lifesitenews--2020-02-13--China’s communist govt forcibly rounds up Coronavirus victims, treats them like animals

February 11 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – In order to combat the worsening coronavirus epidemic , Communist Party leader Xi Jinping has declared a “ People ’ s War ” against the virus .
The communist leader has mobilized the entire machinery of the state -- the military , the government , and the Party -- and put the entire country on a war footing .
The province of Hubei , the epicenter of the epidemic , has been cordoned off from the rest of China , while an invading army of “ veteran Party members , ” medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sent to the province to take control .
Their orders are to arrest anyone found to be carrying the disease and put them into containment centers .
They are authorized to use force against anyone who resists , and Xi himself has said that anyone who disobeys government orders would be punished .
Videos out of China appear to show coronavirus victims being forcibly dragged from their homes .
Xi ’ s extreme actions suggest that the epidemic is far worse than the official numbers would suggest , which by Tuesday night stood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How much worse is impossible to say , given the almost complete blackout of news from the quarantined province .
One leaked report from the Chinese social media giant TenCent suggested that the real death toll was 25 times higher than official claims .
The report was immediately taken down and has proved impossible to verify , but it may be closer to the truth than the absurdly low official figure .
Ask yourself this question : Would the Communist authorities quarantine tens of millions of people and shut down the Chinese economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few hundred deaths ?
What is crystal clear to me is that the Chinese Communist Party is acting entirely as one would expect such a criminal enterprise to behave when faced with a disaster of its own making .
In a January 19 meeting with senior health officials , the head of China ’ s National Health Service , Ma Xiaowei , summed up the Party ’ s priorities as politics , safety , and research .
That is to say , the Party is putting politics first , containing the spread of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to cure the sick a distant third .
The Chinese public is rightly blaming its leaders , and the totalitarian system of control they have created , for allowing the disease to reach epidemic proportions in the first place .
In response , the Party is putting its propaganda machine into overdrive .
In an effort to protect the image of “ People ’ s Leader ” Xi Jinping , it is locking up critics and trying to shift the blame for the regime ’ s failures onto the local authorities in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it continues to criticize “ hostile foreign forces ” -- by which it principally means the United States -- for creating panic in China by “ overreacting.
” Of course , as the disease continues to spread day by day , President Donald Trump ’ s early decision to cancel direct flights to and from China , as well as rescue American citizens trapped in the plague city of Wuhan , was exactly the right call .
The Party ’ s second goal is to contain the epidemic by any means possible , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in place the largest quarantine in world history .
In fact , it might be the world ’ s first multi-level quarantine .
Not only has the entire population of Hubei , some 60 million people , been isolated from the rest of China , but also a dozen-and-a-half cities within Hubei itself have been cut off from the rest of the province .
Except for emergency supplies , road and rail traffic in and of the province is at a standstill .
Food and medical supplies are dwindling , factories and shops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of people have been virtually confined to their homes for the past three weeks .
But it is in the forced quarantine of individuals that the “ People ’ s War ” gets really ugly .
On the ground in Hubei and in other places experiencing outbreaks , the police are going door to door in an effort to round up the infected and those they have been in close contact with .
Anyone showing any symptoms of illness , such as a fever or a cough , is summarily arrested and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ hospital , ” but is in reality a sports arena or a high school or college gymnasium that has been turned into a detention center .
Early on in the epidemic , Yang Yunyan , the Vice Governor of Hubei Province , declared that they have located enough such sites to house 100,000 people .
Spoken at a time when the official tally of infected was only 15,000 or so , the claim was another indication that the regime was seriously lowballing the real numbers .
Not surprisingly , Yang ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internet .
Still , a few days later , the leaders of Hubei Province , of which Wuhan is the capital , directed that all hotels , hostels and empty factories should be prepared to be transformed into quarantine stations .
Aside from converting existing buildings , the authorities are also hastily constructing a series of new buildings .
Much fanfare has accompanied these new “ hospitals ” that have been built in as little as 10 days .
Here , say the authorities , is concrete proof of People ’ s Leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not to mention proof positive of the superiority of the socialist system .
But just calling a big concrete box a “ hospital ” does not make it one .
The pictures of these “ hospitals ” show row after row of beds , but scarcely any medical equipment or medical workers in sight .
With hundreds of coronavirus victims lying a few feet apart from one another , they almost seem designed to spread the disease , rather than cure or even contain it .
In such crammed conditions , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as pass other secondary infections along .
What China is doing has nothing to do with quarantine , properly understood , and everything to do with a kind of ruthless triage system .
The well-connected can always get a hospital bed .
Indeed , there is one hospital in Wuhan that is designated for the care of sick Party and government officials .
As for ordinary people , those who are suspected of carrying the coronavirus are simply culled from the population and locked up for the duration of the epidemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is a good chance that the containment centers will become giant morgues .
Xi Jinping is not the first Chinese Communist leader to use the term “ people ’ s war.
” The inventor of that phrase was the late Chairman Mao Zedong , who used it as shorthand to describe a Communist military strategy of mobilizing the entire population to fight against an enemy -- in his case the Japanese army , which had invaded China prior to World War II .
But who is the enemy today ?
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s war ” against the epidemic , “ People ’ s Leader ” Xi has ironically launched a “ war ” against his own “ people , ” at least those whom he suspects of harboring the coronavirus .
This isn ’ t quarantine .
It is more like quarter-and-kill .
Steven W. Mosher is the president of the Population Research Institute and the author of Bully of Asia : Why China ’ s Dream is the New Threat to World Order .
A former National Science Foundation fellow , he studied human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Luigi Cavalli-Sforza .
He holds advanced degrees in Biological Oceanography , East Asian Studies , and Cultural Anthropology .
One of America 's leading China watchers , he was selected in 1979 by the National Science Foundation to be the first American social scientist to do field research in China .

