lifesitenews--2020-01-22--Catholic sues US bishops for ‘misleading’ faithful to donate millions to ‘fraudulent’ Vatican charit

Catholic sues US bishops for ‘misleading’ faithful to donate millions to ‘fraudulent’ Vatican charity

RHODE ISLAND , January 22 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A Dallas law firm filed a class action lawsuit Wednesday against the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops ( USCCB ) for “ unlawful , deceptive and fraudulent practices ” in promoting and collecting funds for the papal charity Peter ’ s Pence .
The suit alleges the American bishops “ actively ” misled Catholics into believing their millions of dollars in donations to the collection would be used to help “ victims of war , oppression , natural disaster , or disease , ” when in fact much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investments , such as Hollywood ’ s sexually explicit Elton John biopic , “ luxury condominium developments ” and “ hefty , multi-million dollar commissions ” to fund managers .
Stanley Law Group filed the lawsuit January 22 in the United States District Court in Rhode Island on behalf of David O ’ Connell , a parishioner at Sacred Heart Church in East Providence , who is seeking a jury trial , it stated in a press release .
“ USCCB must come clean and give back the money it took from well-intentioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funds to help the destitute around the world , ” said lead attorney Mark Stanley .
“ It ’ s regrettable and tragic that such a trusted and well-respected organization has been taking advantage of the generosity of Catholic donors.
” The firm is also asking American residents who contributed to Peter ’ s Pence between 2013 and 2019 to consider joining the legal action .
The lawsuit alleges that the USCCB is “ liable for common law fraud , unjust enrichment , and breach of fiduciary duty ” for “ misleadingly soliciting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were diverted into private investments , ” the press release states .
According to the 23-page complaint , Peter ’ s Pence is a “ special collection taken from Catholics every June ” and is described by the USCCB as a fund that “ supports the Pope ’ s philanthropy by giving the Holy Father the means to provide emergency assistance to those in need because of natural disaster , war , oppression , and disease.
” But a bombshell report in the Italian newspaper L ’ Espresso in October 2019 exposed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported that “ secret internal Vatican investigative reports ” showed most of Peter ’ s Pence funds had been “ diverted into ‘ reckless speculative operations , ’ with 77 per cent of the collections ” -- “ roughly $ 560 million ” -- channeled to the Swiss investment company Credit Suisse , the complaint detailed .
The newspaper also reported that a high-ranking Vatican official asked Italian financier Raffaele Mincione to invest $ 200 million of the collection , and that Mincione used the money to buy real estate in London “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fund he managed , stated the complaint .
When the investment didn ’ t yield the expected returns , the Vatican pulled out of the fund and bought the property , and Minicone made $ 170 million on the deal , according to sources cited in the document .
Pope Francis responded in November , stating that the fact that the Vatican invests the money shouldn ’ t bother anyone , according to Catholic News Services ( CNS ) , the complaint stated .
“ The sum of Peter ’ s Pence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Put it in a drawer ?
No , that ’ s bad administration .
I try to make an investment , ” CNS quoted the pope as saying .
That was followed by a further bombshell report in December when Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera broke the news that $ 1 million of Peter ’ s Pence donations had been invested in the Elton John biopic Rocketman , and more than $ 3.6 million in the movie Men in Black : International , the complaint stated .
Moreover , Corriere della Sera reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been sunk into the Malta-based investment company Centurion Global Fund run by Italian financier Enrioco Crasso , “ who received ‘ millions of euros in commissions ’ while losing 4.61 percent of the fund ( approximately two million euros ) by the end of 2018.
” The complaint also cited a Wall Street Journal December 2019 report stating that for “ at least the past five years , only about 10 percent of the money collected—more than €50 million was raised in 2018—has gone to the sort of charitable causes featured in advertising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the summer of 2018 , plaintiff O ’ Donnell ’ s priest at Sacred Heart made a plea from the pulpit at Sunday Mass for donations to Peter ’ s Pence , the complaint recounted .
“ Nothing [ O ’ Donnell ] saw or heard , on that day or beforehand , told him or made him understand that his donations to Peter ’ s Pence would be used for anything other than emergency assistance to the neediest people around the world.
” The complaint asserted that if O ’ Donnell had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would not have donated .
But the USCCB “ actively concealed the true character and nature of the Peter ’ s Pence collection and made misrepresentations about the specified purposes of the collection ” that “ rendered their statements misleading.
” The USCCB “ has always known the difference between a donation for emergency assistance and a donation to defray Vatican expenses ” but “ hid this distinction in its promotion , oversight , and administration of the Peter ’ s Pence collection in the United States , ” stated the claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ has effectively profited at the expense of David O ’ Connell and members of the public.
” The legal action defines USCCB as “ composed of all active and retired members of the Catholic hierarchy in the United States.
” It is asking the district court to certify the proposed class , and for an order enjoining the USCCB “ from continuing the unlawful , deceptive , and fraudulent practices alleged in this complaint.
” The complaint is also seeking “ costs , restitution , damages and disgorgement in an amount to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order for the USCCB to pay pre- and post-judgement interest interest on any amounts awarded , as well as costs and attorney ’ s fees .

The suit alleges that US bishops 'actively' misled Catholics into believing their millions of dollars in donations to Peter's Pence would be used to help the poor.
RHODE ISLAND, January 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A Dallas law firm filed a class action lawsuit Wednesday against the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) for “unlawful, deceptive and fraudulent practices” in promoting and collecting funds for the papal charity Peter’s Pence.
The suit alleges the American bishops “actively” misled Catholics into believing their millions of dollars in donations to the collection would be used to help “victims of war, oppression, natural disaster, or disease,” when in fact much of the money was funneled into private investments, such as Hollywood’s sexually explicit Elton John biopic, “luxury condominium developments” and “hefty, multi-million dollar commissions” to fund managers.
Stanley Law Group filed the lawsuit January 22 in the United States District Court in Rhode Island on behalf of David O’Connell, a parishioner at Sacred Heart Church in East Providence, who is seeking a jury trial, it stated in a press release.
“USCCB must come clean and give back the money it took from well-intentioned people who thought they were giving urgently-needed funds to help the destitute around the world,” said lead attorney Mark Stanley.
“It’s regrettable and tragic that such a trusted and well-respected organization has been taking advantage of the generosity of Catholic donors.”
The firm is also asking American residents who contributed to Peter’s Pence between 2013 and 2019 to consider joining the legal action.
The lawsuit alleges that the USCCB is “liable for common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty” for “misleadingly soliciting millions of dollars in charitable donations that were diverted into private investments,” the press release states.
According to the 23-page complaint, Peter’s Pence is a “special collection taken from Catholics every June” and is described by the USCCB as a fund that “supports the Pope’s philanthropy by giving the Holy Father the means to provide emergency assistance to those in need because of natural disaster, war, oppression, and disease.”
But a bombshell report in the Italian newspaper L’Espresso in October 2019 exposed a very different story.
L’Espresso reported that “secret internal Vatican investigative reports” showed most of Peter’s Pence funds had been “diverted into ‘reckless speculative operations,’ with 77 per cent of the collections” — “roughly $560 million” — channeled to the Swiss investment company Credit Suisse, the complaint detailed.
The newspaper also reported that a high-ranking Vatican official asked Italian financier Raffaele Mincione to invest $200 million of the collection, and that Mincione used the money to buy real estate in London “for a luxury apartment development” through a fund he managed, stated the complaint.
When the investment didn’t yield the expected returns, the Vatican pulled out of the fund and bought the property, and Minicone made $170 million on the deal, according to sources cited in the document.
Pope Francis responded in November, stating that the fact that the Vatican invests the money shouldn’t bother anyone, according to Catholic News Services (CNS), the complaint stated.
“The sum of Peter’s Pence arrives and what do I do? Put it in a drawer? No, that’s bad administration. I try to make an investment,” CNS quoted the pope as saying.
That was followed by a further bombshell report in December when Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera broke the news that $1 million of Peter’s Pence donations had been invested in the Elton John biopic Rocketman, and more than $3.6 million in the movie Men in Black: International, the complaint stated.
Moreover, Corriere della Sera reported that “millions of dollars” had been sunk into the Malta-based investment company Centurion Global Fund run by Italian financier Enrioco Crasso, “who received ‘millions of euros in commissions’ while losing 4.61 percent of the fund (approximately two million euros) by the end of 2018.”
The complaint also cited a Wall Street Journal December 2019 report stating that for “at least the past five years, only about 10 percent of the money collected—more than €50 million was raised in 2018—has gone to the sort of charitable causes featured in advertising for the collection.”
Meanwhile, in the summer of 2018, plaintiff O’Donnell’s priest at Sacred Heart made a plea from the pulpit at Sunday Mass for donations to Peter’s Pence, the complaint recounted.
“Nothing [O’Donnell] saw or heard, on that day or beforehand, told him or made him understand that his donations to Peter’s Pence would be used for anything other than emergency assistance to the neediest people around the world.”
The complaint asserted that if O’Donnell had known where the money was going, he would not have donated.
But the USCCB “actively concealed the true character and nature of the Peter’s Pence collection and made misrepresentations about the specified purposes of the collection” that “rendered their statements misleading.”
The USCCB “has always known the difference between a donation for emergency assistance and a donation to defray Vatican expenses” but “hid this distinction in its promotion, oversight, and administration of the Peter’s Pence collection in the United States,” stated the claim.
As a result, the USCCB “has effectively profited at the expense of David O’Connell and members of the public.”
The legal action defines USCCB as “composed of all active and retired members of the Catholic hierarchy in the United States.”
It is asking the district court to certify the proposed class, and for an order enjoining the USCCB “from continuing the unlawful, deceptive, and fraudulent practices alleged in this complaint.”
The complaint is also seeking “costs, restitution, damages and disgorgement in an amount to be determined at trial,” an order for the USCCB to pay pre- and post-judgement interest interest on any amounts awarded, as well as costs and attorney’s fees.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-22--Trump admin: Texas can fund women’s health without funding abortion businesses

