lifesitenews--2020-01-21--Transgender propaganda hides scary truth about puberty-blockers

January 20 , 2020 ( The Public Discourse ) — Is there anything natural about stopping normal puberty ?
Would you stunt a child ’ s normal eye development to make tiny eyes in an enlarging head ?
Would you stop a child ’ s limb development so that the torso lengthens , but arms and legs remain stunted ?
This sounds bizarre , because it is .
But it is analogous in many ways to the ongoing experiment in stopping normal puberty .
A recent high-profile custody case in Texas — in which a mom is advocating the transitioning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ girl named Luna , against the wishes of his father — has brought the issue of child transition and puberty blockers to the attention of everyday Americans , elected officials , and people around the world .
What has gone less noticed is the backing of the medical establishment .
Professional societies are now promoting these untested treatments as solid , evidence-based science .
Approximately two weeks after James ’ s plight garnered international attention in late October , the Pediatric Endocrine Society ( PES ) issued a statement regarding medical therapy for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bodies .
In that document , the organization states that the effects of puberty-blocking medications are reversible .
Other organizations such as the American Medical Association are leading kids toward these harmful drugs by supporting bans on therapies that aid children in becoming comfortable in their natural bodies .
But do we know with certainty that all of the effects of the medications for stopping normal puberty are fully reversible ?
Has the FDA determined that there is scientific evidence to validate this claim ?
Have there been any rigorous long-term studies addressing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harmless ?
Is it ethical to continue this experiment on children ?
The answer to all of those questions is no .
Puberty is more than just a process of genital maturation .
It is also a critical time for bone , pelvis , brain , and psychosocial development .
All of these processes are adversely affected by puberty blockers .
Studies have shown the effects on the pituitary are not immediately reversible .
Hormonal levels do not normalize until a year or more after stopping blockers , which prolongs pubertal delay .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are limited , the data we do have indicate that the overwhelming majority of adolescents on puberty blockers decide not to reverse course , but instead move on to cross-sex hormones and then to sterilizing genital surgeries .
This is in marked contrast to the experience of children who experience gender dysphoria but are allowed to go through puberty normally , the vast majority of whom do not persist in identifying with the opposite sex .
This is an urgent public health problem .
In the United States , at least sixty-five gender @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was one .
As many as 3 percent of school kids now identify as transgender .
In the United Kingdom , the Tavistock ’ s gender clinic had a more than 5,000 percent increase in referrals of girls in less than a decade .
What follows is a detailed description of puberty blockers within the context of the ever-increasing medicalization of gender-atypical youth , beginning with an analogy for the purposes of understanding normal pituitary function .
The pituitary is a small but extraordinarily important little gland that sits behind the eyes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is sometimes called the “ master gland , ” as it controls other glands — including the sex glands , the testicles of males and ovaries of females .
To understand how this system works , consider the following analogy .
Imagine a package delivery system .
There is a Management Office , where the idea for sending a package originates .
The office manager walks down to a Courier ’ s Office to deliver a note .
The Courier ’ s Office receives the note and then types up a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courier .
The courier hand-delivers this message to a warehouse .
Once it is received , a truck driver leaves to deliver the package .
In the body , the Management Office corresponds to an area of the brain called the hypothalamus .
It sends a signal ( called GnRH ) to a Courier ’ s Office , which is located in the pituitary gland .
This Courier ’ s office creates a new message ( called luteinizing hormone or LH ) which in turn is delivered to the gonad .
Once the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and releases its sex hormone ( like the driver delivering the package ) .
In a man , the testicle releases testosterone .
In a woman , the ovary releases estrogen .
The sex hormones then allow for normal pubertal development .
To understand what happens if we administer a puberty-blocking agent , such as Lupron , let ’ s introduce another concept .
Let ’ s say there are many identical office managers .
Each office manager needs a key to deliver their message to many identical , locked Couriers ’ Offices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ originally one thousand locks .
Then imagine that someone stuck a foreign object into 999 of them , jamming them and preventing the keys from working .
In this case , it would not matter how many office managers had working keys .
There would still be only one available keyhole .
Only one courier could deliver his note , and only one driver would deliver a package .
In endocrinology , we call this downregulation .
A medication like Lupron acts like a key , bringing a message to the pituitary .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ locks.
” These locks correspond to cellular receptors , and their numbers are drastically reduced by the administration of Lupron .
Blocking the action of the pituitary gland and drastically lowering sex hormones in this way effectively “ freezes ” pubertal development .
It is the creation of the disease state called hypogonadotropic hypogonadism by means of medication .
If Lupron is stopped , what happens ?
In theory , over time , the receptors should increase to a normal count , and then signaling can proceed normally .
Estrogen and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ puberty allowed to continue .
It ’ s as if a locksmith came along and gradually repaired the 999 inoperable locks .
This would allow the rest of the couriers to deliver their messages and prompt the drivers to deliver their packages .
This idea is employed in the treatment of central precocious puberty .
Central precocious puberty is an abnormal condition in which puberty begins at a very early age — say , age four .
The FDA has approved the use of Lupron for this condition .
Once the child is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medication is stopped to allow normal signaling to proceed and sex hormones to be released .
After an additional delay of twelve to eighteen months , the child ’ s body can advance through more typical adolescent puberty .
But what happens if we block normal puberty ?
Bear in mind that the FDA has not approved the use of Lupron or similar agents for stopping normal puberty .
There have been no randomized controlled studies for this use .
And the limited safety studies that have been conducted have shown a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pubertal development , the penis will enlarge and develop erections and ejaculation capability .
Mature sperm will be produced , which are capable of fertilizing an egg or ovum .
In the female , the pelvic genitalia ( including labia , vagina , and uterus ) and breasts will develop and mature .
Ovulation will begin to occur , and an egg capable of being fertilized will be released during each menstrual cycle .
When puberty is blocked with Lupron , all of these pubertal changes are disrupted .
The genitals remain “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development they had reached when the medication regimen began .
This is widely known .
What people don ’ t usually consider is that puberty is also extraordinarily important in female pelvic maturation , and in the normal bone structure and brain development of both sexes .
Additionally , the physical changes of puberty occur in the wider context of complex developmental milestones as the child progresses toward social independence from his or her parents .
Disruption of a temporal process of development can not be reversed .
As pediatric endocrinologist Paul Hruz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than claiming that puberty suppression is reversible , researchers and clinicians should focus on the question of whether the physiological and psychosocial development that occurs during puberty can resume in something resembling a normal way after puberty-suppressing treatments are withdrawn.
” Pubertal development is a time of rapid increase in bone density or strength .
This period of bone density increase continues and hits a peak at around age twenty-five or thirty .
A slow decline occurs thereafter .
The use of puberty blockers to lower sex hormones close to zero interrupts this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth hormone and the sex hormones are necessary for proper bone development .
Puberty blockers disrupt and decouple the timing of these hormones ’ release .
As a result , their actions are out of sync during pubertal development .
Thus , we would predict that the bones of adolescents who are administered puberty blockers would not become as dense and strong as expected .
The limited studies that exist thus far confirm this hypothesis .
For example , one study followed thirty-nine adolescent girls whose average age was about twelve-and-a-half when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were in the 40th percentile for bone density .
By the end of two years , however , they were in the lower 3rd percentile for bone density .
This drastic decline in bone density is not surprising if one understands the critical role of the sex hormones in bone density development .
I strongly suspect that these young people will not meet their full adult potential for bone density , because they have lost valuable time during which their bones are supposed to be increasing in density and strength .
This time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at serious risk for adulthood osteoporosis and fractures .
Significant differences exist between the adult male and female pelvises .
The adult female pelvis is shaped in such a way as to allow room for a baby to pass through the birth canal .
This is very important , because human babies have large heads to hold large brains relative to other mammals .
Changes in the female pelvis begin to occur under the influence of estrogen during puberty .
Sex differences between skeletons are not nearly as pronounced for children who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the female pelvic inlet and outlet become wider and more oval-shaped , the pubic arch develops a significantly wider angle , and the sacrum ( or tailbone ) becomes less angled so as to not get in the way of the pelvic outlet .
When puberty blockers are used on a young girl , along with the drop in bone density relative to her peers , her pelvis will be “ frozen ” in a childlike configuration .
It is not known if stopping puberty blockers by a certain age might still allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pelvis to reach optimal configuration for birth .
A pelvis that is not optimally configured for birth could put mother and baby at increased risk for obstructed labor .
Obstructed labor is a condition in which the baby does not leave the pelvis during childbirth due to being physically blocked , even if the uterus is contracting normally .
Complications include the baby not getting enough oxygen , which may result in death .
For the mother , risks include infection , postpartum bleeding , uterine rupture , and obstetrical fistula .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adolescent brain development .
Studies of animals show that the sex hormones “ exert profound effects on brain maturation and behavior.
” Though much is not yet known about exactly how the sex hormones work to develop the brain ( which should already be a warning sign ) , studies have shown that the use of puberty-blocking medications can lead to memory impairment , slow reaction times , reduced long-term spatial memory , increased depressive symptoms , and a potential drop in IQ .
What about psychiatric effects ?
Using the Freedom of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oxford University has obtained unpublished study data from the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service in the UK .
He found that , after a year on GnRHa [ puberty blockers ] children reported greater self-harm , and that girls experienced more behavioral and emotional problems and expressed greater dissatisfaction with their body — so puberty blockers exacerbated gender dysphoria .
These findings should not be surprising .
One need only examine the labeling for Lupron to find very concerning neuropsychological effects .
