lifesitenews--2020-06-01--States bear responsibility for avoidable elderly deaths from COVID-19

June 1 , 2020 ( Personhood Alliance ) – COVID-19 has rocked our nation to its core .
So far , more than 103,000 U.S. deaths have been attributed to the coronavirus .
Over 43,000 of those deaths have been in long-term care facilities .
Have we done all we can to protect our vulnerable elderly population ?
Or have we , as a society , deemed their lives less valuable and allowed our leaders to facilitate their deaths ?
In the United States , approximately 0.06 % of the population resides in long-term care ( LTC ) facilities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an astounding 42 percent of all COVID-19 deaths in the country have taken place in nursing homes and assisted living facilities .
And this could be an undercount .
States like New York exclude from their nursing home death tallies those who die in a hospital , even if they were originally infected in an assisted living facility .
Outside of New York , more than half of those who have died were residents in LTC facilities .
Given the fact the elderly population and those with pre-existing conditions are more susceptible to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is simply a sad , yet unavoidable outcome of the coronavirus pandemic .
However , closer analyses show wide variation between levels of infection and death from state to state and a strong correlation to policies requiring LTC facilities to accept COVID-19 patients into their care .
On March 25th , New York became the first state to issue a ruling prohibiting nursing homes from denying admission or re-admission to residents because they were infected with COVID-19 ( that ruling has reportedly been scrubbed from the state ’ s health website ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing patients for the disease before they were admitted and allowed workers who tested positive for coronavirus , but were asymptomatic , to continue working – effectively allowing the virus to spread unmitigated .
When met with pushback , Gov .
Anthony Cuomo doubled down , saying : The American Health Care Association , which represents LTC facilities , stated , “ The bottom line is that nursing homes are not a priority in the public health system and this policy reflects that.
” Brendan Williams , president and CEO of the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believed the order was “ tantamount to genocide.
” On May 10th , Gov .
Cuomo released new guidance that prohibited hospitals from sending people who tested positive for COVID-19 back to nursing homes .
His administration said the new guidance added to – but did not replace – the original order .
However , the damage had already been done .
The latest state numbers indicate that 36 nursing homes in New York have seen at least 10 percent of their residents succumb to the virus .
This includes two nursing homes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents have reportedly died of COVID-19 .
A total of more than 5,800 people have died in New York nursing homes since March 1st – arguably a direct result of these misguided policies .
The governors of New Jersey , Michigan , and California made similar mandates requiring nursing homes to accept patients with active COVID-19 infections who were being discharged from hospitals .
The California Department of Public Health mandate reads : In an interview with the Los Angeles Times , Patricia McGinnis , executive director of California Advocates for Nursing Home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest percentage of COVID-19 deaths of LTC residents in the nation .
In spite of this fact , Minnesota officials continue to transfer infected patients into these facilities , and almost no local media are calling them out .
On May 7th , almost two months after Minnesota Gov .
Tim Walz issued his executive order in response to COVID-19 , Walz outlined a new five-point plan to protect long-term care residents from COVID-19 .
However , since the announcement , Minnesota ’ s percentage of deaths in LTC facilities has increased by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent .
Mitch Berg , a moderator from the Facebook group Essential Minnesota , made the following statement : “ According to the data available , over 81 % of Minnesota ’ s COVID deaths are long-term care ( LTC ) residents .
That is , in fact , the highest share of a state ’ s death toll in the country .
To date , 2.8 % of Minnesota ’ s entire long term care population have died of Covid19 – the 14th worst per capita death toll in the country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s more sobering to note that , in the past two months , almost 10 % of the entire long-term care population in New York , Connecticut , and New Jersey have died .
That total is considerably higher than in Mississippi ( 1.9 % ) and Florida ( 1.5 % ) , both of which locked down nursing homes right away , and barred readmitting COVID-positive patients to LTC facilities early in the crisis .
And how about MN ’ s neighboring states ?
Iowa has lost 1 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and South Dakota have lost 0.1 % – a tenth of a percent each .
Minnesota ’ s LTC death toll is 28 times that of our neighbors to the west , and that ’ s per capita , not absolute numbers.
” Berg goes on to say that as many as 30 percent of LTC residents die in a typical year .
“ But even so , death rates like those in the hardest hit states are a huge surge in mortality among our most vulnerable citizens.
” COVID-19 patients continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guise of ensuring Minnesota keeps ICU beds open , but this practice begs the question : Why aren ’ t infected patients being placed into COVID-only facilities , rather than exposing an already vulnerable population to the deadly virus ?
Unfortunately , it appears Gov .
Walz is not even considering this line of questioning .
Instead , he recently signed off on a $ 6.9 million purchase of a 75,000-square foot refrigerated warehouse to house the bodies of the dead .
What about the facilities themselves ?
LTC facilities are often ill-equipped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents are simply unable to comply with basic infection control measures , like hand-washing or mask-wearing , and suffer from underlying health conditions that make them more likely to succumb to the virus .
Insufficient coronavirus testing and personal protective equipment shortages further fuel the outbreak in nursing homes .
Additionally , nursing home administrators argue that , while state and federal officials have encouraged or mandated taking on COVID-19 patients , they have failed to provide adequate resources and guidance to protect other residents and staff from transmission .
Is this merely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicative of a deeper problem in terms of how we value people who are no longer “ useful ” to society ?
Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic , we have seen an increase in discriminatory attitudes toward the elderly on social media and in the press .
Comments such as “ They ’ re on their way out anyway ” or the blatantly ageist term “ Boomer Remover ” illustrate the underlying supposition that older human beings , or those that are chronically ill , are somehow less deserving of protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our utilitarian culture envisions our elders as people who are no longer equal partners in matters that make for a viable and thriving society .
The concept of “ culling ” elderly human beings is offensive in the extreme .
It disregards their personhood and forgets that they , too , are image bearers of Almighty God .
But it ’ s also a fallacy to assume that older people are “ on their way out.
” Most elderly people are not dying .
Not only are the “ old ” getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the next year for a 70-year-old man is just 2 percent .
Likewise , an 80-year-old woman has only a 4 percent likelihood of dying in the coming year .
Often , our elders have many good years ahead of them – time in which those of us who are younger could learn from their depth of experience .
We must remember that COVID-19 is not less of a threat if it is confined to a nursing home .
It is actually more of a threat .
The lives of the elderly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not erase .
Deborah Stilt is the social media coordinator for the Personhood Alliance and has been active in pro-life media for several years .
But most importantly , she ’ s a California mom who is fighting against the lies of the culture and for the protection of every human being without exception .

June 1, 2020 (Personhood Alliance) – COVID-19 has rocked our nation to its core. So far, more than 103,000 U.S. deaths have been attributed to the coronavirus. Over 43,000 of those deaths have been in long-term care facilities. Have we done all we can to protect our vulnerable elderly population? Or have we, as a society, deemed their lives less valuable and allowed our leaders to facilitate their deaths?
