lifesitenews--2020-06-29--New Gallup poll shows increasing American support for assisted suicide, polygamy, premarital sex

URGENT PETITION : Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade !
Sign the petition here .
WASHINGTON , D.C. , June 26 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A new Gallup poll released on June 23 paints the grim reality of American attitudes on a number of moral issues , including abortion , contraception , homosexuality , and assisted suicide .
A striking 90 percent of the population thinks contraception is morally acceptable , with only seven percent saying it is morally wrong .
More than half of Americans support assisted suicide , but only 18 percent said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alex Schadenberg , Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition , commented on that discrepancy , saying that “ people are confused about the nature of these acts.
” He said , “ Americans need to be given more information before being questioned in a poll.
” “ Whether a doctor assists the suicide or a person commits suicide without the assistance of a doctor , the act remains the same and the reason someone decides to do the act may be the same , ” Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews .
“ For instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are people who support assisted suicide and oppose the death penalty for the same reason .
They believe that the state should not have the rights to take the lives of its citizens , people will be wrongly convicted and the drugs used for capital punishment are inhumane .
With assisted suicide , the state gives the power to the physician to decide to kill , there are medical misdiagnosis and the same drugs are used for assisted suicide and capital punishment.
” As pointed out by Gallup , “ A record-low 54 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be morally acceptable , marking a six-percentage-point decrease since last year.
” The pollster added , “ This year , 40 % of U.S. adults think the death penalty is morally wrong , the highest in Gallup 's 20-year trend .
The high point in the public 's belief that the death penalty is morally acceptable , 71 % , was in 2006.
” Gallup had asked Americans in May about the moral acceptability of 21 issues .
“ At least seven in 10 U.S. adults say birth control , drinking alcohol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unmarried man and woman , gambling , and smoking marijuana are acceptable moral behaviors , ” the well-respected pollster reported .
“ Likewise , two-thirds of Americans consider gay or lesbian relations , having a baby outside of marriage and medical research using human embryonic stem cells as acceptable.
” Dr. Tara Sander Lee , Senior Fellow and Director of Life Sciences at the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute , told LifeSiteNews that “ medical research that uses stem cells obtained from human embryos is unethical , because it involves the deliberate destruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ All human beings , ” she continued , “ regardless of their developmental stage , deserve to be treated with dignity and respect , especially those most vulnerable , and not used as objects and means of experimentation .
It is never right to intentionally destroy one group of human [ beings ] for the benefit of another group.
” According to Sander Lee , “ there are much better and more successful alternatives available to scientists , including adult stem cells , which have been used to treat over 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No validated cures have been produced with embryonic stem cells .
Research that respects every life is , and will always be , the ethical choice in modern science.
” A small majority of Americans said abortion , one of the most prominent issues in any political debate on social issues , is morally wrong .
Forty-seven percent said abortion is unacceptable , whereas 44 percent said it is acceptable .
What sounds like a victory for the pro-life movement is put into perspective by the fact that 43 percent of Americans also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ animal fur is immoral , and only 31 percent say medical research involving stem cells obtained from human embryos is wrong .
One fifth of Americans says there is no problem with polygamy .
Less than 15 years ago , in 2006 , only five percent of the population considered one man having multiple wives to be morally acceptable .
Adultery was the least popular issue on which Americans were polled ; only nine percent said it was acceptable .
Compared to 2007 , several issues are now considered morally acceptable by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rose from 65 percent to 77 percent .
Sex between an unmarried man and woman was fine for 59 percent , which has increased to 72 percent this year .
54 percent said having a baby outside of wedlock was morally acceptable .
That number has risen to 66 percent .
The acceptance of homosexuality rose from 47 percent in 2007 to 66 percent in 2020 , less than one generation later .
The 2020 Gallup poll found that “ five issues are broadly viewed as morally wrong by liberals and conservatives alike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cloning animals , polygamy and suicide.
” The strongest discrepancy can be seen on the issue of abortion .
Only 18 percent of people identifying as conservatives think abortion is morally acceptable .
Among liberals , 70 percent have no objections to abortion .
There is at least a 40-point difference between liberals and conservatives on the issues of homosexuality and sex between teenagers , with liberals being more accepting of these practices .
With the exception of medical testing on animals , buying and wearing clothes made of animal fur , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open to all 21 of the moral issues presented by the poll .