Reported side effects include emotional lability , mood changes , headaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confusion , delusions , insomnia , and depression .
The label cautions providers to “ monitor for development or worsening of psychiatric symptoms .
Use with caution in patients with a history of psychiatric illness.
” Note also that there have been a long series of lawsuits against the Lupron manufacturers and reports of patients developing disabling side effects .
So Much for a “ Pause Button ” Proponents of puberty blockers present them as a simple “ pause button , ” whereby puberty can be stopped and restarted at the whim of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case ?
In the absence of puberty blockers , signaling from the hypothalamus occurs at a preprogrammed time , triggering the start of normal puberty .
We do not know if there is an endpoint to the window of time in which puberty can take place .
In other words , if one stops normal puberty at age ten and then allows it to begin again at age fifteen , we do not know if the signaling mechanism will return fully .
There is evidence to suggest that it will not .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of endometriosis in females and prostate cancer in males , research has shown that there is prolonged impairment of the pituitary even after the drug is no longer being administered .
An amicus brief to the Supreme Court in a lawsuit against the makers of Lupron cites the work of physician Dr. David Redwine , who “ conducted an exhaustive review of Respondents ’ TAP/Abbott ’ s clinical trials ’ raw data.
” What he found in examining the manufacturer ’ s internal data is quite astounding : “ 62.5 percent of patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one year after stopping Lupron.
” This means that estrogen levels of the majority of these women had not returned to normal a full year after stopping the medication .
In a study of adult males who had used Lupron for the treatment of prostate cancer , it took a median average of nine months for testosterone levels to return to the normal range .
However , a full 26 percent had failed to regain normal levels two years later .
These findings represent a major problem for the argument for puberty blockers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one is pausing a music track , one expects the music to resume immediately after pushing play again .
However , once one “ pauses ” normal puberty with Lupron and then presses “ play ” again , there may be a delay of around a year or more before puberty returns .
In some adolescents , it is possible that puberty may not resume at all , due to direct damage of the pituitary signaling mechanism .
And even if it does “ resume , ” bone , brain , pelvic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , may never fully occur .
What exactly is known about the limited number of adolescents who have undergone this experimental therapy ?
How many kids actually decide to stop these medications and “ unpause ” puberty ?
Very few , it seems .
In a Dutch study that included seventy adolescents who went on puberty blockers , all seventy decided to go on to further medicalizing by using hormones of the opposite sex .
In a follow-up study , the majority went on to have “ sex reassignment surgery ” by either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for females — sterilizing them .
One patient even tragically died of necrotizing fasciitis — otherwise known as the flesh-eating bacteria — due to the surgery .
None of these seventy children actually paused puberty and then reversed course .
Rather , they went full speed ahead into hormones and surgeries , each with a new set of dangers .
What I ’ ve described in this essay is the medical pathway to sterility .
But that path begins even earlier than this , as in the case of children like seven-year-old James @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Social transitioning a child involves parents , therapists , teachers , and other persons in authority reinforcing the gender non-conforming child ’ s false belief that he or she is of the opposite sex “ inside.
” The mind manipulation involves compulsory use of opposite-sex pronouns , and employing rigid sex-based stereotypes in clothing .
Kenneth Zucker , an international expert in the field of childhood gender identity disorder , calls this intervention iatrogenic — an illness caused by a physician .
He notes that “ it should come as no surprise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be much higher as these children are followed into their adolescence and young adulthood.
” Since the child is deluded by continuously reinforcing the false belief about his or her sex , he or she is led to the next step of pubertal blockade to prevent the child ’ s innate capacity to grow up as an adult of his or her given sex .
In some cases , like James ’ s , one parent has aggressively pushed for the therapy .
In many other cases , both parents are desperate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressured or duped into the affirmative pathway by doctors , therapists , and school officials .
Concerns about harms are minimized , and questions are seen as obstructive .
Parents may even be threatened by the legal system and have their child removed from the home .
There is nothing healthy about stopping normal puberty , because puberty is not a disease .
The practice represents an unethical medical experiment with both known and unknown harms to adolescent development and to the human person , during a crucial time in a young person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Society ’ s statement that puberty-suppressing agents are reversible is highly deceptive .
Adolescents can never regain the years that are lost to the blockade of normal bone , brain , and pelvic development .
Puberty may be inadvertently “ paused ” for an additional year or more after stopping puberty blockers , and the pituitary may never fully recover .
Time lost for adolescents in developing into their sexed bodies with their peers and reaching psychosocial developmental milestones can not be regained .
Children and adolescents suffering from confusion about their sexed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the vast majority of diagnosed children have been shown to desist or grow out of this condition if parents simply wait , rather than rushing to intervene .
We should also recognize that a high percentage of adolescents with discomfort about their sex have underlying mental health disorders or neurodevelopmental conditions .
Some smaller percentage may have suffered sexual , physical , or emotional abuse .
These conditions need to be given first priority in diagnosis and treatment .
Puberty blockers should not be used as a treatment for a mental health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK ’ s Tavistock GIDS clinic indicates that these medications can worsen mental health outcomes for many kids .
Counseling , psychological therapy , and support to help kids become comfortable with their sexed bodies , while allowing them to proceed through normal puberty , is the optimal course of treatment for them .
I would challenge the Pediatric Endocrine Society to take the time to investigate the full scope of known and potential harms for using puberty-blocking agents to stop normal puberty .
In the meantime , there should be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Not to do so is a dereliction of duty of the highest order .
It is an abandonment of the fundamental principle to First Do No Harm .
Published with permission from The Public Discourse .

Do we know with certainty that all of the effects of the medications for stopping normal puberty are fully reversible? The answer is no.
January 20, 2020 (The Public Discourse) — Is there anything natural about stopping normal puberty? Would you stunt a child’s normal eye development to make tiny eyes in an enlarging head? Would you stop a child’s limb development so that the torso lengthens, but arms and legs remain stunted? This sounds bizarre, because it is. But it is analogous in many ways to the ongoing experiment in stopping normal puberty.
A recent high-profile custody case in Texas — in which a mom is advocating the transitioning of her seven-year-old son James into a girl named Luna, against the wishes of his father — has brought the issue of child transition and puberty blockers to the attention of everyday Americans, elected officials, and people around the world. What has gone less noticed is the backing of the medical establishment. Professional societies are now promoting these untested treatments as solid, evidence-based science.
Approximately two weeks after James’s plight garnered international attention in late October, the Pediatric Endocrine Society (PES) issued a statement regarding medical therapy for children who are uncomfortable with their sexed bodies. In that document, the organization states that the effects of puberty-blocking medications are reversible. Other organizations such as the American Medical Association are leading kids toward these harmful drugs by supporting bans on therapies that aid children in becoming comfortable in their natural bodies.
But do we know with certainty that all of the effects of the medications for stopping normal puberty are fully reversible? Has the FDA determined that there is scientific evidence to validate this claim? Have there been any rigorous long-term studies addressing this question? Is social transition truly harmless? Is it ethical to continue this experiment on children?
The answer to all of those questions is no.
An Urgent Public Health Problem
Puberty is more than just a process of genital maturation. It is also a critical time for bone, pelvis, brain, and psychosocial development. All of these processes are adversely affected by puberty blockers. Studies have shown the effects on the pituitary are not immediately reversible. Hormonal levels do not normalize until a year or more after stopping blockers, which prolongs pubertal delay. And, although the studies on this are limited, the data we do have indicate that the overwhelming majority of adolescents on puberty blockers decide not to reverse course, but instead move on to cross-sex hormones and then to sterilizing genital surgeries. This is in marked contrast to the experience of children who experience gender dysphoria but are allowed to go through puberty normally, the vast majority of whom do not persist in identifying with the opposite sex.
This is an urgent public health problem. In the United States, at least sixty-five gender clinics have sprung up . In 2007, there was one. As many as 3 percent of school kids now identify as transgender. In the United Kingdom, the Tavistock’s gender clinic had a more than 5,000 percent increase in referrals of girls in less than a decade.
What follows is a detailed description of puberty blockers within the context of the ever-increasing medicalization of gender-atypical youth, beginning with an analogy for the purposes of understanding normal pituitary function.
The Signaling Mechanism
The pituitary is a small but extraordinarily important little gland that sits behind the eyes and is attached to the brain. It is sometimes called the “master gland,” as it controls other glands — including the sex glands, the testicles of males and ovaries of females. To understand how this system works, consider the following analogy.
Imagine a package delivery system. There is a Management Office, where the idea for sending a package originates. The office manager walks down to a Courier’s Office to deliver a note. The Courier’s Office receives the note and then types up a new message, which is given to a courier. The courier hand-delivers this message to a warehouse. Once it is received, a truck driver leaves to deliver the package.
In the body, the Management Office corresponds to an area of the brain called the hypothalamus. It sends a signal (called GnRH) to a Courier’s Office, which is located in the pituitary gland. This Courier’s office creates a new message (called luteinizing hormone or LH) which in turn is delivered to the gonad. Once the message is received, the gonad makes and releases its sex hormone (like the driver delivering the package). In a man, the testicle releases testosterone. In a woman, the ovary releases estrogen. The sex hormones then allow for normal pubertal development.
How Lupron Stops Puberty
To understand what happens if we administer a puberty-blocking agent, such as Lupron, let’s introduce another concept. Let’s say there are many identical office managers. Each office manager needs a key to deliver their message to many identical, locked Couriers’ Offices.
