and will hopefully lead to a more conscious and coherent expression of its convictions by the pro-life movement in France .
Having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the remodeling of the bioethics laws , I was also careful to insist on this aspect , noting that it is not only paternity that is being negated , but that our very language is emasculated by the current refusal to affirm that “ abortion kills an unborn child ” out of a desire not to seem cruel .
Man is being accused of “ ransacking ” nature , but it is in fact human nature that is being ransacked .

The draft bioethics law is best known for its aim to legalize access to medically assisted procreation (“PMA”) for lesbian couples
October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Thousands and thousands of demonstrators joined over 60 rallies in France’s major cities and towns on Saturday, asking for the withdrawal of a bioethics law presently under discussion in Parliament, or at the very least the indefinite postponement of discussions as long as the COVID crisis and its severe economic and social consequences should require all the government’s attention.
#MarchonsEnfants à #Paris : Les Français sont inquiets pour notre humanité. Ils sont inquiets pour ces enfants que des lois pourraient permettre de les faire naître en les privant de père. #PMAsansPère #10octobre pic.twitter.com/lNsXkAs1H2 — La Manif Pour Tous (@LaManifPourTous) October 10, 2020
The draft bioethics law is best known for its aim to legalize access to medically assisted procreation (“PMA”) for lesbian couples and single women, including a full refund of the procedure by the French Social Security, but it also affirms the principle of embryo research, which would only be subject to an official declaration of projects instead of needing to obtain prior approval if the text becomes law. This would later inevitably lead to the legalization of surrogate motherhood in the name of “equal rights” for male homosexuals.
The bioethics law also allows genetic engineering of human embryos, the creation of chimeras and the selection of “medicine babies” conceived in test tubes and chosen for implantation if their genetic make-up allows them to be “used” later on for a marrow transplant for a severely ill older sibling.
When the law was adopted in its second hearing by the National Assembly, only a handful of deputies being present, an additional monstrosity was included: the possibility to perform “medical” abortions up to nine months of pregnancy because of “psychosocial distress” of the mother.
The demonstrations were organized by the “Manif pour tous” which played a major role in the fight against the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in 2013, putting up to a million – predominantly youthful – opponents in the streets of Paris.
They were joined by other groups, including the “Veilleurs” (the “Wakers”) and the “Sentinelles” whose actions focus on silent witness or the reading of cultural texts.
COVID restrictions precluded a national march this year. In Paris, only 1,000 people were allowed to join the static demonstration on place Vendôme which besides being the address of the most expensive jewelers in Paris also houses the Ministry of Justice.
A #LaDéfense, #MarchonsEnfants a décidé de se faire entendre de @JeanCASTEX et @EmmanuelMacron et de se faire le porte-voix des enfants. Non on n'a pas le droit de décider de priver volontairement des enfants de père ! #10octobre pic.twitter.com/AwbBWHmShk — La Manif Pour Tous (@LaManifPourTous) October 10, 2020
In other cities, restrictions are of varying severity in order to stave off a so-called “second wave” of the Wuhan coronavirus which to date, is causing ten times less hospitalizations and deaths than in March and April. Despite the government-fuelled paranoia, scrapping public events altogether has proved impossible, and “protest rallies” are legal. In Versailles, 20 km from Paris, 1,700 demonstrators joined the local static demonstration. In Toulouse, Dijon, and many other towns, demonstrators marched through the streets with the red and green flags of “Marchons enfants” – “Children, let us walk.” Their banners read: “Liberty, Equality, Paternity,” in protest against laws that are effectively erasing fathers from children's’ lineage.
An exceptionally large rally was held in Lyon, with the presence of the National Assembly member Xavier Breton who has been on the frontlines of the fight against this “barbaric” law. As in Versailles, the demonstration included the presence of young girls wearing the characteristic red “Phrygian bonnet” of the French Revolution, another regrettable wink to the “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” slogan of the 1789 revolutionaries.
In many places, counter-demonstrations were held by LGBT groups. In La Roche-sur-Yon, where a group of youths including students from the Catholic university ICES was targeted by the university authorities in May 2019 for having created a rumpus against an LGBT exhibition in town and later acquitted of all charges by the French courts, the LGBT activists carried signs saying: “Crève l’ICES:” “Die, ICES.”
— Article continues below Petition — VICTORY: Poland says 'No' to eugenic abortion! Show Petition Text 6238 have signed the petition. Let's get to 7500 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition PETITION UPDATE (10/22/2020) Today, the Polish Constitutional Tribunal issued a ruling that the provision in the act allowing "abortion in the case of a high probability of severe and irreversible impairment of the fetus or an incurable disease that threatens the fetus" is inconsistent with the Polish Constitution, which was permitted since 1993 until the time when the conceived child reaches the age when it is able to survive outside the mother's body, in practice up to the 24th week of pregnancy. This ruling makes abortion for eugenic reasons illegal in Poland! Thank God and sincere gratitude to the Polish Constitutional Court for doing the right and reasonable thing. And, thank you for continuing to sign this petition. We will send all signatures to the Polish Constitutional Court as way to show our thanks! _____________________________________________________________________ On October 22nd, the Polish Constitutional Tribunal will decide whether eugenic abortion - on the grounds of a positive Down Syndrome test, for example - currently allowed by the Abortion Act of 1993 is in keeping with the country's constitution. Eugenic abortion is not the mark of an advanced society. It is, rather, the mark of a savage society which deems some human lives as disposable. And, the reason the court will issue a ruling is because Members of the Sejm (the Lower House of the Polish Parliament) have requested clarification of the law. We, therefore, ask you to join us in urging the Polish Constitutional Tribunal to reject eugenic abortion and affirm the dignity and life of every preborn baby. Let's encourage the Polish Court to a give good example to the rest of the world, and affirm life! By SIGNING this petition, we demonstrate our agreement with the amicus brief brought to the Polish court by Ordo Iuris International Law Center, which you can READ by clicking here. The problem mainly lies in two Articles of the Abortion Act (1993), which legalizes eugenic abortion, and which are, therefore, non-compliant with Article 30 of the Polish Constitution. That is because of the key fact, that they legalize eugenic practices towards an unborn child, denying him the respect and protection of his dignity. Indeed, according to the Polish Constitution, the source of all freedoms and rights is dignity and it not only belongs to each human, but it cannot be relinquished. Fortunately, there is a close connection between the protection of human dignity and legal guarantees of the protection of human life in Polish law, and that is why in its judgment of January 2004, the Constitutional Tribunal stated: "There can be no protection of human dignity if there are no sufficient grounds to protect life." Please SIGN this petition which urges the Polish Constitutional Tribunal to vindicate and protect the lives of the sick preborn babies. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Ordo Iuris amicus brief urging the Polish Constitutional Court to declare two articles of the Abortion Act to be in non-conformity with the Polish Constitution: https://ordoiuris.pl/pliki/dokumenty/Miedzynarodowy_Amicus_Curiae_ws_obrony_zycia.pdf *Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com **LifeSiteNews and LifePetitions are against abortion under every circumstance. By supporting this petition, we are not somehow suggesting that we are only against eugenic abortion. Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
In Rennes, Brittany, where I was invited to speak to the hundreds of people gathered in a large modern square after having been refused their intended meeting place in front of the town hall, the LGBT activists were allowed to approach the official rally of “Marchons enfants,” separated only by a line of riot police, shouting hateful slogans and trying to cover the legal meeting’s speeches and music with their noise. This was despite the fact that the LGBT counter-demonstrators had obtained permission from the local “prefecture” to gather in the town hall square in the city center where the pro-lifers originally intended to demonstrate. As far as can be known the LGBT activists were not fined for their illegal demonstration.
They did attack one of the speakers at the “Marchons enfants” rally shortly after he left the official platform to catch a train to Nantes, further south, where he was also expected to speak: Guillaume Bernard, a respected law historian and university lecturer at the ICES, was carrying a demonstration flag that was stolen by LGBT activists. Luckily there was no further harm done as he was escorted by young men of the demonstration’s security force.
Bernard had set the tone of the rally by underscoring that it is useless to complain about embryo research and late-term abortion if one is not prepared to oppose abortion. The official “party line” of the “Marchons enfants” demonstrations was to insist on fighting artificial procreation “without fathers” and surrogate motherhood. The full pro-life stance is seen as potentially divisive and many more mainstream opponents against the latest transgressions are prepared to campaign for a return to the more stringent conditions of the original 1974 abortion law named “loi Veil” after the woman politician who defended it in Parliament as Health minister at the time.
Guillaume Bernard underscored that we should not submit to what is called the “ratchet effect” in France: combatting each new transgression but taking the existing culture of death laws as a given against which it would be too late to campaign.
This was also the stance taken by French philosopher Thibaud Collin who observed, days before Saturday’s demonstrations, that the Veil law was adopted as a “lesser evil.” “But killing the innocent can never be a lesser evil,” he wrote.
In fact, the addition of the nine-month abortion exception in the bioethics law, plus the recent adoption of a law extending free access to abortion from 12 to 14 weeks gestation, put the abortion issue at the center of French politics, and will hopefully lead to a more conscious and coherent expression of its convictions by the pro-life movement in France.
Having also been invited to express my views on the remodeling of the bioethics laws, I was also careful to insist on this aspect, noting that it is not only paternity that is being negated, but that our very language is emasculated by the current refusal to affirm that “abortion kills an unborn child” out of a desire not to seem cruel. Man is being accused of “ransacking” nature, but it is in fact human nature that is being ransacked.
Follow Jeanne Jeanne Smits has worked as a journalist in France since 1987 after obtaining a Master of Arts in Law. She formerly directed the French daily Présent and was editor-in-chief of an all-internet French-speaking news site called reinformation.tv. She writes regularly for a number of Catholic journals (Monde & vie, L’Homme nouveau, Reconquête…) and runs a personal pro-life blog. In addition, she is often invited to radio and TV shows on alternative media. She is vice-president of the Christian and French defense association “AGRIF.” She is the French translator of The Dictator Pope by Henry Sire and Christus Vincit by Bishop Schneider, and recently contributed to the Bref examen critique de la communion dans la main about Communion in the hand. She is married and has three children, and lives near Paris.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-13--Dems buzz about Biden possibly considering pro-abortion Andrew Cuomo for US Attorney General