February 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In order to combat the worsening coronavirus epidemic, Communist Party leader Xi Jinping has declared a “People’s War” against the virus.
The communist leader has mobilized the entire machinery of the state — the military, the government, and the Party — and put the entire country on a war footing. The province of Hubei, the epicenter of the epidemic, has been cordoned off from the rest of China, while an invading army of “veteran Party members,” medical personnel, and military units have been sent to the province to take control. Their orders are to arrest anyone found to be carrying the disease and put them into containment centers. They are authorized to use force against anyone who resists, and Xi himself has said that anyone who disobeys government orders would be punished. Videos out of China appear to show coronavirus victims being forcibly dragged from their homes.
Xi’s extreme actions suggest that the epidemic is far worse than the official numbers would suggest, which by Tuesday night stood at 1,115 dead and 45,182 infected. How much worse is impossible to say, given the almost complete blackout of news from the quarantined province. One leaked report from the Chinese social media giant TenCent suggested that the real death toll was 25 times higher than official claims. The report was immediately taken down and has proved impossible to verify, but it may be closer to the truth than the absurdly low official figure.
Ask yourself this question: Would the Communist authorities quarantine tens of millions of people and shut down the Chinese economy for weeks on end because of a few hundred deaths?
What is crystal clear to me is that the Chinese Communist Party is acting entirely as one would expect such a criminal enterprise to behave when faced with a disaster of its own making. In a January 19 meeting with senior health officials, the head of China’s National Health Service, Ma Xiaowei, summed up the Party’s priorities as politics, safety, and research. That is to say, the Party is putting politics first, containing the spread of the epidemic second, and research into how to cure the sick a distant third.
The Chinese public is rightly blaming its leaders, and the totalitarian system of control they have created, for allowing the disease to reach epidemic proportions in the first place. In response, the Party is putting its propaganda machine into overdrive. In an effort to protect the image of “People’s Leader” Xi Jinping, it is locking up critics and trying to shift the blame for the regime’s failures onto the local authorities in Hubei. At the same time, it continues to criticize “hostile foreign forces” — by which it principally means the United States — for creating panic in China by “overreacting.” Of course, as the disease continues to spread day by day, President Donald Trump’s early decision to cancel direct flights to and from China, as well as rescue American citizens trapped in the plague city of Wuhan, was exactly the right call.
The Party’s second goal is to contain the epidemic by any means possible, and to do this it has put in place the largest quarantine in world history. In fact, it might be the world’s first multi-level quarantine. Not only has the entire population of Hubei, some 60 million people, been isolated from the rest of China, but also a dozen-and-a-half cities within Hubei itself have been cut off from the rest of the province. Except for emergency supplies, road and rail traffic in and of the province is at a standstill. Food and medical supplies are dwindling, factories and shops have been idled, and tens of millions of people have been virtually confined to their homes for the past three weeks.
But it is in the forced quarantine of individuals that the “People’s War” gets really ugly. On the ground in Hubei and in other places experiencing outbreaks, the police are going door to door in an effort to round up the infected and those they have been in close contact with. Anyone showing any symptoms of illness, such as a fever or a cough, is summarily arrested and taken to what the authorities are calling a “hospital,” but is in reality a sports arena or a high school or college gymnasium that has been turned into a detention center.
Early on in the epidemic, Yang Yunyan, the Vice Governor of Hubei Province, declared that they have located enough such sites to house 100,000 people. Spoken at a time when the official tally of infected was only 15,000 or so, the claim was another indication that the regime was seriously lowballing the real numbers. Not surprisingly, Yang’s statement was quickly scrubbed from the internet. Still, a few days later, the leaders of Hubei Province, of which Wuhan is the capital, directed that all hotels, hostels and empty factories should be prepared to be transformed into quarantine stations.
Aside from converting existing buildings, the authorities are also hastily constructing a series of new buildings. Much fanfare has accompanied these new “hospitals” that have been built in as little as 10 days. Here, say the authorities, is concrete proof of People’s Leader Xi’s concern for the sick, not to mention proof positive of the superiority of the socialist system. But just calling a big concrete box a “hospital” does not make it one. The pictures of these “hospitals” show row after row of beds, but scarcely any medical equipment or medical workers in sight. With hundreds of coronavirus victims lying a few feet apart from one another, they almost seem designed to spread the disease, rather than cure or even contain it. In such crammed conditions, the sick will undoubtedly reinfect one another, as well as pass other secondary infections along.
What China is doing has nothing to do with quarantine, properly understood, and everything to do with a kind of ruthless triage system. The well-connected can always get a hospital bed. Indeed, there is one hospital in Wuhan that is designated for the care of sick Party and government officials. As for ordinary people, those who are suspected of carrying the coronavirus are simply culled from the population and locked up for the duration of the epidemic, often receiving minimal medical care. There is a good chance that the containment centers will become giant morgues.
Xi Jinping is not the first Chinese Communist leader to use the term “people’s war.” The inventor of that phrase was the late Chairman Mao Zedong, who used it as shorthand to describe a Communist military strategy of mobilizing the entire population to fight against an enemy — in his case the Japanese army, which had invaded China prior to World War II.
But who is the enemy today?
On the pretext of launching a “people’s war” against the epidemic, “People’s Leader” Xi has ironically launched a “war” against his own “people,” at least those whom he suspects of harboring the coronavirus.
This isn’t quarantine. It is more like quarter-and-kill.
Steven W. Mosher is the president of the Population Research Institute and the author of Bully of Asia: Why China’s Dream is the New Threat to World Order. A former National Science Foundation fellow, he studied human biology at Stanford University under famed geneticist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza. He holds advanced degrees in Biological Oceanography, East Asian Studies, and Cultural Anthropology. One of America's leading China watchers, he was selected in 1979 by the National Science Foundation to be the first American social scientist to do field research in China.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-12--Refugee judge rejects rape victim’s bid to stay in Canada because she chose life for baby

February 12 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A member of Canada ’ s refugee board rejected a mother ’ s application to stay in the country after the mother revealed that she had been raped and decided to keep her child .
The adjudicator doubted the mother ’ s story , saying that no woman who was truly raped would “ keep a child of rape.
” Canada ’ s Global News revealed yesterday that Sarwanjit Randhawa , an adjudicator for the Immigration and Refugee Board ( IRB ) , had rejected the mother ’ s bid to stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been overturned .
Randhawa wrote in her April 2019 decision that she could not believe a woman who conceived a baby as a result of rape would not have an abortion .
“ ( I am ) sensitive to the subject of rape , but the claimant ’ s explanation does not make sense as to why she would keep a child who would remind her of being raped , unless that is not the case , ” she wrote .
During the women ’ s hearing , which had taken place around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if she had considered having an abortion when she discovered she was pregnant .
The woman replied that the girl was her first child and that she opposes abortion .
She added that she knew what it is like to grow up without parents and argued that the rape wasn ’ t the baby ’ s fault .
These arguments could not penetrate Randhawa ’ s pro-abortion mentality .
“ If you ’ re raped , why would you keep a child of rape ?
” she asked .
Fiorella Nash , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights , told LifeSiteNews that the IRB adjudicator ’ s attitude was “ absolutely ludicrous.
” Nash has both helped refugees and written about their struggles with a “ corrupt ” immigration system .
“ An awful lot seems to depend on the preferences of the judge , ” she said .
Even pro-abortion Canadian feminists have expressed horror at Randhawa ’ s attitude toward the refugee , but Nash blames the abortion lobby for the adjudicator ’ s ingrained ideas .
“ The abortion lobby has to take responsibility for the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this with its intense rape rhetoric , ” Nash said .
“ The arrogance of secular society is shown in that they assume abortion is some sort of solution for rape , ” she continued .
“ A woman ’ s choice here is not being taken seriously .
( Randhawa ) can ’ t process that she made the decision.
” Nash believes the outrageous idea that a rape victim must necessarily abort a child conceived in the attack resembles the judicial victim-shaming of the past .
“ We ’ ve gone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skirt ?
’ to ‘ Did you get rid of it ?
’ ” she said .
Global News cited a 1996 study published in the Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology that showed that “ on average ” 32 percent of women who conceive children as a result of rape decide to keep their babies .
Only half choose abortion .
Randhawa ’ s attitude toward rape victims who keep their babies may not be her only prejudice .
A 2008 study published in the Osgoode Law Review showed that Randhawa had rejected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2006 , with a grant rate of 19.05 percent .
According to the author , Randhawa ’ s grant rate should have been between 51.34 percent and 57.9 percent .

The refugee adjudicator doubted that a woman would ‘keep a child of rape.’
February 12, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A member of Canada’s refugee board rejected a mother’s application to stay in the country after the mother revealed that she had been raped and decided to keep her child. The adjudicator doubted the mother’s story, saying that no woman who was truly raped would “keep a child of rape.”
Canada’s Global News revealed yesterday that Sarwanjit Randhawa, an adjudicator for the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), had rejected the mother’s bid to stay in Canada. That decision has now been overturned.
Randhawa wrote in her April 2019 decision that she could not believe a woman who conceived a baby as a result of rape would not have an abortion.
“(I am) sensitive to the subject of rape, but the claimant’s explanation does not make sense as to why she would keep a child who would remind her of being raped, unless that is not the case,” she wrote.
During the women’s hearing, which had taken place around a fortnight before, Randhawa asked her if she had considered having an abortion when she discovered she was pregnant.
The woman replied that the girl was her first child and that she opposes abortion. She added that she knew what it is like to grow up without parents and argued that the rape wasn’t the baby’s fault.
These arguments could not penetrate Randhawa’s pro-abortion mentality.
“If you’re raped, why would you keep a child of rape?” she asked.
Fiorella Nash, a British pro-life campaigner for women’s rights, told LifeSiteNews that the IRB adjudicator’s attitude was “absolutely ludicrous.”
Nash has both helped refugees and written about their struggles with a “corrupt” immigration system.
“An awful lot seems to depend on the preferences of the judge,” she said.
Even pro-abortion Canadian feminists have expressed horror at Randhawa’s attitude toward the refugee, but Nash blames the abortion lobby for the adjudicator’s ingrained ideas.
“The abortion lobby has to take responsibility for the fact that it has created a situation like this with its intense rape rhetoric,” Nash said.
“The arrogance of secular society is shown in that they assume abortion is some sort of solution for rape,” she continued.
“A woman’s choice here is not being taken seriously. (Randhawa) can’t process that she made the decision.”
Nash believes the outrageous idea that a rape victim must necessarily abort a child conceived in the attack resembles the judicial victim-shaming of the past.
“We’ve gone from ‘Did you wear a short skirt?’ to ‘Did you get rid of it?’” she said.
Global News cited a 1996 study published in the Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology that showed that “on average” 32 percent of women who conceive children as a result of rape decide to keep their babies. Only half choose abortion.
Randhawa’s attitude toward rape victims who keep their babies may not be her only prejudice. A 2008 study published in the Osgoode Law Review showed that Randhawa had rejected an unusually large number of refugee claimants in 2006, with a grant rate of 19.05 percent. According to the author, Randhawa’s grant rate should have been between 51.34 percent and 57.9 percent.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-13--WATCH: Virginians join in ‘urgent prayer’ at March for Life to stop 17,000 abortions annually