WASHINGTON , D.C. , January 22 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Today the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS ) Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ( CMS ) granted the state of Texas a Medicaid waiver to fund the Healthy Texas Women program which does not include abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood .
This decision , which comes on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling imposing abortion on demand across the U.S. , reverses the Obama administration ’ s decision to deny a similar waiver to the state in 2013 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ promise to stop taxpayer funding of the big abortion industry including Planned Parenthood .
Abortion is not health care , ” responded Marjorie Dannenfelser , President of the Susan B. Anthony List , in a statement .
“ When Texas lawmakers exercised their right to fund women ’ s health care without underwriting abortion businesses , they were punished by the Obama administration and smeared by abortion activists and their media allies , ” Dannenfelser explained .
“ But the nation ’ s largest abortion chain , Planned Parenthood , issued its annual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both abortions and taxpayer funding at the same time they have seen steep declines in their number of patients , cancer screening and prevention services , breast exams , pap tests , and even contraceptive services .
Restoring Texas ’ s decision regarding use of federal funds is an acknowledgement that the Lone Star State was right all along .
We thank President Trump and Secretary Azar and urge them to immediately free all states to act on the will of their citizens to support women ’ s health care without encouraging abortion.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ once again in partnership with the federal government to provide meaningful family planning and health services while fostering a culture of life , ” said Abbott .
“ This collaboration is a symbol of our commitment to championing the lives of Texas women .
I am grateful to President Trump and his administration for approving this waiver , and for his commitment to protecting the unborn while providing much-needed health resources to Texas women.
” In 2011 the Texas legislature enacted legislation to end state family planning funding for abortion businesses including Planned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama administration withdrew funding for Texas ’ s Medicaid family planning program funded by a similar waiver .
While that administration could have approved the funding with the Texas policy favoring childbirth over abortion , they did not and instead withdrew federal support .
Then-Governor Rick Perry pledged to fully fund the program using state dollars .

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Today the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) granted the state of Texas a Medicaid waiver to fund the Healthy Texas Women program which does not include abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood. This decision, which comes on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling imposing abortion on demand across the U.S., reverses the Obama administration’s decision to deny a similar waiver to the state in 2013.
“President Trump has repeatedly kept his promise to stop taxpayer funding of the big abortion industry including Planned Parenthood. Abortion is not health care,” responded Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, in a statement.
“When Texas lawmakers exercised their right to fund women’s health care without underwriting abortion businesses, they were punished by the Obama administration and smeared by abortion activists and their media allies,” Dannenfelser explained.
“But the nation’s largest abortion chain, Planned Parenthood, issued its annual report this month showing massive increases in both abortions and taxpayer funding at the same time they have seen steep declines in their number of patients, cancer screening and prevention services, breast exams, pap tests, and even contraceptive services. Restoring Texas’s decision regarding use of federal funds is an acknowledgement that the Lone Star State was right all along. We thank President Trump and Secretary Azar and urge them to immediately free all states to act on the will of their citizens to support women’s health care without encouraging abortion.”
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott thanked Trump in a statement.
“The Lone Star State is once again in partnership with the federal government to provide meaningful family planning and health services while fostering a culture of life,” said Abbott. “This collaboration is a symbol of our commitment to championing the lives of Texas women. I am grateful to President Trump and his administration for approving this waiver, and for his commitment to protecting the unborn while providing much-needed health resources to Texas women.”
In 2011 the Texas legislature enacted legislation to end state family planning funding for abortion businesses including Planned Parenthood. Effective in 2013, the Obama administration withdrew funding for Texas’s Medicaid family planning program funded by a similar waiver. While that administration could have approved the funding with the Texas policy favoring childbirth over abortion, they did not and instead withdrew federal support. Then-Governor Rick Perry pledged to fully fund the program using state dollars.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-22--The ‘Jesus’ revered by Muslims is not the same Jesus worshipped by Christians as God

January 22 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – 1,400 years ago , Muhammad hijacked Jesus from the gospels , demoted him to prophet , and placed him in the Koran .
Christianity was Islam ’ s main competition at the time , and Muhammad seems to have reasoned that it was better to co-opt Jesus than to denounce him .
Jump ahead 1400 years , and we find that some Muslims are still manipulating the figure of Jesus for political and religious purposes .
For example , Muslims in the West Bank have for several years been proclaiming that Jesus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim , moreover , that when Israelis place restrictions on Palestinians , “ Jesus is being crucified again.
” The latest twist on that story is that Jesus was also the first martyr for Islam .
Tawfiq Tirawi , a senior member of the Palestinian Authority posted the following on his Facebook page : This is blessed Christmas , the birthday of our Lord Jesus the Messiah , the first Palestinian and the first Shahid ( Islamic Martyr ) .
I bring this up because many Christians have only a hazy understanding of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some are completely unaware that Jesus does have a place in Islam .
Catholics , however , should know that Muslims “ revere ” Jesus because that ’ s what it says in the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate , and almost everyone who has attended Catholic schools in recent decades will have been appraised of the high esteem that Muslims have for Jesus .
But for many Catholics , that ’ s all they know about Jesus and Islam .
And it simply isn ’ t enough now that Islam has passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has re-emerged as a world power .
It ’ s important to recall that Nostra Aetate was written in 1965—right in the midst of that quiescent era -- and it was meant to convey a positive picture of Islam , not a complete one .
Islam has emerged from its mid-century slumber , but many Catholics have not emerged from theirs .
They won ’ t admit that the Vatican II sketch of Islam is woefully inadequate for understanding born-again militant Islam .
Take the claim by the Palestinian leader that Jesus was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a basic knowledge of Islam would immediately realize that Tirawi was either a ) very poorly informed about Islam or b ) deliberately deceiving for propaganda purposes .
Jesus could not have been an Islamic martyr because the Koran denies that he was crucified .
Instead the Koran claims that someone else who looked like Jesus was mistakenly crucified in his place .
( 4:157 ) Jesus is revered by Muslims not because he died for our sins ( not true say Islamic authorities ) , but because he was a great prophet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Primarily because he foretold the coming of Muhammad .
But suppose for a minute that Jesus gave up his life for the sake of Allah as the Palestinian leader claims .
That presents another difficulty for Catholics who think that Muslims venerate the same Jesus that they do .
According to Islamic tradition , the reward that the Islamic martyr receives in paradise is 72 dark-eyed virgins .
The concept is , of course , offensive to Catholics and other Christians .
It not only reveals that Muslims have a complete misunderstanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rather base conception of our final destiny .
But since the Koran says that Jesus was not martyred , the question of virginal rewards is moot .
Or is it ?
While Islamic scholars are agreed that martyrdom is the surest way to paradise , one doesn ’ t have to be a martyr to get there .
One authoritative guide to Islamic law asserts that “ whoever believes in Allah and dies as a believer is one of the inhabitants of paradise… ” ( Reliance of the Traveller , p1.3 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t die as a martyr either .
Yet , one assumes that , from an Islamic point of view , he is safely in the company of his 72 companions -- or , perhaps in his case , 144 or more .
Although Muslim males are restricted to four wives at a time on earth , Allah declared that Muhammad could have as many as he desired .
Nostra Aetate assures us that Muslims “ value the moral life , ” and the implication is that it ’ s more or less the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But when it comes to sexual ethics and the equality of men and women , it ’ s quite obviously a different kind of moral life that is valued .
Indeed , from a Christian perspective it ’ s an immoral life .
Heaven is nothing more than a glorified harem .
Christians need to be careful about projecting Christian assumptions onto Islam .
It ’ s particularly tempting to assume that the Jesus Muslims honor is none other than the Jesus of the gospels .
But he ’ s not the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not even a Christian ( or Jew ) .
He ’ s a Muslim .
If he were a Christian , he would end up in hell not paradise .
Why ?
Because the worst sin anyone can commit is the sin of shirk—ascribing associates to Allah .
Thus , believing in the Trinity is a great sin since that article of faith describes God as a unity of three persons .
The Koran is quite adamant that “ whoever ascribes associates to Allah , Allah has forbidden him paradise , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 : 72 ) .
Since the Jesus of the gospels claims to be the Son of God , he would be guilty of shirk in the highest degree , and thus , to put it mildly , ineligible for paradise .
The Jesus of the Koran , on the other hand , vows to Allah that he had never claimed to be God ( 5:116 ) .
He knows the rules , and as a good Muslim he follows them .
The closer one looks at the Jesus of the Koran , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he is the same Jesus we find in the gospels .
He is no longer a Christian but a convert to Islam .
When he comes again , according to Reliance of the Traveller , “ he will not rule according to the Evangel [ the Gospel ] .
But as a follower of our Prophet.
” ( o9.8 ) Not only that , but at the Last Judgement , Jesus will bear witness against Christians who have not converted to Islam ( Koran 4 : 159 ) .
This might come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholics who have heard that Islam has high regard for the “ people of the book ” —i.e.
, Christians and Jews .
Isn ’ t it enough , they may ask , to follow their own faith as long as they are people of the book ?
Well , yes and no .
At one time it was enough , but no more .
Not with the arrival of Muhammad on the scene .
Reliance of the Traveller puts it this way : Whoever adhered to the Evangel and precepts of Jesus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until the coming of Muhammad ( Allah bless him and give him peace . )
Those of them who did not then follow Muhammad and give up the sunna of Jesus and the Evangel , were lost .
( w 4.4 ) In short , at a certain point in history , Allah threw the book at the people of the book for not switching to the 2.0 version of his religion .
The new version essentially replaced the old : Allah Most High sent Muhammad …to deliver His inspired message to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systems with the Prophet ’ s Sacred Law ( Reliance of the Traveller , v. 2.1 ) .
Muhammad hijacked Abraham , Moses , and Jesus ( all re-imagined as Muslim prophets ) to help sell his patchwork creation .
And Muslims are still trying to enlist Jesus in order to sell Islam .
Only now , they use modern advertising methods to promote their message .
So , don ’ t be surprised if the next time you ’ re cruising down the highway , you encounter a billboard suggesting that you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an , Muhammad in the Bible.
” The ad campaign is sponsored by a Muslim group called GainPeace .
Sabeel Ahmed , the executive director , claims that “ our main purpose is to build bridges , and to erase misconceptions.
” But the ad itself is misleading .
I can ’ t claim to remember every name in the Bible , but I ’ m fairly sure that the name “ Muhammad ” is not among them .
It ’ s true , of course , that someone named “ Jesus ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And because Muhammad borrows from Luke ’ s nativity story , it looks at first as though it might be the same Jesus .
But after we find out that Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary , the narrative—if you could call it that -- departs radically from the Bible story .
Almost everything else spoken by the Muslim Jesus or spoken about him is a subversion of the Christian message .
One last point .
Sabeel Ahmed reports that “ Jesus is mentioned with love and respect and honor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ an.
” Twenty-five sounds about right , but in most of those mentions , Jesus ’ s name simply appears in a list of other Muslim prophets who endorse Muhammad ’ s message .
If you ’ re simply looking for the name “ Jesus , ” you ’ ll find it in the Koran , but if you ’ re looking for a flesh and blood person like the Jesus Christians know , you ’ ll be sorely disappointed .
Unfortunately , this numbers game is effective with some Christians—particularly with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In defense of the thesis that Islam and Christianity share much in common , a priest once pointed out to me that Mary is mentioned in the Koran 32 times .
He seemed to think that that was a decisive argument .
But , of course , it ’ s not .
And if confusion about the faith continues to rise among Catholics , it ’ s a good bet that Muslims will ramp up their proselytizing efforts .
Catholics who hope to defend their faith will need to better inform themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be misled by word games and number games .
William Kilpatrick is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues , including Why Johnny Can ’ t Tell Right from Wrong ; Christianity , Islam , and Atheism : The Struggle for the Soul of the West ; and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad .
Professor Kilpatrick ’ s articles on cultural and educational topics have appeared in First Things , Policy Review , American Educator , and various scholarly journals .
His articles on Islam have appeared in Crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thing , National Catholic Register , and other publications .
He is also the author of Insecurity , a dark comedy about political correctness run amok in the military and the government .
For more of his recent articles , visit his website , turningpointproject.com