October 13 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – If former Vice President Joe Biden defeats President Donald Trump in next month ’ s presidential election , rumors abound that he will select New York ’ s Democrat Gov .
Andrew Cuomo to head his Justice Department .
Axios reports that Democrats are pushing Cuomo for the position and Biden is open to the idea , according to Democrat donors .
The possibility is rumored to be strong enough that the National Governors Association is currently looking into contingency plans to replace Cuomo as chairman .
`` 100 % [ Cuomo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had zero conversations about this and has made his desire to stay in New York clear as day and be governor as long as people want him , '' Cuomo senior adviser Richard Azzopardi responded to the news .
Cuomo himself added that he will help Biden “ any way I can , ” but has “ no interest in going to Washington.
” Even so , the possibility of Cuomo being the man to enforce Biden ’ s vow to direct the Justice Department to “ do everything in its power ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in light of Cuomo ’ s pro-abortion record , which includes legalizing effectively-unlimited abortion , and his willingness to lay the blame for COVID-19 deaths at the feet of religious New Yorkers .
“ I have to say to the Orthodox community tomorrow , ‘ If you ’ re not willing to live with these rules , then I ’ m going to close the synagogues , ’ ” he threatened last week .
Cuomo would also be a controversial choice in light of his overall handling of COVID-19 .
For months New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any state , due in large part to the virus spreading within the state ’ s nursing homes .
Cuomo ordered that nursing homes can not turn away patients diagnosed with COVID-19 , despite the fact the virus is most dangerous to the elderly .

The possibility is rumored to be strong enough that the National Governors Association is currently looking into contingency plans to replace Cuomo as chairman.
October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – If former Vice President Joe Biden defeats President Donald Trump in next month’s presidential election, rumors abound that he will select New York’s Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo to head his Justice Department.
Axios reports that Democrats are pushing Cuomo for the position and Biden is open to the idea, according to Democrat donors. The possibility is rumored to be strong enough that the National Governors Association is currently looking into contingency plans to replace Cuomo as chairman.
“100% [Cuomo has] made zero outreach, has had zero conversations about this and has made his desire to stay in New York clear as day and be governor as long as people want him,” Cuomo senior adviser Richard Azzopardi responded to the news. Cuomo himself added that he will help Biden “any way I can,” but has “no interest in going to Washington.”
Even so, the possibility of Cuomo being the man to enforce Biden’s vow to direct the Justice Department to “do everything in its power” to block state pro-life laws is noteworthy in light of Cuomo’s pro-abortion record, which includes legalizing effectively-unlimited abortion, and his willingness to lay the blame for COVID-19 deaths at the feet of religious New Yorkers.
“I have to say to the Orthodox community tomorrow, ‘If you’re not willing to live with these rules, then I’m going to close the synagogues,’” he threatened last week.
— Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Urge the U.S. Senate to Confirm Amy Coney Barrett Show Petition Text 24868 have signed the petition. Let's get to 25000 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition Judge Amy Coney Barrett Graeme Jennings-Pool/Getty Images PETITION UPDATE (10/26//2020) In a resounding victory for supporters of life, family and freedom, the U.S. Senate has just confirmed Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States! Justice Barrett was sworn-in by Justice Clarence Thomas and will swiftly fill the vacant seat and immediately begin participating in Supreme Court hearings. The petitions signed by many of you - there are now over 40,000 signatures - supporting Judge Amy Coney Barrett were sent to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, as well as to the Officers of the USCCB. Thank you for signing these petitions. As you can see, your signature really does make a difference! We also know that many of you also made calls to your U.S. senators to encourage them to vote for Judge Barrett. Thank you! __________________________________________________________________ PETITION UPDATE (10/22/2020) The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee just voted to advance Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination to the full Senate, leaving only one hurdle to go next week. Every Republican on the committee voted for Barrett, President Donald Trump’s selection to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, while every committee Democrat boycotted the vote, CNBC reports. Please READ the latest LifeSite article about the Senate Committee's vote here. As you read above, Judge Barrett has one more hurdle next Monday. Of course, it's the BIGGEST hurdle. So, if you haven't already, could we ask you to please call your U.S. senators to politely voice your support for Judge Barrett? After SIGNING this petition, please scroll down the page, where you will find the list of all U.S. senators' contact details. Let's keep working and praying so that we can see a pro-life judge sit on the Supreme Court. ____________________________________________________ PETITION UPDATE (10/15/20) The fourth day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearing for the open seat on the U.S. Supreme Court is going on now. Please CLICK HERE to go to the livestream of the hearings. Please watch and read EXCLUSIVE LifeSite videos and articles about Judge Amy Coney Barrett's hearings: YouTube Videos: 'We are people of faith, the true body of Christ': Christians pray for SCOTUS confirmation hearings' '"That's your job": Judge Barrett responds to relevance of Obamacare to SCOTUS confirmation' Articles: 'Senator who badgered Barrett about Catholicism in 2017 presses her on abortion at confirmation hearing' 'Hawley, Barrett dismantle religious tests for office at Supreme Court hearing' 'Ted Cruz at Barrett hearing warns Democrats want to ‘erase’ religious liberty' ______________________________________________________________ Conservatives and Christians asked President Trump to deliver a proven constitutional originalist with a solid pro-life background, and he did. Now, let's not be outdone by Leftist organizations which will be mobilizing their forces to write, call and visit their senators' constituency offices. Please SIGN this urgent petition - to Senate Leadership - asking them to quickly confirm Barrett as the next Supreme Court justice. Then, please take a couple of minutes to CALL YOUR U.S. SENATORS using their numbers below, and politely urge them to confirm Barrett. When Amy Coney Barrett's senate confirmation hearing begins on Monday, October 12th, the mother of seven and devout Catholic is expected to face fierce opposition. Of course, the anticipated attacks have nothing to do with Barrett's legal credentials, which are uniformly top-notch. Instead, they have to do with her faith in Jesus and with her belief that life begins at conception. This is nothing short of anti-Christian bigotry which cannot be tolerated. The fact is, Amy Coney Barrett is the best candidate for the job, and she urgently needs our support. By signing the petition, we can unite to powerfully speak with one voice. But, by calling your senators, you can ensure that they know their local constituents are concerned and interested enough to telephone their offices. This is our time to get active! We must voice our support for Amy Coney Barrett at this crucial moment in our nation's history. Please SIGN this petition, and then please use the contact details below to CALL YOUR U.S. SENATORS right-away! Thank you! U.S. SENATORS' CONTACT DETAILS: SENATORS AND PHONE NUMBERS - https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact ALABAMA SENATORS Doug Jones – (202) 224-4124 Richard C. Shelby – (202) 224-5744 ALASKA SENATORS Lisa Murkowski – (202) 224-6665 Dan Sullivan – (202) 224-3004 ARIZONA SENATORS Martha McSally – (202) 224-2235 Kyrsten Sinema – (202) 224-4521 ARKANSAS SENATORS John Boozman – (202) 224-4843 Tom Cotton – (202) 224-2353 CALIFORNIA SENATORS Dianne Feinstein – (202) 224-3841 Kamala D. Harris – (202) 224-3553 COLORADO SENATORS Michael F. Bennett – (202) 224-5852 Cory Gardner – (202) 224-5941 CONNECTICUT SENATORS Richard Blumenthal – (202) 224-2823 Christopher Murphy – (202) 224-4041 DELAWARE SENATORS Thomas R. Carper – (202) 224-2441 Christopher A. Coons – (202) 224-5042 FLORIDA SENATORS Marco Rubio – (202) 224-3041 Rick Scott – (202) 224-5274 GEORGIA SENATORS Kelly Loeffler – (202) 224-3643 David Perdue – (202) 224-3521 HAWAII SENATORS Mazie K. Hirono – (202) 224-6361 Brian Schatz – (202) 224-3934 IDAHO SENATORS Mike Crapo – (202) 224-6142 James E. Risch – (202) 224-2752 ILLINOIS SENATORS Dick Durbin – (202) 224-2152 Tammy Duckworth – (202) 224-2854 INDIANA SENATORS Mike Braun – (202) 224-4814 Todd Young – (202) 224-5623 IOWA SENATORS Joni Ernst – (202) 224-3254 Chuck Grassley – (202) 224-3774 KANSAS SENATORS Jerry Moran – (202) 224-6521 Pat Roberts – (202) 224-4744 KENTUCKY SENATORS Mitch McConnell – (202) 224-2541 Rand Paul – (202) 224-4343 LOUISIANA SENATORS Bill Cassidy – (202) 224-5824 John Kennedy – (202) 224-4623 MAINE SENATORS Susan M. Collins – (202) 224-2523 Angus S. King – (202) 224-5344 MARYLAND SENATORS Benjamin L. Cardin – (202) 224-4524 Chris Van Hollen – (202) 224-4654 MASSACHUSETS SENATORS Edward J. Markey – (202) 224-2742 Elizabeth Warren – (202) 224-4543 MICHIGAN Gary C. Peters – (202) 224-6221 Debbie Stabenow – (202) 224-4822 MINNESOTA Amy Klobuchar – (202) 224-3244 Tina Smith – (202) 224-5641 MISSISSIPPI Cindy Hyde-Smith – (202) 224-5054 Roger F. Wicker – (202) 224-6253 MISSOURI Roy Blunt – (202) 224-5721 Josh Hawley – (202) 224-6154 MONTANA Steve Daines – (202) 224-2651 Jon Tester – (202) 224-2644 NEBRASKA Deb Fischer – (202) 224-6551 Ben Sasse – (202) 224-4224 NEVADA Catherine Cortez Masto – (202) 224-3542 Jacky Rosen – (202) 224-6244 NEW HAMPSHIRE Margaret Wood Hassan – (202) 224-3324 Jeanne Shaheen – (202) 224-2841 NEW JERSEY Cory A. Booker – (202) 224-3224 Robert Menendez – (202) 224-4744 NEW MEXICO Martin Heinrich – (202) 224-5521 Tom Udall – (202) 224-6621 NEW YORK Kirsten E. Gillibrand – (202) 224-4451 Charles E. Schumer – (202) 224-6542 NORTH CAROLINA Richard Burr – (202) 224-3154 Thom Tillis – (202) 224-6342 NORTH DAKOTA Kevin Cramer – (202) 224-2043 John Hoeven – (202) 224-2551 OHIO Sherrod Brown – (202) 224-2315 Rob Portman – (202) 224-3353 OKLAHOMA James M. Inhofe – (202) 224-4721 James Lankford – (202) 224-5754 OREGON Jeff Merkley – (202) 224-3753 Ron Wyden – (202) 224-5244 PENNSYLVANIA Robert P. Casey, Jr. – (202) 224-6324 Patrick J. Toomey, Jr. – (202) 224-4254 RHODE ISLAND Jack Reed – (202) 224-4642 Sheldon Whitehouse – (202) 224-2921 SOUTH CAROLINA Lindsey Graham – (202) 224-5972 Tim Scott – (202) 224-6121 SOUTH DAKOTA Mike Rounds – (202) 224-5842 John Thune – (202) 224-2321 TENNESSEE Lamar Alexander – (202) 224-4944 Marsha Blackburn – (202) 224-3344 TEXAS John Cornyn – (202) 224-2934 Ted Cruz – (202) 224-5922 UTAH Mike Lee – (202) 224-5444 Mitt Romney – (202) 224-5251 VERMONT Patrick J. Leahy – (202) 224-4242 Bernard Sanders – (202) 224-5141 VIRGINIA Tim Kaine – (202) 224-4024 Mark R. Warner – (202) 224-2023 WASHINGTON Maria Cantwell – (202) 224-3441 Patty Murray – (202) 224-2621 WEST VIRGINIA Shelley Moore Capito – (202) 224-6472 Joe Manchin III – (202) 224-3954 WISCONSIN Tammy Baldwin – (202) 224-5653 Ron Johnson – (202) 224-5323 WYOMING John Barrasso – (202) 224-6441 Michael B. Enzi – (202) 224-3424 Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
Cuomo would also be a controversial choice in light of his overall handling of COVID-19. For months New York was the hardest hit out of any state, due in large part to the virus spreading within the state’s nursing homes. Cuomo ordered that nursing homes cannot turn away patients diagnosed with COVID-19, despite the fact the virus is most dangerous to the elderly.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-13--Where are the Catholics? Nowhere to be found on the ground near Barrett hearings