~~~~~
In the United States, approximately 0.06% of the population resides in long-term care (LTC) facilities. However, as of May 22, an astounding 42 percent of all COVID-19 deaths in the country have taken place in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. And this could be an undercount. States like New York exclude from their nursing home death tallies those who die in a hospital, even if they were originally infected in an assisted living facility. Outside of New York, more than half of those who have died were residents in LTC facilities.
Given the fact the elderly population and those with pre-existing conditions are more susceptible to COVID-19, one might assume this statistic is simply a sad, yet unavoidable outcome of the coronavirus pandemic. However, closer analyses show wide variation between levels of infection and death from state to state and a strong correlation to policies requiring LTC facilities to accept COVID-19 patients into their care.
New York’s plight
On March 25th, New York became the first state to issue a ruling prohibiting nursing homes from denying admission or re-admission to residents because they were infected with COVID-19 (that ruling has reportedly been scrubbed from the state’s health website). The order also banned the facilities from testing patients for the disease before they were admitted and allowed workers who tested positive for coronavirus, but were asymptomatic, to continue working – effectively allowing the virus to spread unmitigated. When met with pushback, Gov. Anthony Cuomo doubled down, saying:
“They don’t have a right to object. That is the rule and that is the regulation, and they have to comply with that.”
The American Health Care Association, which represents LTC facilities, stated, “The bottom line is that nursing homes are not a priority in the public health system and this policy reflects that.”
Brendan Williams, president and CEO of the New Hampshire Health Care Association, said he believed the order was “tantamount to genocide.”
On May 10th, Gov. Cuomo released new guidance that prohibited hospitals from sending people who tested positive for COVID-19 back to nursing homes. His administration said the new guidance added to – but did not replace – the original order. However, the damage had already been done. The latest state numbers indicate that 36 nursing homes in New York have seen at least 10 percent of their residents succumb to the virus. This includes two nursing homes where more than 20 percent of the residents have reportedly died of COVID-19. A total of more than 5,800 people have died in New York nursing homes since March 1st – arguably a direct result of these misguided policies.
COVID in California
The governors of New Jersey, Michigan, and California made similar mandates requiring nursing homes to accept patients with active COVID-19 infections who were being discharged from hospitals. The California Department of Public Health mandate reads:
“SNFs (skilled nursing facilities) shall not refuse to admit or readmit a resident based on their status as a suspected or confirmed COVID-19 case.”
In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Patricia McGinnis, executive director of California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, stated:
“Sacrificing the lives of beloved nursing home residents is beyond unconscionable. California’s directive is nothing less than a death sentence for countless residents.”
A growing scandal in Minnesota
Minnesota has the highest percentage of COVID-19 deaths of LTC residents in the nation. In spite of this fact, Minnesota officials continue to transfer infected patients into these facilities, and almost no local media are calling them out. On May 7th, almost two months after Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz issued his executive order in response to COVID-19, Walz outlined a new five-point plan to protect long-term care residents from COVID-19. However, since the announcement, Minnesota’s percentage of deaths in LTC facilities has increased by 2 percent and now is nearing 82 percent.
Mitch Berg, a moderator from the Facebook group Essential Minnesota, made the following statement:
“According to the data available, over 81% of Minnesota’s COVID deaths are long-term care (LTC) residents. That is, in fact, the highest share of a state’s death toll in the country. To date, 2.8% of Minnesota’s entire long term care population have died of Covid19 – the 14th worst per capita death toll in the country. That is some horrific carnage indeed – but it’s more sobering to note that, in the past two months, almost 10% of the entire long-term care population in New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey have died. That total is considerably higher than in Mississippi (1.9%) and Florida (1.5%), both of which locked down nursing homes right away, and barred readmitting COVID-positive patients to LTC facilities early in the crisis. And how about MN’s neighboring states? Iowa has lost 1% of its LTC population. North Dakota and South Dakota have lost 0.1% – a tenth of a percent each. Minnesota’s LTC death toll is 28 times that of our neighbors to the west, and that’s per capita, not absolute numbers.”
Berg goes on to say that as many as 30 percent of LTC residents die in a typical year. “But even so, death rates like those in the hardest hit states are a huge surge in mortality among our most vulnerable citizens.”
COVID-19 patients continue to be transferred into LTC facilities under the guise of ensuring Minnesota keeps ICU beds open, but this practice begs the question: Why aren’t infected patients being placed into COVID-only facilities, rather than exposing an already vulnerable population to the deadly virus?
Unfortunately, it appears Gov. Walz is not even considering this line of questioning. Instead, he recently signed off on a $6.9 million purchase of a 75,000-square foot refrigerated warehouse to house the bodies of the dead.
What about the facilities themselves?
LTC facilities are often ill-equipped to handle COVID-19 patients. Many elderly residents are simply unable to comply with basic infection control measures, like hand-washing or mask-wearing, and suffer from underlying health conditions that make them more likely to succumb to the virus. Insufficient coronavirus testing and personal protective equipment shortages further fuel the outbreak in nursing homes. Additionally, nursing home administrators argue that, while state and federal officials have encouraged or mandated taking on COVID-19 patients, they have failed to provide adequate resources and guidance to protect other residents and staff from transmission.
Is this merely an oversight? Or is it perhaps indicative of a deeper problem in terms of how we value people who are no longer “useful” to society?
COVID-19 and personhood
Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, we have seen an increase in discriminatory attitudes toward the elderly on social media and in the press. Comments such as “They’re on their way out anyway” or the blatantly ageist term “Boomer Remover” illustrate the underlying supposition that older human beings, or those that are chronically ill, are somehow less deserving of protection, healthcare, and even life itself. Our utilitarian culture envisions our elders as people who are no longer equal partners in matters that make for a viable and thriving society.
Journalist Jeremy Warner put it bluntly:
“Not to put too fine a point on it, from an entirely disinterested economic perspective, the COVID-19 might even prove mildly beneficial in the long term by disproportionately culling elderly dependents.”
The concept of “culling” elderly human beings is offensive in the extreme. It disregards their personhood and forgets that they, too, are image bearers of Almighty God.
But it’s also a fallacy to assume that older people are “on their way out.” Most elderly people are not dying. Not only are the “old” getting older, but the risk of death in the next year for a 70-year-old man is just 2 percent. Likewise, an 80-year-old woman has only a 4 percent likelihood of dying in the coming year. Often, our elders have many good years ahead of them – time in which those of us who are younger could learn from their depth of experience.
We must remember that COVID-19 is not less of a threat if it is confined to a nursing home. It is actually more of a threat. The lives of the elderly are ours to protect and defend – not erase.
Deborah Stilt is the social media coordinator for the Personhood Alliance and has been active in pro-life media for several years. But most importantly, she’s a California mom who is fighting against the lies of the culture and for the protection of every human being without exception.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-03--Catholic school boards blasphemously mark June as month of Sacred Heart and LGBT pride

TORONTO , June 2 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — The Toronto Catholic District School Board released a statement Monday acknowledging June as the month devoted to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and also as a month that “ manifests pride ” for “ those in our community who identify as LGBTQ+.