Let’s say there were originally one thousand locks. Then imagine that someone stuck a foreign object into 999 of them, jamming them and preventing the keys from working. In this case, it would not matter how many office managers had working keys. There would still be only one available keyhole. Only one courier could deliver his note, and only one driver would deliver a package.
In endocrinology, we call this downregulation. A medication like Lupron acts like a key, bringing a message to the pituitary. The pituitary reacts by reducing the number of “locks.” These locks correspond to cellular receptors, and their numbers are drastically reduced by the administration of Lupron.
Blocking the action of the pituitary gland and drastically lowering sex hormones in this way effectively “freezes” pubertal development. It is the creation of the disease state called hypogonadotropic hypogonadism by means of medication.
Is This Reversible?
If Lupron is stopped, what happens? In theory, over time, the receptors should increase to a normal count, and then signaling can proceed normally. Estrogen and testosterone should then be released normally and puberty allowed to continue. It’s as if a locksmith came along and gradually repaired the 999 inoperable locks. This would allow the rest of the couriers to deliver their messages and prompt the drivers to deliver their packages.
This idea is employed in the treatment of central precocious puberty. Central precocious puberty is an abnormal condition in which puberty begins at a very early age — say, age four. The FDA has approved the use of Lupron for this condition. Once the child is older — say, eleven — the medication is stopped to allow normal signaling to proceed and sex hormones to be released. After an additional delay of twelve to eighteen months, the child’s body can advance through more typical adolescent puberty.
But what happens if we block normal puberty? Bear in mind that the FDA has not approved the use of Lupron or similar agents for stopping normal puberty. There have been no randomized controlled studies for this use. And the limited safety studies that have been conducted have shown a number of potential problems.
Puberty Involves Bone, Brain, and Psychological Milestones
In normal male pubertal development, the penis will enlarge and develop erections and ejaculation capability. Mature sperm will be produced, which are capable of fertilizing an egg or ovum. In the female, the pelvic genitalia (including labia, vagina, and uterus) and breasts will develop and mature. Ovulation will begin to occur, and an egg capable of being fertilized will be released during each menstrual cycle.
When puberty is blocked with Lupron, all of these pubertal changes are disrupted. The genitals remain “frozen” in whatever stage of pubertal development they had reached when the medication regimen began.
This is widely known. What people don’t usually consider is that puberty is also extraordinarily important in female pelvic maturation, and in the normal bone structure and brain development of both sexes. Additionally, the physical changes of puberty occur in the wider context of complex developmental milestones as the child progresses toward social independence from his or her parents.
Disruption of a temporal process of development cannot be reversed. As pediatric endocrinologist Paul Hruz and colleagues discerningly state, “Rather than claiming that puberty suppression is reversible, researchers and clinicians should focus on the question of whether the physiological and psychosocial development that occurs during puberty can resume in something resembling a normal way after puberty-suppressing treatments are withdrawn.”
A Critical Period of Bone Density Development
Pubertal development is a time of rapid increase in bone density or strength. This period of bone density increase continues and hits a peak at around age twenty-five or thirty. A slow decline occurs thereafter. The use of puberty blockers to lower sex hormones close to zero interrupts this bone-strengthening process.
In puberty, both growth hormone and the sex hormones are necessary for proper bone development. Puberty blockers disrupt and decouple the timing of these hormones’ release. As a result, their actions are out of sync during pubertal development.
Thus, we would predict that the bones of adolescents who are administered puberty blockers would not become as dense and strong as expected. The limited studies that exist thus far confirm this hypothesis. For example, one study followed thirty-nine adolescent girls whose average age was about twelve-and-a-half when they began puberty blockers. Initially, they were in the 40th percentile for bone density. By the end of two years, however, they were in the lower 3rd percentile for bone density. This drastic decline in bone density is not surprising if one understands the critical role of the sex hormones in bone density development.
I strongly suspect that these young people will not meet their full adult potential for bone density, because they have lost valuable time during which their bones are supposed to be increasing in density and strength. This time cannot be recovered, putting them at serious risk for adulthood osteoporosis and fractures.
Female Pelvic Development
Significant differences exist between the adult male and female pelvises. The adult female pelvis is shaped in such a way as to allow room for a baby to pass through the birth canal. This is very important, because human babies have large heads to hold large brains relative to other mammals. Changes in the female pelvis begin to occur under the influence of estrogen during puberty. Sex differences between skeletons are not nearly as pronounced for children who have not finished puberty.
During puberty, the female pelvic inlet and outlet become wider and more oval-shaped, the pubic arch develops a significantly wider angle, and the sacrum (or tailbone) becomes less angled so as to not get in the way of the pelvic outlet.
When puberty blockers are used on a young girl, along with the drop in bone density relative to her peers, her pelvis will be “frozen” in a childlike configuration. It is not known if stopping puberty blockers by a certain age might still allow a window of opportunity for the female pelvis to reach optimal configuration for birth.
A pelvis that is not optimally configured for birth could put mother and baby at increased risk for obstructed labor. Obstructed labor is a condition in which the baby does not leave the pelvis during childbirth due to being physically blocked, even if the uterus is contracting normally. Complications include the baby not getting enough oxygen, which may result in death. For the mother, risks include infection, postpartum bleeding, uterine rupture, and obstetrical fistula.
Brain and Neuropsychiatric Development
The sex hormones are important and integral to adolescent brain development. Studies of animals show that the sex hormones “exert profound effects on brain maturation and behavior.” Though much is not yet known about exactly how the sex hormones work to develop the brain (which should already be a warning sign), studies have shown that the use of puberty-blocking medications can lead to memory impairment, slow reaction times, reduced long-term spatial memory, increased depressive symptoms, and a potential drop in IQ.
What about psychiatric effects? Using the Freedom of Information Act, Professor Michael Biggs of Oxford University has obtained unpublished study data from the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service in the UK. He found that,
after a year on GnRHa [puberty blockers] children reported greater self-harm, and that girls experienced more behavioral and emotional problems and expressed greater dissatisfaction with their body — so puberty blockers exacerbated gender dysphoria.
These findings should not be surprising. One need only examine the labeling for Lupron to find very concerning neuropsychological effects. Reported side effects include emotional lability, mood changes, headaches, nervousness, anxiety, agitation, confusion, delusions, insomnia, and depression. The label cautions providers to “monitor for development or worsening of psychiatric symptoms. Use with caution in patients with a history of psychiatric illness.”
Note also that there have been a long series of lawsuits against the Lupron manufacturers and reports of patients developing disabling side effects.
So Much for a “Pause Button”
Proponents of puberty blockers present them as a simple “pause button,” whereby puberty can be stopped and restarted at the whim of physicians. But is this really the case?
In the absence of puberty blockers, signaling from the hypothalamus occurs at a preprogrammed time, triggering the start of normal puberty. We do not know if there is an endpoint to the window of time in which puberty can take place. In other words, if one stops normal puberty at age ten and then allows it to begin again at age fifteen, we do not know if the signaling mechanism will return fully. There is evidence to suggest that it will not.
In pharmaceutical testing of Lupron for the treatment of endometriosis in females and prostate cancer in males, research has shown that there is prolonged impairment of the pituitary even after the drug is no longer being administered.
An amicus brief to the Supreme Court in a lawsuit against the makers of Lupron cites the work of physician Dr. David Redwine, who “conducted an exhaustive review of Respondents’ TAP/Abbott’s clinical trials’ raw data.” What he found in examining the manufacturer’s internal data is quite astounding: “62.5 percent of patients had not regained baseline estrogen levels by one year after stopping Lupron.” This means that estrogen levels of the majority of these women had not returned to normal a full year after stopping the medication.
In a study of adult males who had used Lupron for the treatment of prostate cancer, it took a median average of nine months for testosterone levels to return to the normal range. However, a full 26 percent had failed to regain normal levels two years later.
These findings represent a major problem for the argument for puberty blockers as a “pause button.” If one is pausing a music track, one expects the music to resume immediately after pushing play again. However, once one “pauses” normal puberty with Lupron and then presses “play” again, there may be a delay of around a year or more before puberty returns. In some adolescents, it is possible that puberty may not resume at all, due to direct damage of the pituitary signaling mechanism. And even if it does “resume,” bone, brain, pelvic, and psychiatric development, as noted above, may never fully occur.
It Begins with Social Transition
What exactly is known about the limited number of adolescents who have undergone this experimental therapy? How many kids actually decide to stop these medications and “unpause” puberty?
Very few, it seems. In a Dutch study that included seventy adolescents who went on puberty blockers, all seventy decided to go on to further medicalizing by using hormones of the opposite sex. In a follow-up study, the majority went on to have “sex reassignment surgery” by either vaginoplasty for males or hysterectomy with ovariectomy for females — sterilizing them. One patient even tragically died of necrotizing fasciitis — otherwise known as the flesh-eating bacteria — due to the surgery. None of these seventy children actually paused puberty and then reversed course. Rather, they went full speed ahead into hormones and surgeries, each with a new set of dangers.
What I’ve described in this essay is the medical pathway to sterility. But that path begins even earlier than this, as in the case of children like seven-year-old James. It begins with “social transition.”
Social transitioning a child involves parents, therapists, teachers, and other persons in authority reinforcing the gender non-conforming child’s false belief that he or she is of the opposite sex “inside.” The mind manipulation involves compulsory use of opposite-sex pronouns, and employing rigid sex-based stereotypes in clothing.