WASHINGTON , D.C. , October 13 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Song and prayer filled the air on the ground at the Supreme Court and at the U.S. Senate buildings as Judge Amy Coney Barrett embarked on day one of her confirmation hearings in D.C .
Faithful Christians bussed in from all up and down the East Coast ; one woman we met even drove from Arizona—just to be here in support of Judge Barrett .
After a rally in front of the Senate Office building where the hearing was to take place , a prayer hour was scheduled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court .
LifeSite ’ s Jim Hale and I went over to report on it and what I saw there stunned me .
About a dozen evangelical faith leaders of various Christian organizations from all across the United States gathered with about 75 prayer warriors to pray for Amy Coney Barrett and her family and to ask God to bring this country back to Him .
These prayers were so heartfelt and passionate , they left many nearly in tears .
Then Cassie Pfitzmeier prayed and spoke .
She said that for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in her group , Justice House of Prayer D.C. have been praying specifically for Judge Barrett , that she would make it to the Supreme Court .
They have been praying for years for this powerhouse woman , who as we all know , is a devout Catholic .
That was when I was struck .
These non-Catholic Christians were the only Christians I witnessed on the ground and were the most “ pro-Amy ” people I had seen .
By all accounts , Barrett is a devout Catholic , a pro-life stalwart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These Christians see that in her and they know she is on their side .
So , though surrounded by a chorus of “ How Great Thou Art , ” to me , the silence was deafening .
I had not seen a single visible Catholic – clergy or lay – all day long .
No rosary-praying groups .
No Catholic churches from the area , never mind from across the country .
“ Barrett is one of our own , ” I kept thinking to myself , and yet the Church was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on and pray her to the finish line .
On the one hand , it surprised me because the laity have taken it upon themselves in their defense of the Church during these unspeakable times when the hierarchy has shortchanged us .
But then , on the other hand , I was not surprised .
Sadly , the example of the hierarchy has made it so that Catholics have become all too comfortable in their own spheres of influence , in their own homes , afraid to speak up .
This is such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of our own fellow Catholics gets nominated by the most pro-life president to the highest court in the land , we ’ ve completely missed the boat .
We Catholics must take this as our wakeup call .
Our evangelical brothers and sisters know that this is our time to get out in the public sphere and stand for our common Christian faith and values .
Our Lord said , “ for whoever is not against you is for you.
” Fellow Catholics , let us arise from our slumber .