” The Ottawa , Algonquin Lakeshore , and Waterloo Catholic school boards also issued statements noting June as `` Pride Month '' , and Thunder Bay was the first Ontario Catholic board to raise the pro-homosexual “ Pride ” flag at its schools last year .
The TCDSB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month after LGBT activist and Toronto Catholic elementary school teacher Paolo De Buono asked the board to officially recognize June as “ Pride Month.
” The motion to receive De Buono ’ s delegation lost on a tie vote .
The June 1 statement is signed by TCDSB director Rory McGuckin and board chair Joseph Martino and posted on Facebook and Twitter .
“ June is devoted to the Sacred Heart of Jesus , which for Catholics is a sign and symbol of God ’ s boundless and passionate love for all humanity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the month of June is of particular importance and manifests pride for those within our community who identify as LGBTQ+ , ” reads the statement .
The TCDSB , Canada ’ s largest publicly funded Catholic school board , is committed to equity and inclusion as the foundation of a multi-year strategy , McGuckin and Martino state .
“ It is incumbent upon us to ensure that our schools are safe and welcoming places for all .
We must also acknowledge that there is always more to do , ” they write @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and eliminate discriminatory practices , systemic barriers , and biases .
We must recognize that students who identify as LGBTQ+ may experience discrimination and judgment , ” they add .
“ As Catholics , we believe that we are wonderfully made in the image and likeness of a God who created us and loves us unconditionally — just as we are .
We are called to love and celebrate one another , just as God loves and celebrates each one of us .
We honour the inherent dignity in each other by treating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and respect.
” Jeff Gunnarson of Campaign Life Coalition , Canada ’ s national pro-life , pro-family lobbying group , blasted the TCDSB statement .
“ It ’ s utterly blasphemous for a Catholic school board to speak about devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus while affirming homosexuality , ” he said .
The image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus reminds Catholics of God ’ s love , but also that Our Lord ’ s heart was pierced by our sins , added Gunnarson .
“ The Catholic faith following Bible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are a sin that cry out to God for vengeance .
Pride is also a sin .
It is considered by many to be the sin that resulted in Adam and Eve losing their relationship with God .
Sin should never be celebrated by anyone , especially a school board that calls itself Catholic , ” he told LifeSiteNews .
“ It ’ s true that God is love .
Sin , however , finds no place in God or in his kingdom that he has prepared for those who love him in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he gives us laws and standards to keep us on the straight and narrow road to his loving heart , ” he said .
The Catholic Catechism teaches that while “ unjust ” discrimination against LGBT individuals is never justified , homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and gravely depraved and that the same-sex inclination is itself an objective disorder .
The Church teaches that gender ideology contradicts God ’ s plan for human sexuality .
The TCDSB statement was similar to those of other Catholic boards noting “ Pride Month.
” DROP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ features openly homosexual main character !
Sign the petition here .
The Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board tweeted : “ The month of June is designated as Pride Month .
This month , and every month , our Catholic schools are committed to nurturing safe and inclusive learning environments where every student & every member of our community is welcomed , valued & respected.
” The Ottawa Catholic School Board tweeted : “ June is Pride Month !
We continue to honour the dignity of every person , embracing diversity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We are all wonderfully made .
We love because he first loved us .
( 1 John 4:19 ) .
” Notably , the words in the OCSB ’ s tweet — “ We are all wonderfully made ” — and the quotation from 1 John 4:19 — “ We love because he first loved us ” — appear on the “ Catholic ” version of the “ Pride ” flag that Waterloo Catholic District School Board announced it would fly over all its schools to recognize “ Pride Month.
” The so-called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jesus with his arms outstretched over an array of rainbow-colored figures .
It was one of a number of options designed by the Institute of Catholic Education , according to WCDSB ’ s director of education , Loretta Notten .
The WCDSB decided not to fly any flag for “ Pride Month ” after backlash from pro-family groups and concerned Catholics , as well as from LGBT activists , with the latter upset that the board was not raising the rainbow “ Pride ” flag .
However , WCDSB schools will display the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pride ” flag in their vestibules this year , while the board “ consults with the LGBTQ community on next steps leading to Pride Month 2021 , ” the board announced in a press release .
It also posted a statement on its website similar to that of the Toronto , Ottawa , and Algonquin Lakeshore Catholic school boards .
“ The month of June is designated as Pride Month across the province of Ontario , and indeed much of Canada and the globe , ” wrote the WCDSB .
“ This month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our Catholic schools are committed to nurturing safe and inclusive learning environments where every student and every member of the community is welcomed , valued , and respected.
” LifeSiteNews contacted these Catholic boards to ask if the statements meant they were formally recognizing “ Pride Month , ” and if so , how could this be compatible with Catholic teaching ?
None responded to clarify their position .
The dire consequences of such statements can not be overemphasised , Gunnarson said .
“ For Catholic school boards to recognize or acknowledge ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completely misguided , and is affirming confused children on a path to hell , and those who are doing this are putting themselves on the same path , ” he said .
“ It ’ s not too late to get off that path , and back to the straight and narrow road .
”

The Toronto Catholic District School Board lent its support for homosexuality 'to ensure that our schools are safe and welcoming places for all.'
TORONTO, June 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The Toronto Catholic District School Board released a statement Monday acknowledging June as the month devoted to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and also as a month that “manifests pride” for “those in our community who identify as LGBTQ+.”
The Ottawa, Algonquin Lakeshore, and Waterloo Catholic school boards also issued statements noting June as “Pride Month”, and Thunder Bay was the first Ontario Catholic board to raise the pro-homosexual “Pride” flag at its schools last year.
The TCDSB June 1 statement comes less than a month after LGBT activist and Toronto Catholic elementary school teacher Paolo De Buono asked the board to officially recognize June as “Pride Month.” The motion to receive De Buono’s delegation lost on a tie vote.
The June 1 statement is signed by TCDSB director Rory McGuckin and board chair Joseph Martino and posted on Facebook and Twitter.
“June is devoted to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which for Catholics is a sign and symbol of God’s boundless and passionate love for all humanity. We would also like to acknowledge that the month of June is of particular importance and manifests pride for those within our community who identify as LGBTQ+,” reads the statement.
The TCDSB, Canada’s largest publicly funded Catholic school board, is committed to equity and inclusion as the foundation of a multi-year strategy, McGuckin and Martino state.
“It is incumbent upon us to ensure that our schools are safe and welcoming places for all. We must also acknowledge that there is always more to do,” they write.
“We must continue to identify and eliminate discriminatory practices, systemic barriers, and biases. We must recognize that students who identify as LGBTQ+ may experience discrimination and judgment,” they add.
“As Catholics, we believe that we are wonderfully made in the image and likeness of a God who created us and loves us unconditionally — just as we are. We are called to love and celebrate one another, just as God loves and celebrates each one of us. We honour the inherent dignity in each other by treating one another with care, compassion, and respect.”
Jeff Gunnarson of Campaign Life Coalition, Canada’s national pro-life, pro-family lobbying group, blasted the TCDSB statement.
“It’s utterly blasphemous for a Catholic school board to speak about devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus while affirming homosexuality,” he said.