‘At least seven in 10 U.S. adults say birth control, drinking alcohol, getting a divorce, sex between an unmarried man and woman, gambling, and smoking marijuana are acceptable moral behaviors.’
URGENT PETITION: Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade! Sign the petition here.
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A new Gallup poll released on June 23 paints the grim reality of American attitudes on a number of moral issues, including abortion, contraception, homosexuality, and assisted suicide. A striking 90 percent of the population thinks contraception is morally acceptable, with only seven percent saying it is morally wrong.
More than half of Americans support assisted suicide, but only 18 percent said suicide as such is morally unacceptable.
Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, commented on that discrepancy, saying that “people are confused about the nature of these acts.” He said, “Americans need to be given more information before being questioned in a poll.”
“Whether a doctor assists the suicide or a person commits suicide without the assistance of a doctor, the act remains the same and the reason someone decides to do the act may be the same,” Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.
“For instance,” he added, “there are people who support assisted suicide and oppose the death penalty for the same reason. They believe that the state should not have the rights to take the lives of its citizens, people will be wrongly convicted and the drugs used for capital punishment are inhumane. With assisted suicide, the state gives the power to the physician to decide to kill, there are medical misdiagnosis and the same drugs are used for assisted suicide and capital punishment.”
As pointed out by Gallup, “A record-low 54% of Americans consider the death penalty to be morally acceptable, marking a six-percentage-point decrease since last year.”
The pollster added, “This year, 40% of U.S. adults think the death penalty is morally wrong, the highest in Gallup's 20-year trend. The high point in the public's belief that the death penalty is morally acceptable, 71%, was in 2006.”
Gallup had asked Americans in May about the moral acceptability of 21 issues. “At least seven in 10 U.S. adults say birth control, drinking alcohol, getting a divorce, sex between an unmarried man and woman, gambling, and smoking marijuana are acceptable moral behaviors,” the well-respected pollster reported.
“Likewise, two-thirds of Americans consider gay or lesbian relations, having a baby outside of marriage and medical research using human embryonic stem cells as acceptable.”
Dr. Tara Sander Lee, Senior Fellow and Director of Life Sciences at the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute, told LifeSiteNews that “medical research that uses stem cells obtained from human embryos is unethical, because it involves the deliberate destruction of the youngest human beings amongst us.”
“All human beings,” she continued, “regardless of their developmental stage, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, especially those most vulnerable, and not used as objects and means of experimentation. It is never right to intentionally destroy one group of human [beings] for the benefit of another group.”
According to Sander Lee, “there are much better and more successful alternatives available to scientists, including adult stem cells, which have been used to treat over 2 million patients worldwide with excellent results. No validated cures have been produced with embryonic stem cells. Research that respects every life is, and will always be, the ethical choice in modern science.”
A small majority of Americans said abortion, one of the most prominent issues in any political debate on social issues, is morally wrong. Forty-seven percent said abortion is unacceptable, whereas 44 percent said it is acceptable.
What sounds like a victory for the pro-life movement is put into perspective by the fact that 43 percent of Americans also think buying or wearing clothing made of animal fur is immoral, and only 31 percent say medical research involving stem cells obtained from human embryos is wrong.
One fifth of Americans says there is no problem with polygamy. Less than 15 years ago, in 2006, only five percent of the population considered one man having multiple wives to be morally acceptable.
Adultery was the least popular issue on which Americans were polled; only nine percent said it was acceptable.
Compared to 2007, several issues are now considered morally acceptable by a larger percentage of the population. Divorce rose from 65 percent to 77 percent. Sex between an unmarried man and woman was fine for 59 percent, which has increased to 72 percent this year.
54 percent said having a baby outside of wedlock was morally acceptable. That number has risen to 66 percent. The acceptance of homosexuality rose from 47 percent in 2007 to 66 percent in 2020, less than one generation later.
The 2020 Gallup poll found that “five issues are broadly viewed as morally wrong by liberals and conservatives alike: cloning humans, extramarital affairs, cloning animals, polygamy and suicide.”
The strongest discrepancy can be seen on the issue of abortion. Only 18 percent of people identifying as conservatives think abortion is morally acceptable. Among liberals, 70 percent have no objections to abortion.
There is at least a 40-point difference between liberals and conservatives on the issues of homosexuality and sex between teenagers, with liberals being more accepting of these practices.
With the exception of medical testing on animals, buying and wearing clothes made of animal fur, and the death penalty, liberals are more open to all 21 of the moral issues presented by the poll.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-29--The history behind receiving communion in the hand

To help keep this and other programs on the air , please donate here .
Watch Mother Miriam 's Live @ @ @ @ @ today ’ s episode , Mother shares the remainder of John-Henry Westen 's recent podcast @ @ @ @ @ In today 's episode Mother reviews the history of the receiving Holy Communion on the @ @ @ @ @ the full podcast here .
You can tune in daily at 10 am EST/7 am @ @ @ @ @ .

To help keep this and other programs on the air, please donate here.
Watch Mother Miriam's Live aired on 6.29.2020. In today’s episode, Mother shares the remainder of John-Henry Westen's recent podcast focusing on Holy Communion. In today's episode Mother reviews the history of the receiving Holy Communion on the hand.
You can find the full podcast here.
You can tune in daily at 10 am EST/7 am PST on our Facebook Page.
Subscribe to Mother Miriam Live here.


lifesitenews--2020-06-29--Planned Parenthood burns American flag to protest ban on aborting babies with heartbeats

June 29 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – These days it feels as if the Overton Window is moving at such warp speed that you can actually hear it sliding .
State governments have placed their own citizens under house arrest , promptly made exceptions for riots and protests , and now statue-smashing has moved from Robert E. Lee to Ulysses S. Grant and from Jefferson Davis to Abraham Lincoln .
America is getting a makeover , and those performing the surgery are wielding butcher knives rather than scalpels .
And now Planned Parenthood , which despite its racist roots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to the fact that they provide much-needed abortions , is getting in on the action .
Hitching their wagon to other progressive causes in order to secure a place on the woke platform has always been one of their primary strategies , but now , of course , a blood-glutted corporation that has caused more black deaths than any organization in America ( the KKK included ) is attempting to join the new revolution .
On June 25 , for example , Tennessee Advocates for Planned Parenthood posted a video to Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bill Lee recently signed a ban on abortion after the fetal heartbeat can be detected , and naturally abortion activists are outraged by this .
Thus , presided over by a woman dressed up as the Statue of Liberty ( but serving , in this context , as American Moloch ) and attended by a handful of protestors , some featuring the red dress uniform of the Radical Handmaids , the abortion activists burned an upside-down American flag and lowered the burning Stars and Stripes into a trash can .
The activist doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lee .
“ Gov .
Bill Lee has disrespected our constitution and practically lit the flag on fire by banning abortion , ” Tennessee Advocates for Planned Parenthood tweeted .
“ But we won ’ t stop until we live in a new America that respects the rights of pregnant people .
Full stop.
” They added helpfully : Abortion activists burning the U.S. Constitution is a bit on the nose , but the irony of it all appeared to be lost on the flag-burners .
In the “ new America ” abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be rid of your children reigns supreme , reducing the right to life to the arbitrary whim of the mother .
These mothers , incidentally , make up Planned Parenthood ’ s clientele .
Never in the history of the Left have so-called progressives been so utterly unsuspicious of an enormous corporation posing as a revolutionary ally .
Not so very long ago , corporations were the enemy .
Now , things have flipped as the corporations have become woke and begun to agitate for the abortion industry and frantically wave the rainbow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the mob .
It is noteworthy that recent Planned Parenthood scandals have fizzled .
You probably didn ’ t hear , for example , that 300 people signed an “ Open Letter ” calling for the removal of Laura McQuade , the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater New York .
According to the Kansas Star , McQuade is being “ accused by her current and former staff of abusive behavior , systemic racism and financial mismanagement.
” The letter alleges that “ in her two-and-a-half year tenure , McQuade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intimidation ; we have witnessed her cull dissenters and surround herself with enablers.
” The letter went on to accuse her of “ abusive behavior.
” Others had accused her of racial discrimination .
According to Jezebel : Interestingly , many employees and activists noted that this sort of behavior often doesn ’ t get reported—or gets ignored or hushed up—simply because nobody wants to hurt abortion “ rights.
” Abortion is the progressive sacrament , abortion must be protected , and if that means dealing with toxic racists and awful work conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be done .
For abortion .
Progressives may be pushing for a second American revolution , but their primary loyalty is to the sexual revolution .
And for the sexual revolution to be possible , it is essential to have exterminators on hand to eliminate the babies that are naturally produced by the baby-making act .
Planned Parenthood does that like nobody else , to the tune of several hundred thousand baby corpses per year .
Their deal with the woke Left is sealed in blood .
For that , progressives will let @ @ @ @ @ @