Author’s note: The author has been made aware after publication that there were Catholics present in the crowd outside the Supreme Court during the ACB hearings (though the author did not see them). That being said, efforts on the part of the local Catholic Church as a whole were negligible, especially in comparison to the magnitude of organization exhibited by the Evangelical Christians in attendance.
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Song and prayer filled the air on the ground at the Supreme Court and at the U.S. Senate buildings as Judge Amy Coney Barrett embarked on day one of her confirmation hearings in D.C. Faithful Christians bussed in from all up and down the East Coast; one woman we met even drove from Arizona—just to be here in support of Judge Barrett. After a rally in front of the Senate Office building where the hearing was to take place, a prayer hour was scheduled for 12:00 noon in front of the Supreme Court. LifeSite’s Jim Hale and I went over to report on it and what I saw there stunned me.
About a dozen evangelical faith leaders of various Christian organizations from all across the United States gathered with about 75 prayer warriors to pray for Amy Coney Barrett and her family and to ask God to bring this country back to Him. These prayers were so heartfelt and passionate, they left many nearly in tears.
Then Cassie Pfitzmeier prayed and spoke. She said that for four years she and many of those in her group, Justice House of Prayer D.C. have been praying specifically for Judge Barrett, that she would make it to the Supreme Court. They have been praying for years for this powerhouse woman, who as we all know, is a devout Catholic. That was when I was struck. These non-Catholic Christians were the only Christians I witnessed on the ground and were the most “pro-Amy” people I had seen.
By all accounts, Barrett is a devout Catholic, a pro-life stalwart, and a prayer warrior herself. These Christians see that in her and they know she is on their side.
So, though surrounded by a chorus of “How Great Thou Art,” to me, the silence was deafening. I had not seen a single visible Catholic – clergy or lay – all day long. No rosary–praying groups. No Catholic churches from the area, never mind from across the country. “Barrett is one of our own,” I kept thinking to myself, and yet the Church was nowhere to be found to cheer her on and pray her to the finish line.
On the one hand, it surprised me because the laity have taken it upon themselves in their defense of the Church during these unspeakable times when the hierarchy has shortchanged us. But then, on the other hand, I was not surprised. Sadly, the example of the hierarchy has made it so that Catholics have become all too comfortable in their own spheres of influence, in their own homes, afraid to speak up. This is such that, at time like this when one of our own fellow Catholics gets nominated by the most pro-life president to the highest court in the land, we’ve completely missed the boat.
— Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Urge the U.S. Senate to Confirm Amy Coney Barrett Show Petition Text 24868 have signed the petition. Let's get to 25000 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition Judge Amy Coney Barrett Graeme Jennings-Pool/Getty Images PETITION UPDATE (10/26//2020) In a resounding victory for supporters of life, family and freedom, the U.S. Senate has just confirmed Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States! Justice Barrett was sworn-in by Justice Clarence Thomas and will swiftly fill the vacant seat and immediately begin participating in Supreme Court hearings. The petitions signed by many of you - there are now over 40,000 signatures - supporting Judge Amy Coney Barrett were sent to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, as well as to the Officers of the USCCB. Thank you for signing these petitions. As you can see, your signature really does make a difference! We also know that many of you also made calls to your U.S. senators to encourage them to vote for Judge Barrett. Thank you! __________________________________________________________________ PETITION UPDATE (10/22/2020) The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee just voted to advance Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination to the full Senate, leaving only one hurdle to go next week. Every Republican on the committee voted for Barrett, President Donald Trump’s selection to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, while every committee Democrat boycotted the vote, CNBC reports. Please READ the latest LifeSite article about the Senate Committee's vote here. As you read above, Judge Barrett has one more hurdle next Monday. Of course, it's the BIGGEST hurdle. So, if you haven't already, could we ask you to please call your U.S. senators to politely voice your support for Judge Barrett? After SIGNING this petition, please scroll down the page, where you will find the list of all U.S. senators' contact details. Let's keep working and praying so that we can see a pro-life judge sit on the Supreme Court. ____________________________________________________ PETITION UPDATE (10/15/20) The fourth day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearing for the open seat on the U.S. Supreme Court is going on now. Please CLICK HERE to go to the livestream of the hearings. Please watch and read EXCLUSIVE LifeSite videos and articles about Judge Amy Coney Barrett's hearings: YouTube Videos: 'We are people of faith, the true body of Christ': Christians pray for SCOTUS confirmation hearings' '"That's your job": Judge Barrett responds to relevance of Obamacare to SCOTUS confirmation' Articles: 'Senator who badgered Barrett about Catholicism in 2017 presses her on abortion at confirmation hearing' 'Hawley, Barrett dismantle religious tests for office at Supreme Court hearing' 'Ted Cruz at Barrett hearing warns Democrats want to ‘erase’ religious liberty' ______________________________________________________________ Conservatives and Christians asked President Trump to deliver a proven constitutional originalist with a solid pro-life background, and he did. Now, let's not be outdone by Leftist organizations which will be mobilizing their forces to write, call and visit their senators' constituency offices. Please SIGN this urgent petition - to Senate Leadership - asking them to quickly confirm Barrett as the next Supreme Court justice. Then, please take a couple of minutes to CALL YOUR U.S. SENATORS using their numbers below, and politely urge them to confirm Barrett. When Amy Coney Barrett's senate confirmation hearing begins on Monday, October 12th, the mother of seven and devout Catholic is expected to face fierce opposition. Of course, the anticipated attacks have nothing to do with Barrett's legal credentials, which are uniformly top-notch. Instead, they have to do with her faith in Jesus and with her belief that life begins at conception. This is nothing short of anti-Christian bigotry which cannot be tolerated. The fact is, Amy Coney Barrett is the best candidate for the job, and she urgently needs our support. By signing the petition, we can unite to powerfully speak with one voice. But, by calling your senators, you can ensure that they know their local constituents are concerned and interested enough to telephone their offices. This is our time to get active! We must voice our support for Amy Coney Barrett at this crucial moment in our nation's history. Please SIGN this petition, and then please use the contact details below to CALL YOUR U.S. SENATORS right-away! Thank you! U.S. SENATORS' CONTACT DETAILS: SENATORS AND PHONE NUMBERS - https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact ALABAMA SENATORS Doug Jones – (202) 224-4124 Richard C. Shelby – (202) 224-5744 ALASKA SENATORS Lisa Murkowski – (202) 224-6665 Dan Sullivan – (202) 224-3004 ARIZONA SENATORS Martha McSally – (202) 224-2235 Kyrsten Sinema – (202) 224-4521 ARKANSAS SENATORS John Boozman – (202) 224-4843 Tom Cotton – (202) 224-2353 CALIFORNIA SENATORS Dianne Feinstein – (202) 224-3841 Kamala D. Harris – (202) 224-3553 COLORADO SENATORS Michael F. Bennett – (202) 224-5852 Cory Gardner – (202) 224-5941 CONNECTICUT SENATORS Richard Blumenthal – (202) 224-2823 Christopher Murphy – (202) 224-4041 DELAWARE SENATORS Thomas R. Carper – (202) 224-2441 Christopher A. Coons – (202) 224-5042 FLORIDA SENATORS Marco Rubio – (202) 224-3041 Rick Scott – (202) 224-5274 GEORGIA SENATORS Kelly Loeffler – (202) 224-3643 David Perdue – (202) 224-3521 HAWAII SENATORS Mazie K. Hirono – (202) 224-6361 Brian Schatz – (202) 224-3934 IDAHO SENATORS Mike Crapo – (202) 224-6142 James E. Risch – (202) 224-2752 ILLINOIS SENATORS Dick Durbin – (202) 224-2152 Tammy Duckworth – (202) 224-2854 INDIANA SENATORS Mike Braun – (202) 224-4814 Todd Young – (202) 224-5623 IOWA SENATORS Joni Ernst – (202) 224-3254 Chuck Grassley – (202) 224-3774 KANSAS SENATORS Jerry Moran – (202) 224-6521 Pat Roberts – (202) 224-4744 KENTUCKY SENATORS Mitch McConnell – (202) 224-2541 Rand Paul – (202) 224-4343 LOUISIANA SENATORS Bill Cassidy – (202) 224-5824 John Kennedy – (202) 224-4623 MAINE SENATORS Susan M. Collins – (202) 224-2523 Angus S. King – (202) 224-5344 MARYLAND SENATORS Benjamin L. Cardin – (202) 224-4524 Chris Van Hollen – (202) 224-4654 MASSACHUSETS SENATORS Edward J. Markey – (202) 224-2742 Elizabeth Warren – (202) 224-4543 MICHIGAN Gary C. Peters – (202) 224-6221 Debbie Stabenow – (202) 224-4822 MINNESOTA Amy Klobuchar – (202) 224-3244 Tina Smith – (202) 224-5641 MISSISSIPPI Cindy Hyde-Smith – (202) 224-5054 Roger F. Wicker – (202) 224-6253 MISSOURI Roy Blunt – (202) 224-5721 Josh Hawley – (202) 224-6154 MONTANA Steve Daines – (202) 224-2651 Jon Tester – (202) 224-2644 NEBRASKA Deb Fischer – (202) 224-6551 Ben Sasse – (202) 224-4224 NEVADA Catherine Cortez Masto – (202) 224-3542 Jacky Rosen – (202) 224-6244 NEW HAMPSHIRE Margaret Wood Hassan – (202) 224-3324 Jeanne Shaheen – (202) 224-2841 NEW JERSEY Cory A. Booker – (202) 224-3224 Robert Menendez – (202) 224-4744 NEW MEXICO Martin Heinrich – (202) 224-5521 Tom Udall – (202) 224-6621 NEW YORK Kirsten E. Gillibrand – (202) 224-4451 Charles E. Schumer – (202) 224-6542 NORTH CAROLINA Richard Burr – (202) 224-3154 Thom Tillis – (202) 224-6342 NORTH DAKOTA Kevin Cramer – (202) 224-2043 John Hoeven – (202) 224-2551 OHIO Sherrod Brown – (202) 224-2315 Rob Portman – (202) 224-3353 OKLAHOMA James M. Inhofe – (202) 224-4721 James Lankford – (202) 224-5754 OREGON Jeff Merkley – (202) 224-3753 Ron Wyden – (202) 224-5244 PENNSYLVANIA Robert P. Casey, Jr. – (202) 224-6324 Patrick J. Toomey, Jr. – (202) 224-4254 RHODE ISLAND Jack Reed – (202) 224-4642 Sheldon Whitehouse – (202) 224-2921 SOUTH CAROLINA Lindsey Graham – (202) 224-5972 Tim Scott – (202) 224-6121 SOUTH DAKOTA Mike Rounds – (202) 224-5842 John Thune – (202) 224-2321 TENNESSEE Lamar Alexander – (202) 224-4944 Marsha Blackburn – (202) 224-3344 TEXAS John Cornyn – (202) 224-2934 Ted Cruz – (202) 224-5922 UTAH Mike Lee – (202) 224-5444 Mitt Romney – (202) 224-5251 VERMONT Patrick J. Leahy – (202) 224-4242 Bernard Sanders – (202) 224-5141 VIRGINIA Tim Kaine – (202) 224-4024 Mark R. Warner – (202) 224-2023 WASHINGTON Maria Cantwell – (202) 224-3441 Patty Murray – (202) 224-2621 WEST VIRGINIA Shelley Moore Capito – (202) 224-6472 Joe Manchin III – (202) 224-3954 WISCONSIN Tammy Baldwin – (202) 224-5653 Ron Johnson – (202) 224-5323 WYOMING John Barrasso – (202) 224-6441 Michael B. Enzi – (202) 224-3424 Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
We Catholics must take this as our wakeup call. Our evangelical brothers and sisters know that this is our time to get out in the public sphere and stand for our common Christian faith and values. Our Lord said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.” Fellow Catholics, let us arise from our slumber.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-13--Catholic wife of Judge Robert Bork breaks silence: Joe Biden ‘is not somebody that would make a good