The image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus reminds Catholics of God’s love, but also that Our Lord’s heart was pierced by our sins, added Gunnarson.
“The Catholic faith following Bible teaching makes it clear that homosexual acts are a sin that cry out to God for vengeance. Pride is also a sin. It is considered by many to be the sin that resulted in Adam and Eve losing their relationship with God. Sin should never be celebrated by anyone, especially a school board that calls itself Catholic,” he told LifeSiteNews.
“It’s true that God is love. Sin, however, finds no place in God or in his kingdom that he has prepared for those who love him in return. God loves us so much that he gives us laws and standards to keep us on the straight and narrow road to his loving heart,” he said.
The Catholic Catechism teaches that while “unjust” discrimination against LGBT individuals is never justified, homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and gravely depraved and that the same-sex inclination is itself an objective disorder. The Church teaches that gender ideology contradicts God’s plan for human sexuality.
The TCDSB statement was similar to those of other Catholic boards noting “Pride Month.”
DROP Disney+: New teen film ‘Out’ features openly homosexual main character! Sign the petition here.
The Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board tweeted: “The month of June is designated as Pride Month. This month, and every month, our Catholic schools are committed to nurturing safe and inclusive learning environments where every student & every member of our community is welcomed, valued & respected.”
The month of June is designated as Pride Month. This month, and every month, our Catholic schools are committed to nurturing safe and inclusive learning environments where every student & every member of our community is welcomed, valued & respected. #PRIDE2020 pic.twitter.com/D2CeJ2zFTv — ALCDSB (@alcdsb) June 1, 2020
The Ottawa Catholic School Board tweeted: “June is Pride Month! We continue to honour the dignity of every person, embracing diversity and creating welcoming places for all. We are all wonderfully made. We love because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19).”
June is Pride Month! We continue to honour the dignity of every person, embracing diversity and creating welcoming places for all. We are all wonderfully made. We love because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19). #ocsbEquity #ocsbBeCommunity pic.twitter.com/m7UG9xL9Vp — Ottawa Catholic School Board (@OttCatholicSB) June 1, 2020
Notably, the words in the OCSB’s tweet — “We are all wonderfully made” — and the quotation from 1 John 4:19 — “We love because he first loved us” — appear on the “Catholic” version of the “Pride” flag that Waterloo Catholic District School Board announced it would fly over all its schools to recognize “Pride Month.”
The so-called Catholic version of a Pride flag depicts Jesus with his arms outstretched over an array of rainbow-colored figures. It was one of a number of options designed by the Institute of Catholic Education, according to WCDSB’s director of education, Loretta Notten.
The WCDSB decided not to fly any flag for “Pride Month” after backlash from pro-family groups and concerned Catholics, as well as from LGBT activists, with the latter upset that the board was not raising the rainbow “Pride” flag.
However, WCDSB schools will display the “Catholic” version of the “Pride” flag in their vestibules this year, while the board “consults with the LGBTQ community on next steps leading to Pride Month 2021,” the board announced in a press release.
It also posted a statement on its website similar to that of the Toronto, Ottawa, and Algonquin Lakeshore Catholic school boards.
“The month of June is designated as Pride Month across the province of Ontario, and indeed much of Canada and the globe,” wrote the WCDSB. “This month, and each and every month, our Catholic schools are committed to nurturing safe and inclusive learning environments where every student and every member of the community is welcomed, valued, and respected.”
LifeSiteNews contacted these Catholic boards to ask if the statements meant they were formally recognizing “Pride Month,” and if so, how could this be compatible with Catholic teaching? None responded to clarify their position.
The dire consequences of such statements cannot be overemphasised, Gunnarson said.
“For Catholic school boards to recognize or acknowledge ‘Pride Month’ in any way is completely misguided, and is affirming confused children on a path to hell, and those who are doing this are putting themselves on the same path,” he said.
“It’s not too late to get off that path, and back to the straight and narrow road.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-03--Pro-family watchdog group details how public-school sex ed corrupts children

WASHINGTON , D.C. , June 2 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — The Family Research Council ( FRC ) in May has released a publication on “ Sex Education in Public Schools ” outlining how “ sex ed programs push the limits on what is appropriate , both in terms of the material presented to students and the age at which it is presented.
” Parents reading the 56-page booklet will be appalled to learn , perhaps for the first time , what their children are exposed to in public schools across the United States .
Abortion , homosexuality , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do with waiting for marriage — “ Sex Education in Public Schools ” lists countless examples of the various ways in which children are sexualized by simply attending a taxpayer-funded school .
In fact , not all “ sex education ” takes place in the classroom .
“ Even if parents identify problematic lessons in sex ed and manage to opt their kids out , that won ’ t protect them from sex propaganda elsewhere in school , sometimes where they least expect it , ” Cathy Ruse , the author of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classes as seemingly innocuous as history are not safe .
“ All public schools in California , New Jersey , and Illinois are now required to teach children LGBTQ history .
In Illinois , schools are not even allowed to purchase history textbooks that fail to include an LGBTQ angle.
” In any case , students are not simply taught how sexual intercourse works , focusing on the biology of it .
Instead , pre-pubescent children in Austin , Texas , for instance , are encouraged “ to consider ‘ vaginal intercourse , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ anal intercourse.
’ ” “ Schools in Indiana actually send teens shopping for condoms , with a worksheet to fill out comparing brands , prices , lubrication , and whether or not they are comfortable shopping in the store.
” The term “ consent ” is no longer used exclusively “ to equip kids to resist committing , or being a victim of , sexual assault.
” Rather , “ [ t ] he ‘ consent ’ movement seems less about avoiding assault and more about promoting sex and sexual rights.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the research arm of pro-abortion Planned Parenthood , which revealed , “ Teaching about consent is key to pushing back against abstinence-only messages.
” Abstinence , in turn , has nothing to do with waiting for marriage , but means “ abstinence until your next steady boyfriend or girlfriend.
” Parents in Fairfax County , Virginia are told an abstinence lesson will talk about “ the benefits of abstaining from sexual activity until marriage.
” However , as Ruse found out , “ the word ‘ marriage ’ never appears anywhere in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New teen film 'Out ' features openly homosexual main character !
Sign the petition here .
Access to abortion is also a standard part of sex education in public schools .
In some institutions , students are told how to get an abortion and keep it a secret from their parents .
“ Schools in Indiana actually send students to visit clinics with a worksheet to fill out about services provided , and a place to fill out the bus route they took to get there ( presumably to avoid parental detection ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Homosexuality and transgender ideology are pushed on students by programs like Planned Parenthood ’ s “ Get Real ” curriculum for middle-school students .
As Cathy Ruse demonstrated , those programs “ are replete with same-sex examples , ” for instance a “ role-playing scenario for seventh graders.
” In that particular scenario , students have to act like Brittany , a girl in a homosexual relationship , whose partner “ wants to have oral sex with her ... [ b ] ut Brittany ’ s mom thinks she should wait until she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what Brittany should do , as she agrees with her mother but does not want to hurt her partner ’ s feelings .