VIRGINIA , February 13 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Despite a rainy forecast in central Virginia , thousands of Virginians flocked to the state Capitol today to oppose the radical abortion agenda of Virginia 's new Democratic-controlled legislature .
About 17,000 babies were aborted in Virginia in 2019 .
“ Now our Commonwealth is passing laws which will add tragically to that number , ” stated Bishop Barry Knestout , of the Diocese of Richmond , at an opening Mass for the day .
“ So , on this day we join as local churches — Arlington , Richmond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he added .
Drawing concerned citizens from near and far , this year ’ s March for Life challenged the newly elected Democratic majority with the message that liberal pro-abortion extremism has no place in the Commonwealth .
Victoria Cobb , President of the Family Foundation , told LifSiteNews at the event that Virginia pro-lifers must have hope despite the bleak situation they face with a Democratic-controlled legislature .
“ We are never without hope .
If you 're a person of faith , you 'll never be without hope , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult time .
But , there are seasons .
There are always seasons .
So , our job is simply to make our voices heard , meet with as many legislators as possible , tell them the stories — they too know post-abortive women — and if they 're honest about the experiences and the stories that they hear then our job is just simply to help them vote with their conscience , ” she added .
Jeanne Mancini , President of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund , said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today is that “ elections count ” “ Everybody who 's pro-life needs to really be active in the elections in Virginia and nationally etc.
, because your vote really makes a difference , ” she said .
The marchers gathered on the front lawn of the Virginia State Capitol , listening to rally speeches from various public figures and leaders in the pro-life movement including Jeanne Mancini , president of the March for Life , Victoria Cobb , president of the Virginia Family Foundation , Delegate Kathy Byron of Virginia ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jeanne Mancini coined Virginia as the “ Ground Zero ” for abortion laws in the country Rally speakers honed in on the abortion lobby ’ s efforts to pour three million dollars into the last campaign in order to elect radical pro-abortion politicians , who are in turn slashing the Commonwealth ’ s decades-old pro-life laws .
These sweeping measures remove the 24-hour waiting period before an abortion , enable others besides doctors to perform abortions , and withhold key information from the mother including viewing of the ultrasound and full explanation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bleak reality , the Commonwealth ’ s pro-lifers prayed , cheered , and united to march for Virginia ’ s most vulnerable lives .
In the words of Del .
Kathy Byron , “ by God ’ s grace , we will restore Virginia .
”

VIRGINIA, February 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Despite a rainy forecast in central Virginia, thousands of Virginians flocked to the state capitol today to oppose the radical abortion agenda of Virginia’s new Democratic-controlled legislature.
About 17,000 babies were aborted in Virginia in 2019.
“Now our Commonwealth is passing laws which will add tragically to that number,” stated Bishop Barry Knestout, of the Diocese of Richmond, at an opening Mass for the day.
“So, on this day we join as local churches — Arlington, Richmond — in fervent and urgent prayer,” he added.
Drawing concerned citizens from near and far, this year’s March for Life challenged the newly elected Democratic majority with the message that liberal pro-abortion extremism has no place in the commonwealth.
Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation, told LifeSiteNews at the event that Virginia pro-lifers must have hope despite the bleak situation they face with a Democratic-controlled legislature.
“We are never without hope. If you’re a person of faith, you’ll never be without hope,” she said.
“But it is a difficult time. But there are seasons. There are always seasons. So our job is simply to make our voices heard, meet with as many legislators as possible, tell them the stories — they too know post-abortive women — and if they’re honest about the experiences and the stories that they hear then our job is just simply to help them vote with their conscience,” she added.
Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, said one of the “rallying points” today is that “elections count.”
“Everybody who’s pro-life needs to really be active in the elections in Virginia and nationally, etc., because your vote really makes a difference,” she said.
The marchers gathered on the front lawn of the Virginia State Capitol, listening to rally speeches from various public figures and leaders in the pro-life movement, including Jeanne Mancini, Victoria Cobb, Delegate Kathy Byron of Virginia’s 22nd District, and many others.
Jeanne Mancini coined Virginia as “Ground Zero” for abortion laws in the country.
Rally speakers honed in on the abortion lobby’s efforts to pour three million dollars into the last campaign in order to elect radical pro-abortion politicians, who are in turn slashing the commonwealth’s decades-old pro-life laws. These sweeping measures remove the 24-hour waiting period before an abortion, enable others besides doctors to perform abortions, and withhold key information from the mother including viewing of the ultrasound and full explanation of the abortion procedure.
Despite this bleak reality, the Commonwealth’s pro-lifers prayed, cheered, and united to march for Virginia’s most vulnerable lives. In the words of Del. Kathy Byron, “by God’s grace, we will restore Virginia.”
Pete Baklinski contributed to this report.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-13--WATCH: US House holds moment of silence for 2,411 aborted babies found on abortionist’s property

WASHINGTON , D.C. February 13 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – U.S. Rep. Jackie Walorski ( R-Ind . )
today led the House of Representatives in a moment of silence for the 2,411 unborn children whose remains were buried yesterday in a dignified ceremony after being stored for nearly two decades on the property of Indiana abortionist Ulrich Klopfer .
“ Such callous disregard for human life should shake us to the core , ” Republican Congresswoman Walorski said .
“ These children deserved justice and dignity .
Madam Speaker , I ask my colleagues to join me in observing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of innocent victims that were laid to rest yesterday.
” Walorski represents the 2nd Congressional District of Indiana , serving as a member of the House Ways and Means Committee .
“ I rise today to honor the 2,411 unborn children whose remains were finally laid to rest with dignity yesterday in South Bend , Indiana , ” Walorski said .
“ These victims of Indiana ’ s most prolific abortionist would be in their late teens now , graduating from high school and entering into college .
But their innocent lives were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a proper burial .
Instead , their remains sat for almost 20 years in a garage and a car trunk , in moldy boxes and Styrofoam coolers .
Such callous disregard for human life should shake us to the core .
These children deserved justice and dignity , ” she added .
“ To make sure this never happens again , the House must pass the Dignity for Aborted Children Act to build on Indiana ’ s law , upheld by the Supreme Court , that requires dignified treatment of aborted fetal remains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Speaker , I ask my colleagues to join me in observing a moment of silence for the thousands of innocent victims that were laid to rest yesterday .
Thank you , and I yield back .
”

Remains of 2,411 abortion victims were given a dignified burial after being discovered on the property of abortionist Klopfer.
WASHINGTON, D.C. February 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – U.S. Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) today led the House of Representatives in a moment of silence for the 2,411 unborn children whose remains were buried yesterday in a dignified ceremony after being stored for nearly two decades on the property of Indiana abortionist Ulrich Klopfer.
“Such callous disregard for human life should shake us to the core,” Republican Congresswoman Walorski said. “These children deserved justice and dignity. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in observing a moment of silence for the thousands of innocent victims that were laid to rest yesterday.” Walorski represents the 2nd Congressional District of Indiana, serving as a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.
“I rise today to honor the 2,411 unborn children whose remains were finally laid to rest with dignity yesterday in South Bend, Indiana,” Walorski said.
“These victims of Indiana’s most prolific abortionist would be in their late teens now, graduating from high school and entering into college. But their innocent lives were cut short, and they were denied a proper burial. Instead, their remains sat for almost 20 years in a garage and a car trunk, in moldy boxes and Styrofoam coolers. Such callous disregard for human life should shake us to the core. These children deserved justice and dignity,” she added.
“To make sure this never happens again, the House must pass the Dignity for Aborted Children Act to build on Indiana’s law, upheld by the Supreme Court, that requires dignified treatment of aborted fetal remains,” Walorski continued.
“Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in observing a moment of silence for the thousands of innocent victims that were laid to rest yesterday. Thank you, and I yield back.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-13--BREAKING: Senate to vote on banning late-term abortion, infanticide