June 29, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – These days it feels as if the Overton Window is moving at such warp speed that you can actually hear it sliding. State governments have placed their own citizens under house arrest, promptly made exceptions for riots and protests, and now statue-smashing has moved from Robert E. Lee to Ulysses S. Grant and from Jefferson Davis to Abraham Lincoln. America is getting a makeover, and those performing the surgery are wielding butcher knives rather than scalpels.
And now Planned Parenthood, which despite its racist roots has thus far survived the woke purges due to the fact that they provide much-needed abortions, is getting in on the action. Hitching their wagon to other progressive causes in order to secure a place on the woke platform has always been one of their primary strategies, but now, of course, a blood-glutted corporation that has caused more black deaths than any organization in America (the KKK included) is attempting to join the new revolution.
On June 25, for example, Tennessee Advocates for Planned Parenthood posted a video to Twitter of one of their protests. Governor Bill Lee recently signed a ban on abortion after the fetal heartbeat can be detected, and naturally abortion activists are outraged by this. Thus, presided over by a woman dressed up as the Statue of Liberty (but serving, in this context, as American Moloch) and attended by a handful of protestors, some featuring the red dress uniform of the Radical Handmaids, the abortion activists burned an upside-down American flag and lowered the burning Stars and Stripes into a trash can.
The activist doing the ceremonial flag-burning was dressed as Governor Lee. “Gov. Bill Lee has disrespected our constitution and practically lit the flag on fire by banning abortion,” Tennessee Advocates for Planned Parenthood tweeted. “But we won’t stop until we live in a new America that respects the rights of pregnant people. Full stop.” They added helpfully:
A quote from the skit for more context: “This is our constitution. I think it is garbage. This is nothing more than a just piece of paper to me, which is why I introduced the unconstitutional abortion ban in the first place.”
Abortion activists burning the U.S. Constitution is a bit on the nose, but the irony of it all appeared to be lost on the flag-burners. In the “new America” abortion activists are demanding, the right to be rid of your children reigns supreme, reducing the right to life to the arbitrary whim of the mother. These mothers, incidentally, make up Planned Parenthood’s clientele. Never in the history of the Left have so-called progressives been so utterly unsuspicious of an enormous corporation posing as a revolutionary ally. Not so very long ago, corporations were the enemy. Now, things have flipped as the corporations have become woke and begun to agitate for the abortion industry and frantically wave the rainbow flag in an effort to ingratiate themselves with the mob.
It is noteworthy that recent Planned Parenthood scandals have fizzled. You probably didn’t hear, for example, that 300 people signed an “Open Letter” calling for the removal of Laura McQuade, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater New York. According to the Kansas Star, McQuade is being “accused by her current and former staff of abusive behavior, systemic racism and financial mismanagement.” The letter alleges that “in her two-and-a-half year tenure, McQuade has created a culture of fear and intimidation; we have witnessed her cull dissenters and surround herself with enablers.” The letter went on to accuse her of “abusive behavior.” Others had accused her of racial discrimination. According to Jezebel:
On Tuesday, the board of Planned Parenthood Greater New York announced that they had “parted ways” with McQuade, news that came after a largely internal staff organizing effort spilled out into the public. Staff concerns against McQuade included accusations of racism and bullying, as well as charges that she had instituted a revenue-driven, assembly-line approach to PPGNY clinics–one that put patients, and in particular Black and other patients of color, at potential risk.
Interestingly, many employees and activists noted that this sort of behavior often doesn’t get reported—or gets ignored or hushed up—simply because nobody wants to hurt abortion “rights.” Abortion is the progressive sacrament, abortion must be protected, and if that means dealing with toxic racists and awful work conditions, so be it. It must be done. For abortion.
Progressives may be pushing for a second American revolution, but their primary loyalty is to the sexual revolution. And for the sexual revolution to be possible, it is essential to have exterminators on hand to eliminate the babies that are naturally produced by the baby-making act. Planned Parenthood does that like nobody else, to the tune of several hundred thousand baby corpses per year. Their deal with the woke Left is sealed in blood.
For that, progressives will let them get away with murder.
Follow Jonathon Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States. He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-29--Supreme Court: No First Amendment rights for foreign orgs pushing prostitution