January 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – 1,400 years ago, Muhammad hijacked Jesus from the gospels, demoted him to prophet, and placed him in the Koran. Christianity was Islam’s main competition at the time, and Muhammad seems to have reasoned that it was better to co-opt Jesus than to denounce him.
Jump ahead 1400 years, and we find that some Muslims are still manipulating the figure of Jesus for political and religious purposes. For example, Muslims in the West Bank have for several years been proclaiming that Jesus was the “first Palestinian.” They claim, moreover, that when Israelis place restrictions on Palestinians, “Jesus is being crucified again.” The latest twist on that story is that Jesus was also the first martyr for Islam. Tawfiq Tirawi, a senior member of the Palestinian Authority posted the following on his Facebook page:
This is blessed Christmas, the birthday of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, the first Palestinian and the first Shahid (Islamic Martyr).
I bring this up because many Christians have only a hazy understanding of the place of Jesus in Islam and some are completely unaware that Jesus does have a place in Islam. Catholics, however, should know that Muslims “revere” Jesus because that’s what it says in the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate, and almost everyone who has attended Catholic schools in recent decades will have been appraised of the high esteem that Muslims have for Jesus.
But for many Catholics, that’s all they know about Jesus and Islam. And it simply isn’t enough now that Islam has passed through its mid-century sleepy-time phase, and has re-emerged as a world power. It’s important to recall that Nostra Aetate was written in 1965—right in the midst of that quiescent era– and it was meant to convey a positive picture of Islam, not a complete one.
Islam has emerged from its mid-century slumber, but many Catholics have not emerged from theirs. They won’t admit that the Vatican II sketch of Islam is woefully inadequate for understanding born-again militant Islam.
Take the claim by the Palestinian leader that Jesus was the first Islamic martyr. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Islam would immediately realize that Tirawi was either a) very poorly informed about Islam or b) deliberately deceiving for propaganda purposes. Jesus could not have been an Islamic martyr because the Koran denies that he was crucified. Instead the Koran claims that someone else who looked like Jesus was mistakenly crucified in his place. (4:157)
Jesus is revered by Muslims not because he died for our sins (not true say Islamic authorities), but because he was a great prophet. Why was he a great prophet? Primarily because he foretold the coming of Muhammad.
But suppose for a minute that Jesus gave up his life for the sake of Allah as the Palestinian leader claims. That presents another difficulty for Catholics who think that Muslims venerate the same Jesus that they do. According to Islamic tradition, the reward that the Islamic martyr receives in paradise is 72 dark-eyed virgins.
The concept is, of course, offensive to Catholics and other Christians. It not only reveals that Muslims have a complete misunderstanding of who Jesus is, but also a rather base conception of our final destiny.
But since the Koran says that Jesus was not martyred, the question of virginal rewards is moot. Or is it? While Islamic scholars are agreed that martyrdom is the surest way to paradise, one doesn’t have to be a martyr to get there. One authoritative guide to Islamic law asserts that “whoever believes in Allah and dies as a believer is one of the inhabitants of paradise…” (Reliance of the Traveller, p1.3). After all, Muhammad didn’t die as a martyr either. Yet, one assumes that, from an Islamic point of view, he is safely in the company of his 72 companions– or, perhaps in his case, 144 or more. Although Muslim males are restricted to four wives at a time on earth, Allah declared that Muhammad could have as many as he desired.
Nostra Aetate assures us that Muslims “value the moral life,” and the implication is that it’s more or less the same moral life that Christians value. But when it comes to sexual ethics and the equality of men and women, it’s quite obviously a different kind of moral life that is valued. Indeed, from a Christian perspective it’s an immoral life. Heaven is nothing more than a glorified harem.
Christians need to be careful about projecting Christian assumptions onto Islam. It’s particularly tempting to assume that the Jesus Muslims honor is none other than the Jesus of the gospels. But he’s not the same Jesus. For one thing, he’s not even a Christian (or Jew). He’s a Muslim. If he were a Christian, he would end up in hell not paradise. Why? Because the worst sin anyone can commit is the sin of shirk—ascribing associates to Allah. Thus, believing in the Trinity is a great sin since that article of faith describes God as a unity of three persons. The Koran is quite adamant that “whoever ascribes associates to Allah, Allah has forbidden him paradise, and his refuge is hell” (5: 72). Since the Jesus of the gospels claims to be the Son of God, he would be guilty of shirk in the highest degree, and thus, to put it mildly, ineligible for paradise. The Jesus of the Koran, on the other hand, vows to Allah that he had never claimed to be God (5:116). He knows the rules, and as a good Muslim he follows them.
The closer one looks at the Jesus of the Koran, the more difficult it is to believe that he is the same Jesus we find in the gospels. He is no longer a Christian but a convert to Islam. When he comes again, according to Reliance of the Traveller, “he will not rule according to the Evangel [the Gospel]. But as a follower of our Prophet.” (o9.8)
Not only that, but at the Last Judgement, Jesus will bear witness against Christians who have not converted to Islam (Koran 4: 159). This might come as a bit of a shock to Catholics who have heard that Islam has high regard for the “people of the book”—i.e., Christians and Jews. Isn’t it enough, they may ask, to follow their own faith as long as they are people of the book?
Well, yes and no. At one time it was enough, but no more. Not with the arrival of Muhammad on the scene. Reliance of the Traveller puts it this way:
Whoever adhered to the Evangel and precepts of Jesus, their faith was valid and acceptable until the coming of Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace.) Those of them who did not then follow Muhammad and give up the sunna of Jesus and the Evangel, were lost. (w 4.4)
In short, at a certain point in history, Allah threw the book at the people of the book for not switching to the 2.0 version of his religion. The new version essentially replaced the old:
Allah Most High sent Muhammad …to deliver His inspired message to the entire world…superseding and abrogating all previous religious systems with the Prophet’s Sacred Law (Reliance of the Traveller, v. 2.1).
Muhammad hijacked Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (all re-imagined as Muslim prophets) to help sell his patchwork creation. And Muslims are still trying to enlist Jesus in order to sell Islam. Only now, they use modern advertising methods to promote their message. So, don’t be surprised if the next time you’re cruising down the highway, you encounter a billboard suggesting that you “Find Jesus in the Qur’an, Muhammad in the Bible.”
The ad campaign is sponsored by a Muslim group called GainPeace. Sabeel Ahmed, the executive director, claims that “our main purpose is to build bridges, and to erase misconceptions.”
But the ad itself is misleading. I can’t claim to remember every name in the Bible, but I’m fairly sure that the name “Muhammad” is not among them. It’s true, of course, that someone named “Jesus” does make occasional appearances in the Koran. And because Muhammad borrows from Luke’s nativity story, it looks at first as though it might be the same Jesus. But after we find out that Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary, the narrative—if you could call it that–departs radically from the Bible story. Almost everything else spoken by the Muslim Jesus or spoken about him is a subversion of the Christian message.
One last point. Sabeel Ahmed reports that “Jesus is mentioned with love and respect and honor more than 25 times in the Qur’an.” Twenty-five sounds about right, but in most of those mentions, Jesus’s name simply appears in a list of other Muslim prophets who endorse Muhammad’s message. If you’re simply looking for the name “Jesus,” you’ll find it in the Koran, but if you’re looking for a flesh and blood person like the Jesus Christians know, you’ll be sorely disappointed.
Unfortunately, this numbers game is effective with some Christians—particularly with those who have not read the Koran. In defense of the thesis that Islam and Christianity share much in common, a priest once pointed out to me that Mary is mentioned in the Koran 32 times. He seemed to think that that was a decisive argument. But, of course, it’s not. And if confusion about the faith continues to rise among Catholics, it’s a good bet that Muslims will ramp up their proselytizing efforts. Catholics who hope to defend their faith will need to better inform themselves about Islam, and not let themselves be misled by word games and number games.
William Kilpatrick is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right from Wrong; Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West; and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. Professor Kilpatrick’s articles on cultural and educational topics have appeared in First Things, Policy Review, American Educator, and various scholarly journals. His articles on Islam have appeared in Crisis, Catholic World Report, The Catholic Thing, National Catholic Register, and other publications. He is also the author of Insecurity, a dark comedy about political correctness run amok in the military and the government. For more of his recent articles, visit his website, turningpointproject.com
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-22--‘Largest human rights violation of our time’: US Congress members mark Roe anniversary with calls to