Kenneth Zucker, an international expert in the field of childhood gender identity disorder, calls this intervention iatrogenic — an illness caused by a physician. He notes that “it should come as no surprise that the rate of gender dysphoria persistence will be much higher as these children are followed into their adolescence and young adulthood.” Since the child is deluded by continuously reinforcing the false belief about his or her sex, he or she is led to the next step of pubertal blockade to prevent the child’s innate capacity to grow up as an adult of his or her given sex.
In some cases, like James’s, one parent has aggressively pushed for the therapy. In many other cases, both parents are desperate for help for their child and are pressured or duped into the affirmative pathway by doctors, therapists, and school officials. Concerns about harms are minimized, and questions are seen as obstructive. Parents may even be threatened by the legal system and have their child removed from the home.
A Dereliction of Duty
There is nothing healthy about stopping normal puberty, because puberty is not a disease. The practice represents an unethical medical experiment with both known and unknown harms to adolescent development and to the human person, during a crucial time in a young person’s life.
The Pediatric Endocrine Society’s statement that puberty-suppressing agents are reversible is highly deceptive. Adolescents can never regain the years that are lost to the blockade of normal bone, brain, and pelvic development. Puberty may be inadvertently “paused” for an additional year or more after stopping puberty blockers, and the pituitary may never fully recover. Time lost for adolescents in developing into their sexed bodies with their peers and reaching psychosocial developmental milestones cannot be regained.
Children and adolescents suffering from confusion about their sexed bodies require compassionate care. We know that the vast majority of diagnosed children have been shown to desist or grow out of this condition if parents simply wait, rather than rushing to intervene. We should also recognize that a high percentage of adolescents with discomfort about their sex have underlying mental health disorders or neurodevelopmental conditions. Some smaller percentage may have suffered sexual, physical, or emotional abuse. These conditions need to be given first priority in diagnosis and treatment.
Puberty blockers should not be used as a treatment for a mental health condition. If anything, evidence from the UK’s Tavistock GIDS clinic indicates that these medications can worsen mental health outcomes for many kids. Counseling, psychological therapy, and support to help kids become comfortable with their sexed bodies, while allowing them to proceed through normal puberty, is the optimal course of treatment for them.
I would challenge the Pediatric Endocrine Society to take the time to investigate the full scope of known and potential harms for using puberty-blocking agents to stop normal puberty. In the meantime, there should be a moratorium on their use for this purpose. Not to do so is a dereliction of duty of the highest order. It is an abandonment of the fundamental principle to First Do No Harm.
Published with permission from The Public Discourse.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-21--Global warming is the ultimate con to take human freedom away

January 20 , 2020 ( American Thinker ) — There is a credibility crisis for Western governments .
For too many years , their incompetence and deceit have forced ordinary citizens to question whether they produce more harm than good .
On both sides of the Atlantic , the governing elite play by a set of rules that separates them from those they govern .
They ignore popular discontent while placing themselves above the law .
It is in this volatile climate that they push the greatest con game ever concocted : man-made global warming .
This is the hubris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any confidence scheme , global warming rests entirely on misdirection and bad faith .
While Western governments create hundred-trillion-dollar programs for fighting the weather , they have ( 1 ) never scientifically established that man 's use of hydrocarbon energy causally leads to temperature change of any kind , ( 2 ) never articulated some baseline climate ideal for the planet , and ( 3 ) never produced a cost-benefit analysis detailing the loss in human life and standard of living required in order to impose upon the world the type of global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and commerce .
These three pillars are so fundamental that a normal person could be forgiven for assuming they 've long ago been calculated .
That 's part of the con .
The science is n't settled .
Nobody has decided whether to green the Sahara or bury Scandinavia in more snow , whether we 're pursuing the Roman Warm Period of two thousand years ago or the Little Ice Age that ended in the nineteenth century .
No government has admitted that the Green Dream will destroy populations and make modern conveniences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
How do you convince your citizens you have their best interests at heart when nothing could be farther from the truth ?
You prey on their weaknesses with a three-tailed hustle on a global scale .
First , you need the people .
You have to convince the great masses to emotionally and fervently support your side .
So you give them a new religion .
You let them in on a terrible secret that only they are wise enough to understand and righteous enough to combat .
You tell them the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You construct a nightmare so terrifying that no sane person could turn away .
You talk of boiling oceans and continents on fire .
You tell of hemisphere-sized hurricanes and nation-sized tornadoes that destroy everything in their paths .
You point to the sun and say , `` We will all burn alive ... unless ... '' Then you tell them who is to blame .
You tell them that oil and gas and coal are killing their children , and that anybody who still uses them is complicit in their children 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of energy `` fossil fuels , '' so your new disciples will remember that these fuels are leading them to their graves .
You tell them there is no greater wickedness in the world than carbon and that their virtue is most pure when they learn to hate those who are not enlightened enough to see the coming battle between good and evil .
You build yourself an unholy army .
Next , you get a vanguard to lead .
You need officers who are so vain that they laugh at the gullibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to head .
You need arrogant intellectuals willing to deceive the public for the greater good .
You need marks who willingly take part in the con because they have no idea they 're being fooled themselves .
So you gather the socialists and let them in on a secret that only they are wise and righteous enough to understand : everything wrong in the world is capitalism 's fault .
Free markets and free thoughts have unleashed too many bad ideas , too much greed , too much war and exploitation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ subside until a group of enlightened thinkers such as they begin to govern and usher in earthly peace and tranquility for the ages .
You tell them the people are frightened and worried about tomorrow 's end and that they can use such fear to build a new world without sin or hardship .
You tell them they are the ones they 've been waiting for .
Lastly , you get the capitalists to finance the operation .
You need elected officials so corrupt and so greedy that they would gladly set in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profit to be made .
You need heads of commerce to embrace their own doom by convincing them they will be spared from the revolution to come .
So you gather the capitalists from great halls and great houses and let them in on a secret that only they are wise and practical enough to understand : the age of individual liberty is coming to an end , but if they submit quietly , there is still a fortune to be made .
You tell the elected officials that they have the power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By legislative fiat , they can make pieces of paper called carbon credits worth trillions .
They can make something with no value the most valuable commodity on earth , and they will be in on the ground floor .
You look those officials in the eye and tell them , `` The people are frightened ; the socialists are taking over ; but you can be wealthier than you ever imagined . ''
You gather the heads of all the biggest companies and promise monopoly , if only they stay silent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You remind them that only the very best people were meant to rule and that through their greed , they can join an aristocracy without end .
You promise them the world , so that they finance their own destruction .
If successful , the global warming hustle will reclaim power from the people and return it to the kings and queens , lords and ladies who mean to rule over what 's left of the world they destroy .
It will be the greatest con ever executed .
The charade is so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes crashing down , not a single Western government will survive .
These are the stakes they created to swap freedom with fiefdom .
If we let them succeed , their dream is our death , for `` this is the way the world ends , not with a bang but a whimper . ''
Published with permission from the American Thinker .

January 20, 2020 (American Thinker) — There is a credibility crisis for Western governments. For too many years, their incompetence and deceit have forced ordinary citizens to question whether they produce more harm than good. On both sides of the Atlantic, the governing elite play by a set of rules that separates them from those they govern. They ignore popular discontent while placing themselves above the law. It is in this volatile climate that they push the greatest con game ever concocted: man-made global warming. This is the hubris that brings empires crashing down.
Like any confidence scheme, global warming rests entirely on misdirection and bad faith. While Western governments create hundred-trillion-dollar programs for fighting the weather, they have (1) never scientifically established that man's use of hydrocarbon energy causally leads to temperature change of any kind, (2) never articulated some baseline climate ideal for the planet, and (3) never produced a cost-benefit analysis detailing the loss in human life and standard of living required in order to impose upon the world the type of global command-and-control economy necessary to restructure all industry and commerce. These three pillars are so fundamental that a normal person could be forgiven for assuming they've long ago been calculated. That's part of the con.
The science isn't settled. Nobody has decided whether to green the Sahara or bury Scandinavia in more snow, whether we're pursuing the Roman Warm Period of two thousand years ago or the Little Ice Age that ended in the nineteenth century. No government has admitted that the Green Dream will destroy populations and make modern conveniences future luxuries for only the wealthiest survivors. How do you convince your citizens you have their best interests at heart when nothing could be farther from the truth? You prey on their weaknesses with a three-tailed hustle on a global scale.
First, you need the people. You have to convince the great masses to emotionally and fervently support your side. So you give them a new religion. You let them in on a terrible secret that only they are wise enough to understand and righteous enough to combat. You tell them the world is coming to an end. You construct a nightmare so terrifying that no sane person could turn away. You talk of boiling oceans and continents on fire. You tell of hemisphere-sized hurricanes and nation-sized tornadoes that destroy everything in their paths. You point to the sun and say, “We will all burn alive…unless…” Then you tell them who is to blame. You tell them that oil and gas and coal are killing their children, and that anybody who still uses them is complicit in their children's deaths. You call these natural forms of energy “fossil fuels,” so your new disciples will remember that these fuels are leading them to their graves. You tell them there is no greater wickedness in the world than carbon and that their virtue is most pure when they learn to hate those who are not enlightened enough to see the coming battle between good and evil. You build yourself an unholy army.
Next, you get a vanguard to lead. You need officers who are so vain that they laugh at the gullibility of the very army they are meant to head. You need arrogant intellectuals willing to deceive the public for the greater good. You need marks who willingly take part in the con because they have no idea they're being fooled themselves. So you gather the socialists and let them in on a secret that only they are wise and righteous enough to understand: everything wrong in the world is capitalism's fault. Free markets and free thoughts have unleashed too many bad ideas, too much greed, too much war and exploitation. You tell them the chaos will never subside until a group of enlightened thinkers such as they begin to govern and usher in earthly peace and tranquility for the ages. You tell them the people are frightened and worried about tomorrow's end and that they can use such fear to build a new world without sin or hardship. You tell them they are the ones they've been waiting for.