PETITION : Demand Planned Parenthood return $ 80M improperly taken from coronavirus emergency fund !
Sign the petition here .
WASHINGTON , D.C. , June 29 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The United States Agency for International Development ( USAID ) can require foreign organizations to formally oppose prostitution and sex trafficking as a condition of receiving American aid dollars , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday in a 5-3 decision .
The case concerns a 2003 law governing foreign aid meant to combat HIV/AIDS , tuberculosis , and malaria in Africa , which states that funds may only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking , ” CNN reports .
Congress ’ purpose in enacting the condition almost 20 years ago was to fight “ coercive practices that spread HIV/AIDS and degrade women and girls , ” U.S .
Solicitor General Christopher Michel explained in May .
The group Alliance for Open Society International ( AOSI ) challenged the law as an alleged violation of its freedom of speech .
In May , AOSI attorney David Bowker argued that forcing the group to take a position against prostitution would force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their “ integrity and their reputation and their brand when they ’ re forced to speak out of two sides of their mouths.
” The Supreme Court previously ruled that imposing the condition on U.S.-based organizations would be unconstitutional , but ruled Monday that that was a moot point , as the First Amendment does not apply to non-American groups based outside the United States .
“ Plaintiffs ' foreign affiliates were incorporated in other countries and are legally separate from plaintiffs ' American organizations , ” Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Ruth Bader Ginsburg , and Sonia Sotomayor dissented , while Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case , likely due to her past work on the issue as a Justice Department official .
AOSI also argued it should be exempt from the requirement because the formal positions of its foreign affiliate could be attributed to its American one , which does enjoy First Amendment protections .
The majority rejected that argument .
“ First Amendment cases involving speech misattribution between formally distinct speakers… are premised on something missing here : Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the court wrote .
“ Even protecting the free speech rights of only those foreign organizations that are closely identified with American organizations would deviate from the fundamental principle that foreign organizations operating abroad do not possess rights under the U. S. Constitution and enmesh the courts in difficult line-drawing exercises.
” The Supreme Court also ruled 5-4 Monday against a Louisiana pro-life law requiring that abortion centers make arrangements for admitting women to nearby hospitals in cases of life-threatening complications .

The group Alliance for Open Society International (AOSI) challenged the law as an alleged violation of its freedom of speech.
PETITION: Demand Planned Parenthood return $80M improperly taken from coronavirus emergency fund! Sign the petition here.
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 29, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) can require foreign organizations to formally oppose prostitution and sex trafficking as a condition of receiving American aid dollars, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday in a 5-3 decision.
The case concerns a 2003 law governing foreign aid meant to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria in Africa, which states that funds may only be distributed to organizations that have a “policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking,” CNN reports. Congress’ purpose in enacting the condition almost 20 years ago was to fight “coercive practices that spread HIV/AIDS and degrade women and girls,” U.S. Solicitor General Christopher Michel explained in May.
The group Alliance for Open Society International (AOSI) challenged the law as an alleged violation of its freedom of speech. In May, AOSI attorney David Bowker argued that forcing the group to take a position against prostitution would force them into a hypocritical position, harming their “integrity and their reputation and their brand when they’re forced to speak out of two sides of their mouths.”
The Supreme Court previously ruled that imposing the condition on U.S.-based organizations would be unconstitutional, but ruled Monday that that was a moot point, as the First Amendment does not apply to non-American groups based outside the United States.
“Plaintiffs' foreign affiliates were incorporated in other countries and are legally separate from plaintiffs' American organizations,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated in his majority opinion. Liberal Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, while Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, likely due to her past work on the issue as a Justice Department official.
AOSI also argued it should be exempt from the requirement because the formal positions of its foreign affiliate could be attributed to its American one, which does enjoy First Amendment protections. The majority rejected that argument.
“First Amendment cases involving speech misattribution between formally distinct speakers… are premised on something missing here: Government compulsion to associate with another entity,” the court wrote. “Even protecting the free speech rights of only those foreign organizations that are closely identified with American organizations would deviate from the fundamental principle that foreign organizations operating abroad do not possess rights under the U. S. Constitution and enmesh the courts in difficult line-drawing exercises.”
The Supreme Court also ruled 5-4 Monday against a Louisiana pro-life law requiring that abortion centers make arrangements for admitting women to nearby hospitals in cases of life-threatening complications.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-29--Supreme Court strikes down another common sense pro-life law. What now?