Finally , “ [ m ] any public schools are beginning to teach the radical , anti-science proposition that biological sex is meaningless , that some kids are born in the wrong body , and that some girls have penises , too.
” The FRC booklet provides a “ list of 15 harmful elements typically found in ‘ Comprehensive Sexuality Education ’ curricula , any one of which is cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ check their own public school lesson plans for problematic material , which they are almost guaranteed to find .
In “ Sex Education in Public Schools , ” Ruse called out the most influential organizations pushing the sexualization of children , including Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States ( SIECUS ) , whose motto is “ sex ed for social change.
” Additional organizations are Planned Parenthood ; the Southern Poverty Law Center ; the Human Rights Campaign ; and the Gay , Lesbian & Straight Education Network ( GLSEN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ruse suggests , first and foremost , “ a healthy dialogue between mother , father , and child about the goodness and beauty of married love.
” Then “ work to ensure that your school does not promote harmful messages about human sexuality to your children or to any child.
” Given all the horrifying examples of sex education listed in the booklet , this might not prove to be fruitful for many school districts .
Parents are also encouraged to opt out of the school ’ s sex education activities by sending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administrator .
This could be helpful in some respect .
However , all the other students the child interacts with will still be participating in sex education and talk about it — a fact “ Sex Education in Public Schools ” does not consider .
In the final equation , “ [ t ] here has never been a better time to consider alternatives to public school ” — namely , private schools and homeschooling , as well as new forms of education implementing elements of both classroom instruction in a school setting @ @ @

The group found that sex ed in public schools not only sexualizes children, but indoctrinates them into LGBT ideology.
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The Family Research Council (FRC) in May has released a publication on “Sex Education in Public Schools” outlining how “sex ed programs push the limits on what is appropriate, both in terms of the material presented to students and the age at which it is presented.”
Parents reading the 56-page booklet will be appalled to learn, perhaps for the first time, what their children are exposed to in public schools across the United States.
Abortion, homosexuality, gender ideology, abstinence that has nothing to do with waiting for marriage — “Sex Education in Public Schools” lists countless examples of the various ways in which children are sexualized by simply attending a taxpayer-funded school.
In fact, not all “sex education” takes place in the classroom. “Even if parents identify problematic lessons in sex ed and manage to opt their kids out, that won’t protect them from sex propaganda elsewhere in school, sometimes where they least expect it,” Cathy Ruse, the author of the publication, pointed out.
Even classes as seemingly innocuous as history are not safe. “All public schools in California, New Jersey, and Illinois are now required to teach children LGBTQ history. In Illinois, schools are not even allowed to purchase history textbooks that fail to include an LGBTQ angle.”
In any case, students are not simply taught how sexual intercourse works, focusing on the biology of it. Instead, pre-pubescent children in Austin, Texas, for instance, are encouraged “to consider ‘vaginal intercourse,’ ‘oral intercourse,’ and ‘anal intercourse.’”
“Schools in Indiana actually send teens shopping for condoms, with a worksheet to fill out comparing brands, prices, lubrication, and whether or not they are comfortable shopping in the store.”
The term “consent” is no longer used exclusively “to equip kids to resist committing, or being a victim of, sexual assault.” Rather, “[t]he ‘consent’ movement seems less about avoiding assault and more about promoting sex and sexual rights.”
The FRC publication quoted the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of pro-abortion Planned Parenthood, which revealed, “Teaching about consent is key to pushing back against abstinence-only messages.”
Abstinence, in turn, has nothing to do with waiting for marriage, but means “abstinence until your next steady boyfriend or girlfriend.”
Parents in Fairfax County, Virginia are told an abstinence lesson will talk about “the benefits of abstaining from sexual activity until marriage.” However, as Ruse found out, “the word ‘marriage’ never appears anywhere in the lesson!”
DROP Disney+: New teen film 'Out' features openly homosexual main character! Sign the petition here.
Access to abortion is also a standard part of sex education in public schools. In some institutions, students are told how to get an abortion and keep it a secret from their parents.
“Schools in Indiana actually send students to visit clinics with a worksheet to fill out about services provided, and a place to fill out the bus route they took to get there (presumably to avoid parental detection),” the FRC publication uncovered.
Homosexuality and transgender ideology are pushed on students by programs like Planned Parenthood’s “Get Real” curriculum for middle-school students. As Cathy Ruse demonstrated, those programs “are replete with same-sex examples,” for instance a “role-playing scenario for seventh graders.”
In that particular scenario, students have to act like Brittany, a girl in a homosexual relationship, whose partner “wants to have oral sex with her … [b]ut Brittany’s mom thinks she should wait until she is older.” The students are asked what Brittany should do, as she agrees with her mother but does not want to hurt her partner’s feelings.
Finally, “[m]any public schools are beginning to teach the radical, anti-science proposition that biological sex is meaningless, that some kids are born in the wrong body, and that some girls have penises, too.”
The FRC booklet provides a “list of 15 harmful elements typically found in ‘Comprehensive Sexuality Education’ curricula, any one of which is cause for concern.” Parents are enabled to check their own public school lesson plans for problematic material, which they are almost guaranteed to find.
In “Sex Education in Public Schools,” Ruse called out the most influential organizations pushing the sexualization of children, including Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), whose motto is “sex ed for social change.”
Additional organizations are Planned Parenthood; the Southern Poverty Law Center; the Human Rights Campaign; and the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
What should parents do? Ruse suggests, first and foremost, “a healthy dialogue between mother, father, and child about the goodness and beauty of married love.”
Then “work to ensure that your school does not promote harmful messages about human sexuality to your children or to any child.” Given all the horrifying examples of sex education listed in the booklet, this might not prove to be fruitful for many school districts.
Parents are also encouraged to opt out of the school’s sex education activities by sending a letter to the school’s administrator. This could be helpful in some respect. However, all the other students the child interacts with will still be participating in sex education and talk about it — a fact “Sex Education in Public Schools” does not consider.
In the final equation, “[t]here has never been a better time to consider alternatives to public school” — namely, private schools and homeschooling, as well as new forms of education implementing elements of both classroom instruction in a school setting and homeschooling.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-02--Have Google, Facebook bought off DC conservative think tanks?

PETITION : Tell politicians not to discriminate against churches when reopening society !
Sign the petition here .
June 2 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Big Tech held its breath last week as President Trump announced on May 28 his executive order regulating the big social media platforms .
The president issued the executive order ( which had been in the works for at least a year ) shortly after Twitter decided to censor his tweets about the possibility for fraud resulting from mass mail-in balloting .
At LifeSiteNews , we have experienced severe censorship at the hands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some time , but our options for how to respond to this censorship - like that of most other conservative organizations being shamelessly silenced -- have always been very limited .
Sometimes we are able to maneuver around Big Tech 's blatant anti-Christian anti-conservative censorship , but in other cases , like in the case of Twitter , we have been given the `` choice '' of violating our conscience by covering stories in the way Twitter wants us to cover them ( e.g.
, using gender-preferred pronouns , etc . )
or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whether it is for financial gain or for ideological control , this is how monopolies always work : It is either their way or the highway .
In really tight monopolies , the highway is a toll road that the monopoly also controls .