WASHINGTON , D.C. , February 13 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Republican leadership began the process today of initiating a vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act , which would ban most late-term abortions past five months of pregnancy , and the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act , which would require basic medical care for newborns born during failed abortions .
Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell , R-KY , made a motion to begin debate on the bills .
The first votes on both pieces of legislation will actually be on ending debate on the bills .
If 60 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill , the Senate will vote on the bill itself .
But Senate rules make it impossible to vote on a bill unless 60 senators agree that the vote should take place .
( Republicans temporarily changed these rules to allow the Senate to confirm President Donald Trump ’ s two Supreme Court nominees ; it ’ s likely that if Democrats regain control of the Senate they will simply change the rules again so as to be able to pass legislation with only a simple majority . )
Therefore pro-life groups typically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ones as votes in favor of or against late-term abortion .
The Senate is in recess next week and will vote on the bills upon returning .
One of Trump ’ s campaign promises was to sign the pain-capable bill into law .
It passed the U.S. House in October 2017 but failed to pass the U.S. Senate in January 2018 .
It was then that Democrat Senators Chuck Schumer , D-NY , and Heidi Heitkamp , D-ND , high-fived after voting in favor of late-term abortions on babies who feel pain .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump has also honed in on Democrats ’ seeming support for infanticide during rallies and speeches , including the recent State of the Union .
The U.S. is only one of seven nations that allows abortion through the ninth month of pregnancy .
Some individual states restrict it , but there is no federal law against late-term abortion .
The partial-birth abortion ban merely prohibits a certain late-term abortion method .
Under the pain-capable bill , babies conceived in rape could still be aborted past 20 weeks , even though the bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion and how it is painful to the babies who are killed that way .
The born-alive bill would require that if a baby was born during a failed abortion , a doctor would have to treat that baby the same degree of professional skill , care , and diligence as he would any other newborn .
Both chambers of Congress have been focused on abortion this week .
The House held a hearing yesterday on a bill to allow a totally unregulated abortion industry and establish a federal statutory right to commit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-abortion witnesses was Dr. Yashica Robinson , an Alabama abortionist who was indicted in 2014 for healthcare fraud and selling misbranded IUDs .
She is the medical director of a Huntsville , Alabama abortion facility that has previously been cited by the health department , for , among other things , failing to wipe off tables between abortions .
“ Over the years , Alabama Women ’ s Center has been forced to comply with onerous , medically unnecessary building requirements , ” she testified .
“ For example , we were forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surgical center having to install 24-hour lighting.
” “ Alabama is a state with unconscionably high maternal and infant mortality rates .
There are many pre-existing conditions that can be made worse by pregnancy , and other serious health conditions can be caused by pregnancy , ” Robinson continued .
“ Without access to abortion , maternal mortality rates will rise even more.
” Today , the House voted to remove the deadline for the ratification of the so-called Equal Rights Amendment ( ERA ) .
The ERA would enshrine the “ right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , pro-life groups warn .
And on February 11 , the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on babies born alive after failed abortions .
The contenders in the 2020 Democrat presidential primary are all united in their support for late-term abortion on demand and at taxpayers ’ expense .
Andrew Yang , however , recently came under fire for saying abortion is a “ tragedy ” and shouldn ’ t be “ celebrated.
” Recently on The View , former South Bend , Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg similarly suggested late-term abortion is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ devastating ” news .
Nevertheless , it ought to be legal , he said , while also refusing to condemn infanticide .

Should babies who survive failed abortions be given the same care as other newborns, or should they be left to die? Should there be any limit on abortions of babies who feel pain? The bills address these questions.
WASHINGTON, D.C., February 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Republican leadership began the process today of initiating a vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban most late-term abortions past five months of pregnancy, and the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, which would require basic medical care for newborns born during failed abortions.
Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY, made a motion to begin debate on the bills. The first votes on both pieces of legislation will actually be on ending debate on the bills.
If 60 senators vote to end debate on the bill, the Senate will vote on the bill itself. But Senate rules make it impossible to vote on a bill unless 60 senators agree that the vote should take place. (Republicans changed these rules to allow the Senate to confirm President Donald Trump’s two Supreme Court nominees and other judges but not legislation; it’s likely that if Democrats regain control of the Senate they will simply change the rules again so as to be able to pass legislation with only a simple majority.)
Therefore pro-life groups typically score votes such as the upcoming procedural ones as votes in favor of or against late-term abortion. The Senate is in recess next week and will vote on the bills upon returning.
Leader McConnell has filed cloture on the motion to proceed to Cal. #420, S.3275, Pain Capable Unborn Child Act. — Senate Cloakroom (@SenateCloakroom) February 13, 2020
McConnell sets up two abortion votes for after the recess – A bill “to protect pain-capable unborn children.” – And the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” from Sasse — Burgess Everett (@burgessev) February 13, 2020
One of Trump’s campaign promises was to sign the pain-capable bill into law. It passed the U.S. House in October 2017 but failed to pass the U.S. Senate in January 2018. It was then that Democrat Senators Chuck Schumer, D-NY, and Heidi Heitkamp, D-ND, high-fived after voting in favor of late-term abortions on babies who feel pain. The latter is no longer in office.
Trump has also honed in on Democrats’ seeming support for infanticide during rallies and speeches, including the recent State of the Union.
The U.S. is only one of seven nations that allows abortion through the ninth month of pregnancy. Some individual states restrict it, but there is no federal law against late-term abortion. The partial-birth abortion ban merely prohibits a certain late-term abortion method.
Under the pain-capable bill, babies conceived in rape could still be aborted past 20 weeks, even though the bill is premised on the barbarity of late-term abortion and how it is painful to the babies who are killed that way.
The born-alive bill would require that if a baby was born during a failed abortion, a doctor would have to treat that baby the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence as he would any other newborn.
Both chambers of Congress have been focused on abortion this week.
The House held a hearing yesterday on a bill to allow a totally unregulated abortion industry and establish a federal statutory right to commit and obtain abortions. One of its pro-abortion witnesses was Dr. Yashica Robinson, an Alabama abortionist who was indicted in 2014 for healthcare fraud and selling misbranded IUDs. She is the medical director of a Huntsville, Alabama abortion facility that has previously been cited by the health department, for, among other things, failing to wipe off tables between abortions.
“Over the years, Alabama Women’s Center has been forced to comply with onerous, medically unnecessary building requirements,” she testified. “For example, we were forced to outfit our clinic as an ambulatory surgical center having to install 24-hour lighting.”
“Alabama is a state with unconscionably high maternal and infant mortality rates. There are many pre-existing conditions that can be made worse by pregnancy, and other serious health conditions can be caused by pregnancy,” Robinson continued. “Without access to abortion, maternal mortality rates will rise even more.”
Today, the House voted to remove the deadline for the ratification of the so-called Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The ERA would enshrine the “right” to abortion in the U.S. Constitution, pro-life groups warn.
And on February 11, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on babies born alive after failed abortions.
The contenders in the 2020 Democrat presidential primary are all united in their support for late-term abortion on demand and at taxpayers’ expense. Andrew Yang, however, recently came under fire for saying abortion is a “tragedy” and shouldn’t be “celebrated.” Recently on The View, former South Bend, Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg similarly suggested late-term abortion is a sad, difficult choice made after “devastating” news. Nevertheless, it ought to be legal, he said, while also refusing to condemn infanticide.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-13--YouTube to fund far-left Young Turks for ‘local news’ online course

February 13 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Conservatives are questioning the purported impartiality of Google-owned video giant YouTube once again this week , following the revelation that the company is lending financial support for the far-left commentary outlet Young Turks .
Axios reports that , as part of YouTube ’ s $ 25 million “ investment ” in creating news content , it has decided to give the Turks a sum “ in the mid-six figures range ” to support the channel ’ s TYT Academy project , an online course ostensibly to help train users in journalism practices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the partnership is supposed to be a non-partisan effort to support local news creators , with TYT chief business officer Steven Oh assuring Axios the company is “ not interested in cranking out journalists who share our political viewpoint whatsoever.
” Conservatives are doubtful , however , given the record of the Turks and their lead host ( and congressional candidate ) , Cenk Uygur .
Among Uyger ’ s far-left views is the claim that progressives ( a movement that only began to take shape in America following the Civil War , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racist President Woodrow Wilson ) deserve the credit for the American Revolution , ending slavery , and enacting civil rights laws .
He also came under fire in 2018 for the discovery of past comments in which he wrote that women who didn ’ t want to sleep with him were “ genetically flawed.
” At NewsBusters , Alexander Hall recalls that TYT contributor Hasan Piker ( Uygur ’ s nephew ) has been a source of controversy for calling the 2017 shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise ( R-LA ) “ tragic yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s support for gun rights , and for declaring last year that “ America deserved 9/11 , dude.
” Conservatives have long been wary of Google and YouTube due to recurring cases of biased search results and left-wing discrimination .
YouTube has deleted investigation footage from pro-life group Live Action , censored discussion of transgenderism and mental illness , restricted educational videos from conservative pundit Dennis Prager on false “ mature content ” pretenses , and more .