‘Largest human rights violation of our time’: US Congress members mark Roe anniversary with calls to end abortion

WASHINGTON , D.C. , January 22 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Members of the U.S. Congress marked the Jan. 22 anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision imposing abortion on demand across the country by giving short speeches last week calling for an end to abortion and supporting Friday ’ s March for Life event in the capital .
The Jan. 15 occasion was hosted and opened by Congressman Chris Smith , a Republican Congressman for New Jersey , who said that the more than 61 million deaths of unborn babies through abortion since 1973 was “ staggering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equates with the entire population of Italy.
” 31 representatives spoke at the event , all of them Republicans .
Representative Glenn Grothman said that the continued legality of abortion in America , despite scientific developments showing the reality of a child ’ s development in the womb , highlighted the “ ineffectiveness of our clergy ” and challenged “ the clergy and churches of this country to step up to the plate ” in opposing abortion .
“ I remember when ultrasounds came out and became common , I had assumed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would see what they were dealing with here and abortion would have quickly become illegal .
It says something about the callousness of our country and the ineffectiveness of our clergy that despite the gift of ultrasound — so , unlike 60 years ago , we all know exactly what is going on — our country continues to allow this slaughter to continue , ” he said .
Texas representative Bill Flores described Planned Parenthood as “ an abortion factory dedicated to providing , protecting and expanding access to abortion.
” After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report , which records that they aborted 345,670 babies in the U.S. last year , Flores stated : “ this genocide constitutes over 96 % of their pregnancy resolution services , as they call them , whereas prenatal and adoption referral services accounted for less than 4 % of pregnancy resolution services.
” “ While they may seek to mask their intentions under the banners of women 's health , make no mistake Planned Parenthood is an abortion factory dedicated to providing , protecting and expanding access to abortion , ” he added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ for almost half a century we 've watched our nation dehumanize an entire group of people based on their age.
” Green said that “ the Roe decision allowing the killing of 60 million unborn children ... is the largest human rights violation of our time .
As Martin Luther King Jr. said , ‘ there 's no graded scale of essential worth among people.
’ This truth is something the evil organization Planned Parenthood deliberately chooses not to see , ending lives and selling baby parts for the sake of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ described the annual March for Life as a “ beautiful peaceful protest ” and said that witnessing the March for Life each year that he had felt “ filled with hope for our future because the faces in that crowd are overwhelmingly young people.
” Davidson said that “ the younger generations are increasingly pro-life they feel the effects of more than 60 million elective abortions carried out in America since 1973.
” Other notable comments from the event included Representative Ted Yoho of Florida , saying that he and his colleagues could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ we ] provide more protection for an unhatched bald eagle or a turtle embryo , i.e .
an egg , than we do the children of our own species.
” Texas representative Louie Gohmert said that “ pulling a little child apart ... ought to be more than Americans could bear.
” Tennessee representative John Rose challenged his fellow politicians to defend the lives of all unborn children , saying “ who are we to decide which precious children designed by God have the chance to live on this earth and which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump declared January 22 , the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision imposing abortion on demand across the country , to be “ National Sanctity of Human Life Day.
” Trump declared that “ every person — the born and unborn , the poor , the downcast , the disabled , the infirm , and the elderly — has inherent value ” and said that the U.S. “ proudly and strongly reaffirms our commitment to protect the precious gift of life at every stage , from conception to natural death.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ week ’ s event can be viewed in the links provided below

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Members of the U.S. Congress marked the Jan. 22 anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision imposing abortion on demand across the country by giving short speeches last week calling for an end to abortion and supporting Friday’s March for Life event in the capital.
The Jan. 15 occasion was hosted and opened by Congressman Chris Smith, a Republican Congressman for New Jersey, who said that the more than 61 million deaths of unborn babies through abortion since 1973 was “staggering” and a “death toll that equates with the entire population of Italy.”
31 representatives spoke at the event, all of them Republicans.
Representative Glenn Grothman said that the continued legality of abortion in America, despite scientific developments showing the reality of a child’s development in the womb, highlighted the “ineffectiveness of our clergy” and challenged “the clergy and churches of this country to step up to the plate” in opposing abortion.
“I remember when ultrasounds came out and became common, I had assumed that when people began to look at ultrasounds they would see what they were dealing with here and abortion would have quickly become illegal. It says something about the callousness of our country and the ineffectiveness of our clergy that despite the gift of ultrasound — so, unlike 60 years ago, we all know exactly what is going on — our country continues to allow this slaughter to continue,” he said.
Texas representative Bill Flores described Planned Parenthood as “an abortion factory dedicated to providing, protecting and expanding access to abortion.”
After referring to Planned Parenthood's 2019 annual report, which records that they aborted 345,670 babies in the U.S. last year, Flores stated: “this genocide constitutes over 96% of their pregnancy resolution services, as they call them, whereas prenatal and adoption referral services accounted for less than 4% of pregnancy resolution services.”
“While they may seek to mask their intentions under the banners of women's health, make no mistake Planned Parenthood is an abortion factory dedicated to providing, protecting and expanding access to abortion,” he added.
Representative Mark Green of Tennessee said that “for almost half a century we've watched our nation dehumanize an entire group of people based on their age.”
Green said that “the Roe decision allowing the killing of 60 million unborn children … is the largest human rights violation of our time. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘there's no graded scale of essential worth among people.’ This truth is something the evil organization Planned Parenthood deliberately chooses not to see, ending lives and selling baby parts for the sake of science.”
Representative Warren Davidson from Ohio described the annual March for Life as a “beautiful peaceful protest” and said that witnessing the March for Life each year that he had felt “filled with hope for our future because the faces in that crowd are overwhelmingly young people.” Davidson said that “the younger generations are increasingly pro-life they feel the effects of more than 60 million elective abortions carried out in America since 1973.”
Other notable comments from the event included Representative Ted Yoho of Florida, saying that he and his colleagues could not accept that “as a nation [we] provide more protection for an unhatched bald eagle or a turtle embryo, i.e. an egg, than we do the children of our own species.”
Texas representative Louie Gohmert said that “pulling a little child apart…ought to be more than Americans could bear.”
Tennessee representative John Rose challenged his fellow politicians to defend the lives of all unborn children, saying “who are we to decide which precious children designed by God have the chance to live on this earth and which do not?”
This year, President Trump declared January 22, the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision imposing abortion on demand across the country, to be “National Sanctity of Human Life Day.”
Trump declared that “every person — the born and unborn, the poor, the downcast, the disabled, the infirm, and the elderly — has inherent value” and said that the U.S. “proudly and strongly reaffirms our commitment to protect the precious gift of life at every stage, from conception to natural death.”
All of the speeches at last week’s event can be viewed in the links provided below
Rep. Chris Smith Opening Statement
Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL)
Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD)
Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN)
Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA)
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ)
Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC)
Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA)
Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX)
Rep. Jim Baird (R-IN)
Rep. Ron Wright (R-TX)
Rep. John Rose (R-TN)
Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI)
Rep. Roger Marshall (R-KS)
Rep. Robert Latta (R-OH)
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO)
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)
Rep. John Joyce (R-PA)
Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA)
Rep. Michael Guest (R-MS)
Rep. Mark Green (R-TN)
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)
Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX)
Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH)
Rep. Michael Cloud (R-TX)
Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH)
Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL)
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Rep. Steve Watkins (R-KS)
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)
Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) Closing Statement
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-22--BREAKING: Pro-lifers arrested at Pelosi’s office protesting her defense of infanticide

Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade .
Sign the petition here .
WASHINGTON , D.C. , January 22 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Dozens of pro-life activists brought the nation ’ s opposition to infanticide right to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s doorstep Wednesday , staging a sit-in at the California Democrat ’ s Washington , D.C. office .
A number of the peaceful demonstrators were subsequently arrested and led away by police .
The sit-in was part of a larger campaign dubbed the “ Purple Sash Revolution , ” an initiative of Stanton Healthcare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The purple sashes worn by participants symbolize solidarity with the women who fought to gain the right to vote , who wore purple sashes as well .
The group intended to call attention to Pelosi ’ s role in obstructing legislation that would require abortionists to transfer infants who survive abortions to hospitals , where they would be given the same degree of care as any wanted newborn .
House Democrats have blocked the bill from receiving a vote more than 80 times .
LifeSiteNews was on the scene to provide live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the pro-lifers gathered in the reception area of Pelosi ’ s office .
The Speaker herself was not present on Capitol Hill as she ’ s leading a congressional delegation to Israel , but multiple pro-life activists took the opportunity to respectfully voice their disapproval of her position .
“ There are people alive today who survived abortions , and their lives have just as much dignity and value as any other human being , ” one argued , asking Pelosi to “ see the value in those infants who are left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at them with the dignity that she looks at America.
” “ I just want Nancy Pelosi to understand that she needs to hear all of our voices and be very open-minded on how everyone feels , how these unborn children can not even speak and we ’ re here to stand up for them , ” another said .
“ We just really need her to open up and listen to all of us.
” The group then moved to the hallway , where the crowd sang Amazing Grace and the Rev @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christian Defense Coalition , led the group in prayer .
“ We were inside Nancy Pelosi ’ s office , we left , a number of people knelt down in front of her office door , and then the capitol police asked us to leave , ” LifeSiteNews ’ Doug Mainwaring reported on the scene .
“ So most of us were herded out to the far end of the hallway , although some remain in front of the Speaker ’ s office…they ’ ve been threatened to be arrested by police.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nation would ever think that it would be okay to pass legislation in states that would allow for a baby to be killed after a botched , late-term abortion , ” Stanton founder and CEO Brandi Swindell told LifeSiteNews .
“ These little babies are fighting to survive an attempt for their life to be taken out , and then we give abortionists another opportunity to kill that baby ?
It ’ s wrong .
It is not who we are as a society .
It is barbaric .
And so all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the millions of Americans that reject abortion or reject late-term abortion .
And so today was a moment of strength , it was a moment of power , it was a moment of speaking truth to power , ” she added .
The sit-in took place on the 47th anniversary of the Supreme Court ’ s Roe v. Wade ruling , and the same week as hundreds of thousands of pro-life activists are descending on the nation ’ s capital for the annual March for Life .

'These little babies are fighting to survive an attempt for their life to be taken out, and then we give abortionists another opportunity to kill that baby? It’s wrong'
Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Sign the petition here.
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Dozens of pro-life activists brought the nation’s opposition to infanticide right to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s doorstep Wednesday, staging a sit-in at the California Democrat’s Washington, D.C. office. A number of the peaceful demonstrators were subsequently arrested and led away by police.
The sit-in was part of a larger campaign dubbed the “Purple Sash Revolution,” an initiative of Stanton Healthcare’s new Stanton Public Policy Center. The purple sashes worn by participants symbolize solidarity with the women who fought to gain the right to vote, who wore purple sashes as well.
The group intended to call attention to Pelosi’s role in obstructing legislation that would require abortionists to transfer infants who survive abortions to hospitals, where they would be given the same degree of care as any wanted newborn. House Democrats have blocked the bill from receiving a vote more than 80 times.
Pro-life protesters outside Nancy Pelosi's office today before being arrested. #MarchForLife pic.twitter.com/pwTM9eCgae — LifeSite Catholic (@LSNCatholic) January 22, 2020
LifeSiteNews was on the scene to provide live video coverage of the event, starting with the pro-lifers gathered in the reception area of Pelosi’s office. The Speaker herself was not present on Capitol Hill as she’s leading a congressional delegation to Israel, but multiple pro-life activists took the opportunity to respectfully voice their disapproval of her position.
“There are people alive today who survived abortions, and their lives have just as much dignity and value as any other human being,” one argued, asking Pelosi to “see the value in those infants who are left aside in a bucket, to look at them with the dignity that she looks at America.”
“I just want Nancy Pelosi to understand that she needs to hear all of our voices and be very open-minded on how everyone feels, how these unborn children cannot even speak and we’re here to stand up for them,” another said. “We just really need her to open up and listen to all of us.”
The group then moved to the hallway, where the crowd sang Amazing Grace and the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, led the group in prayer.
“We were inside Nancy Pelosi’s office, we left, a number of people knelt down in front of her office door, and then the capitol police asked us to leave,” LifeSiteNews’ Doug Mainwaring reported on the scene. “So most of us were herded out to the far end of the hallway, although some remain in front of the Speaker’s office…they’ve been threatened to be arrested by police.”
Nine people were ultimately arrested.
Some of the purple sash Revolution gathered on Capitol Hill calling for speaker Pelosi to allow a vote protecting children born alive from late term abortions! #PurpleSashRevolution #EndAbortionViolence @SBAList #ProLife @StudentsforLife @LifeNewsHQ pic.twitter.com/dKGFEg5D4q — Rev. Patrick Mahoney (@revmahoney) January 22, 2020
“It is unacceptable that we as a nation would ever think that it would be okay to pass legislation in states that would allow for a baby to be killed after a botched, late-term abortion,” Stanton founder and CEO Brandi Swindell told LifeSiteNews.
“These little babies are fighting to survive an attempt for their life to be taken out, and then we give abortionists another opportunity to kill that baby? It’s wrong. It is not who we are as a society. It is barbaric. And so all of us here today, we represent the millions of Americans that reject abortion or reject late-term abortion. And so today was a moment of strength, it was a moment of power, it was a moment of speaking truth to power,” she added.
The sit-in took place on the 47th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling, and the same week as hundreds of thousands of pro-life activists are descending on the nation’s capital for the annual March for Life.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-22--The abortion debate boils down to one thing: Whether it’s okay to kill babies

Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade .
Sign the petition here .
January 22 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Forty-seven years ago , seven Supreme Court justices handed down a decision that legalized the murder of whole , distinct , living human beings .
In America , you can legally be killed – and , in fact , your murder will be celebrated , politicized , and maybe even funded by taxpayers – as long as you are smaller and less developed than bigger , stronger humans .
As long as you ’ re inside your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her , you ’ re fair game for an abortionist ’ s forceps or suction vacuum or heart attack injection .
The crux of the abortion debate is not about women ’ s empowerment , the appropriateness of government programs , or “ choice.
” It ’ s about one thing : whether it should be legal to violently end the life of a tiny , growing human .
A variety of tactics and reasons are deployed in defense of this killing : hard cases like rape , the dehumanization of the preborn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( or “ uterus owners , ” if one wants to be woke ; after all , we ’ re told men can get pregnant , too , and that some “ pregnant people ” are neither men nor women ) to be equal in society .
But none of those reasons should ever justify killing an innocent human being , born or unborn .
Basic science tells us this tiny , growing human is , in fact , a member of our species .
Basic morality says innocent humans shouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wade and its sister decision Doe v. Bolton have allowed for the murder of 60 million people .
They were little , some of them no bigger than a blueberry .
Others were just days away from being born .
They were all equally valuable and equally human .
Even though their deaths were mostly hidden from the world , and they were unable to scream or cry out , they were .
They existed .
If you ’ re marching for life later this week , march to mourn those 60 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the many others who are targeted for death right now or will be in the years to come .
March with righteous anger at the sickening injustice of abortion .
March for those who can ’ t .
As we do that , let ’ s not lose sight of what – or rather , who – this fight is really about : the youngest members of our human family , who are so tiny and helpless but human nonetheless , and thus should not be killed .

There should never be a reason that justifies the killing of an innocent human being, born or unborn.
Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Sign the petition here.
January 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Forty-seven years ago, seven Supreme Court justices handed down a decision that legalized the murder of whole, distinct, living human beings.
In America, you can legally be killed – and, in fact, your murder will be celebrated, politicized, and maybe even funded by taxpayers – as long as you are smaller and less developed than bigger, stronger humans. As long as you’re inside your mother’s body and dependent on her, you’re fair game for an abortionist’s forceps or suction vacuum or heart attack injection.
The crux of the abortion debate is not about women’s empowerment, the appropriateness of government programs, or “choice.”
It’s about one thing: whether it should be legal to violently end the life of a tiny, growing human. A variety of tactics and reasons are deployed in defense of this killing: hard cases like rape, the dehumanization of the preborn child, its alleged necessity for women (or “uterus owners,” if one wants to be woke; after all, we’re told men can get pregnant, too, and that some “pregnant people” are neither men nor women) to be equal in society.
But none of those reasons should ever justify killing an innocent human being, born or unborn.
Basic science tells us this tiny, growing human is, in fact, a member of our species. Basic morality says innocent humans shouldn’t be killed.
The 1973 Roe v. Wade and its sister decision Doe v. Bolton have allowed for the murder of 60 million people. They were little, some of them no bigger than a blueberry. Others were just days away from being born. They were all equally valuable and equally human. Even though their deaths were mostly hidden from the world, and they were unable to scream or cry out, they were. They existed.
If you’re marching for life later this week, march to mourn those 60 million innocent little souls. March to represent the many others who are targeted for death right now or will be in the years to come. March with righteous anger at the sickening injustice of abortion. March for those who can’t.
March to end the genocide.
As we do that, let’s not lose sight of what – or rather, who – this fight is really about: the youngest members of our human family, who are so tiny and helpless but human nonetheless, and thus should not be killed.
Follow Claire As a journalist and editor for LifeSiteNews, Claire Chretien has written more than 1,500 articles about abortion, human dignity, bioethics, the Catholic Church, politics, and related topics. Claire holds a bachelor’s degree from The University of Alabama. It was there that she first became involved in pro-life activism.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-22--Will America as we know it be around for our children?

In today ’ s episode of The Van Maren Show , Jonathon Van Maren speaks with Dr. Charles Murray about @ @ @ @ @ and what we need to do about it .
Dr. Murray first became well known @ @ @ @ @ of Losing Ground a piece which is credited with being the intellectual foundation for the @ @ @ @ @ is a New York Times bestseller , political researcher and scholar , and the F.A @ @ @ @ @ Culture Studies at the American Enterprise Institute .
Murray joins Van Maren to discuss the @ @ @ @ @ about the state of America and what we as Americans can do to save our @ @ @ @ @ quite bleak , but all hope isn ’ t lost just yet .
Murray discusses @ @ @ @ @ specifically the growing divide in what he calls the new upper and lower classes .
@ @ @ @ @ YouTube Channel here .