Last week , Twitter started a war with the most powerful politician in the world .
President Trump responded in the way that those who voted for him were promised he would – by fighting back .
If anyone is looking for a reason why Trump is so popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than this situation with Big Tech for a prime example .
America wanted a New York brawler , not a polished Washington DC statesman , and that is what America got .
But the reality is that Twitter and the other social media giants have a very good shot of winning this battle .
It is a fight Big Tech has been preparing for , as every other monopoly before it did , by greasing the wheels of power through lavish donations to the Washington , D.C. political establishment .
And while it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tech donates overwhelmingly , sometimes exclusively , to the campaigns of leftist politicians and the Democrat Party , most people would be surprised to learn that they have also been pouring money into the nation 's largest conservative think tanks .
Yes , the big conservative think tanks have been taking donations from Google , Facebook , etc .
In the latest reports available from Facebook and Google 's own voluntary reporting , the three big Washington , D.C. think tanks , commonly thought of as being conservative , are listed as recipients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook .
The Heritage Foundation , The Cato Institute and The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research all received `` substantial contributions '' from Google and Facebook in 2019 ( check the Google roster of donation recipients here and the Facebook list here ) .
Can there be any doubt that their donors will have a deep impact on the policy positions these think tanks take ?
The initial reactions out of the gate , along with the opinion pieces and policy articles pushed out by the big three on the issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little doubt as to the potential influence these donations might have had with the think tanks .
The most conservative of the three , the Heritage Foundation , published an Op Ed written by the executive editor of the Daily Signal ( Heritage 's online publication ) titled `` Tucker Carlson Gets it Wrong on Tech Policy . ''
In that article , the Heritage Foundation cried foul after Carlson and others called attention to the organization 's apparent proposal that the `` free market '' and self-policing were the best ways to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and monopolization of the social media public square .
Shortly after the release of last week ’ s executive order , the Heritage Foundation 's president and the director of technology issued a very noncommittal statement that called for a balancing of interests between free speech and the rights of private businesses and individuals to be free from government interference – hardly a ringing endorsement for the president 's executive order .
LifeSiteNews reached out to the Heritage Foundation for comment , but no response was received before publication .
The other two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , American Enterprise Institute ( AEI ) and Cato Institute , were not as subtle as the Heritage Foundation .
In statements put out shortly after the signing ceremony was broadcast at the White House , AEI 's James Pethokoukis wrote a stinging rebuke to the president 's executive order , dismissing the censorship concerns of conservative media outlets and personalities as `` supposed suppression of ‘ conservative ’ speech by social media companies such as Facebook , Twitter , and YouTube … `` concluding that `` there ’ s no evidence that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of systematic or substantial way . ''
The Cato institute joined AEI 's anti-executive order policy position , titling their article `` Trump ’ s Social Media Order Rewrites Internet Law by Decree . ''
Is it any coincidence that the biggest of the big Washington , D.C.-based conservative think tanks have all received funding from Big Tech and are either missing in action ( or fighting for the other side ) with regard to the president 's executive order to curb the influence of Big Tech ?
Of course , these think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Big Tech , Big Oil , Big Pharma , or whomever they please , and in their defense , they are upholding a superficially conservative position in favor of limited government and free enterprise .
But the conservative think tanks ’ positions are superficially conservative because removing special immunity from Big Tech is not equivalent to government interference in private enterprise .
Instead , it is leveling the playing field so that Big Tech has to operate under the same rules as every other publisher that seeks to curate or moderate content @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technology poses a much greater threat to democracy than any alleged foreign interference that has preoccupied the Washington political establishment and the media for the last three years .
Just last year , Big Tech put their thumb on the scale in the all-important abortion referendum that quite literally stripped the fundamental right to life from preborn children in Ireland .
If that was not a life and death situation , nothing is .
No one who honestly follows the cases of Big Tech 's increasing censorship and invasion of privacy can doubt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential election in 2020 .
And of course , Big Tech has been complicit for the last two months in covering for the WHO and the Chinese Communist Party 's responsibility for the origins and devastating effects of the coronavirus pandemic .
The tools deployed by President Trump 's executive order — the reinterpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the removal of taxpayer funds invested on social media — are just the beginning of what needs to be done to ensure that Big Tech sticks to improving information technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influencing elections .
Legislation is now being crafted by Congress that will further attempt to bring accountability to Big Tech , but there too , Big Tech has been investing heavily with steep increases in political donations over the last years , mostly to Democrats , but sending enough donations to Republicans to break any party-wide consensus .
The year 2020 may decide the fate of the internet as a venue for free speech and may even determine whether a government of the people , by the people and for the people shall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must remain vigilant and ready to rally for our and everyone 's freedom of speech , paying special attention to those organizations that purport to represent our interests in Washington , D.C .
If you feel so inclined , politely contact the following organizations to share your concerns about Big Tech censorship of conservative organizations and persons .

PETITION: Tell politicians not to discriminate against churches when reopening society! Sign the petition here.
June 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Big Tech held its breath last week as President Trump announced on May 28 his executive order regulating the big social media platforms. The president issued the executive order (which had been in the works for at least a year) shortly after Twitter decided to censor his tweets about the possibility for fraud resulting from mass mail-in balloting.
At LifeSiteNews, we have experienced severe censorship at the hands of Twitter and other Big Tech for quite some time, but our options for how to respond to this censorship – like that of most other conservative organizations being shamelessly silenced — have always been very limited. Sometimes we are able to maneuver around Big Tech's blatant anti-Christian anti-conservative censorship, but in other cases, like in the case of Twitter, we have been given the “choice” of violating our conscience by covering stories in the way Twitter wants us to cover them (e.g., using gender-preferred pronouns, etc.) or being locked out of our accounts. Whether it is for financial gain or for ideological control, this is how monopolies always work: It is either their way or the highway. In really tight monopolies, the highway is a toll road that the monopoly also controls.
Last week, Twitter started a war with the most powerful politician in the world. President Trump responded in the way that those who voted for him were promised he would – by fighting back. If anyone is looking for a reason why Trump is so popular with his base, look no further than this situation with Big Tech for a prime example. America wanted a New York brawler, not a polished Washington DC statesman, and that is what America got.
But the reality is that Twitter and the other social media giants have a very good shot of winning this battle. It is a fight Big Tech has been preparing for, as every other monopoly before it did, by greasing the wheels of power through lavish donations to the Washington, D.C. political establishment. And while it will come as no surprise that Big Tech donates overwhelmingly, sometimes exclusively, to the campaigns of leftist politicians and the Democrat Party, most people would be surprised to learn that they have also been pouring money into the nation's largest conservative think tanks. Yes, the big conservative think tanks have been taking donations from Google, Facebook, etc.
In the latest reports available from Facebook and Google's own voluntary reporting, the three big Washington, D.C. think tanks, commonly thought of as being conservative, are listed as recipients of substantial donations from both Google and Facebook. The Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute and The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research all received “substantial contributions” from Google and Facebook in 2019 (check the Google roster of donation recipients here and the Facebook list here).