Lastly, you get the capitalists to finance the operation. You need elected officials so corrupt and so greedy that they would gladly set in motion their own demise if there is profit to be made. You need heads of commerce to embrace their own doom by convincing them they will be spared from the revolution to come. So you gather the capitalists from great halls and great houses and let them in on a secret that only they are wise and practical enough to understand: the age of individual liberty is coming to an end, but if they submit quietly, there is still a fortune to be made. You tell the elected officials that they have the power to create money out of thin air. By legislative fiat, they can make pieces of paper called carbon credits worth trillions. They can make something with no value the most valuable commodity on earth, and they will be in on the ground floor. You look those officials in the eye and tell them, “The people are frightened; the socialists are taking over; but you can be wealthier than you ever imagined.” You gather the heads of all the biggest companies and promise monopoly, if only they stay silent while the great purge plays out. You remind them that only the very best people were meant to rule and that through their greed, they can join an aristocracy without end. You promise them the world, so that they finance their own destruction.
If successful, the global warming hustle will reclaim power from the people and return it to the kings and queens, lords and ladies who mean to rule over what's left of the world they destroy. It will be the greatest con ever executed. The charade is so vast and so vile that if it comes crashing down, not a single Western government will survive. These are the stakes they created to swap freedom with fiefdom. If we let them succeed, their dream is our death, for “this is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper.”
Published with permission from the American Thinker.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-21--Pope Francis should understand: Rigid Catholics much less dangerous than rigid Muslims

January 20 , 2020 ( Turning Point Project ) — The New York Times reported that Mohammed al-Shamrani , the Pensacola jihad murderer , had become more religious after a trip home to Saudi Arabia in February .
That should n't be surprising .
In fact , increased religiosity — more frequent prayer and mosque attendance , studying the Koran etc .
— is often observed in jihadists in the weeks and months leading up to their attacks .
Notable examples of this phenomenon are the Fort Hood shooter , the San Bernardino killers , the elder of the two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Manchester suicide bomber , who was observed chanting Islamic prayers loudly in the streets in the weeks before the massacre .
The evidence is not just anecdotal .
A number of European studies have shown a high correlation between increased devotion in Muslims and radicalization .
Pope Francis is apparently unaware of this correlation because , for many years , he has been urging Muslims to go deeper into their faith .
He once told a groups of migrants that Christians should seek strength and guidance in the Bible , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Koran .
Of course , Francis has much the same message for people of all religions : stick with the faith you have and learn from it .
During a visit to a secondary school in Rome on December 20 , he told students that they should not try to convert others or convince them of the truth of the Catholic faith .
Rather , they should tell non-Catholics `` yyou be consistent with your faith and that consistency is what will make you mature . ''
Moreover , `` never , ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone says he is a disciple of Jesus and comes to you with proselytism , he is not a disciple of Jesus . ''
The Pope 's opposition to proselytism seems to stem from an assumption that all religions are basically the same , and all are equally beneficial .
His strong belief in shared beliefs is evident in Evangelii Gaudium 's positive assessment of Islam .
Expanding on Nostra Aetate , he writes : `` we must never forget that they profess to hold the faith of Abraham , and together with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' He continues , `` Jesus and Mary receive profound veneration and it is admirable to see how Muslims both young and old , men and women , make time for daily prayer and faithfully take part in religious services . ''
In addition , `` They also acknowledge the need to respond to God with an ethical commitment and with mercy toward those most in need . ''
Moreover , `` authentic Islam and a proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence '' ( 252–253 ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ see any reason why Muslims need to be converted .
In fact , there is no suggestion in the document that Muslims should be evangelized .
The only nod in that direction is the recommendation that Christians should dialogue with Muslims about their `` shared beliefs '' ( 253 ) .
Coincidentally , Muslim authorities are in perfect accord with the pope on this score .
They do n't believe that Christians should evangelize either , and they do n't believe that Muslims should be converted .
In fact , Islamic law forbids @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security officials routinely arrest evangelical Christians during the Christmas season when it is easier to apprehend them in groups .
But not to worry .
If you keep your head down , you 'll be alright .
As one Iranian Catholic put it : `` If you are a Christian in Iran and do not evangelize , and do not advertise your religion , you will not go to jail .
Christians that do go to jail are converts [ from Islam ] or evangelizing . ''
Do n't get the idea , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principle to evangelization .
Islam is a proselytizing faith .
Muslims feel that it is a duty to convert .
In short , they can evangelize you , but you ca n't evangelize them .
Devout Muslims also believe that they have a mission to bring lax or lukewarm Muslims to a fuller understanding of the faith .
Second Lieutenant Mohammed Saeed al-Shamrani was most likely subjected to some Muslim-to-Muslim proselytism on his trip to Saudi Arabia .
And we know from FBI records that Major Nidal Hasan , the Fort Hood killer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the notorious Anwar al-Awlaki — who later became Al-Qaeda 's chief propaganda officer .
So , `` stick to your faith and go deeper into it '' may be good counsel for young Catholics , but it may not be the best advice to give to young Muslims .
It 's not quite certain , however , that Pope Francis really wants Catholics to stick to their faith — at least , not to the faith they were brought up in .
One of the main themes of his Christmas week talks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address to the Curia he mentions change 30 times .
He speaks of `` epochal change , '' `` ongoing process , '' `` movement , '' `` a reposition of our ways of thinking , '' and , citing Italian novelist Giuseppe di Lampedusa , `` everything has to change . ''
Why ?
Because `` there is always the temptation to fall back on the past '' … '' there is a need to be wary of the temptation to rigidity .
A rigidity born of the fear of change… '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Catholics are in constant danger of falling back into rigidity and fundamentalism , and the only antidote for this temptation is a program of constant change .
We are entering an era of `` epochal change , '' says Francis , and this new age , he implies , calls for a new Church .
But if change is such a good thing for Catholics , would n't it also be a good thing for Muslims as well ?
If change is the correct response to rigidity and fundamentalism , is n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bottom transformation ?
Pope Francis has often criticized fundamentalists Catholics , but to all appearances they are a vanishing breed .
On the other hand , Islam is primarily a fundamentalist religion .
According to Dinesh D'Souza `` there are virtually no liberals in the Muslim world . ''
By our definition of fundamentalist , says D'Souza , `` all Muslims are 'fundamentalists ' because all Muslims believe that the Koran is the literal , unadulterated word of God…If you do n't believe these things , you 're not a Muslim . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ among Muslims is a perversion of Islam .
People who endorse terrorism , or amputations , or stonings must therefore be misunderstanders of true Islam .
But if that 's so , then there seem to be a great many misunderstanders in the Muslim world .
In a 2013 global survey of Muslim support for Sharia law , the Pew Research Center revealed that large percentages of Muslims held rather extreme views .
For example , in Pakistan 89 % favored stoning for adultery .
The figure was 85 % in Afghanistan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 81 % in Egypt .
Sharia law also mandates whipping or amputations as a penalty for thieves or robbers .
Eighty-eight percent of Pakistanis favored these punishments , along with 81 % of Afghanis , 76 % of Palestinians , 70 % of Egyptians , 66 % of Malaysians , and 57 % of Jordanians .
The sharia penalty for apostasy ( converting to another faith ) is death .
Eighty-six percent of Egyptians favor the death penalty for apostasy , along with 82 % of Jordanians , 79 % of Afghanis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 62 % of Malaysians .
If you 're looking for a rigid fundamentalist religion that 's badly in need of transformational changes , the place to look is Islam , not Catholicism .
The whole world is in danger because of normative Islam 's fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran .
As evidenced by the Pew surveys , a large number of Muslims hold quite rigidly to the literal sense of their scripture : `` stoning '' means `` stoning , '' and `` amputation '' means `` amputation . ''
By contrast , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knows that Christ 's words about cutting off your right hand if it causes you to sin are not to be taken literally .
Here we have a classic example of straining out the gnat while swallowing the camel — in this instance , straining out the gnat of the `` threat '' from fundamentalist Catholics while swallowing the camel-sized lie that Islam is a peaceful faith .
One could say that it 's none of the Pope 's business to point out the faults of another religion .
Maybe so .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it his business to act as an apologist for Islam ?
Prudence may dictate a cautious approach when raising concerns about Islam .
After criticism of Nazism by Pius XII and other churchmen brought swift and brutal reprisals against Jews and Christians , the Vatican muted its criticism , and sought to undermine Nazism by adopting others , less overt measures .
On the other hand , Pius XII never talked up the `` positive '' side of Nazism .
It would be understandable if , in some instances , the Vatican maintained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emanate from the fundamentalist faith founded by Muhammad .
But why must it continue to spin out a cotton candy version of Islam that prevents Catholics from understanding the gravity of the threat ?
In their anxiety to combat the threat from rigid Christmas , it sometimes seems as though Francis and others in the hierarchy are oblivious of the threat from fundamentalist Islam .
Here is more on rigidity from Francis 's Christmas talk to the Curia : The need to build bridges and tear down walls and fences has been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But when there are enemies around , walls can come in handy , and for safety 's sake , bridges occasionally need to be blown up to prevent an enemy 's advance .
Of course , Francis is not referring solely to physical walls , but also to dogmas of `` exclusivity '' which supposedly keep us from appreciating the common humanity which we share with those on the other side .