In today’s episode of The Van Maren Show, Jonathon Van Maren speaks with Dr. Charles Murray about why America has fallen apart and what we need to do about it. Dr. Murray first became well known in 1984 with the publication of Losing Ground a piece which is credited with being the intellectual foundation for the Welfare Reform Act. Murray is a New York Times bestseller, political researcher and scholar, and the F.A. Hayek Emeritus Chair in Culture Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
Murray joins Van Maren to discuss the conclusions of his new book about the state of America and what we as Americans can do to save our country. The outlook is quite bleak, but all hope isn’t lost just yet. Murray discusses the degradation of society, specifically the growing divide in what he calls the new upper and lower classes.
Subscribe to The Van Maren YouTube Channel here.


lifesitenews--2020-01-22--Are Chinese communists lying about number of babies born? They’ve got every reason to

January 22 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – China ’ s National Bureau of Statistics just announced that 14.65 million babies were born in China last year .
It also claimed that China ’ s population continued to grow , reaching 1.4 billion by the end of 2019 , up from 1.39 billion the year before .
Both claims are probably false .
The real number of births is lower , probably much lower .
As for the population of the most populous country on earth , it has not only stopped growing , but may actually be shrinking .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on inflating the numbers ?
Because to do otherwise would be to admit that one of its signature economic policies of the past forty years—the one-child policy -- may have fatally compromised China ’ s future .
For decades the Party justified its brutal birth limitation policies , which involved arresting , imprisoning , and forcibly aborting tens of millions of women , as a necessary precondition of economic growth .
“ The strict regulation of births is the only way out of poverty , ” or so the Party line went .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ elimination of 400 million human beings , a demographic winter slowly descended upon the country it was misgoverning .
China ’ s population is now aging more rapidly than any population in human history , its birth rate is in free fall , and its future economic growth imperiled .
The artificial inflation of birth and population numbers is nothing more than an effort by Party hacks to hide these failures and escape responsibility .
Of course , even if the official claim of 14.65 million births in 2019 were true , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ births since 1961 , a time when China was in the grip of the worst famine in human history .
The People ’ s Communes had collapsed , crops had failed , and hundreds of millions of Chinese were starving .
From 1960-62—a period the Party now refers to as “ the three difficult years ” -- an estimated 42.5 million people starved to death .
Difficult , indeed .
China recorded only 13.81 million births in 1960 , the first of the famine years , a number which fell to 11.87 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the starving women of the “ three difficult years ” could do to stay alive , much less have babies .
Sixty years down the road , the granddaughters of those starving women are turning out to be an equally barren lot , but for very different reasons .
If you want to know how few babies are actually being born in China , you have to search out provincial and municipal data .
These numbers suggest that the actual number of newborns in China is somewhere between 10 and 20 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Health Commission ’ s annual yearbook for 2018 is especially revealing in this regard , because it breaks down the national total province by province .
It ’ s easy to see that the two sets of numbers contradict one another .
The yearbook publishes a figure of 15.21 million as the total number of live births in China in 2018 .
But if you total up the provincial numbers you arrive at a figure of only 13.62 million , or some 1.61 million births fewer .
This is hardly a rounding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million given by the National Health Commission , however , corresponds almost exactly to the number of births reported by the National Bureau of Statistics .
Is the National Health Commission clumsily fudging its own numbers to bring them into line with a national target ?
It certainly looks that way .
Another example comes from the city of Chongqing , which reported that from January through November of last year some 255,692 babies were born .
But the month-to-month data published by the city includes the astounding claim that 66,861 newborns arrived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This number is nearly five times larger than the numbers given for any other month .
This anomaly again suggests that someone bumped up the reported number for June by 50,000 , so that the annual figure would match a national target .
But the most revealing of red flags comes from China ’ s Total Fertility Rate , or TFR , which is the expected number of children that a woman will have over her reproductive lifetime .
A country ’ s TFR is key to predicting its long-term demographic health .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are averaging slightly over two children each and suggests that the population will be stable over time .
A TFR of 1 , on the other hand , means that women are averaging only one child over her lifetime .
It is a recipe for demographic suicide .
The TFR of Chinese women has been falling for decades .
In the 2000 national census it came in at only 1.22 , dropping even further in the 2010 national census to only 1.18 .
But then came the real shocker .
In 2015 the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country ’ s TFR had fallen to only 1.05 .
This is the second lowest fertility rate in the world ( only tiny Singapore is lower ) , and it clearly portends a Chinese population crash .
These were inconvenient numbers indeed , so for the past twenty years Chinese officials have done their best to cover them up .
Instead they have claimed—without any real evidence—that the nation ’ s TFR has stabilized between 1.6 and 1.8 .
The chief organization promoting this higher number was the Family Planning Commission , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for almost four decades ruthlessly enforced the country ’ s one-child policy .
Is anyone surprised that the same Party functionaries responsible for carrying out this barbaric policy are now trying to downplay its negative consequences ?
As for the National Bureau of Statistics , it stopped publishing data on China ’ s TFR in 2017 .
To date , it has offered no explanation as to why it has gone silent .
Almost all of the projections of China ’ s future population growth , whether these come from the Chinese government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Population Fund , are based on the assumption that China ’ s TFR is right around 1.7 .
But what if China ’ s actual TFR over the past 20 years is closer to 1.1 , and China has been padding the number of births by several million a year , both of which the data seem to indicate .
In that case China ’ s actual population would be tens of millions smaller , and many years older , than the numbers claimed by Beijing .
Not only that , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the UN Population Fund would be off by an even greater amount .
In fact , one of the most credible scholars on this question , Dr. Fuxian Li of the University of Wisconsin , believes that China ’ s published population statistics have been so corrupted by politics that they are off by an incredible 100 million people .
This would mean that the country ’ s actual population may only be 1.3 billion , rather than the 1.4 billion that Beijing claims .
China ’ s population has probably already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And he projects that , if the current low birth rate persists , China ’ s population may fall to only 400 million by the end of the century .
Some critics are even beginning to speak out inside of China itself .
They now say that the 2016 decision to move to a two-child policy was too little , too late .
They note that , even if all birth restrictions were lifted tomorrow , the birth rate would not significantly rebound .
Demography is still destiny , even if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planet .
It is not clear what the Party intends to do , if anything , in the face of this looming calamity .
It can not manufacture babies out of thin air , the way it manufactures statistics .
And it is even more loath to admit that it has—quite literally—aborted China ’ s future .
A normal government would not fabricate birth statistics , or lie about the number of people who live within its borders .
But then a normal government would not have inflicted an extremely toxic form of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first place .
A normal country would have questioned the wanton destruction of valuable human capital this way .
Most of all , a normal country would have rejected the claim that the road to national greatness required the sacrifice of hundreds of millions of the youngest and most vulnerable members of society .
Not the Chinese Communist Party , however , which in each and every one of its many political campaigns seems to perversely delight in such destruction .
I suppose it is no surprise that the Party feels compelled to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many flesh and blood ones .
After all , the one-child policy was one of its signature policies , a key element of the Party ’ s plan to overtake the U.S. and become the most powerful player on the planet .
It is past ironic that the policy once touted as the engine of China ’ s success—the one-child policy—may ultimately turn out to have dug its grave .
A dying China will never be number one .
Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China ’ s Dream is the New Threat to World Order