Can there be any doubt that their donors will have a deep impact on the policy positions these think tanks take? The initial reactions out of the gate, along with the opinion pieces and policy articles pushed out by the big three on the issue most important to Big Tech, leave little doubt as to the potential influence these donations might have had with the think tanks.
The most conservative of the three, the Heritage Foundation, published an Op Ed written by the executive editor of the Daily Signal (Heritage's online publication) titled “Tucker Carlson Gets it Wrong on Tech Policy.” In that article, the Heritage Foundation cried foul after Carlson and others called attention to the organization's apparent proposal that the “free market” and self-policing were the best ways to deal with Big Tech's increasing censorship and monopolization of the social media public square. Shortly after the release of last week’s executive order, the Heritage Foundation's president and the director of technology issued a very noncommittal statement that called for a balancing of interests between free speech and the rights of private businesses and individuals to be free from government interference – hardly a ringing endorsement for the president's executive order.
Heritage Foundation spokesman Greg Scott told LifeSiteNews that donations do not affect “policy positions.”
“Total corporate support amounts to less than 2% of contributions and has exactly zero bearing on our policy positions. No one should be surprised that The Heritage Foundation favors consumer empowerment, opposes government intervention, and champions the free market. We always have and always will operate according to a core set of principles when evaluating policy proposals. The Heritage Foundation’s authority rests on the quality, rigor, depth, and independent nature of our research and analysis. Any suggestion to the contrary is false.”
The other two conservative Washington, D.C. based think tanks, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Cato Institute, were not as subtle as the Heritage Foundation in downplaying the president's executive order.
In statements put out shortly after the signing ceremony was broadcast at the White House, AEI's James Pethokoukis wrote a stinging rebuke to the president's executive order, dismissing the censorship concerns of conservative media outlets and personalities as “supposed suppression of ‘conservative’ speech by social media companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube … ” concluding that “there’s no evidence that such censorship is happening in any sort of systematic or substantial way.” The Cato institute joined AEI's anti-executive order policy position, titling their article “Trump’s Social Media Order Rewrites Internet Law by Decree.”
Is it any coincidence that the biggest of the big Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tanks have all received funding from Big Tech and are either missing in action (or fighting for the other side) with regard to the president's executive order to curb the influence of Big Tech?
Of course, these think tanks have every right to accept donations from Big Tech, Big Oil, Big Pharma, or whomever they please, and in their defense, they are upholding a superficially conservative position in favor of limited government and free enterprise. But the conservative think tanks’ positions are superficially conservative because removing special immunity from Big Tech is not equivalent to government interference in private enterprise. Instead, it is leveling the playing field so that Big Tech has to operate under the same rules as every other publisher that seeks to curate or moderate content.
Big Tech's monopolization of information technology poses a much greater threat to democracy than any alleged foreign interference that has preoccupied the Washington political establishment and the media for the last three years. Just last year, Big Tech put their thumb on the scale in the all-important abortion referendum that quite literally stripped the fundamental right to life from preborn children in Ireland. If that was not a life and death situation, nothing is. No one who honestly follows the cases of Big Tech's increasing censorship and invasion of privacy can doubt that they will attempt to influence the presidential election in 2020. And of course, Big Tech has been complicit for the last two months in covering for the WHO and the Chinese Communist Party's responsibility for the origins and devastating effects of the coronavirus pandemic.
The tools deployed by President Trump's executive order — the reinterpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the removal of taxpayer funds invested on social media — are just the beginning of what needs to be done to ensure that Big Tech sticks to improving information technology and stays out of social engineering and influencing elections. Legislation is now being crafted by Congress that will further attempt to bring accountability to Big Tech, but there too, Big Tech has been investing heavily with steep increases in political donations over the last years, mostly to Democrats, but sending enough donations to Republicans to break any party-wide consensus.
The year 2020 may decide the fate of the internet as a venue for free speech and may even determine whether a government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the Earth. Conservatives must remain vigilant and ready to rally for our and everyone's freedom of speech, paying special attention to those organizations that purport to represent our interests in Washington, D.C.
If you feel so inclined, politely contact the following organizations to share your concerns about Big Tech censorship of conservative organizations and persons.
The Heritage Foundation
[email protected]
(202) 546-4400
The Cato Institute
(202) 789‑5200
[email protected]
American Enterprise Institute
(202) 862-5800
[email protected]
June 3, 2020, 12:40 PM EST update: This report has now been updated with a comment from Heritage Foundation spokesman Greg Scott.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-02--Gerber chooses first ever adopted baby as 2020 ‘Spokesbaby’

ROSS , California , June 2 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Gerber chose an adorable baby who was adopted as the ‘ Spokesbaby ’ for their 2020 campaign .
On May 8th , out of over 327,000 entries , Gerber announced Magnolia Earl , from Ross , California , as the winner of their annual baby contest .
One-year old Magnolia won the hearts of the judges with her “ joyful expression , playful smile and warm , engaging gaze.
” She is the third of a string of diverse babies chosen to represent Gerber .
In 2018 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down-syndrome Gerber baby and , in 2019 , Kairi Yang was chosen as the first Gerber baby of Hmong descent .
Magnolia and her family received a $ 25,000 cash prize , $ 1,000 worth of Gerber children 's clothing , $ 1,000 from Walmart and phones with a year of service from Verizon .
While she will not replace the original Gerber Baby on the baby food jars , Magnolia will be featured in future Gerber advertisements for the next year .
Magnolia ’ s adoptive parents show that love is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a love that transcends race and color .
Her parents , Courtney and Russell Earl , adopted Magnolia and made her part of their family along with their two daughters , Whitney ( 12 ) and Charlotte ( 8 ) , who is also adopted .
Courtney said that Magnolia being chosen as Gerber ’ s ‘ Spokesbaby ’ is “ a great reminder that anything is possible.
” “ It is fun to see the level of joy that she is bringing to so many people during this very difficult time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us such incredible happiness , and we are so very grateful .
It has been amazing to hear from so many people near and far.
” The Earl family ’ s joy is reflected in Magnolia ’ s engaging smile and sparkling eyes .
Courtney Earl described Magnolia ’ s adoptive process , “ On May 9th , 2019 , we received a call from the Adoption Agency that there was an expectant mom that was in labor and wanted to talk to us !
We pulled off the highway , got a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parents , and a few hours later , this sweet baby girl was born.
” “ Adoption is such a special part of the way our family was created , ” she continued .
In the midst of skyrocketing rates of abortion in the African American community , Magnolia ’ s story is one of hope , showing that almost anything can happen in a situation of adoption .
In the U.S. , nearly 36 % of all abortions are performed on African American babies , although African Americans make up only 12.8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look forward to the day when adoption and the incredible selflessness and bravery of birth parents is truly celebrated , ” Courtney said .
“ The real hero ( es ) in this story are Magnolia 's birth parents , ” Courtney said in an interview with “ Today.
” “ They chose ( to give ) her life , and they sent her on this incredible journey.
” Courtney reached out to Magnolia ’ s birth parents , telling them about Magnolia being a Gerber finalist .