PETITION : Tell Trump Christians can ’ t accept SCOTUS ruling imposing LGBT ideology !
Sign the petition here .
June 29 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – In what is turning out to be a devastating term for social conservatives , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision to overturn a Louisiana law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals .
Chief Justice John Roberts , who has frequently voted pro-life in the past , joined the liberal justices in their decision .
To analyze the ruling , I contacted Dr. Michael New , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ associate scholar at the Charles Lozier Institute and a visiting assistant professor at the Catholic University of America .
Here is what he told me .
What does this ruling mean for the pro-life movement ?
Today 's ruling is certainly a disappointment and a setback for pro-lifers .
It is very troubling that the Supreme Court decided to strike down a set of common-sense abortion facility regulations enacted by the state of Louisiana .
Since the Supreme Court struck down a set of clinic regulations enacted in Texas in Whole Woman 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second time in four years , abortion facility regulations have been struck down the U.S. Supreme Court .
That said , pro-lifers should not despair .
According to the Guttmacher Institute , over 400 state level pro-life laws have been enacted since 2010 .
The Supreme Court will likely decide to hear the constitutionality of some of these laws in the near future .
It is certainly possible that there might be five votes on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold some of these protective state level pro-life laws .
Furthermore , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The number of abortion facilities has declined by nearly two-thirds since the early 1990s .
Since the late 1980s , the number of organizations devoted to pregnant women has increased by over 80 percent .
Pro-lifers have made some very durable long-term gains in the court of public opinion .
Most importantly the U.S abortion rate has declined by over 50 percent since 1980 .
An important reason for this decline is because a higher percentage of unintended pregnancies are being carried to term .
This nicely shows that pro-life educational , service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective .
What does this ruling mean for Roe v. Wade ?
To be honest , I do not think this decision tells us much about the long-term future of Roe v. Wade .
This particular case was not intended to present a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade .
Furthermore , a dramatic reversal of Roe v. Wade is not a likely short-term outcome .
A more likely outcome is that the Supreme Court will issue decisions in the future that will allow states to do more to regulate abortion and protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roberts voted the way that he did , considering his pro-life credentials ?
Today 's ruling clearly shows that John Roberts issues decisions based on politics .
It makes absolutely no sense that he would vote to uphold the Texas abortion facility regulations in Whole Woman 's Health v. Hellerstedt in 2016 and strike down the Louisiana abortion facility regulations in June Medical Servces v. Russo .
The only difference is that in the Louisiana case his vote was pivotal .
Roberts is attempting to make the Supreme Court appear less partisan .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ where it appears that [ the ] justices are issuing opinions based on partisan lines .
That said , that is not an appropriate way to rule on cases that come before the Supreme Court .
Roberts needs to issue opinions based on the U.S. Constitution .
He should neither be concerned with how pundits view the court nor the resulting political fallout .
Do you think this ruling damages the legal standing of the pro-life movement ?
I do not think this ruling damages the legal standing of the pro-life movement as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reasonable case could be made for continuing with the same legislative and political strategy .
In today 's decision , Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh voted to uphold the Louisiana clinic regulations .
In 2016 , in Whole Woman 's Health v. Hellerstedt , Justice Roberts voted to uphold the Texas clinic regulations .
As such , there could be five votes on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold future pro-life laws .
That said , I do think that pro-life groups and pro-life leaders will start to more seriously consider alternative legislative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1980s , beltway pro-life groups have engaged a rough consensus about how to proceed .
At the federal level , we push for defunding abortion , incremental laws that can help shape public opinion , and Supreme Court justices who will be likely to overturn Roe v. Wade .
At the state level , the goal is to push for progressively stronger incremental laws , hoping that one of these laws will pose a strong legal challenge to the Supreme Court ’ s ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood .
However , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will probably receive more consideration .
For instance , one alternative idea that has been considered in pro-life academic and legal circles is enacting federal legislation under Section Five of the 14th Amendment , that would restore legal protection for unborn children .
This proposal was brought up by Princeton Professor Robert P. George during a Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina in 2011 .
Several Republican Presidential candidates were receptive to the idea .
Another idea , that has been considered in conservative legal circles is jurisdiction stripping – removing the ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involve abortion .
That said , if the pro-life movement decides to shift strategies , unity will be extremely important .
Internal debates over how to draft a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution during the 1970s and early 1980s did a great deal of damage to the pro-life cause .
Pro-lifers certainly do not want to go through something similar again .
How should pro-lifers respond to this ruling ?
Pro-lifers should not give up hope !
As we continue our efforts to build a culture of life we will inevitably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court decisions that strike down pro-life laws .
There will be elections where pro-life candidates lose .
However , our long term efforts are bearing fruit and we should not forget that .
Jonathon ’ s new podcast , The Van Maren Show , is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement .
In his latest episode , he interviews famed Chesterton scholar and founder of the Chesterton society and the Chesterton schools , Dale Ahlquist .
They discusss what G.K. Chesterton would think of the riots happening in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the world .
You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below :

Today's ruling clearly shows that John Roberts issues decisions based on politics, which is not an appropriate way to rule on cases that come before the Supreme Court.
PETITION: Tell Trump Christians can’t accept SCOTUS ruling imposing LGBT ideology! Sign the petition here.
June 29, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In what is turning out to be a devastating term for social conservatives, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision to overturn a Louisiana law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has frequently voted pro-life in the past, joined the liberal justices in their decision. To analyze the ruling, I contacted Dr. Michael New, an expert in abortion statistics serving as an associate scholar at the Charles Lozier Institute and a visiting assistant professor at the Catholic University of America. Here is what he told me.
What does this ruling mean for the pro-life movement?
Today's ruling is certainly a disappointment and a setback for pro-lifers. It is very troubling that the Supreme Court decided to strike down a set of common-sense abortion facility regulations enacted by the state of Louisiana. Since the Supreme Court struck down a set of clinic regulations enacted in Texas in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt in 2016 – this the second time in four years, abortion facility regulations have been struck down the U.S. Supreme Court.
That said, pro-lifers should not despair. According to the Guttmacher Institute, over 400 state level pro-life laws have been enacted since 2010. The Supreme Court will likely decide to hear the constitutionality of some of these laws in the near future. It is certainly possible that there might be five votes on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold some of these protective state level pro-life laws.
Furthermore, many trends are positive for pro-lifers. The number of abortion facilities has declined by nearly two-thirds since the early 1990s. Since the late 1980s, the number of organizations devoted to pregnant women has increased by over 80 percent. Pro-lifers have made some very durable long-term gains in the court of public opinion. Most importantly the U.S abortion rate has declined by over 50 percent since 1980. An important reason for this decline is because a higher percentage of unintended pregnancies are being carried to term. This nicely shows that pro-life educational, service, and legislative efforts have all been effective.
What does this ruling mean for Roe v. Wade?
To be honest, I do not think this decision tells us much about the long-term future of Roe v. Wade. This particular case was not intended to present a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, a dramatic reversal of Roe v. Wade is not a likely short-term outcome. A more likely outcome is that the Supreme Court will issue decisions in the future that will allow states to do more to regulate abortion and protect unborn children.
Why do you think Roberts voted the way that he did, considering his pro-life credentials?
Today's ruling clearly shows that John Roberts issues decisions based on politics. It makes absolutely no sense that he would vote to uphold the Texas abortion facility regulations in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt in 2016 and strike down the Louisiana abortion facility regulations in June Medical Servces v. Russo. The only difference is that in the Louisiana case his vote was pivotal.
Roberts is attempting to make the Supreme Court appear less partisan. He appears to dislike high profile rulings where it appears that [the] justices are issuing opinions based on partisan lines. That said, that is not an appropriate way to rule on cases that come before the Supreme Court. Roberts needs to issue opinions based on the U.S. Constitution. He should neither be concerned with how pundits view the court nor the resulting political fallout.
Do you think this ruling damages the legal standing of the pro-life movement?
I do not think this ruling damages the legal standing of the pro-life movement as such. In fact, I think a reasonable case could be made for continuing with the same legislative and political strategy.
In today's decision, Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh voted to uphold the Louisiana clinic regulations. In 2016, in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, Justice Roberts voted to uphold the Texas clinic regulations. As such, there could be five votes on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold future pro-life laws.
That said, I do think that pro-life groups and pro-life leaders will start to more seriously consider alternative legislative and political approaches. Since the early 1980s, beltway pro-life groups have engaged a rough consensus about how to proceed. At the federal level, we push for defunding abortion, incremental laws that can help shape public opinion, and Supreme Court justices who will be likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. At the state level, the goal is to push for progressively stronger incremental laws, hoping that one of these laws will pose a strong legal challenge to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood.
However, after today's ruling, some alternative approaches will probably receive more consideration. For instance, one alternative idea that has been considered in pro-life academic and legal circles is enacting federal legislation under Section Five of the 14th Amendment, that would restore legal protection for unborn children. This proposal was brought up by Princeton Professor Robert P. George during a Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina in 2011. Several Republican Presidential candidates were receptive to the idea.
Another idea, that has been considered in conservative legal circles is jurisdiction stripping – removing the ability of federal courts to hear cases that involve abortion. That said, if the pro-life movement decides to shift strategies, unity will be extremely important. Internal debates over how to draft a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution during the 1970s and early 1980s did a great deal of damage to the pro-life cause. Pro-lifers certainly do not want to go through something similar again.
How should pro-lifers respond to this ruling?
Pro-lifers should not give up hope! As we continue our efforts to build a culture of life we will inevitably encounter some setbacks. There will be court decisions that strike down pro-life laws. There will be elections where pro-life candidates lose. However, our long term efforts are bearing fruit and we should not forget that.
Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement. In his latest episode, he interviews famed Chesterton scholar and founder of the Chesterton society and the Chesterton schools, Dale Ahlquist. They discusss what G.K. Chesterton would think of the riots happening in the United States and the current state of the world.
You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below:
Follow Jonathon Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States. He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-29--US bishop pulls priest from parish for ‘divisive’ remarks upholding Church’s stance on homosexuality