Catholic wife of Judge Robert Bork breaks silence: Joe Biden ‘is not somebody that would make a good president’

John-Henry interviews some of the most well-known clergy and laity in the Church while offering commentary on the most important @ @ @ @ @ around the world .

You have not enabled JavaScript! This site requires JavaScript to operate properly. Please enable JavaScript, and refresh your browser for full functionality.


lifesitenews--2020-10-13--Twitter censors Trump tweet about COVID-19 diagnosis, immunity

October 13 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Twitter has labeled yet another tweet by President Donald Trump as “ misleading and potentially harmful , ” this time flagging a statement about Trump ’ s own health .
On Saturday , Trump tweeted that he has “ total and complete sign off from White House Doctors yesterday ” after his bout with COVID-19 .
“ That means I can ’ t get it ( immune ) , and can ’ t give it.
” The next day , White House physician and U.S. Navy Commander Dr. Sean Conley confirmed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NEGATIVE , on consecutive days , using the Abbott BinaxNOW antigen card.
” This along with “ additional clinical and laboratory data … in concert with the CDC ’ s guidelines for removal of transmission-based precautions , have informed our medical team ’ s assessment that the President is not infectious to others.
” However , Twitter has placed over the president ’ s tweet a disclaimer that it “ violated the Twitter Rules about spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19.
” It can still be viewed by clicking through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be liked or replied to , and it can only be shared if accompanied by additional commentary .
Twitter , which has no inside information on what the president ’ s doctors told him , appears to be basing its decision on a handful of cases of individuals contracting COVID-19 after previously recovering from the virus .
Such cases remain extremely rare , however , at five worldwide out of 38 million known infections .
Sen. Rand Paul , R-Kentucky , an ophthalmologist , assailed Twitter as “ science illiterates ” for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fauci , the government infectious disease adviser who has been embraced as a COVID-19 authority by the mainstream media , has said reinfection is unlikely .
This is not the first time Twitter has flagged one of Trump ’ s COVID tweets for alleged misinformation .
Last week , it censored the president for comparing the coronavirus with the flu , and has similarly restricted his tweets on other subjects .
The trend reinforces conservative distrust of Twitter , Facebook , and Google ’ s self-declared mission to police discussion of the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , between the tech giants ’ history of left-wing bias and decision to hold up the embattled World Health Organization as an authority on the virus despite its pro-China bias , the mission is a pretext to stifle legitimate debate on the crisis and the government ’ s response .
In July , 72 percent of respondents told Pew Research that social media companies have “ too much power and influence ” over politics .