“ If you could hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) of how proud they are of this little girl , ” Courtney recounted .
“ Together with them and our community and our family , we all this love this baby girl so much.
” “ At a time when we are yearning for connection and unity , ” Bill Partyka , the president and CEO of Gerber , said .
“ Magnolia and her family remind us of the many things that bring us together : our desire to love and be loved , our need to find belonging , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biology .
”

ROSS, California, June 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Gerber chose an adorable baby who was adopted as the ‘Spokesbaby’ for their 2020 campaign.
On May 8th, out of over 327,000 entries, Gerber announced Magnolia Earl, from Ross, California, as the winner of their annual baby contest. One-year old Magnolia won the hearts of the judges with her “joyful expression, playful smile and warm, engaging gaze.”
She is the third of a string of diverse babies chosen to represent Gerber. In 2018, Gerber chose Lucas Warren, the first down-syndrome Gerber baby and, in 2019, Kairi Yang was chosen as the first Gerber baby of Hmong descent.
Magnolia and her family received a $25,000 cash prize, $1,000 worth of Gerber children's clothing, $1,000 from Walmart and phones with a year of service from Verizon. While she will not replace the original Gerber Baby on the baby food jars, Magnolia will be featured in future Gerber advertisements for the next year.
Magnolia’s adoptive parents show that love is the key ingredient to being a family, a love that transcends race and color. Her parents, Courtney and Russell Earl, adopted Magnolia and made her part of their family along with their two daughters, Whitney (12) and Charlotte (8), who is also adopted. Courtney said that Magnolia being chosen as Gerber’s ‘Spokesbaby’ is “a great reminder that anything is possible.”
“It is fun to see the level of joy that she is bringing to so many people during this very difficult time,” Courtney continued. “She brings us such incredible happiness, and we are so very grateful. It has been amazing to hear from so many people near and far.”
The Earl family’s joy is reflected in Magnolia’s engaging smile and sparkling eyes.
Courtney Earl described Magnolia’s adoptive process, “On May 9th, 2019, we received a call from the Adoption Agency that there was an expectant mom that was in labor and wanted to talk to us! We pulled off the highway, got a chance to connect with her amazing birth parents, and a few hours later, this sweet baby girl was born.”
“Adoption is such a special part of the way our family was created,” she continued.
In the midst of skyrocketing rates of abortion in the African American community, Magnolia’s story is one of hope, showing that almost anything can happen in a situation of adoption. In the U.S., nearly 36% of all abortions are performed on African American babies, although African Americans make up only 12.8% of the population.
“We look forward to the day when adoption and the incredible selflessness and bravery of birth parents is truly celebrated,” Courtney said.
“The real hero(es) in this story are Magnolia's birth parents,” Courtney said in an interview with “Today.”
“They chose (to give) her life, and they sent her on this incredible journey.”
Courtney reached out to Magnolia’s birth parents, telling them about Magnolia being a Gerber finalist.
“If you could hear the joy in their voice(s) of how proud they are of this little girl,” Courtney recounted. “Together with them and our community and our family, we all this love this baby girl so much.”
“At a time when we are yearning for connection and unity,” Bill Partyka, the president and CEO of Gerber, said. “Magnolia and her family remind us of the many things that bring us together: our desire to love and be loved, our need to find belonging, and our recognition that family goes way beyond biology.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-02--Bill to inform women of abortion pill reversal passes Tennessee House

PETITION : Demand Planned Parenthood return $ 80M improperly taken from coronavirus emergency fund !
Sign the petition here .
NASHVILLE , Tennessee , June 2 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The Tennessee House voted 71-22 Monday to approve legislation requiring that abortion-minded women seeking abortion pills be given information on how to reverse them should they change their mind .
The bill requires women seeking a chemical to be made aware of the Abortion Pill Reversal ( APR ) technique .
The abortion pill mifepristone ( better known as RU-486 ) works by blocking the natural hormone progesterone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ APR consists of administering extra progesterone to counteract mifepristone ’ s effects , ideally within 24 hours of taking the abortion pill .
Specifically , anyone dispensing abortion pills must inform women of the possibility of reversal in person or by phone ( depending on how the drugs are being dispensed ) , as well as post the information in the waiting areas of any facility that commits more than 50 abortions per year .
Failure to comply could result in a $ 10,000 civil penalty as well as a felony charge .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , but this one has proven that it will save actual lives as it has already saved over 900 across the country , ” said Will Brewer , Legislative Liaison for Tennessee Right to Life .
“ It is our hope that pro-life legislators will support this opportunity to give a woman all the information available about all her options especially when she may want to change her mind about an abortion decision .
This information is important for the women of our state and their children.
” Tennessee Republican Gov .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill will reach his desk remains to be seen , as Senate leaders have indicated they are not currently interested in considering legislation not related to the COVID-19 outbreak , the Associated Press reported .
Detractors argue that APR is harmful and unproven , but as pro-life OB/GYN Dr. William Lile has explained , the technique is based on principles that are well understood from progesterone ’ s common , FDA-approved use in a variety of other pregnancy-related situations .
APR ’ s pioneers credit it with helping more than 400 women save @ @ @ @ @

An overwhelming majority voted in favor of the legislation, which may now stall before reaching the state Senate.
PETITION: Demand Planned Parenthood return $80M improperly taken from coronavirus emergency fund! Sign the petition here.
Update, June 3, 2020, 2:24 PM: This piece has been updated with a more current estimate of the number of lives saved by abortion pill reversal.
NASHVILLE, Tennessee, June 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The Tennessee House voted 71-22 Monday to approve legislation requiring that abortion-minded women seeking abortion pills be given information on how to reverse them should they change their mind.
The bill requires women seeking a chemical to be made aware of the Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) technique. The abortion pill mifepristone (better known as RU-486) works by blocking the natural hormone progesterone that developing babies require to survive. APR consists of administering extra progesterone to counteract mifepristone’s effects, ideally within 24 hours of taking the abortion pill.
Specifically, anyone dispensing abortion pills must inform women of the possibility of reversal in person or by phone (depending on how the drugs are being dispensed), as well as post the information in the waiting areas of any facility that commits more than 50 abortions per year. Failure to comply could result in a $10,000 civil penalty as well as a felony charge.
“There are many pro-life bills each year, but this one has proven that it will save actual lives as it has already saved over 900 across the country,” said Will Brewer, Legislative Liaison for Tennessee Right to Life. “It is our hope that pro-life legislators will support this opportunity to give a woman all the information available about all her options especially when she may want to change her mind about an abortion decision. This information is important for the women of our state and their children.”
Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Lee is pro-life. Whether the bill will reach his desk remains to be seen, as Senate leaders have indicated they are not currently interested in considering legislation not related to the COVID-19 outbreak, the Associated Press reported.
Detractors argue that APR is harmful and unproven, but as pro-life OB/GYN Dr. William Lile has explained, the technique is based on principles that are well understood from progesterone’s common, FDA-approved use in a variety of other pregnancy-related situations. APR has helped more than 1,000 women save their babies since 2007, according to Heartbeat International.
Share