The most populous country on earth has been committing demographic suicide for years with its 'one-child' policy.
January 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – China’s National Bureau of Statistics just announced that 14.65 million babies were born in China last year. It also claimed that China’s population continued to grow, reaching 1.4 billion by the end of 2019, up from 1.39 billion the year before.
Both claims are probably false. The real number of births is lower, probably much lower. As for the population of the most populous country on earth, it has not only stopped growing, but may actually be shrinking.
So why is the Communist Party insisting on inflating the numbers?
Because to do otherwise would be to admit that one of its signature economic policies of the past forty years—the one-child policy–may have fatally compromised China’s future. For decades the Party justified its brutal birth limitation policies, which involved arresting, imprisoning, and forcibly aborting tens of millions of women, as a necessary precondition of economic growth. “The strict regulation of births is the only way out of poverty,” or so the Party line went.
But while the Party was celebrating the elimination of 400 million human beings, a demographic winter slowly descended upon the country it was misgoverning. China’s population is now aging more rapidly than any population in human history, its birth rate is in free fall, and its future economic growth imperiled.
The artificial inflation of birth and population numbers is nothing more than an effort by Party hacks to hide these failures and escape responsibility.
Of course, even if the official claim of 14.65 million births in 2019 were true, this would still be the lowest number of births since 1961, a time when China was in the grip of the worst famine in human history. The People’s Communes had collapsed, crops had failed, and hundreds of millions of Chinese were starving. From 1960-62—a period the Party now refers to as “the three difficult years”–an estimated 42.5 million people starved to death. Difficult, indeed.
China recorded only 13.81 million births in 1960, the first of the famine years, a number which fell to 11.87 million births the following year. It was all the starving women of the “three difficult years” could do to stay alive, much less have babies.
Sixty years down the road, the granddaughters of those starving women are turning out to be an equally barren lot, but for very different reasons.
If you want to know how few babies are actually being born in China, you have to search out provincial and municipal data. These numbers suggest that the actual number of newborns in China is somewhere between 10 and 20 percent smaller than the government claims.
The National Health Commission’s annual yearbook for 2018 is especially revealing in this regard, because it breaks down the national total province by province. It’s easy to see that the two sets of numbers contradict one another. The yearbook publishes a figure of 15.21 million as the total number of live births in China in 2018. But if you total up the provincial numbers you arrive at a figure of only 13.62 million, or some 1.61 million births fewer. This is hardly a rounding error.
The larger number of 15.21 million given by the National Health Commission, however, corresponds almost exactly to the number of births reported by the National Bureau of Statistics. Is the National Health Commission clumsily fudging its own numbers to bring them into line with a national target? It certainly looks that way.
Another example comes from the city of Chongqing, which reported that from January through November of last year some 255,692 babies were born. But the month-to-month data published by the city includes the astounding claim that 66,861 newborns arrived in the month of June alone. This number is nearly five times larger than the numbers given for any other month. This anomaly again suggests that someone bumped up the reported number for June by 50,000, so that the annual figure would match a national target.
But the most revealing of red flags comes from China’s Total Fertility Rate, or TFR, which is the expected number of children that a woman will have over her reproductive lifetime. A country’s TFR is key to predicting its long-term demographic health. A TFR of 2.1 means that women are averaging slightly over two children each and suggests that the population will be stable over time. A TFR of 1, on the other hand, means that women are averaging only one child over her lifetime. It is a recipe for demographic suicide.
The TFR of Chinese women has been falling for decades. In the 2000 national census it came in at only 1.22, dropping even further in the 2010 national census to only 1.18. But then came the real shocker. In 2015 the National Bureau of Statistics reported that the country’s TFR had fallen to only 1.05. This is the second lowest fertility rate in the world (only tiny Singapore is lower), and it clearly portends a Chinese population crash.
These were inconvenient numbers indeed, so for the past twenty years Chinese officials have done their best to cover them up.
Instead they have claimed—without any real evidence—that the nation’s TFR has stabilized between 1.6 and 1.8. The chief organization promoting this higher number was the Family Planning Commission, which is to say the same organization that for almost four decades ruthlessly enforced the country’s one-child policy. Is anyone surprised that the same Party functionaries responsible for carrying out this barbaric policy are now trying to downplay its negative consequences?
As for the National Bureau of Statistics, it stopped publishing data on China’s TFR in 2017. To date, it has offered no explanation as to why it has gone silent.
Almost all of the projections of China’s future population growth, whether these come from the Chinese government or from international organizations like the UN Population Fund, are based on the assumption that China’s TFR is right around 1.7. But what if China’s actual TFR over the past 20 years is closer to 1.1, and China has been padding the number of births by several million a year, both of which the data seem to indicate.
In that case China’s actual population would be tens of millions smaller, and many years older, than the numbers claimed by Beijing. Not only that, but the projections of China’s future population by the UN Population Fund would be off by an even greater amount.
In fact, one of the most credible scholars on this question, Dr. Fuxian Li of the University of Wisconsin, believes that China’s published population statistics have been so corrupted by politics that they are off by an incredible 100 million people. This would mean that the country’s actual population may only be 1.3 billion, rather than the 1.4 billion that Beijing claims.
China’s population has probably already started to decline, says Dr. Yi. And he projects that, if the current low birth rate persists, China’s population may fall to only 400 million by the end of the century.
Some critics are even beginning to speak out inside of China itself. They now say that the 2016 decision to move to a two-child policy was too little, too late. They note that, even if all birth restrictions were lifted tomorrow, the birth rate would not significantly rebound. Demography is still destiny, even if you own the most populous country on the planet.
It is not clear what the Party intends to do, if anything, in the face of this looming calamity. It cannot manufacture babies out of thin air, the way it manufactures statistics. And it is even more loath to admit that it has—quite literally—aborted China’s future.
A normal government would not fabricate birth statistics, or lie about the number of people who live within its borders. But then a normal government would not have inflicted an extremely toxic form of population control on its people in the first place. A normal country would have questioned the wanton destruction of valuable human capital this way. Most of all, a normal country would have rejected the claim that the road to national greatness required the sacrifice of hundreds of millions of the youngest and most vulnerable members of society. Not the Chinese Communist Party, however, which in each and every one of its many political campaigns seems to perversely delight in such destruction.
I suppose it is no surprise that the Party feels compelled to birth imaginary babies, after killing so many flesh and blood ones. After all, the one-child policy was one of its signature policies, a key element of the Party’s plan to overtake the U.S. and become the most powerful player on the planet.
It is past ironic that the policy once touted as the engine of China’s success—the one-child policy—may ultimately turn out to have dug its grave.
A dying China will never be number one.
Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute, and the author of Bully of Asia: Why China’s Dream is the New Threat to World Order
Follow Steven Steven Mosher is an internationally recognised authority on China and population issues as well as an acclaimed author and speaker and founder and head of the Population Research Institute. He was the first American social scientist to visit mainland China in 1979 where he witnessed women being forced to have abortion under the new “one-child-policy” which he then exposed to the world. Mr. Mosher was a pro-choice atheist at the time, but witnessing these traumatic abortions led him to reconsider his convictions and to eventually become a practicing, pro-life Roman Catholic. Mosher has appeared numerous times before the US Congress as an expert in world population, China and human Rights abuses. He has also made TV appearances on Good Morning America, 60 Minutes, The Today Show, 20/20, FOX and CNN news, as well as being a regular guest on talk radio shows across the nation. He is the author of the best-selling A Mother’s Ordeal: One woman’s Fight Against China’s One-Child-Policy. His latest book is Bully of Asia, exposing the threat of China to the entire world at this time. Articles by Steve have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Reader’s Digest, The New Republic, The Washington Post, National Review, Reason, The Asian Wall Street Journal, Freedom Review, Linacre Quarterly, Catholic World Report, Human Life Review, First Things, and numerous other publications. Steven Mosher lives in Virginia with his wife, Vera, and their nine children.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-22--BREAKING: Majority of Americans would vote for candidates who back abortion restrictions: new poll

Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade .
Sign the petition here .
NEW HAVEN , Connecticut , January 22 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Exactly forty-seven years after the passage of Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion in the U.S. , a new Marist poll shows that a strong majority of Americans across the country want to elect candidates who support substantial abortion restrictions .
The poll also found that most Americans still reject the Supreme Court ’ s reasoning in the 1973 case .
“ Most Americans want the court to reinterpret Roe either by stopping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the states , ” said Knights of Columbus CEO Carl Anderson .
The Knights of Columbus is the survey sponsor .
According to the poll , a notable proportion ( 41 % ) of those who identify as pro-choice are more likely to vote for candidates who support restrictions , as are more than nine in 10 who identify as pro-life ( 96 % ) .
“ The fact that such large numbers of Americans who identify as pro-choice nevertheless support restrictions and the revisiting of Roe v. Wade shows how misleading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-choice ’ with support for radically pro-abortion position that calls for unrestricted abortion , ” said Anderson .
About two-thirds of Americans ( 65 % ) and the same percentage of registered voters say they “ are more likely to vote for ” candidates who would limit abortion to at most the first three months of pregnancy .
This includes about nine in 10 Republicans ( 88 % ) , more than six in 10 independents ( 62 % ) , and more than four in ten Democrats ( 44 % ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , intensity is stronger on the pro-life side .
By a margin of 10 percentage points ( 45 % to 35 % ) , those who identify as pro-life are more likely to say abortion is a “ major factor ” in their vote for president than those who identify as pro-choice .
In addition , more than six in 10 Americans ( 62 % ) say that if the Supreme Court revisits Roe v. Wade it should rule to allow states to determine restrictions ( 46 % ) or make abortion illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of Americans say Roe v. Wade should be interpreted to allow for legal abortion any time without restriction .
The 62 % majority includes about four in 10 of those who identify as Democrats ( 39 % ) or as “ pro-choice ” ( 40 % ) .
The new survey , conducted by The Marist Poll and sponsored by the Knights of Columbus , also finds that seven in 10 Americans would limit abortion to , at most , the first three months of pregnancy .
The 70 % number is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NewsHour/Marist Poll .
Nearly half ( 47 % ) of those who identify as pro-choice in the recent survey also agree that abortion should be limited to – at most – the first three months of pregnancy .
The January 2020 poll finds that , by more than 10 percentage points ( 52 % to 41 % ) , a majority of Americans believe that women should be required to have an ultrasound prior to having an abortion .
By a margin of more than five to one ( 80 % to 14 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can protect both a mother and her unborn child .
An overwhelming majority of Americans ( 75 % to 21 % ) are also against taxpayer funding of abortion overseas .
This includes six in 10 of those who identify as pro-choice ( 61 % ) and more than nine in 10 of those who identify as pro-life ( 95 % ) .
Six in 10 Americans ( 60 % ) also oppose domestic taxpayer funding of abortion .
This includes 89 % of those who identify as pro-life , and 37 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And by 15 percentage points ( 55 % to 40 % ) , a majority of Americans support banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy .
This includes 45 % of those who identify as pro-choice and 69 % of those who identify as pro-life .
The new Marist Poll also finds that Americans are more likely to identify as pro-choice ( 55 % ) than pro-life ( 40 % ) , a narrowing of the margin between the two sides by seven percentage points since last summer , when the NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % divide .
While those who identify as pro-life unsurprisingly support restrictions on abortion and other positions generally considered to be “ pro-life , ” the survey also shows the limits of the pro-choice label .
Majorities or substantial minorities of those who identify as pro-choice , also support restrictions on abortion and other pro-life positions .
This survey of 1,237 adults was conducted January 7th through January 12th , 2020 by The Marist Poll sponsored in partnership with The Knights of Columbus .
Adults 18 years of age and older residing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ landline or mobile numbers and interviewed by telephone using live interviewers .
Survey questions were available in English or Spanish .
The samples were then combined and balanced to reflect the 2017 American Community Survey one-year estimates for age , gender , income , race , and region .
Results are statistically significant within ±3.7 percentage points .
There are 1,070 registered voters .
The results for this subset are statistically significant within ±4.0 percentage points .
The error margin was adjusted for sample weights and increases for cross-tabulations .
Full poll results @ @ @ @ @