February 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Conservatives are questioning the purported impartiality of Google-owned video giant YouTube once again this week, following the revelation that the company is lending financial support for the far-left commentary outlet Young Turks.
Axios reports that, as part of YouTube’s $25 million “investment” in creating news content, it has decided to give the Turks a sum “in the mid-six figures range” to support the channel’s TYT Academy project, an online course ostensibly to help train users in journalism practices and video production.
On paper, the partnership is supposed to be a non-partisan effort to support local news creators, with TYT chief business officer Steven Oh assuring Axios the company is “not interested in cranking out journalists who share our political viewpoint whatsoever.” Conservatives are doubtful, however, given the record of the Turks and their lead host (and congressional candidate), Cenk Uygur.
No bias to see here. ALL IS WELL!! https://t.co/IsWIjRohch — Steven Crowder (@scrowder) February 11, 2020
YT is headed by the only Democrat congressional candidate crazy and hateful enough for Bernie Sanders unendorse him. But you can’t do targeted political ads or show a gun because that is against YouTube’s “values.” https://t.co/xaqYHbfmpc — Matt Knee (@matt_knee) February 11, 2020
This is unexpected. The Young Turks is a popular YouTube channel but it's also named after the people who carried out the Armenian Genocide, it's very far left, and it's leader is currently running for congress. https://t.co/nAK2qYwF7Q — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) February 11, 2020
Google severely limited political candidates' ability to efficiently target their advertising to interested voters, but Google is plowing hundreds of thousands of dollars into an explicitly left-wing, pro-Bernie “news” network https://t.co/1ComXSgfXn — Logan Dobson (@LoganDobson) February 11, 2020
Among Uyger’s far-left views is the claim that progressives (a movement that only began to take shape in America following the Civil War, and whose leading figures included the notoriously racist President Woodrow Wilson) deserve the credit for the American Revolution, ending slavery, and enacting civil rights laws. He also came under fire in 2018 for the discovery of past comments in which he wrote that women who didn’t want to sleep with him were “genetically flawed.”
At NewsBusters, Alexander Hall recalls that TYT contributor Hasan Piker (Uygur’s nephew) has been a source of controversy for calling the 2017 shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) “tragic yet incredibly ironic” because of Scalise’s support for gun rights, and for declaring last year that “America deserved 9/11, dude.”
Conservatives have long been wary of Google and YouTube due to recurring cases of biased search results and left-wing discrimination. YouTube has deleted investigation footage from pro-life group Live Action, censored discussion of transgenderism and mental illness, restricted educational videos from conservative pundit Dennis Prager on false “mature content” pretenses, and more.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-13--Dem controlled House votes to revive pro-abortion Equal Rights Amendment

URGENT PETITION : Stop House Democrats ' effort to revive pro-abortion Equal Rights Amendment !
Sign the petition here .
WASHINGTON , D.C. , February 13 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted 232-183 Thursday to vote on eliminating the long-expired deadline for ratifying the controversial Equal Rights Amendment ( ERA ) , though the Republican-controlled Senate is unlikely to do the same .
House Joint Resolution 79 simply states that “ notwithstanding any time limit contained in House Joint Resolution 208 , 92d Congress , as agreed to in the Senate on March 22 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposed to the States in that joint resolution shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the United States Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.
” Originally proposed and defeated decades ago , the ERA simply states that “ Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
” But conservatives argue that if implemented , this redundant language would be interpreted as codifying into law non-rights such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the military draft and sex-segregated prisons to women-only restrooms and male-only clergy .
“ If the time limit COULD be extended , the ERA would not bring women any more rights than they currently have but it would entrench the legality of abortion , ” Republican Rep. Vicky Hartzler ( MO-4 ) said in a press release .
“ We know this from court precedent and by listening to those who have the most to gain from constitutionally protecting abortion on demand .
In 1998 , the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state constitution requires state-funding of abortions .
Federal courts are likely to do the same.
” Lawmakers in South Carolina , Utah , and Virginia have been working on reviving the ERA , while the U.S. House Judiciary Committee voted in November to retroactively lift its deadline for ratification .
With today ’ s successful House vote the matter now rests with the hands of the Senate , which is not expected to pick it up .
Further , a 38-page opinion from the Department of Justice ’ s Office of Legal Counsel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
79 is insufficient : “ Even if one or more state legislatures were to ratify the 1972 proposal , that action would not complete the ratification of the amendment , and the ERA ’ s adoption could not be certified under 1 U.S.C .
§ 106b .
In addition , we conclude that when Congress uses a proposing clause to impose a deadline on the States ’ ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment , that deadline is binding and Congress may not revive the proposal after the deadline ’ s expiration.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , left-wing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg set aside her personal support for the ERA Monday and acknowledged at a Georgetown Law School event that a “ new beginning ” was the only way for supporters to proceed .
“ A number of states have withdrawn their ratification , ” she noted .
“ So if you count a latecomer on the plus side , how can you disregard states that said ‘ we ’ ve changed our minds ?
’ ” LifeSiteNews is currently circulating a petition opposing revival of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be both illegal and costly , all for the sake of political point scoring , ” it argues .
“ The nation is tired of political theatre , and we are asking Congress , and the Democrats , in particular , to stop indulging in ideological flights of fancy , and get back to work.
” Readers can click here to read , sign , and share the petition .

URGENT PETITION: Stop House Democrats' effort to revive pro-abortion Equal Rights Amendment! Sign the petition here.
WASHINGTON, D.C., February 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted 232-183 Thursday to vote on eliminating the long-expired deadline for ratifying the controversial Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), though the Republican-controlled Senate is unlikely to do the same.
House Joint Resolution 79 simply states that “notwithstanding any time limit contained in House Joint Resolution 208, 92d Congress, as agreed to in the Senate on March 22, 1972, the article of amendment proposed to the States in that joint resolution shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the United States Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.”
Originally proposed and defeated decades ago, the ERA simply states that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” But conservatives argue that if implemented, this redundant language would be interpreted as codifying into law non-rights such as abortion and have broad ramifications on everything from the military draft and sex-segregated prisons to women-only restrooms and male-only clergy.
“If the time limit COULD be extended, the ERA would not bring women any more rights than they currently have but it would entrench the legality of abortion,” Republican Rep. Vicky Hartzler (MO-4) said in a press release. “We know this from court precedent and by listening to those who have the most to gain from constitutionally protecting abortion on demand. In 1998, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Rights Amendment in their state constitution requires state-funding of abortions. Federal courts are likely to do the same.”
Women were not mentioned in the Constitution – neither were men.
Radical feminists still use false arguments to try to keep the old, expired ERA going, because a new ERA would fail badly. It never was about women's equality.#ERA #ERAIsDead #ERANoShortcuts pic.twitter.com/GqlR1VbhsO — Ed Martin (@EagleEdMartin) February 13, 2020
Lawmakers in South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia have been working on reviving the ERA, while the U.S. House Judiciary Committee voted in November to retroactively lift its deadline for ratification. With today’s successful House vote the matter now rests with the hands of the Senate, which is not expected to pick it up.
Further, a 38-page opinion from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel argues that legally, H.J. Res. 79 is insufficient: “Even if one or more state legislatures were to ratify the 1972 proposal, that action would not complete the ratification of the amendment, and the ERA’s adoption could not be certified under 1 U.S.C. § 106b. In addition, we conclude that when Congress uses a proposing clause to impose a deadline on the States’ ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment, that deadline is binding and Congress may not revive the proposal after the deadline’s expiration.”
In a rare instance of bipartisan agreement, left-wing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg set aside her personal support for the ERA Monday and acknowledged at a Georgetown Law School event that a “new beginning” was the only way for supporters to proceed. “A number of states have withdrawn their ratification,” she noted. “So if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard states that said ‘we’ve changed our minds?’”
LifeSiteNews is currently circulating a petition opposing revival of the ERA. “Such an attempt would be both illegal and costly, all for the sake of political point scoring,” it argues. “The nation is tired of political theatre, and we are asking Congress, and the Democrats, in particular, to stop indulging in ideological flights of fancy, and get back to work.” Readers can click here to read, sign, and share the petition.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-13--New poll shows majority of Canadians want to ban late-term, sex-selective abortions