PETITION : Urge U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference to defend Catholic heritage and statues !
Sign the petition here .
COLUMBUS , Ohio , June 29 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) ― A bishop has yanked a priest known for his pro-life work from ministry thanks to threats by LGBT activists .
Bishop Robert J. Brennan of the Diocese of Columbus in Ohio announced last week that Father Joseph Klee is neither assigned to , nor represents , the parishes of St. John the Baptist and Sacred Heart .
“ Father Klee has shown a pattern of making communications to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues which are frankly divisive , ” Brennan wrote in a “ Special Message ” on the St. John the Baptist parish website .
“ While these communications seemingly present Catholic moral teaching , they are often offensive and disrespectful to the human dignity of persons , ” he continued .
“ Father Klee has been repeatedly warned about making these divisive communications and ordered to cease doing so .
Further steps are being considered at this time.
” Klee told LifeSiteNews that the bishop ’ s announcement was caused by prayer hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sacred Heart , this June 19 , and on the Memorial of the Immaculate Heart of Mary , the following day , as well by the threat of violence from “ the local active homosexual community.
” LifeSiteNews has ascertained that Klee ’ s prayer hours were held outdoors , as a form of “ outreach , ” and featured a banner reading “ God ’ s Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman.
” According to the witness , the Catholics who participated prayed and sang hymns peacefully whereas some people driving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insults including “ unmentionable sexual suggestions.
” A Columbus Catholic who spoke under condition of anonymity told LifeSiteNews that he has known Klee for 20 years and attended his regular Thursday night Adoration liturgies .
He said that Klee , a late vocation , had been incardinated in his native Columbus but marginalized because he is orthodox .
Klee , he said , has actively preached a pro-life message and on modesty .
The priest ministers to nuns on “ the periphery ” and works in prison chaplaincy .
For over 10 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diocesan “ Courage ” program for same-sex attracted Catholics striving to remain chaste which remained “ under the radar until it got popular.
” After that Klee was replaced , and the program “ fizzled , ” he said .
LifeSiteNews ’ source said that complaints about Fr .
Klee ’ s Holy Hours were made by LGBT activists .
“ Gays make demands at the [ diocesan ] chancery on [ East ] Gay Street and expect their demands to be honored , ” the source said .
Bishop Brennan also removed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community at St. Peter ’ s Church in Columbus .
A spokesperson for the parish announced this on Facebook , saying : Fr .
Joseph Klee has ably and tirelessly served in Hispanic Ministry here at St. Peter for the last two years .
On June 22nd Bishop Brennan relieved Fr .
Klee of that responsibility .
Fr .
Summers will preside at the Sunday Mass in Spanish until he leaves when Fr .
Tuttle will take over .
Fr .
Klee has been a great help to our Hispanic parishioners and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his time with us and wish him well .
As a response to his removal , Klee exhorted faithful Catholics to “ make our lives an Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart.
” He asked for prayers on two themes : fortitude for the “ spiritual leadership of the Church ” and freedom for those “ deluded by the false promises of the homosexual agenda ” to break free .
“ Please pray and make sacrifices for the following two intentions ( in addition to praying for me ) , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prayers for : 1 .
For a tremendous outpouring of graces upon the spiritual leadership of the Church ( specifically upon the bishops and priests ) , that they would be empowered with the Cardinal Virtue of Fortitude .
That they would implore the intercession of the martyrs , lest they go from being potential victims of Satan ’ s attacks , to being actual instigators and accomplices ( like the Pharisees in Our Lord ’ s day ) .
Please pray that they would be freed from a subtle resignation to despair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the authentic Gospel of Christ and the teachings of the Catholic Faith are not the answer , but that atheistic socialism is .
2 .
For all those men and women ( and increasingly , the boys and girls too ) deluded by the false promises of the homosexual agenda , and especially those in the active homosexual lifestyle , that they would be given the grace to break free from the devil ’ s grasp .
We pray that they would acquire the Theological Virtue of Hope – that they would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be freed from the sinful enslavement that the practice of sodomy entails .
We pray that many would come to understand that the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Confession are indispensable , for receiving the necessary graces to resist grave sin .
Klee was injured and almost run over by an abortion business volunteer on April 8 , 2017 .
Michelle Davis had stolen Klee ’ s pro-life signs from the public sidewalk in front of Founder ’ s Women ’ s Health Centre and put them in her minivan .
She then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Klee caught his hand in the vehicle ’ s grille as he got out of her way .
The woman was initially charged with criminal mischief and disorderly conduct but not with assault on the priest .
In 2012 , Klee was filmed giving a speech for the “ Final Push Heartbeat Rally ” in Columbus .
The Heartbeat Bill was finally passed in 2019 but was soon blocked by a federal judge .
Bishop Robert J. Brennan Diocese of Columbus 197 E. Gay Street Columbus , OH 43215 614-228-2457 Contact form for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Diocese of Columbus