That danger does exist , but the greater danger today is that in their haste to create a new fluid Church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creating one that is confused , undefined , vulnerable , and defenseless .
The idea of tearing down walls and fences is appealing to the multicultural mind because it promises to open us to greater diversity .
But if we really respect the wisdom of different cultures , we will notice that every culture builds walls .
`` Do n't take down a fence until you know the reason why it was put up . ''
The saying is a paraphrase of an observation by Chesterton , but it is also said to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event , it makes good common sense — the kind of common sense that seems to be largely missing from the calculations of many modern churchmen .
Published with permission from the Turning Point Project .

Increased religiosity — more frequent prayer and mosque attendance, studying the Koran etc. — is often observed in jihadists in the weeks and months leading up to their attacks.
January 20, 2020 (Turning Point Project) — The New York Times reported that Mohammed al-Shamrani, the Pensacola jihad murderer, had become more religious after a trip home to Saudi Arabia in February. That shouldn't be surprising. In fact, increased religiosity — more frequent prayer and mosque attendance, studying the Koran etc. — is often observed in jihadists in the weeks and months leading up to their attacks. Notable examples of this phenomenon are the Fort Hood shooter, the San Bernardino killers, the elder of the two Boston Marathon bombers, and Salman Abedi, the Manchester suicide bomber, who was observed chanting Islamic prayers loudly in the streets in the weeks before the massacre. The evidence is not just anecdotal. A number of European studies have shown a high correlation between increased devotion in Muslims and radicalization.
Pope Francis is apparently unaware of this correlation because, for many years, he has been urging Muslims to go deeper into their faith. He once told a groups of migrants that Christians should seek strength and guidance in the Bible, while Muslims should seek the same in the Koran.
Of course, Francis has much the same message for people of all religions: stick with the faith you have and learn from it. During a visit to a secondary school in Rome on December 20, he told students that they should not try to convert others or convince them of the truth of the Catholic faith. Rather, they should tell non-Catholics “you be consistent with your faith and that consistency is what will make you mature.” Moreover, “never, ever advance the Gospel through proselytism. If someone says he is a disciple of Jesus and comes to you with proselytism, he is not a disciple of Jesus.”
The Pope's opposition to proselytism seems to stem from an assumption that all religions are basically the same, and all are equally beneficial. His strong belief in shared beliefs is evident in Evangelii Gaudium's positive assessment of Islam. Expanding on Nostra Aetate, he writes: “we must never forget that they profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one merciful God…” He continues, “Jesus and Mary receive profound veneration and it is admirable to see how Muslims both young and old, men and women, make time for daily prayer and faithfully take part in religious services.” In addition, “They also acknowledge the need to respond to God with an ethical commitment and with mercy toward those most in need.” Moreover, “authentic Islam and a proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence” (252–253).
Reading this, it's difficult to see any reason why Muslims need to be converted. In fact, there is no suggestion in the document that Muslims should be evangelized. The only nod in that direction is the recommendation that Christians should dialogue with Muslims about their “shared beliefs” (253).
Coincidentally, Muslim authorities are in perfect accord with the pope on this score. They don't believe that Christians should evangelize either, and they don't believe that Muslims should be converted. In fact, Islamic law forbids non-Muslims to proselytize. In Iran, security officials routinely arrest evangelical Christians during the Christmas season when it is easier to apprehend them in groups. But not to worry. If you keep your head down, you'll be alright. As one Iranian Catholic put it: “If you are a Christian in Iran and do not evangelize, and do not advertise your religion, you will not go to jail. Christians that do go to jail are converts [from Islam] or evangelizing.”
Don't get the idea, however, that Muslims are opposed in principle to evangelization. Islam is a proselytizing faith. Muslims feel that it is a duty to convert. In short, they can evangelize you, but you can't evangelize them.
Devout Muslims also believe that they have a mission to bring lax or lukewarm Muslims to a fuller understanding of the faith. Second Lieutenant Mohammed Saeed al-Shamrani was most likely subjected to some Muslim-to-Muslim proselytism on his trip to Saudi Arabia. And we know from FBI records that Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer, was led deeper into his faith by the notorious Anwar al-Awlaki — who later became Al-Qaeda's chief propaganda officer.
So, “stick to your faith and go deeper into it” may be good counsel for young Catholics, but it may not be the best advice to give to young Muslims.
It's not quite certain, however, that Pope Francis really wants Catholics to stick to their faith — at least, not to the faith they were brought up in. One of the main themes of his Christmas week talks was change. In his traditional Christmas address to the Curia he mentions change 30 times. He speaks of “epochal change,” “ongoing process,” “movement,” “a reposition of our ways of thinking,” and, citing Italian novelist Giuseppe di Lampedusa, “everything has to change.”
Why? Because “there is always the temptation to fall back on the past”…”there is a need to be wary of the temptation to rigidity. A rigidity born of the fear of change…” So, if I understand this correctly, Catholics are in constant danger of falling back into rigidity and fundamentalism, and the only antidote for this temptation is a program of constant change. We are entering an era of “epochal change,” says Francis, and this new age, he implies, calls for a new Church.
But if change is such a good thing for Catholics, wouldn't it also be a good thing for Muslims as well? If change is the correct response to rigidity and fundamentalism, isn't Islam long overdue for a top to bottom transformation?
Pope Francis has often criticized fundamentalists Catholics, but to all appearances they are a vanishing breed. On the other hand, Islam is primarily a fundamentalist religion. According to Dinesh D'Souza “there are virtually no liberals in the Muslim world.” By our definition of fundamentalist, says D'Souza, “all Muslims are 'fundamentalists' because all Muslims believe that the Koran is the literal, unadulterated word of God…If you don't believe these things, you're not a Muslim.”
The semi-official Vatican position is that extremism among Muslims is a perversion of Islam. People who endorse terrorism, or amputations, or stonings must therefore be misunderstanders of true Islam. But if that's so, then there seem to be a great many misunderstanders in the Muslim world.
In a 2013 global survey of Muslim support for Sharia law, the Pew Research Center revealed that large percentages of Muslims held rather extreme views. For example, in Pakistan 89% favored stoning for adultery. The figure was 85% in Afghanistan, 84% in the Palestinian territories, and 81% in Egypt.
Sharia law also mandates whipping or amputations as a penalty for thieves or robbers. Eighty-eight percent of Pakistanis favored these punishments, along with 81% of Afghanis, 76% of Palestinians, 70% of Egyptians, 66% of Malaysians, and 57% of Jordanians.
The sharia penalty for apostasy (converting to another faith) is death. Eighty-six percent of Egyptians favor the death penalty for apostasy, along with 82% of Jordanians, 79% of Afghanis, 76% of Pakistanis, and 62% of Malaysians.
If you're looking for a rigid fundamentalist religion that's badly in need of transformational changes, the place to look is Islam, not Catholicism. The whole world is in danger because of normative Islam's fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran. As evidenced by the Pew surveys, a large number of Muslims hold quite rigidly to the literal sense of their scripture: “stoning” means “stoning,” and “amputation” means “amputation.” By contrast, even the most “rigid” Catholic knows that Christ's words about cutting off your right hand if it causes you to sin are not to be taken literally.
Here we have a classic example of straining out the gnat while swallowing the camel — in this instance, straining out the gnat of the “threat” from fundamentalist Catholics while swallowing the camel-sized lie that Islam is a peaceful faith.
One could say that it's none of the Pope's business to point out the faults of another religion. Maybe so. But by the same token, why is it his business to act as an apologist for Islam?
Prudence may dictate a cautious approach when raising concerns about Islam. After criticism of Nazism by Pius XII and other churchmen brought swift and brutal reprisals against Jews and Christians, the Vatican muted its criticism, and sought to undermine Nazism by adopting others, less overt measures. On the other hand, Pius XII never talked up the “positive” side of Nazism.
It would be understandable if, in some instances, the Vatican maintained a prudent silence about the dangers that emanate from the fundamentalist faith founded by Muhammad. But why must it continue to spin out a cotton candy version of Islam that prevents Catholics from understanding the gravity of the threat?
In their anxiety to combat the threat from rigid Christmas, it sometimes seems as though Francis and others in the hierarchy are oblivious of the threat from fundamentalist Islam. Here is more on rigidity from Francis's Christmas talk to the Curia:
Here, there is a need to be wary of the temptation to rigidity. A rigidity born of the fear of change, which ends up erecting fences and obstacles on the terrain of the common good, turning it into a minefield of incomprehension and hatred.
The need to build bridges and tear down walls and fences has been a consistent theme of the Francis papacy. But when there are enemies around, walls can come in handy, and for safety's sake, bridges occasionally need to be blown up to prevent an enemy's advance.
Of course, Francis is not referring solely to physical walls, but also to dogmas of “exclusivity” which supposedly keep us from appreciating the common humanity which we share with those on the other side. That danger does exist, but the greater danger today is that in their haste to create a new fluid Church, liberal churchmen will only succeed in creating one that is confused, undefined, vulnerable, and defenseless.
The idea of tearing down walls and fences is appealing to the multicultural mind because it promises to open us to greater diversity. But if we really respect the wisdom of different cultures, we will notice that every culture builds walls.
“Don't take down a fence until you know the reason why it was put up.” The saying is a paraphrase of an observation by Chesterton, but it is also said to be an African proverb. In any event, it makes good common sense — the kind of common sense that seems to be largely missing from the calculations of many modern churchmen.