CANADA , February 13 , 2020 - ( LifeSiteNews ) – A recent survey shows a majority of Canadians are opposed to late-term and sex-selective abortion and would support making these practices illegal .
The country currently has no law governing abortion , allowing a mother to legally abort her baby through all 9 months of pregnancy for any reason .
When it comes to sex-selective abortion the poll shows that a “ vast majority ( 84 % ) oppose legalizing abortion if the family does not want the baby to be a certain sex.
” And seven in ten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that abortion should be generally illegal in the last three months of pregnancy.
” The mainstream media have said polls show Canadians have very little in the way of pro-life opinions ; however , this is not what actual survey results indicate .
The new poll titled “ Abortion - A Canadian Public Perspective after Three Decades ” was commissioned by Postmedia to “ commemorate ” the 1989 Daigle vs. Tremblay case , in which the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately ruled that unborn babies have no legal status as people .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official abortion law , although the poll repeatedly makes mention that such laws in Canada exist , but fails to mention the backstory .
Abortion was legalized in Canada in 1969 when then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau ( Justin Trudeau ’ s father ) passed a heavily criticized Omnibus Bill , which amended the criminal code to allow abortions to be done in hospitals under permissive circumstances .
This law remained in effect until the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the 1969 law as unconstitutional in the 1988 Morgentaler decision .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however .
The court ruled that it violated a woman ’ s Charter right to security of the person since the law could not be applied equally across the country .
The court encouraged the Canadian Parliament to come up with replacement abortion legislation .
This effort failed when then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney ’ s draft law was dismissed in a Senate tie vote .
The result of this is that since then , Canada has no abortion law at all , and thus abortion is permitted up through all nine months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overall that 70 % of Canadians “ find abortion acceptable , ” that 62 % “ identify as pro-choice , ” and that 71 % believe that a woman “ should be able to get an abortion if she decides she wants one no matter what the reason , ” when pushed about late-term abortion and sex-selective abortion , however , the numbers flip-flop .
According to an analysis of the survey by Canada ’ s national pro-life and pro-family lobbying group , Campaign Life Coalition , it shows many Canadians are in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a weak understanding of basic human biology when it comes to abortion .
This is reflected in the contrasting survey results .
“ Legislating by popular consent is a massive mistake .
What this poll shows is the state of confusion of the Canadian population on the question of abortion , ” Campaign Life ’ s Hanna Kepka told LifeSiteNews .
“ The responses given demonstrate a poor knowledge of basic human biology on the part of the respondents .
This suggests a poor level of teaching of this subject in Canadian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worst , ” added Kepka .
Conducted jointly by the polling group DART & Maru/Blue , the poll randomly selected 1,515 Canadian adults from every province , except for Prince Edward Island and all of the Canadian territories .
Kepka feels the conflicting polling data also suggest that in some ways , Canadians are inconsistent or even criminal in their attitudes .
“ What are we to conclude ?
A certain percentage of Canadians consider that it is acceptable to take an innocent life .
Should we consult with such people on matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oppose the most fundamental element of our legal system.
” Kepka continued : “ If we did a similar survey on theft , I am sure that a certain percentage of the population would approve of it .
Would anybody suggest that we should be legalizing theft to any extent ?
” Polling data suggest strong support for aborting babies in the early stages of pregnancy , with only 14 percent feeling abortion should be illegal during the first trimester , but 34 percent believing that life begins at conception .
The support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continues , however , which Kepka notes again shows Canadians are confused .
A total of 58 percent feel that during the second trimester , the baby is alive , and 43 percent believe abortion should be illegal in the second trimester .
This increases to 82 percent feeling there is life in the third trimester , and 70 percent believing abortion should be illegal in the third trimester .
A total of 93 percent of respondents feel that there should be a law that requires doctors to inform patients about the risks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll also showed that most respondents are in favor of mandating that before an abortion , doctors should be required to inform women about alternatives .
A total of 78 percent are in favor of creating a law that would mandate doctors to spell out the alternatives .
The highest percentage of respondents who would support this type of law hail from Atlantic Canada ( 82 percent ) , and Alberta ( 81 percent ) , with the lowest support from British Columbia ( 72 percent ) .
According to statistics from Campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortions committed every year in Canada .
Since 1969 when it became legal , abortion has killed four million preborn babies in Canada .
Kepka also notes that the survey results show that the higher the income and education levels , the more likely one is to have a liberal way of thinking .
“ I think that it is important to notice that more educated and better-paid people are systematically more pro-abortion than the much less educated and much less paid individuals , ” said Kepka .
“ When one looks at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher they are the more brainwashed the respondents are into a progressive way of thinking , such as pro-abortion , anti-rights , anti-science .
This suggests that Canadian schools are quite effective in indoctrinating students .
The effects are the strongest in Quebec , Ontario , and BC , and the weakest on the prairies and Atlantic Canada.
” Lastly , Kepka noted that the older the age of respondents , the more informed they are about abortion which could show that they are better educated about the issue .
She says most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18 to 34 year range are the least well-informed and most deficient in wisdom .
When the age goes up to the 35 to 54-year range , in many cases , the responses given are more informed .