'Father Klee has shown a pattern of making communications to a broad audience on a variety of contemporary issues which are frankly divisive,' Bishop Robert Brennan wrote. 'Father Klee has been repeatedly warned about making these divisive communications and ordered to cease doing so.'
PETITION: Urge U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference to defend Catholic heritage and statues! Sign the petition here.
COLUMBUS, Ohio, June 29, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) ― A bishop has yanked a priest known for his pro-life work from ministry thanks to threats by LGBT activists.
Bishop Robert J. Brennan of the Diocese of Columbus in Ohio announced last week that Father Joseph Klee is neither assigned to, nor represents, the parishes of St. John the Baptist and Sacred Heart.
“Father Klee has shown a pattern of making communications to a broad audience on a variety of contemporary issues which are frankly divisive,” Brennan wrote in a “Special Message” on the St. John the Baptist parish website.
“While these communications seemingly present Catholic moral teaching, they are often offensive and disrespectful to the human dignity of persons,” he continued.
“Father Klee has been repeatedly warned about making these divisive communications and ordered to cease doing so. Further steps are being considered at this time.”
Klee told LifeSiteNews that the bishop’s announcement was caused by prayer hours he held on the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart, this June 19, and on the Memorial of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the following day, as well by the threat of violence from “the local active homosexual community.”
LifeSiteNews has ascertained that Klee’s prayer hours were held outdoors, as a form of “outreach,” and featured a banner reading “God’s Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman.” According to the witness, the Catholics who participated prayed and sang hymns peacefully whereas some people driving by either honked in support or screamed insults including “unmentionable sexual suggestions.”
A Columbus Catholic who spoke under condition of anonymity told LifeSiteNews that he has known Klee for 20 years and attended his regular Thursday night Adoration liturgies. He said that Klee, a late vocation, had been incardinated in his native Columbus but marginalized because he is orthodox.
Klee, he said, has actively preached a pro-life message and on modesty. The priest ministers to nuns on “the periphery” and works in prison chaplaincy. For over 10 years Klee also was the chaplain of a diocesan “Courage” program for same-sex attracted Catholics striving to remain chaste which remained “under the radar until it got popular.” After that Klee was replaced, and the program “fizzled,” he said.
LifeSiteNews’ source said that complaints about Fr. Klee’s Holy Hours were made by LGBT activists.
“Gays make demands at the [diocesan] chancery on [East] Gay Street and expect their demands to be honored,” the source said.
Bishop Brennan also removed Klee from his ministry to the Spanish-speaking community at St. Peter’s Church in Columbus. A spokesperson for the parish announced this on Facebook, saying:
Fr. Joseph Klee has ably and tirelessly served in Hispanic Ministry here at St. Peter for the last two years. On June 22nd Bishop Brennan relieved Fr. Klee of that responsibility. Fr. Summers will preside at the Sunday Mass in Spanish until he leaves when Fr. Tuttle will take over. Fr. Klee has been a great help to our Hispanic parishioners and to Fr. Summers. We thank him for his time with us and wish him well.
As a response to his removal, Klee exhorted faithful Catholics to “make our lives an Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart.” He asked for prayers on two themes: fortitude for the “spiritual leadership of the Church” and freedom for those “deluded by the false promises of the homosexual agenda” to break free.
“Please pray and make sacrifices for the following two intentions (in addition to praying for me),” he wrote. Klee also asked for prayers for:
1. For a tremendous outpouring of graces upon the spiritual leadership of the Church (specifically upon the bishops and priests), that they would be empowered with the Cardinal Virtue of Fortitude. That they would implore the intercession of the martyrs, lest they go from being potential victims of Satan’s attacks, to being actual instigators and accomplices (like the Pharisees in Our Lord’s day). Please pray that they would be freed from a subtle resignation to despair, specifically that of falling into discouragement that the authentic Gospel of Christ and the teachings of the Catholic Faith are not the answer, but that atheistic socialism is. 2. For all those men and women (and increasingly, the boys and girls too) deluded by the false promises of the homosexual agenda, and especially those in the active homosexual lifestyle, that they would be given the grace to break free from the devil’s grasp. We pray that they would acquire the Theological Virtue of Hope – that they would be inspired to believe that they can be freed from the sinful enslavement that the practice of sodomy entails. We pray that many would come to understand that the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Confession are indispensable, for receiving the necessary graces to resist grave sin.
Klee was injured and almost run over by an abortion business volunteer on April 8, 2017. Michelle Davis had stolen Klee’s pro-life signs from the public sidewalk in front of Founder’s Women’s Health Centre and put them in her minivan. She then attempted to flee the scene, and Klee caught his hand in the vehicle’s grille as he got out of her way. The woman was initially charged with criminal mischief and disorderly conduct but not with assault on the priest.
In 2012, Klee was filmed giving a speech for the “Final Push Heartbeat Rally” in Columbus. The Heartbeat Bill was finally passed in 2019 but was soon blocked by a federal judge.
Contact information for respectful communications:
Bishop Robert J. Brennan
Diocese of Columbus
197 E. Gay Street
Columbus, OH 43215
614-228-2457
Contact form for Bishop Brennan on the website of the Diocese of Columbus
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-29--Catholic priest, laity defend statue of St. Louis as leftist protestors become increasingly violent