PETITION UPDATE (12/11/2020)
Right before Thanksgiving, YouTube deleted a LifeSite video of a distinguished Canadian physician protesting the "unfounded public hysteria" over COVID-19 and accused us of spreading "medical misinformation."
Our account was suspended, and we were prohibited from posting videos on our YouTube channel for one week. And, while that may not seem like a big deal, it's a huge deal for a news organization like LifeSite.
Then, earlier this week, YouTube again suspended our account – this time for two weeks – over an episode of The Bishop Strickland Show wherein Bishop Strickland said he would not take an unethical COVID-19 vaccine.
We were able to appeal the suspension, and our request was granted.
This means that in YouTube's three-strikes-and-you're-out content-policing, idea-cleansing scheme, we are back down to one strike. But, we still face the threat of losing our account permanently.
And, we're not the only ones.
In a recent turn of events, YouTube just announced that it will remove videos alleging widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
But, what is YouTube afraid of? The truth???
Thankfully, however, there is a one, big bright spot on the horizon: 48 states filed suit against Facebook just this week.
And, although this seems like a step in the right direction, the draconian measures which YouTube just rolled out, which are already wielded by Twitter, are an assault against free speech.
So, the fight for freedom of speech against Big Tech goes on. And, we must do everything we can to protect it!
Please SIGN and SHARE this petition today!
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-youtube-reverses-ban-on-lifesitenews?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/youtube-bans-lifesite-over-video-of-bp-strickland-refusing-to-take-corona-vaccine
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lifesites-channel-was-suspended-by-youtube-heres-how-you-can-still-watch-our-videos
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/youtube-starts-removing-videos-that-contain-allegations-of-mass-voter-fraud
https://tennesseestar.com/2020/12/10/facebook-sued-by-48-states-federal-trade-commission-over-allegations-of-monopolistic-practices/
________________________________________________________________________
PETITION UPDATE (11/18/2020)
Everyone thought the censorship by Big Tech corporations would decrease after the 2020 election, but the truth is that censorship is being felt just as much as it was before the election.
And, given the election outcome, perhaps Big Tech censorship now is even more consequential than it was before the election!
The two biggest social media platforms, Facebook and Twitter, and other Big Tech companies, are still censoring and suppressing stories and posts favorable to conservatives, and especially anything that has to do with election fraud.
Here are a few recent examples:
Women for America First organized the March for Trump on November 14, which was shut down by Facebook, MailChimp and Eventbrite. Despite Big Tech’s best efforts to cancel the event, the march went on and gathered a huge crowd.
Twitter has been suppressing a large number of President Trump’s Tweets. Most of his Tweets have been flagged arbitrarily with a warning stating: “This claim about election fraud is disputed."
Please READ this recent article about Big Tech's attempt to choke information conerning the recent Million MAGA March in Washington, DC: '5 things mainstream media won’t tell you about massive DC ‘Stop the Steal’ rally'
Then, please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition, which calls on the Congress, the president, and governors to defend freedom of speech as Big Tech continues their rampant censorship.
PETITION UPDATE (10/15/2020)
In a remarkable development, Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham have announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee will be issuing subpoenas to Twitter's Jack Dorsey and Facebook's Mark Zuckerburg for their company's suppression of two critical expose news stories about how Hunter Biden and the Biden Family allegedly profited from business deals made because of Joe Biden's position as Vice President.
Please WATCH LifeSite's exclusive video of the announcement by Senator Ted Cruz below.
According to the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Lindsey Graham, the subpoenas will be issued next Tuesday, for hearings to be held on Friday of next week.
This is a MASSIVE development, and should be welcomed by those who champion freedom of speech.
Again, this is all happening because Twitter and Facebook refuse to allow their members to share stories which would be favorable to conservatives.
Here's the timeline:
Yesterday, Twitter and Facebook suppressed a NY Post story about how Hunter Biden allegedly profited from introducing a Ukrainian businessman to his then-Vice President father, Joe Biden. The story also alleges that Vice President Biden then subsequently pressured Ukrainian authorities to fire a prosecutor who was investigating the businessman's company.
And, just this morning, Twitter suppressed another expose by the NY Post alleging that the Biden Family improperly profitted from deals made with one of the largest Chinese energy companies because of Vice President Biden's position in government.
But, right after the story broke, Senator Cruz tried to share the latest story on Twitter and was blocked. Twitter says that they are blocking the stories because they claim that the information was obtained illegally. However, Twitter showed no problem allowing illegally obtained information about President Trump's tax returns to be shared.
Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition, which calls on the Congress, the president, and governors to defend freedom of speech as Big Tech continues their rampant censorship.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
'GOP senators decry Big Tech censorship of NY Post story exposing Biden corruption' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gop-senators-decry-big-tech-censorship-of-ny-post-story-exposing-biden-corruption
___________________________________________________________________________
PETITION UPDATE (9/17/2020)
Big Tech is out to kill free speech. LifeSite is out to protect it!
LifeSite has been digging deep into the many claims of liberal bias and selective censorship of pro-life, pro-family, and conservative voices on social media.
And, we are now launching our new series 'Uncensored: Big Tech vs. Free Speech', which will unpack how the actions of Big Tech censors actually affect conservative and Christian organization and individuals.
Please WATCH the first video in our series featuring Brigitte Gabriel, the Founder of ACT For America, one of the nation's premier national security grassroots organizations.
Ms. Gabriel's organization, ACT For America, has been targeted by Big Tech especially in the manipulation of search results.
Big Tech “think[s] they are God and they are exercising their godly power over everybody else,” Gabriel explained. "Because in today's world, anytime you want to find out any information about somebody, what do you do? Google. You go to the internet to find out some information about them. When you research anything about somebody, the first thing that comes up [in the search results] is the Southern Poverty Law Center’s labeling of ‘hate groups.’”
“And who are the ‘hate groups’? Family Research Council is a hate group because they are pro-family. American Family Radio is a hate group…LifeSiteNews is a hate group. My organization is a hate group because we sound the alarm about terrorism and protecting our constitutional freedom. And so they try to character assassinate you. And they control the language.”
LifeSite's research shows that Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, and others have become far too dangerous for democracy.
They can and do sway elections and public opinion in whatever direction they want, primarily by manipulating search results, tracking our online behavior, and by blocking truthful content from their platforms.
Today, LifeSite is starting to fight back, with facts and with stories of conservatives and Christians who are being negatively impacted by Big Tech's liberal bias.
Please continue to follow our 'Big Tech vs. Free Speech' series which aims to launch a new video each week for the next eight weeks.
And, please sign our petition demanding that Big Tech monopolies are broken up. Thank you!
__________________________________________________________________________
ORIGINAL PETITION BACKGROUND TEXT:
The outrageous erasing of the White Coat Summit from the internet is only the latest in a long series of brazen acts of censorship against conservatives and all those who support legitimate free speech.
You may agree or disagree with the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine against the coronavirus, but everyone should agree on this point:
No Big Tech company should have the power to erase from the internet the medical opinions of licensed practicing doctors simply because they do not like what they have to say about the coronavirus or their experience treating it. Americans and other free peoples do not need leftist computer programmers deciding what the best course of medical treatment is for them.
Google/Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Apple and their Big Tech friends want to control what you see, what you read, what you think, and ultimately, how you vote. Not only do they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying congress and buttering up big Washington DC think tanks, but now they brazenly and directly censor any content they don't want you to see.
Big Tech, like other interest groups, aggressively lobby to help their businesses thrive, but increasingly, Big Tech is using blatant internet censorship to impose its radical world view over those they consider to be "deplorables."
This must stop, but it won't unless we demand it as forcefully as legally possible. We believe that we have reached the point were Big Tech must be broken up if legitimate free speech is going to survive and continue to thrive on the internet.
Please sign our petition to demand real consequences for Big Tech's suppression of legitimate free speech.
In 2016, emails revealed by Fox News' Tucker Carlson proved that Google tried to influence the election by affecting voter turnout. Thankfully they failed. But they didn't give up. Instead, they have been preparing and testing how to manipulate information to continue to abuse their monopolistic power.
In 2018, Google/Youtube et. al. succeeded in manipulating the Irish abortion referendum by blacklisting pro-life videos, manipulating pro-life search terms and results and intentionally withholding pro-life information. Again, this is not an opinion or a conspiracy theory, Project Veritas obtained first hand information proving the intentional censorship by Big Tech.
And the Coronavirus has just made things worse. You see, scared people are more easily manipulated into giving up their freedom of speech. Children are being kept from going to school, tens of millions of Americans are out of work, and rioting has broken out in most major American cities.
Now, more than ever, freedom of speech is necessary to secure all of our freedoms. Freedom of speech is crucial to truly exercise the freedom to vote for the person that best represents one's own views, or the freedom to decide what course of medical treatment to accept - especially the decision to control what vaccines are administered to our children.
Some experts, like Dr. Robert Epstein, a behavioral psychologist who has testified before congress against Big Tech believes that we may already be too late to control Big Tech's tyrannical control over information.
President Trump took a step in the right direction with his Executive Order calling for increased regulation of Big Tech. But much more can be done and needs to be done right now.
In an era where almost everything is polarized, there is an overwhelming support for breaking up the Big Tech monopolies. A recent Pew poll found that 75% of Americans believe that Big Tech companies have too much influence.
It is time to bring serious accountability to Big Tech for their attempts to use their monopolies to kill free speech.
It is time to break up Big Tech.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Google, Facebook, Twitter shut down ‘frontline’ US doctors who promote ‘cure for COVID’ - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/google-facebook-twitter-shut-down-frontline-us-doctors-who-promote-cure-for-covid?utm_source=featured&utm_campaign=standard
Americans overwhelmingly agree Big Tech has too much power: Pew poll - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/americans-overwhelmingly-agree-big-tech-has-too-much-power-pew-poll
Leaked Google employee's email reveals effort to boost Latino vote, surprise that some voted for Trump - https://www.foxnews.com/tech/leaked-google-employees-email-reveals-effort-to-boost-latino-vote-surprise-that-some-voted-for-trump
Undercover video proves Google interfered in Irish abortion referendum - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/americans-overwhelmingly-agree-big-tech-has-too-much-power-pew-poll


lifesitenews--2020-10-13--Barrett: Roe not ‘super precedent,’ not entitled to automatically be upheld

WASHINGTON , D.C. , October 13 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Judge Amy Coney Barrett rebuked the notion that Roe v. Wade was a “ super precedent ” entitled to stand without review Tuesday during cross-examination from Minnesota Democrat Sen. Amy Klobuchar over Barrett ’ s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court .
Klobuchar was grilling Barrett on her past writings on the subject of “ super precedents.
” For clarification , Barrett asked what definition of the term the senator was using , to which Klobuchar quipped , “ I might have thought someday I 'd be sitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I 'm up here , so I 'm asking you.
” “ Well , people use super-precedent differently , ” Barrett explained .
“ The way it ’ s used in the scholarship and the way that I was using it in the article that you ’ re reading from was to define cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling .
“ And I ‘ m answering a lot of questions about Roe , which I think indicates that Roe doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” she noted .
“ And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn ’ t mean Roe should be overruled , but descriptively it does mean that it ’ s not a case that everyone has accepted.
” “ Is United States v. Virginia Military , is that super-precedent ?
” Klobuchar followed up .
“ Senator Klobuchar , if you continue to ask questions about super-precedents that aren ’ t on the list of the super-precedents that I discussed in the article that are well acknowledged in the constitutional law literature , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have to say that I can ’ t grade it , ” Barrett replied .
A former Notre Dame law professor and clerk for the late conservative stalwart Justice Antonin Scalia , Barrett is widely regarded as a pro-life originalist .
She was a member of Notre Dame ’ s Faculty for Life group ; signed a number of pro-life letters and public statements in the past ; and has taken the conservative and/or originalist stance in written positions on hot-button issues such as due process for sexual assault claims on college @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and immigration .
Perhaps most encouragingly , Barrett has also written articles critical of the stare decisis doctrine , which grants weight to past rulings ’ status as precedent , regardless of whether they were rightly decided .