CANADA, February 13, 2020 – (LifeSiteNews) – A recent survey shows a majority of Canadians are opposed to late-term and sex-selective abortion and would support making these practices illegal. The country currently has no law governing abortion, allowing a mother to legally abort her baby through all 9 months of pregnancy for any reason.
When it comes to sex-selective abortion the poll shows that a “vast majority (84%) oppose legalizing abortion if the family does not want the baby to be a certain sex.”
And seven in ten (70%) “Canadians think that abortion should be generally illegal in the last three months of pregnancy.”
The mainstream media have said polls show Canadians have very little in the way of pro-life opinions; however, this is not what actual survey results indicate.
The new poll titled “Abortion – A Canadian Public Perspective after Three Decades” was commissioned by Postmedia to “commemorate” the 1989 Daigle vs. Tremblay case, in which the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately ruled that unborn babies have no legal status as people. As it stands now, Canada has no official abortion law, although the poll repeatedly makes mention that such laws in Canada exist, but fails to mention the backstory.
Abortion was legalized in Canada in 1969 when then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (Justin Trudeau’s father) passed a heavily criticized Omnibus Bill, which amended the criminal code to allow abortions to be done in hospitals under permissive circumstances.
This law remained in effect until the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the 1969 law as unconstitutional in the 1988 Morgentaler decision. The law was removed on a technicality, however. The court ruled that it violated a woman’s Charter right to security of the person since the law could not be applied equally across the country.
The court encouraged the Canadian Parliament to come up with replacement abortion legislation. This effort failed when then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s draft law was dismissed in a Senate tie vote. The result of this is that since then, Canada has no abortion law at all, and thus abortion is permitted up through all nine months of pregnancy.
‘Legislating by popular consent is a massive mistake’
While the poll found overall that 70% of Canadians “find abortion acceptable,” that 62% “identify as pro-choice,” and that 71% believe that a woman “should be able to get an abortion if she decides she wants one no matter what the reason,” when pushed about late-term abortion and sex-selective abortion, however, the numbers flip-flop.
According to an analysis of the survey by Canada’s national pro-life and pro-family lobbying group, Campaign Life Coalition, it shows many Canadians are in a “state of confusion” and have a weak understanding of basic human biology when it comes to abortion. This is reflected in the contrasting survey results.
“Legislating by popular consent is a massive mistake. What this poll shows is the state of confusion of the Canadian population on the question of abortion,” Campaign Life’s Hanna Kepka told LifeSiteNews.
“The responses given demonstrate a poor knowledge of basic human biology on the part of the respondents. This suggests a poor level of teaching of this subject in Canadian schools, Ontario and Quebec being the worst,” added Kepka.
Conducted jointly by the polling group DART & Maru/Blue, the poll randomly selected 1,515 Canadian adults from every province, except for Prince Edward Island and all of the Canadian territories.
Kepka feels the conflicting polling data also suggest that in some ways, Canadians are inconsistent or even criminal in their attitudes.
“What are we to conclude? A certain percentage of Canadians consider that it is acceptable to take an innocent life. Should we consult with such people on matters of life and death? These people oppose the most fundamental element of our legal system.”
Kepka continued: “If we did a similar survey on theft, I am sure that a certain percentage of the population would approve of it. Would anybody suggest that we should be legalizing theft to any extent?”
Polling data suggest strong support for aborting babies in the early stages of pregnancy, with only 14 percent feeling abortion should be illegal during the first trimester, but 34 percent believing that life begins at conception.
The support for abortion falls the longer the pregnancy continues, however, which Kepka notes again shows Canadians are confused. A total of 58 percent feel that during the second trimester, the baby is alive, and 43 percent believe abortion should be illegal in the second trimester. This increases to 82 percent feeling there is life in the third trimester, and 70 percent believing abortion should be illegal in the third trimester.
A total of 93 percent of respondents feel that there should be a law that requires doctors to inform patients about the risks of abortion before committing one. The poll also showed that most respondents are in favor of mandating that before an abortion, doctors should be required to inform women about alternatives.
A total of 78 percent are in favor of creating a law that would mandate doctors to spell out the alternatives. The highest percentage of respondents who would support this type of law hail from Atlantic Canada (82 percent), and Alberta (81 percent), with the lowest support from British Columbia (72 percent).
According to statistics from Campaign Life Coalition , there are approximately 100,000 surgical abortions committed every year in Canada. Since 1969 when it became legal, abortion has killed four million preborn babies in Canada.
Kepka also notes that the survey results show that the higher the income and education levels, the more likely one is to have a liberal way of thinking.
“I think that it is important to notice that more educated and better-paid people are systematically more pro-abortion than the much less educated and much less paid individuals,” said Kepka.
“When one looks at the income and education levels, the higher they are the more brainwashed the respondents are into a progressive way of thinking, such as pro-abortion, anti-rights, anti-science. This suggests that Canadian schools are quite effective in indoctrinating students. The effects are the strongest in Quebec, Ontario, and BC, and the weakest on the prairies and Atlantic Canada.”
Lastly, Kepka noted that the older the age of respondents, the more informed they are about abortion which could show that they are better educated about the issue. She says most answers show the youngest participants in the 18 to 34 year range are the least well-informed and most deficient in wisdom.
When the age goes up to the 35 to 54-year range, in many cases, the responses given are more informed.
Editor’s note: Pete Baklinski contributed to this report.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-02-13--Vatican spokesman: Pope’s Amazon synod exhortation is ‘magisterium…final document is not’

ROME , February 13 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Questions regarding the magisterial weight of the Amazon Synod ’ s final document , which called for married priests and “ new ” ministries for women in the region , took center stage at the February 12 Vatican press conference on Pope Francis ’ s summary document on the synod , Querida Amazonia [ Beloved Amazon ] .
The synod ’ s final document , which received a two-thirds majority from bishops at the conclusion of the October 6-27 Vatican assembly , proposed ordaining married men to the priesthood in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available to Catholics in the Amazon region ( n. 111 ) .
At the presser , a chorus of often discordant voices united in expressing their common confusion over Pope Francis ’ s introduction to Querida Amazonia , in which he states his intention to “ officially present the [ synod ’ s ] final document , ” encourage “ everyone to read it , ” and “ strive to apply it ” according to their vocation in the Church .
Was the Pope officially approving the synod ’ s final document and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though he was silent about celibacy and “ viri probati ” [ i.e .
men of proven virtue proposed for ordination ] in his apostolic exhortation ?
And if so , was he giving bishops ’ conferences — particular that in Germany — the go ahead to decide on married priests at the local level ?
In prepared remarks , panelist Cardinal Michael Czerny , who served as special secretary for the Amazon Synod , discussed the “ status of the two documents ” and where they “ fit into the magisterium.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ apart from formal magisterial authority , ” the Pope ’ s “ official presentation and encouragement ” confer on it “ a certain moral authority.
” “ To ignore [ the final document ] would be a lack of obedience to the Holy Father ’ s legitimate authority , while to find one or other point difficult could not be considered a lack of faith , ” Czerny said .
The Czechoslovakian-born Canadian Jesuit , whom Pope Francis made a cardinal in 2019 , added that the final document , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Synod Fathers , has the weight of a synodal final document.
” Querida Amazonia , “ reflecting on the whole process and its final document , has the authority of ordinary magisterium of the Successor of Peter.
” The cardinal ’ s comments left members of the Vatican press corps perplexed .
Veteran Italian journalist Sandro Magister summed up the problem , saying : “ In the exhortation there ’ s not a word regarding the priestly ordination of married men .
But in the synod ’ s final document there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bishops ’ conference can take the final document as a springboard to decide on matters concerning the priestly ordination of married men ?
” Cardinal Czerny said he didn ’ t recall saying the final document is included in the papal magisterium but that the various and particular proposals “ remain on the table ” and that the Pope “ encourages the Church in the Amazon and the Church everywhere ” to “ apply [ them ] in proportion to the reality in which they find themselves.
” Seeking to clear up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ The apostolic exhortation [ Querida Amazonia ] is magisterium .
The final document is not magisterium.
” Bruni said the Amazon synod ’ s treatment of celibacy and the permanent diaconate “ was meant to respond to the pastoral need : evangelization ” and that “ the Pope ’ s position on celibacy ” has been reported in the media .
Still not satisfied , another journalist asked how one is to understand the final document in light of Pope Francis ’ s 2018 apostolic constitution Episcopalis Communio , n. 18 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is expressly approved by the Roman Pontiff , the final document participates in the ordinary Magisterium of the Successor of Peter.
” Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri , Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops , clarified that Querida Amazonia “ does not talk about approval of the final document ” but about “ presentation ” and is therefore “ not magisterial.
” New York Times reporter Jason Horowitz pressed further , asking if the “ issue of married priests ” can be implemented by bishops ’ conferences “ without the Pope ’ s approval.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ just decide to do that , ” he said , suggesting that Querida Amazonia therefore seems like a “ rejection ” of married priests .
Matteo Bruni reiterated that “ the synod was on evangelization ” and that , while “ proposals were made , not all of them were picked up in the apostolic exhortation.
” The final document is “ precious ” and derives its authority “ from the synod of bishops , ” he said , but it “ does not become magisterium ” through the Pope ’ s presentation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vatican spokesman insisted that “ anything in the final document should be read through the lens of the apostolic exhortation.
” “ Even the application or implementation should be done in light of the exhortation itself … Is it clear ?
” he asked .
Apparently not to all , as NBC then pressed Cardinals Baldisseri and Czerny for “ a little clarity.
” “ Does this mean that the Pope has closed the door on the issue of married priests and women deacons ?
” NBC ’ s correspondent asked .
Cardinal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ object of the exercise , explaining : I think the best way to understand this is as part of a process and part of a journey .
That ’ s why it ’ s called the synod .
We are at a very important point of the synodal process , and there are long roads ahead as well as roads already travelled .
And so , the questions you are returning to are questions on the road , and the Holy Father has not resolved them in any way beyond what he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if there are questions you feel are open , or that the Church feels are open , thanks to the exhortation , they will continue to be debated , discussed , discerned , prayed over and when mature , presented to the appropriate authority for decision .
There are decisions that can be made in a diocese , in a [ bishops ’ ] conference .
And there are decisions that are made here [ in Rome ] .
So , I think if you ’ re looking for a kind of closure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a punch , I ’ m afraid there isn ’ t that kind of closure .
After the press conference , LifeSite spoke with Sr. Bernadette Riess , English coordinator for Vatican News , about the magisterial weight of the synod ’ s final document .
“ The final document does not have ordinary magisterial authority unless it is ratified and promulgated by Pope Francis and that ’ s a direct quote from number 18 of Episcopalis Communio .
This particular final document did not receive such ratification and promulgation .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she said .
Sr. Bernadette continued : “ What we also have to remember is that all synod ’ s have a final document .
In this case , the synod ’ s final document was published and in this particular apostolic exhortation the Holy Father is presenting it and wants it to be read , but he also wants people to strive to implement it.
” Pressed on what she meant by implementing the final document , Sr. Bernadette mentioned a number of non-controversial measures proposed in the document and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directly referenced in the Pope ’ s apostolic exhortation , suggesting that Pope Francis “ wants this document to remain alive.
” When it was suggested to Sr. Bernadette that there is a significant difference between the creation of a university or a communication network and the ordination of sexually active married men , she conceded that such a decision would have to be approved by the Pope .
“ I think Pope Francis has been very clear , even in this document , that in his mind more ordained ministries are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s made that very clear and he ’ s consistent in saying that , because he sees that one element that needs to be corrected first is the link between authority and priesthood ( while maintaining a hierarchical Church ) .
He comes out directly saying that , ” she said .
While stressing Pope Francis ’ observation that women represent the Marian aspect of the Church , and that the fixation on female ordination may express clericalist presuppositions , Sr. Bernadette was unwilling to concede that a woman is simply not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( just as orange juice can not be used for baptism ) .
She was of the view that the issue of women being ordained to the diaconate was still up for discussion .
Pope Francis has decided not to make a universal law allowing for the priestly ordination of married men in Querida Amazonia , but given his emphasis on the synod ’ s final document , will he allow local synods to decide in the future ?
The “ journey ” continues .