Published with permission from the Turning Point Project.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-20--Two popes: Francis and the 95-year-old atheist pope of secularism

January 20 , 2020 ( The Catholic Thing ) — At first glance , it may appear that the title of this column refers to the film of the same name , which has garnered abundant praise and criticism .
It has been widely acknowledged that the two actors portraying Benedict and Francis have given performances of high caliber .
It has also been admitted , even by avowed partisans of Pope Francis , that the depiction of Benedict as calculating in his quest to become pope and neolithic in his theological concerns is a caricature .
I have seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intention to revisit it here .
It may seem , then , that the title refers to the recent , much-discussed and , by some , deplored collaboration between Cardinal Robert Sarah and Pope Emeritus Benedict in putting forth a small book , From the Depths of Our Hearts : Priesthood , Celibacy , and the Crisis of the Catholic Church .
The issues and concerns raised by and about the book are real and urgent .
But the simultaneous existence of two figures in white , both addressed as “ Holy Father @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not the “ mischief ” I here intend .
Rather , I refer to the latest tête à tête between Pope Francis and Eugenio Scalfari , the nonagenarian founder and patriarch of the left-wing Italian newspaper , La Repubblica .
Those who follow the daring adventures of the current pope know that among the problematic elements of his pontificate is the series of interviews , beginning quite early in his tenure , that he has accorded Signor Scalfari .
Scalfari , an avowed atheist , has nonetheless received privileged access to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then written of the encounters in his newspaper , quoting Francis liberally , while admitting that he neither records the pope ’ s words nor takes notes during their conversations .
He merely questions , listens , responds and transmits — indulging , to be sure , a certain creative freedom .
The result of these idiosyncratic , if not irresponsible , procedures is that on several occasions the Vatican Press Office has been forced to issue vague retractions of the rather extreme views attributed to Pope Francis , such as calling into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Scalfari reported just last fall that “ Pope Francis conceives Christ as Jesus of Nazareth , man , not God incarnate.
” This last claim eventually evoked a more robust disclaimer from Paolo Ruffini , the layman who heads the Vatican Dicastery for Communications .
Ruffini insisted : “ the Holy Father never said what Scalfari wrote that he said .
Therefore , both the quoted remarks , and the free reconstruction and interpretation by Dr. Scalfari of the colloquies — which go back to more than two years ago — can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what was said by the pope.
” It is , thus , all the more perplexing , indeed , alarming , that Pope Francis continues to exercise a “ privileged option ” for Scalfari , a man who has shown himself less than trustworthy in his reporting .
That privileged option was recently on striking display in the January 16th issue of La Repubblica , with three prominent pages devoted to the latest colloquium between the “ two popes ” : Francis representing the Catholic Church and Eugenio representing the Secular Left .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I , Ratzinger , and Saving the Earth , ” but one might be entitled to read it more simply as , “ Francis and Me.
” Scalfari boasts of his “ intense relation with the Holy Father.
” And since the Sarah-Benedict collaboration had just made headlines , Scalfari assures his readers of Francis ’ s equanimity .
Indeed , he contends that Benedict had conveyed to Francis his full “ solidarity ” ( tutta la sua solidarietà ) , along with the confession that he , Benedict , had “ never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book ( mai autorizzato un libro a doppia firma ) .
I quote , of course , Scalfari ’ s words , though , presumably , they represent what he gleaned from Francis .
Having amicably dispensed with such momentary unpleasantness , the conversation then passes to more pressing concerns shared by the two Pontiffs .
It may appear that I am being frivolous here .
But Francis urges his esteemed friend to cease the too otherworldly appellation , Santità , ( “ Holiness ” ) and have recourse to the more earthly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply “ Francis.
” After all , he winningly declares : “ We ’ re friends , no ?
” ( Siamo amici , no ? )
Henceforward the two Popes will be two regular guys : Frank and Gene — perhaps even sharing beer and pizza like their counterparts in that Netflix bromance .
Released now from stilted inhibitions and divides , the two gallop through a range of issues that would give pause to less stalwart souls .
Augustine on grace and predestination , who qualifies as a “ mystic ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no ; Francis of Assisi , yes , says Francis ) ; the elusive sense of self , its freedom , and its struggle between good and evil .
From there one passes rapidly to immigration , climate change , and a quirky reference to Jesus as a person of “ authority , ” which manifests itself in his coherence of life and his witness ( coerenza e testimonianza ) .
You have the dizzying sense , in this breathless circuit of the Big Questions , of what a friend calls “ roller-skating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really to bond the secular pope and the ecclesial pope is religion ’ s social and political function : its ability to advance an agenda .
Why else the persistent cultivation of Eugenio by Francesco ?
Why else would Scalfari ’ s La Repubblica devote such lavish space to a pope whose predecessors it spurned ?
Both could warmly embrace , upon taking their leave of one another , in the assurance of a common commitment “ to bring our collective spirit into sync with modern civil society ” ( di aggiornare il @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderna ) .
No hint here of the danger that conciliar “ aggiornamento ” might degenerate into cultural capitulation .
Every language has certain lynchpin words that it turns to so frequently that they reveal something of its existential grammar .
In Italian , one such word is strumentalizzare — to instrumentalize , co-opt , use for one ’ s purposes .
For six years now , I have wondered who is making use of whom in this fascinating pas de deux between the two Popes .
Assuredly no “ proselytizing ” is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ evangelizing.
” Instead , there ’ s a palpable , rather romantic rendition of Francis of Assisi by them both .
It ’ s the Francis of Laudato si ’ , who had a mystical rapport with nature , even with wild animals ; who journeyed afar to meet the Sultan in respectful dialogue ; and who , according to Papa Francesco , as channeled by Papa Eugenio , died in a meadow with his hand upon the hand of Clare ( disteso su un prato con la mano sulla mano di @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Santa Marta !
Or is there more than Italian romanticism at play ?
Perhaps that momentary unpleasantness mentioned above has not been left behind .
Perhaps it actually drives the present interview , so prominently trumpeted on the pages of Repubblica .
After all , the pressing issue of the Sarah-Benedict collaboration concerns priestly celibacy .
And the Scalfari-Francis collaboration — two men astute at image-making — leaves us with the image of the poor man of Assisi , the deacon , dying hand in hand with Clare .
And , they solemnly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less than he , santa !
Is the ordination of the vir probatus being signaled in this newly-minted , carefully crafted image ?
And , eventually , that of the mulier probata ?
St. Francis and St. Clare , pray for us !
“ Far-fetched , Father !
” some may protest .
But I have always taken Pope Francis at his word .
In the first of what has proven to be an interminable series of interviews , Pope Francis responded to a question posed by the Jesuit editor of La Civiltà @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is Jorge Mario Bergoglio ?
” The new pope pauses , reflects , and confesses : “ I am a sinner.
” Then , upon further thought , he adds unbidden : “ perhaps I can say that I am a bit astute ... a bit naïve.
” ( Un pò ’ furbo ... un pò ’ ingenuo . )
Now furbo too is one of those quintessential Italian expressions .
The English translators of the Spadaro interview use “ astute ” as their equivalent .
But furbo also sounds undertones of shrewd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say of someone in Italian , “ he ’ s a clever operator , ” you would likely say : “ è un furbo.
” In recounting the genesis of that inaugural interview of August 2013 , Father Spadaro asserts that the Pope had spoken of “ his great difficulty in giving interviews.
” Indeed , that Francis preferred “ to think carefully rather than give quick responses to on-the-spot interviews.
” Would it were so , Santità ; would it were so .
Published with permission from The Catholic Thing .

January 20, 2020 (The Catholic Thing) — At first glance, it may appear that the title of this column refers to the film of the same name, which has garnered abundant praise and criticism. It has been widely acknowledged that the two actors portraying Benedict and Francis have given performances of high caliber. It has also been admitted, even by avowed partisans of Pope Francis, that the depiction of Benedict as calculating in his quest to become pope and neolithic in his theological concerns is a caricature. I have seen the film, but I have no intention to revisit it here.
It may seem, then, that the title refers to the recent, much-discussed and, by some, deplored collaboration between Cardinal Robert Sarah and Pope Emeritus Benedict in putting forth a small book, From the Depths of Our Hearts: Priesthood, Celibacy, and the Crisis of the Catholic Church. The issues and concerns raised by and about the book are real and urgent. But the simultaneous existence of two figures in white, both addressed as “Holy Father,” and the confusion generated thereby is not the “mischief” I here intend.
Rather, I refer to the latest tête à tête between Pope Francis and Eugenio Scalfari, the nonagenarian founder and patriarch of the left-wing Italian newspaper, La Repubblica. Those who follow the daring adventures of the current pope know that among the problematic elements of his pontificate is the series of interviews, beginning quite early in his tenure, that he has accorded Signor Scalfari.
Scalfari, an avowed atheist, has nonetheless received privileged access to the pope on numerous occasions. He has then written of the encounters in his newspaper, quoting Francis liberally, while admitting that he neither records the pope’s words nor takes notes during their conversations. He merely questions, listens, responds and transmits — indulging, to be sure, a certain creative freedom.
The result of these idiosyncratic, if not irresponsible, procedures is that on several occasions the Vatican Press Office has been forced to issue vague retractions of the rather extreme views attributed to Pope Francis, such as calling into question the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. Scalfari reported just last fall that “Pope Francis conceives Christ as Jesus of Nazareth, man, not God incarnate.” This last claim eventually evoked a more robust disclaimer from Paolo Ruffini, the layman who heads the Vatican Dicastery for Communications. Ruffini insisted: “the Holy Father never said what Scalfari wrote that he said. Therefore, both the quoted remarks, and the free reconstruction and interpretation by Dr. Scalfari of the colloquies — which go back to more than two years ago — cannot be considered a faithful account of what was said by the pope.”