The Supreme Court nominee told Sen. Amy Klobuchar that the abortion decision is 'not a case that everyone has accepted.'
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Judge Amy Coney Barrett rebuked the notion that Roe v. Wade was a “super precedent” entitled to stand without review Tuesday during cross-examination from Minnesota Democrat Sen. Amy Klobuchar over Barrett’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Klobuchar was grilling Barrett on her past writings on the subject of “super precedents.” For clarification, Barrett asked what definition of the term the senator was using, to which Klobuchar quipped, “ I might have thought someday I'd be sitting in that chair. I'm not. I'm up here, so I'm asking you.”
“Well, people use super-precedent differently,” Barrett explained. “The way it’s used in the scholarship and the way that I was using it in the article that you’re reading from was to define cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling.
“And I‘m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category,” she noted. “And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean Roe should be overruled, but descriptively it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted.”
“Is United States v. Virginia Military, is that super-precedent?” Klobuchar followed up.
“Senator Klobuchar, if you continue to ask questions about super-precedents that aren’t on the list of the super-precedents that I discussed in the article that are well acknowledged in the constitutional law literature, every time you ask the question I will have to say that I can’t grade it,” Barrett replied.
A former Notre Dame law professor and clerk for the late conservative stalwart Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett is widely regarded as a pro-life originalist. She was a member of Notre Dame’s Faculty for Life group; signed a number of pro-life letters and public statements in the past; and has taken the conservative and/or originalist stance in written positions on hot-button issues such as due process for sexual assault claims on college campuses, the right to bear arms, and immigration. Perhaps most encouragingly, Barrett has also written articles critical of the stare decisis doctrine, which grants weight to past rulings’ status as precedent, regardless of whether they were rightly decided.
— Article continues below Petition — URGENT PETITION: Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade Show Petition Text 61375 have signed the petition. Let's get to 70000 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition PETITION UPDATE (9/26/2020): With President Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we are closer than we have been in decades to seeing Roe vs. Wade overturned. We now encourage the Senate to confirm Barrett as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Judge Barrett has a fantastic track recond on sanctity of life issues, has seven children, and is a devout believer. She is the perfect remedy for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's radical pro-abortionism. Please READ the full story here: 'BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court' And then, please SIGN this petition telling the High Court that it's now time to end the activist Roe vs. Wade judgment. Thank you! __________________________________________________________________ PETITION UPDATE (6/29/2020): In a decision which has imperiled more abortion-minded women, sentenced more preborn to death, and upset pro-lifers across the nation,the United States Supreme Court decided 5-4 to strike down a Louisiana law requiring basic medical precautions in the event of abortion complications, with Chief Justice John Roberts reversing his own past decision to uphold a similar Texas law. Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which held that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional for the simple fact that it was “almost word-for-word identical” to the Texas one the court already struck down in 2016. In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that he had “joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.” We call on the Supreme Court to stop supporting the culture of death and overturn Roe vs Wade, now. PETITION UPDATE (1/20/2020): Hundreds of thousands of people will gather in Washington, D.C., this coming Friday, January 24th, for the March for Life. They will be praying for an end to Roe vs Wade, as the Supreme Court will hear a crucial, abortion-related case later this year in March. United our voices can change the course of history. Sign this petition TODAY! (LEARN MORE BELOW) PETITION UPDATE (1/3/2020): In advance of the Supreme Court's hearing arguments in an important abortion case later this year in March, 207 U.S. Senators and Representatives have signed amicus briefs supporting a Louisiana law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital nearby an abortion center. Some of these supporting briefs also suggest that now is the time to reconsider Roe vs Wade as sound law. Please SIGN this petition, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Roe vs Wade. _____________________________________________________________________________ More than 60 million Americans have been slaughtered in their mother's wombs as a result of Roe v. Wade. This activist, unconstitutional ruling in 1973 has left countless women emotionally and psychologically scarred. It was believed by many that Roe would be overturned in 1992 with Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Despite having eight Republican-appointed judges at the time, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold it. Since then, major gains have been made in the fight for life, and many lives have been saved. However, Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land, leaving millions of defenseless pre-born children vulnerable to murder. According to a 2016 study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 35% of aborted babies are African American, despite black women only making up six percent of the U.S. population. 19% of aborted babies are Hispanic. We thus again call on the court to do everything they can to end Roe vs Wade. Now is the time for pro-lifers to join together and ensure that all of God's children have a right to life. Roe v. Wade must come to an end! FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-strikes-down-louisiana-abortion-regulations https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/over-200-congressmen-as-us-supreme-court-to-reconsider-roe-v-wade https://www.foxnews.com/politics/congress-members-file-competing-legal-briefs-in-key-scotus-abortion-case Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-13--Hawley, Barrett dismantle religious tests for office at Supreme Court hearing

WASHINGTON , D.C. , October 13 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri used his questioning of Judge Amy Coney Barrett as an opportunity to highlight the attacks levied by Senate Democrat against the Supreme Court nominee ’ s Catholic faith , and to remind the body what the Constitution says on the matter .
“ Yesterday we were assured that you would not be attacked on the basis of your faith ; I notice that that didn ’ t last 24 hours , ” Hawley lamented .
“ But I ’ m not surprised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have heard consistent attacks from the Democrat side on nominees on the basis of their faith.
” After a brief exchange about Barrett delivering speeches to Alliance Defending Freedom ’ s Blackstone program ( which Democrats attacked over ADF ’ s Christian conservative values ) , Hawley asked Barrett to elaborate on a statement she signed in 2006 “ oppos [ ing ] abortion on demand ” and supporting the “ right to life from fertilization to natural death.
” “ That was almost fifteen years ago , at the back of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for people on their way out of mass to sign a statement validating their commitment to the position of the Catholic Church on life issues , ” Barrett explained , adding that she signed it “ in my personal capacity as a private citizen .
Now I am a public official , and so while I was free to express my private views at that time , I don ’ t feel like it is appropriate for me anymore because of the canons of conduct to express an affirmative view at this point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about religious tests for public office , Barrett explained that the Constitution “ prohibits this body , prohibits the government generally , from disqualifying people from office because of their religious beliefs , ” and noted that America ’ s Founders viewed free religious exercise as “ central ” to a free society .
“ There are no religious tests for office , ” Hawley agreed , “ and the attempt to smuggle them in , even in the midst of this committee ’ s hearings today , must be resisted on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @

‘There are no religious tests for office,’ Hawley said, ‘and the attempt to smuggle them in … must be resisted on the basis of the Constitution itself.’
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri used his questioning of Judge Amy Coney Barrett as an opportunity to highlight the attacks levied by Senate Democrat against the Supreme Court nominee’s Catholic faith, and to remind the body what the Constitution says on the matter.
“Yesterday we were assured that you would not be attacked on the basis of your faith; I notice that that didn’t last 24 hours,” Hawley lamented. “But I’m not surprised because for three and a half years we have heard consistent attacks from the Democrat side on nominees on the basis of their faith.”
After a brief exchange about Barrett delivering speeches to Alliance Defending Freedom’s Blackstone program (which Democrats attacked over ADF’s Christian conservative values), Hawley asked Barrett to elaborate on a statement she signed in 2006 “oppos[ing] abortion on demand” and supporting the “right to life from fertilization to natural death.”
“That was almost fifteen years ago, at the back of church there was a table set up for people on their way out of mass to sign a statement validating their commitment to the position of the Catholic Church on life issues,” Barrett explained, adding that she signed it “in my personal capacity as a private citizen. Now I am a public official, and so while I was free to express my private views at that time, I don’t feel like it is appropriate for me anymore because of the canons of conduct to express an affirmative view at this point in time.”
Responding to a question about religious tests for public office, Barrett explained that the Constitution “prohibits this body, prohibits the government generally, from disqualifying people from office because of their religious beliefs,” and noted that America’s Founders viewed free religious exercise as “central” to a free society.
“There are no religious tests for office,” Hawley agreed, “and the attempt to smuggle them in, even in the midst of this committee’s hearings today, must be resisted on the basis of the Constitution itself.”
— Article continues below Petition — URGENT PETITION: Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade Show Petition Text 61375 have signed the petition. Let's get to 70000 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition PETITION UPDATE (9/26/2020): With President Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we are closer than we have been in decades to seeing Roe vs. Wade overturned. We now encourage the Senate to confirm Barrett as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Judge Barrett has a fantastic track recond on sanctity of life issues, has seven children, and is a devout believer. She is the perfect remedy for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's radical pro-abortionism. Please READ the full story here: 'BREAKING: Trump nominates Catholic mom of 7 Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court' And then, please SIGN this petition telling the High Court that it's now time to end the activist Roe vs. Wade judgment. Thank you! __________________________________________________________________ PETITION UPDATE (6/29/2020): In a decision which has imperiled more abortion-minded women, sentenced more preborn to death, and upset pro-lifers across the nation,the United States Supreme Court decided 5-4 to strike down a Louisiana law requiring basic medical precautions in the event of abortion complications, with Chief Justice John Roberts reversing his own past decision to uphold a similar Texas law. Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which held that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional for the simple fact that it was “almost word-for-word identical” to the Texas one the court already struck down in 2016. In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that he had “joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.” We call on the Supreme Court to stop supporting the culture of death and overturn Roe vs Wade, now. PETITION UPDATE (1/20/2020): Hundreds of thousands of people will gather in Washington, D.C., this coming Friday, January 24th, for the March for Life. They will be praying for an end to Roe vs Wade, as the Supreme Court will hear a crucial, abortion-related case later this year in March. United our voices can change the course of history. Sign this petition TODAY! (LEARN MORE BELOW) PETITION UPDATE (1/3/2020): In advance of the Supreme Court's hearing arguments in an important abortion case later this year in March, 207 U.S. Senators and Representatives have signed amicus briefs supporting a Louisiana law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital nearby an abortion center. Some of these supporting briefs also suggest that now is the time to reconsider Roe vs Wade as sound law. Please SIGN this petition, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Roe vs Wade. _____________________________________________________________________________ More than 60 million Americans have been slaughtered in their mother's wombs as a result of Roe v. Wade. This activist, unconstitutional ruling in 1973 has left countless women emotionally and psychologically scarred. It was believed by many that Roe would be overturned in 1992 with Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Despite having eight Republican-appointed judges at the time, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold it. Since then, major gains have been made in the fight for life, and many lives have been saved. However, Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land, leaving millions of defenseless pre-born children vulnerable to murder. According to a 2016 study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 35% of aborted babies are African American, despite black women only making up six percent of the U.S. population. 19% of aborted babies are Hispanic. We thus again call on the court to do everything they can to end Roe vs Wade. Now is the time for pro-lifers to join together and ensure that all of God's children have a right to life. Roe v. Wade must come to an end! FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-strikes-down-louisiana-abortion-regulations https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/over-200-congressmen-as-us-supreme-court-to-reconsider-roe-v-wade https://www.foxnews.com/politics/congress-members-file-competing-legal-briefs-in-key-scotus-abortion-case Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-13--Wikipedia bans editor badges showing support for traditional marriage