ROME, February 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Questions regarding the magisterial weight of the Amazon Synod’s final document, which called for married priests and “new” ministries for women in the region, took center stage at the February 12 Vatican press conference on Pope Francis’s summary document on the synod, Querida Amazonia [Beloved Amazon].
The synod’s final document, which received a two-thirds majority from bishops at the conclusion of the October 6-27 Vatican assembly, proposed ordaining married men to the priesthood in order to make the Eucharist more widely available to Catholics in the Amazon region (n. 111).
At the presser, a chorus of often discordant voices united in expressing their common confusion over Pope Francis’s introduction to Querida Amazonia, in which he states his intention to “officially present the [synod’s] final document,” encourage “everyone to read it,” and “strive to apply it” according to their vocation in the Church.
Was the Pope officially approving the synod’s final document and its proposal for married priests, even though he was silent about celibacy and “viri probati” [i.e. men of proven virtue proposed for ordination] in his apostolic exhortation? And if so, was he giving bishops’ conferences — particular that in Germany — the go ahead to decide on married priests at the local level?
In prepared remarks, panelist Cardinal Michael Czerny, who served as special secretary for the Amazon Synod, discussed the “status of the two documents” and where they “fit into the magisterium.”
Regarding the final document, he said that “apart from formal magisterial authority,” the Pope’s “official presentation and encouragement” confer on it “a certain moral authority.”
“To ignore [the final document] would be a lack of obedience to the Holy Father’s legitimate authority, while to find one or other point difficult could not be considered a lack of faith,” Czerny said.
The Czechoslovakian-born Canadian Jesuit, whom Pope Francis made a cardinal in 2019, added that the final document, “consisting of proposals made and voted by the Synod Fathers, has the weight of a synodal final document.” Querida Amazonia, “reflecting on the whole process and its final document, has the authority of ordinary magisterium of the Successor of Peter.”
The cardinal’s comments left members of the Vatican press corps perplexed.
Veteran Italian journalist Sandro Magister summed up the problem, saying: “In the exhortation there’s not a word regarding the priestly ordination of married men. But in the synod’s final document there is […] Does this mean a bishops’ conference can take the final document as a springboard to decide on matters concerning the priestly ordination of married men?”
Cardinal Czerny said he didn’t recall saying the final document is included in the papal magisterium but that the various and particular proposals “remain on the table” and that the Pope “encourages the Church in the Amazon and the Church everywhere” to “apply [them] in proportion to the reality in which they find themselves.”
Seeking to clear up the confusion, Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni said: “The apostolic exhortation [Querida Amazonia] is magisterium. The final document is not magisterium.”
Bruni said the Amazon synod’s treatment of celibacy and the permanent diaconate “was meant to respond to the pastoral need: evangelization” and that “the Pope’s position on celibacy” has been reported in the media.
Still not satisfied, another journalist asked how one is to understand the final document in light of Pope Francis’s 2018 apostolic constitution Episcopalis Communio, n. 18, which states: “If it is expressly approved by the Roman Pontiff, the final document participates in the ordinary Magisterium of the Successor of Peter.”
Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops, clarified that Querida Amazonia “does not talk about approval of the final document” but about “presentation” and is therefore “not magisterial.”
New York Times reporter Jason Horowitz pressed further, asking if the “issue of married priests” can be implemented by bishops’ conferences “without the Pope’s approval.” Bishops conferences “can’t just decide to do that,” he said, suggesting that Querida Amazonia therefore seems like a “rejection” of married priests.
Matteo Bruni reiterated that “the synod was on evangelization” and that, while “proposals were made, not all of them were picked up in the apostolic exhortation.”
The final document is “precious” and derives its authority “from the synod of bishops,” he said, but it “does not become magisterium” through the Pope’s presentation of it in Querida Amazonia.
The Vatican spokesman insisted that “anything in the final document should be read through the lens of the apostolic exhortation.”
“Even the application or implementation should be done in light of the exhortation itself … Is it clear?” he asked.
Apparently not to all, as NBC then pressed Cardinals Baldisseri and Czerny for “a little clarity.”
“Does this mean that the Pope has closed the door on the issue of married priests and women deacons?” NBC’s correspondent asked.
Cardinal Czerny implied that clarity was not the object of the exercise, explaining:
I think the best way to understand this is as part of a process and part of a journey. That’s why it’s called the synod. We are at a very important point of the synodal process, and there are long roads ahead as well as roads already travelled. And so, the questions you are returning to are questions on the road, and the Holy Father has not resolved them in any way beyond what he has said in the exhortation. So, if there are questions you feel are open, or that the Church feels are open, thanks to the exhortation, they will continue to be debated, discussed, discerned, prayed over and when mature, presented to the appropriate authority for decision. There are decisions that can be made in a diocese, in a [bishops’] conference. And there are decisions that are made here [in Rome]. So, I think if you’re looking for a kind of closure so that you can end your article with a punch, I’m afraid there isn’t that kind of closure.
After the press conference, LifeSite spoke with Sr. Bernadette Riess, English coordinator for Vatican News, about the magisterial weight of the synod’s final document.
“The final document does not have ordinary magisterial authority unless it is ratified and promulgated by Pope Francis and that’s a direct quote from number 18 of Episcopalis Communio. This particular final document did not receive such ratification and promulgation. We need to be very clear about that,” she said.
Sr. Bernadette continued: “What we also have to remember is that all synod’s have a final document. In this case, the synod’s final document was published and in this particular apostolic exhortation the Holy Father is presenting it and wants it to be read, but he also wants people to strive to implement it.”
Pressed on what she meant by implementing the final document, Sr. Bernadette mentioned a number of non-controversial measures proposed in the document and observed that not all of them were directly referenced in the Pope’s apostolic exhortation, suggesting that Pope Francis “wants this document to remain alive.”
When it was suggested to Sr. Bernadette that there is a significant difference between the creation of a university or a communication network and the ordination of sexually active married men, she conceded that such a decision would have to be approved by the Pope.
“I think Pope Francis has been very clear, even in this document, that in his mind more ordained ministries are not what the Church needs. He’s made that very clear and he’s consistent in saying that, because he sees that one element that needs to be corrected first is the link between authority and priesthood (while maintaining a hierarchical Church). He comes out directly saying that,” she said.
While stressing Pope Francis’ observation that women represent the Marian aspect of the Church, and that the fixation on female ordination may express clericalist presuppositions, Sr. Bernadette was unwilling to concede that a woman is simply not the proper matter for the Sacrament of orders (just as orange juice cannot be used for baptism). She was of the view that the issue of women being ordained to the diaconate was still up for discussion.
Pope Francis has decided not to make a universal law allowing for the priestly ordination of married men in Querida Amazonia, but given his emphasis on the synod’s final document, will he allow local synods to decide in the future? The “journey” continues.
Share