It is, thus, all the more perplexing, indeed, alarming, that Pope Francis continues to exercise a “privileged option” for Scalfari, a man who has shown himself less than trustworthy in his reporting. That privileged option was recently on striking display in the January 16th issue of La Repubblica, with three prominent pages devoted to the latest colloquium between the “two popes”: Francis representing the Catholic Church and Eugenio representing the Secular Left. The headlines blare: “Francis: I, Ratzinger, and Saving the Earth,” but one might be entitled to read it more simply as, “Francis and Me.”
Scalfari boasts of his “intense relation with the Holy Father.” And since the Sarah-Benedict collaboration had just made headlines, Scalfari assures his readers of Francis’s equanimity. Indeed, he contends that Benedict had conveyed to Francis his full “solidarity” (tutta la sua solidarietà), along with the confession that he, Benedict, had “never authorized” a joint authorship of the book (mai autorizzato un libro a doppia firma). I quote, of course, Scalfari’s words, though, presumably, they represent what he gleaned from Francis.
Having amicably dispensed with such momentary unpleasantness, the conversation then passes to more pressing concerns shared by the two Pontiffs. It may appear that I am being frivolous here. But Francis urges his esteemed friend to cease the too otherworldly appellation, Santità, (“Holiness”) and have recourse to the more earthly “Pope Francis,” or just simply “Francis.” After all, he winningly declares: “We’re friends, no?” (Siamo amici, no?) Henceforward the two Popes will be two regular guys: Frank and Gene — perhaps even sharing beer and pizza like their counterparts in that Netflix bromance.
Released now from stilted inhibitions and divides, the two gallop through a range of issues that would give pause to less stalwart souls. Augustine on grace and predestination, who qualifies as a “mystic” (Augustine and Ignatius of Loyola, no; Francis of Assisi, yes, says Francis); the elusive sense of self, its freedom, and its struggle between good and evil.
From there one passes rapidly to immigration, climate change, and a quirky reference to Jesus as a person of “authority,” which manifests itself in his coherence of life and his witness (coerenza e testimonianza). You have the dizzying sense, in this breathless circuit of the Big Questions, of what a friend calls “roller-skating through the Louvre.”
But what seems really to bond the secular pope and the ecclesial pope is religion’s social and political function: its ability to advance an agenda. Why else the persistent cultivation of Eugenio by Francesco? Why else would Scalfari’s La Repubblica devote such lavish space to a pope whose predecessors it spurned? Both could warmly embrace, upon taking their leave of one another, in the assurance of a common commitment “to bring our collective spirit into sync with modern civil society” (di aggiornare il nostro spirito collettivo alla società civile e moderna). No hint here of the danger that conciliar “aggiornamento” might degenerate into cultural capitulation.
Every language has certain lynchpin words that it turns to so frequently that they reveal something of its existential grammar. In Italian, one such word is strumentalizzare — to instrumentalize, co-opt, use for one’s purposes.
For six years now, I have wondered who is making use of whom in this fascinating pas de deux between the two Popes. Assuredly no “proselytizing” is taking place. But neither is any “evangelizing.”
Instead, there’s a palpable, rather romantic rendition of Francis of Assisi by them both. It’s the Francis of Laudato si’, who had a mystical rapport with nature, even with wild animals; who journeyed afar to meet the Sultan in respectful dialogue; and who, according to Papa Francesco, as channeled by Papa Eugenio, died in a meadow with his hand upon the hand of Clare (disteso su un prato con la mano sulla mano di Chiara). Franco Zeffirelli, call Santa Marta!
Or is there more than Italian romanticism at play? Perhaps that momentary unpleasantness mentioned above has not been left behind. Perhaps it actually drives the present interview, so prominently trumpeted on the pages of Repubblica.
After all, the pressing issue of the Sarah-Benedict collaboration concerns priestly celibacy. And the Scalfari-Francis collaboration — two men astute at image-making — leaves us with the image of the poor man of Assisi, the deacon, dying hand in hand with Clare. And, they solemnly assure us, she too, no less than he, santa! Is the ordination of the vir probatus being signaled in this newly-minted, carefully crafted image? And, eventually, that of the mulier probata? St. Francis and St. Clare, pray for us!
“Far-fetched, Father!” some may protest. But I have always taken Pope Francis at his word. In the first of what has proven to be an interminable series of interviews, Pope Francis responded to a question posed by the Jesuit editor of La Civiltà Cattolica, Antonio Spadaro: “Who is Jorge Mario Bergoglio?” The new pope pauses, reflects, and confesses: “I am a sinner.” Then, upon further thought, he adds unbidden: “perhaps I can say that I am a bit astute…a bit naïve.” (Un pò’ furbo…un pò’ ingenuo.)
Now furbo too is one of those quintessential Italian expressions. The English translators of the Spadaro interview use “astute” as their equivalent. But furbo also sounds undertones of shrewd and cunning. If you wanted to say of someone in Italian, “he’s a clever operator,” you would likely say: “è un furbo.”
In recounting the genesis of that inaugural interview of August 2013, Father Spadaro asserts that the Pope had spoken of “his great difficulty in giving interviews.” Indeed, that Francis preferred “to think carefully rather than give quick responses to on-the-spot interviews.”
Would it were so, Santità; would it were so.
Published with permission from The Catholic Thing.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-20--Far-left Women’s March draws tenth of former crowd in US capital

WASHINGTON , D.C. , January 20 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Saturday saw the fourth annual Women ’ s March descend on the nation ’ s capital to advocate left-wing causes and voice contempt for President Donald Trump , albeit with a dramatically lower turnout than previous years .
With climate change , immigration , and “ reproductive rights ” as its focus , this year ’ s march projected a turnout of up to 10,000 supporters , the Associated Press reports , representing greatly diminished expectations from the approximately 100,000 who took part in 2019 , and from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2017 .
Organizers claim that the reduction is due not to diminished interest , but to a shifted focus on state-level activism rather than a single national event .
Various signs advocated Trump ’ s impeachment and called for a “ sex change in the White House , ” as well as featuring a variety of left-wing causes and slogans such as “ Trans Lives Matter , ” “ Abolish ICE ” ( U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement ) , and “ Keep Abortion Legal.
” Photos also show marchers dressed like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Handmaid ’ s Tale , a dystopian fantasy about women enslaved to a patriarchal dictatorship .
There was even the occasional sign promoting conspiracy theories , such as “ Bush Did 9/11.
” Protesters also chanted “ A Rapist in Your Path , ” written last year as an international feminist anthem .
“ The patriarchy is our judge that imprisons us at birth , ” the chant proclaims , going on to declare police , judges , “ the system , ” and the president all rapists .
The turnout is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the annual March for Life happening this Friday .
Estimates of last year ’ s crowd ranged from 100,000 to 300,000 , while previous years ’ turnouts reached as high as 400,000 and 650,000 .

Organizers claim that the reduction is due not to diminished interest, but to a shifted focus on state-level activism rather than a single national event.
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 20, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Saturday saw the fourth annual Women’s March descend on the nation’s capital to advocate left-wing causes and voice contempt for President Donald Trump, albeit with a dramatically lower turnout than previous years.
With climate change, immigration, and “reproductive rights” as its focus, this year’s march projected a turnout of up to 10,000 supporters, the Associated Press reports, representing greatly diminished expectations from the approximately 100,000 who took part in 2019, and from the estimated 470,000 who originally protested Trump in 2017. Organizers claim that the reduction is due not to diminished interest, but to a shifted focus on state-level activism rather than a single national event.
Various signs advocated Trump’s impeachment and called for a “sex change in the White House,” as well as featuring a variety of left-wing causes and slogans such as “Trans Lives Matter,” “Abolish ICE” (U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement), and “Keep Abortion Legal.”
Photos also show marchers dressed like the titular handmaidens of Hulu’s The Handmaid’s Tale, a dystopian fantasy about women enslaved to a patriarchal dictatorship. There was even the occasional sign promoting conspiracy theories, such as “Bush Did 9/11.”
More signs and demonstrations from #WomensMarchDC. The weather was freezing, but the marchers were fired up! #WomensMarch #WomensMarch2020 pic.twitter.com/u3CoDjzaSx — Michael Mrozinski (@MJMrozinski) January 18, 2020
I have so so many pictures I want to post but here are a few !!! #womensmarchDC show me what democracy looks like ! This is what democracy looks like !! pic.twitter.com/shcZCmOF9n — 555Ⓥ (@FlickMyVVIC) January 18, 2020
Protesters also chanted “A Rapist in Your Path,” written last year as an international feminist anthem. “The patriarchy is our judge that imprisons us at birth,” the chant proclaims, going on to declare police, judges, “the system,” and the president all rapists.
‘The patriarchy is our judge that imprisons us at birth.’ — Protesters gathered to perform the global feminist anthem ‘A Rapist in Your Path’ during the 2020 Women’s March in Washington, D.C.. The song was first written and performed during national protests in Chile last year. pic.twitter.com/MlkZZIcpLj — NowThis (@nowthisnews) January 18, 2020
The turnout is expected to contrast sharply with that of the annual March for Life happening this Friday. Estimates of last year’s crowd ranged from 100,000 to 300,000, while previous years’ turnouts reached as high as 400,000 and 650,000.
Share