October 13 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Wikipedia has forbidden the use of “ userboxes ” denoting support of traditional marriage and opposition to homosexual “ marriage ” on editor profiles .
Userboxes are small badges that can be placed underneath an editor ’ s profile to give certain information about him , as well as his positions on various topics .
Recently , Adam Cuerden , one of many editors on the online encyclopedia , proposed that a userbox stating “ this user believes marriage is between one and one woman ” should be deleted .
“ Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legalizing gay marriage and were used by hundreds of editors .
This included one expressing a personal view favoring traditional marriage , but advocating for states to decide , ” Breitbart explained in a lengthy article that described increased censorship at Wikipedia .
He added that “ I honestly can ’ t see how this could possibly be anything but inflammatory , [ sic ] divisive political/religious advocacy , and is pretty explicitly homophobic.
” Cuerden swiftly continued by providing a list of other userboxes to be deleted , all of which expressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or support for traditional marriage .
The claim was made that pro-traditional marriage userboxes violated the code of conduct regarding userboxes , which states that “ Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive .
Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda , advocacy , or recruitment of any kind , commercial , political , religious , or otherwise , opinion pieces on current affairs or politics , self-promotion , or advertising.
” One of the many users agreeing with Cuerden responded , “ Wikipedia is no place for advocacy toward bigotry.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were excluding LGBT individuals from the site .
“ It ’ s clear they exist as reactionary impulse against LGBTQ rights and the existence of those userboxes would likely make LGBTQ editors feel unwelcome or substandard if encountered on other user ’ s pages.
” The discussion continued along similar lines in defense of removing the traditional marriage userboxes , with many voicing opinions such as “ All these divisive userboxes advocating against other ’ s human rights and inclusive marriage need to be deleted.
” Opponents of the move to delete the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be maintained .
One contributor noted that the phrase “ this user believes marriage is between one and and one woman ” was not homophobic and merely a declaration of a personal belief .
He mentioned that it “ reflects nothing more than a personal belief and/or position towards family values and the institution of marriage , and it would be a stretch to say everyone who has that belief advocates for discrimination against same-sex couples.
” The user , termed as “ Dps04 , ” further observed that the phrase “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gay marriage ’ is a position that people in a free society should be able to take , and the sentence on its own , again , by no means incite hatred against people who hold the opposing view.
” Another critic of the change declared that “ If an editor is in compliance with our core policies and guidelines when editing articles and discussions , why shouldn ’ t they be able to have a userbox displaying their personal political/religious beliefs , if it does n't negatively affect their editing and discussions.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposed userbox deletion , one editor under the username “ Guy ” described defendants of traditional marriage as “ bigots , ” and argued that as such they should not be welcome on the website .
“ As it turns out , some people are concerned that Wikipedia offer a welcoming and inclusive environment .
But not to bigots.
” Questioned as to whether he meant to drive away supporters of traditional marriage , “ Guy ” responded , “ If they define themselves by bigotry , sufficiently strongly to add a userbox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conservapedia.
” The editor went further by relating the issue to the Black Lives Matter movement and claiming that a stance in defense of traditional marriage was equivalent to promoting racial inequality .
Going under the name of “ GorillaWarfare , ” another editor stated that Wikipedia has already picked a side in the debate on same-sex “ marriage.
” She declared , “ We have picked a side , which is that LGBTQ Wikipedians are welcome here .
”

October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Wikipedia has forbidden the use of “userboxes” denoting support of traditional marriage and opposition to homosexual “marriage” on editor profiles.
Userboxes are small badges that can be placed underneath an editor’s profile to give certain information about him, as well as his positions on various topics. Recently, Adam Cuerden, one of many editors on the online encyclopedia, proposed that a userbox stating “this user believes marriage is between one and one woman” should be deleted.
“Most userboxes pre-dated a U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage and were used by hundreds of editors. This included one expressing a personal view favoring traditional marriage, but advocating for states to decide,” Breitbart explained in a lengthy article that described increased censorship at Wikipedia.
He added that “I honestly can’t see how this could possibly be anything but inflammatory, [sic] divisive political/religious advocacy, and is pretty explicitly homophobic.”
Cuerden swiftly continued by providing a list of other userboxes to be deleted, all of which expressed their opposition to same-sex “marriage” or support for traditional marriage.
The claim was made that pro-traditional marriage userboxes violated the code of conduct regarding userboxes, which states that “Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.”
One of the many users agreeing with Cuerden responded, “Wikipedia is no place for advocacy toward bigotry.”
Another editor declared that pro-traditional marriage userboxes were excluding LGBT individuals from the site. “It’s clear they exist as reactionary impulse against LGBTQ rights and the existence of those userboxes would likely make LGBTQ editors feel unwelcome or substandard if encountered on other user’s pages.”
The discussion continued along similar lines in defense of removing the traditional marriage userboxes, with many voicing opinions such as “All these divisive userboxes advocating against other’s human rights and inclusive marriage need to be deleted.”
Opponents of the move to delete the userboxes pointed out that freedom of speech must be maintained. One contributor noted that the phrase “this user believes marriage is between one and and one woman” was not homophobic and merely a declaration of a personal belief. He mentioned that it “reflects nothing more than a personal belief and/or position towards family values and the institution of marriage, and it would be a stretch to say everyone who has that belief advocates for discrimination against same-sex couples.”
The user, termed as “Dps04,” further observed that the phrase “’This user opposes the legalization of gay marriage’ is a position that people in a free society should be able to take, and the sentence on its own, again, by no means incite hatred against people who hold the opposing view.”
Another critic of the change declared that “If an editor is in compliance with our core policies and guidelines when editing articles and discussions, why shouldn’t they be able to have a userbox displaying their personal political/religious beliefs, if it doesn't negatively affect their editing and discussions.”
Responding to these critics of the proposed userbox deletion, one editor under the username “Guy” described defendants of traditional marriage as “bigots,” and argued that as such they should not be welcome on the website. “As it turns out, some people are concerned that Wikipedia offer a welcoming and inclusive environment. But not to bigots.”
Questioned as to whether he meant to drive away supporters of traditional marriage, “Guy” responded, “If they define themselves by bigotry, sufficiently strongly to add a userbox, then absolutely. They go to Conservapedia.”
The editor went further by relating the issue to the Black Lives Matter movement and claiming that a stance in defense of traditional marriage was equivalent to promoting racial inequality.
Going under the name of “GorillaWarfare,” another editor stated that Wikipedia has already picked a side in the debate on same-sex “marriage.” She declared, “We have picked a side, which is that LGBTQ Wikipedians are welcome here.”
Share