About two-thirds of Americans (65%) and the same percentage of registered voters say they 'are more likely to vote for' candidates who would limit abortion.
Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Sign the petition here.
NEW HAVEN, Connecticut, January 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Exactly forty-seven years after the passage of Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion in the U.S., a new Marist poll shows that a strong majority of Americans across the country want to elect candidates who support substantial abortion restrictions. The poll also found that most Americans still reject the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the 1973 case.
“Most Americans want the court to reinterpret Roe either by stopping legalized abortion or by returning the issue to the states,” said Knights of Columbus CEO Carl Anderson. The Knights of Columbus is the survey sponsor.
According to the poll, a notable proportion (41%) of those who identify as pro-choice are more likely to vote for candidates who support restrictions, as are more than nine in 10 who identify as pro-life (96%).
“The fact that such large numbers of Americans who identify as pro-choice nevertheless support restrictions and the revisiting of Roe v. Wade shows how misleading it is to conflate the term ‘pro-choice’ with support for radically pro-abortion position that calls for unrestricted abortion,” said Anderson.
Restrictions Preferred
About two-thirds of Americans (65%) and the same percentage of registered voters say they “are more likely to vote for” candidates who would limit abortion to at most the first three months of pregnancy. This includes about nine in 10 Republicans (88%), more than six in 10 independents (62%), and more than four in ten Democrats (44%).
Pro-Life Intensity
When it comes to voting for president, intensity is stronger on the pro-life side. By a margin of 10 percentage points (45% to 35%), those who identify as pro-life are more likely to say abortion is a “major factor” in their vote for president than those who identify as pro-choice.
In addition, more than six in 10 Americans (62%) say that if the Supreme Court revisits Roe v. Wade it should rule to allow states to determine restrictions (46%) or make abortion illegal (16%). Only 33% of Americans say Roe v. Wade should be interpreted to allow for legal abortion any time without restriction. The 62% majority includes about four in 10 of those who identify as Democrats (39%) or as “pro-choice” (40%).
Consistent with PBS Poll
The new survey, conducted by The Marist Poll and sponsored by the Knights of Columbus, also finds that seven in 10 Americans would limit abortion to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy. The 70% number is identical to last summer’s NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll. Nearly half (47%) of those who identify as pro-choice in the recent survey also agree that abortion should be limited to – at most – the first three months of pregnancy.
The January 2020 poll finds that, by more than 10 percentage points (52% to 41%), a majority of Americans believe that women should be required to have an ultrasound prior to having an abortion.
By a margin of more than five to one (80% to 14%), Americans say that laws can protect both a mother and her unborn child.
Taxpayer Tab Discouraged
An overwhelming majority of Americans (75% to 21%) are also against taxpayer funding of abortion overseas. This includes six in 10 of those who identify as pro-choice (61%) and more than nine in 10 of those who identify as pro-life (95%).
Six in 10 Americans (60%) also oppose domestic taxpayer funding of abortion. This includes 89% of those who identify as pro-life, and 37% of those who identify as pro-choice. And by 15 percentage points (55% to 40%), a majority of Americans support banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. This includes 45% of those who identify as pro-choice and 69% of those who identify as pro-life.
The new Marist Poll also finds that Americans are more likely to identify as pro-choice (55%) than pro-life (40%), a narrowing of the margin between the two sides by seven percentage points since last summer, when the NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll found a 57% to 35% divide. While those who identify as pro-life unsurprisingly support restrictions on abortion and other positions generally considered to be “pro-life,” the survey also shows the limits of the pro-choice label. Majorities or substantial minorities of those who identify as pro-choice, also support restrictions on abortion and other pro-life positions.
Methodology
This survey of 1,237 adults was conducted January 7th through January 12th, 2020 by The Marist Poll sponsored in partnership with The Knights of Columbus. Adults 18 years of age and older residing in the contiguous United States were contacted on landline or mobile numbers and interviewed by telephone using live interviewers. Survey questions were available in English or Spanish. The samples were then combined and balanced to reflect the 2017 American Community Survey one-year estimates for age, gender, income, race, and region. Results are statistically significant within ±3.7 percentage points. There are 1,070 registered voters. The results for this subset are statistically significant within ±4.0 percentage points. The error margin was adjusted for sample weights and increases for cross-tabulations.
Full poll results can be found here.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-22--Catholic leader blows lid off German church, calls on Catholics to be ‘militant’

MUNICH , Germany , January 22 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Hello from Germany !
This past weekend I joined other prominent traditional Catholic leaders to participate in a prayerful protest outside the the German Bishop 's Conference in Munich .
This act of charity was aimed at Cardinal Reinhard Marx and the rest of the German bishops to urge them to stop teaching heresy , repent of their ways , and to confirm lay Catholics in the faith .
Michael J. Matt , long-time editor of the Remnant and a friend to LifeSiteNews , was there .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Germany , about the Geman church but also about what he feels Catholics of that nation should be doing in these times .
The idea of this protest is `` counter-cultural , '' he said .
`` We need to pray '' and `` resist . ''
We ca n't just say , `` let God take care of it . ''
Catholics must be militant warriors for Christ .
Matt suggested that Germans consider not paying the church tax in their country even though it may cause suffering for them .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a father of 7 children , it 's a `` terrifying thought '' that the number of priests in the Church are diminishing .
He mentioned that his 22-year-old son was in a car accident recently and the family was blessed to see an Institute of Christ the King priest immediately stop what he was doing , go to the hospital , and visit and say mass for his son in his hopital room .
`` We need to fight against what 's happening ... we need to encourage vocations ! ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to `` taking chances ... with the souls of our children , '' he said .
We have to preserve the `` sacramental grace of the church '' and fight these `` new ideas '' which will destroy our faith .
Speaking about Pope Francis , Matt observed that he is n't an anamoly , but rather , it has taken 100 years to get to this point .
Francis wants `` a new church . ''
The Roman Curia has been `` radically changed , '' he said .
We laity do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we do have `` an obligation to stand for Holy Mother Church '' so we can `` hand on [ the faith ] to future generations . ''
The John-Henry Westen Show is available by video on the show ’ s YouTube channel and right here on my LifeSite blog .
It is also available in audio format on platforms such as Spotify , Soundcloud , and ACast .
We are awaiting approval for iTunes and Google Play as well .
To subscribe to the audio version on various channels , visit the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created a special email list for the show so that we can notify you every week when we post a new episode .
Please sign up now by clicking here .
You can also subscribe to the YouTube channel , and you ’ ll be notified by YouTube when there is new content .
You can send me feedback , or ideas for show topics by emailing [ email protected ] .

We need to pray and resist, Matt said. We can't just say, 'let God take care of it.'
MUNICH, Germany, January 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Hello from Germany! This past weekend I joined other prominent traditional Catholic leaders to participate in a prayerful protest outside the the German Bishop's Conference in Munich. This act of charity was aimed at Cardinal Reinhard Marx and the rest of the German bishops to urge them to stop teaching heresy, repent of their ways, and to confirm lay Catholics in the faith. Michael J. Matt, long-time editor of the Remnant and a friend to LifeSiteNews, was there.
I interviewed Matt, whose ancestors are from Germany, about the Geman church but also about what he feels Catholics of that nation should be doing in these times.
The idea of this protest is “counter-cultural,” he said. “We need to pray” and “resist.” We can't just say, “let God take care of it.” Catholics must be militant warriors for Christ.
Matt suggested that Germans consider not paying the church tax in their country even though it may cause suffering for them.
He also made special note of how, as a father of 7 children, it's a “terrifying thought” that the number of priests in the Church are diminishing. He mentioned that his 22-year-old son was in a car accident recently and the family was blessed to see an Institute of Christ the King priest immediately stop what he was doing, go to the hospital, and visit and say mass for his son in his hopital room.
“We need to fight against what's happening…we need to encourage vocations!” What the German bishops are proposing amounts to “taking chances…with the souls of our children,” he said. We have to preserve the “sacramental grace of the church” and fight these “new ideas” which will destroy our faith.
Speaking about Pope Francis, Matt observed that he isn't an anamoly, but rather, it has taken 100 years to get to this point.
Francis wants “a new church.” The Roman Curia has been “radically changed,” he said. We laity don't want to cause trouble, but we do have “an obligation to stand for Holy Mother Church” so we can “hand on [the faith] to future generations.”
The John-Henry Westen Show is available by video on the show’s YouTube channel and right here on my LifeSite blog.
It is also available in audio format on platforms such as Spotify, Soundcloud, and ACast. We are awaiting approval for iTunes and Google Play as well. To subscribe to the audio version on various channels, visit the ACast webpage here.
We’ve created a special email list for the show so that we can notify you every week when we post a new episode. Please sign up now by clicking here. You can also subscribe to the YouTube channel, and you’ll be notified by YouTube when there is new content.
You can send me feedback, or ideas for show topics by emailing [email protected].
Follow John-Henry John-Henry is the co-founder and editor-in-chief of LifeSiteNews.com. He and his wife Dianne and their eight children live in the Ottawa Valley in Ontario, Canada. He has spoken at conferences and retreats, and appeared on radio and television throughout North America, Europe and Asia. John-Henry founded the Rome Life Forum an annual strategy meeting for pro-life leaders worldwide. He co-founded Voice of the Family and serves on the executive of the Canadian National March for Life Committee, and the annual National Pro-Life Youth Conference. He is a consultant to Canada’s largest pro-life organization Campaign Life Coalition, and serves on the executive of the Ontario branch of the organization. He has run three times for political office in the province of Ontario representing the Family Coalition Party. John-Henry earned an MA from the University of Toronto in School and Child Clinical Psychology and an Honours BA from York University in Psychology.
Share