PETITION : Urge U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference to defend Catholic heritage and statues !
Sign the petition here .
ST. LOUIS , Missouri , June 29 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A Catholic priest in Missouri addressed hundreds of angry protestors while defending a statue of St. Louis in the city named after the sainted king on a day when Catholic laity praying at the statue were physically attacked by protestors .
Father Stephen Schumacher , a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Louis , joined Catholic laity in Forest Park on Saturday who placed themselves between the already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be torn down .
Attempting to inform the protestors of the character and virtue of St. Louis , Schumacher said , “ St .
Louis was a man who willed to use his kingship to do good for his people.
” Umar Lee , one of the organizers of the protests , had said earlier in the day that the statue “ is gon na come down , ” as reported by Joel Currier of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch .
Lee said that St. Louis “ represents hate and we 're trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We 're trying to create a city where black lives matter , ” he continued .
“ We 're trying to create a city where there is no antisemitism or Islamophobia … this is not a symbol of our city in 2020.
” “ It ’ s a revolution , ” another protestor , Moji Sidiqi of the Regional Muslim Action Network , told the local newspaper .
“ It 's time for change … right now , our number one mission is to take this thing down and sit down with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take place and continue to heal our country , ” she added .
Sidiqi also said that she thinks the city of St. Louis should be renamed “ to celebrate the city ’ s racial , ethnic and religious diversity.
” The protestors have so far been unable to tear down the statue , and Catholics from the St. Louis Forever Rosary Coalition group have been cleaning the graffiti from its base and organizing daily prayer vigils at the site .
‘ Black Lives Matter protesters started to harass , berate , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peacefully praying ’ On Saturday afternoon a number of Catholics were attacked while praying the Rosary in front of the statue .
“ Yesterday , while praying for peace and unity in our city and the protection of the Saint Louis statue , Black Lives Matter protesters started to harass , berate , and assault the Catholics that were peacefully praying , ” Connor Martin , one of those praying at the vigil , posted to social media .
“ We did nothing in retaliation .
We allowed them to spit on us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fingers in our faces , push us , and antagonize , but we did not retaliate .
We continued to peacefully pray .
One male then came over and said he would attack myself , one other Catholic man , and a Catholic woman that was there if we did not leave .
We continued to pray , ” Martin continued .
“ At that moment someone in the crowd poured an unidentified liquid on the older man pictured below in the comments protecting his head , and was then attacked by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his arm pulled back about to attack the elderly man .
We got the elderly man out of there safely , and I was about to leave to retrieve my lunch as a friend of mine had just come over to tell me my food had arrived , when the mob approached him .
They asked if he was with me , and when he said yes they began to berate him .
They took his walking stick from him and when he didn ’ t react they knocked his hat off of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head , and attacked him .
At this point I intervened to pull the attacker off of my friend , and I was attacked by the mob and the attacker .
I have a video attached below of the assault.
” Martin said that he will be pressing charges against the attackers and has called on anyone who you can identify anyone in the videos or pictures to let him know .
“ This can not stand , ” he continued .
“ The police were called 6 times by others on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ righteous must defend themselves , as it appears the government no longer is .
I hope Donald J. Trump , Mike Parson , Senator Josh Hawley , Senator Roy Blunt , Sam Page , Mayor Lyda Krewson , and other public officials address this , as if not corrected things will only get worse.
” “ Please continue to pray for peace as we go through this frightening time in our [ nation ’ s ] history , ” Martin concluded .
Martin posted a series of videos of the incidents to social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published a statement on Saturday evening which insisted that St. Louis represented peace and respect for one ’ s neighbor .
“ The history of the statue of St. Louis , the King is one founded in piety and reverence before God , and for non-believers , respect for one ’ s neighbor .
The reforms that St. Louis implemented in French government focused on impartial justice , protecting the rights of his subjects , steep penalties for royal officials abusing power , and a series of initiatives to help the poor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Louis IX ’ s renowned work in charity helped elevate him to Sainthood .
His daily suppers were shared with numerous beggars , whom he invited to the royal table .
On many evenings , he would not let them leave before he washed their feet .
He personally paid to feed more than 100 poor Parisians every day .
His care for the sick was equally moving ; St. Louis frequently ministered to lepers .
He also created a number of hospitals , including one for the blind and another for ex-prostitutes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Catholic saints are increasingly being targeted in the violent protests that have swept across the country following the death of George Floyd .
Last weekend in California protestors pulled down and desecrated statues of Catholic missionary St. Junipero Serra in both San Francisco and Los Angeles , while a group of courageous young Catholics successfully defended Serra ’ s statue outside Ventura City Hall .
Shaun King , a leading voice in the Black Lives Matter ( BLM ) movement , has called for the destruction of images and statues of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mother .
Another Black Lives Matter activist last week used social media to call on mobs and rioters to protest a Catholic parish in San Diego , saying that the “ white ” parishioners did not think black lives mattered and they were “ staunch ” Trump supporters .
Reflecting on the current destruction of Catholic statues across the country , an article published last week on the website of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter recalled the words of Bishop John Lancaster Spalding of Peoria and his analysis of the American Know-Nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not the American people who were seeking to make war on the Church , but merely a party of religious fanatics and unprincipled demagogues who as little represented the American people as did the mobs whom they incited to bloodshed and incendiarism , ” Spalding wrote .
“ Their whole conduct was un-American and opposed to all the principles and traditions of our free institutions .
”

Black Lives Matter protestors also want St. Louis, Missouri to change its name. St. Louis IX is the only king of France to be canonized, and is known for ending trial by combat and replacing it with trial by jury.
PETITION: Urge U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference to defend Catholic heritage and statues! Sign the petition here.
ST. LOUIS, Missouri, June 29, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A Catholic priest in Missouri addressed hundreds of angry protestors while defending a statue of St. Louis in the city named after the sainted king on a day when Catholic laity praying at the statue were physically attacked by protestors.
Father Stephen Schumacher, a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, joined Catholic laity in Forest Park on Saturday who placed themselves between the already vandalized statue and activists calling for it to be torn down.
Attempting to inform the protestors of the character and virtue of St. Louis, Schumacher said, “St. Louis was a man who willed to use his kingship to do good for his people.”
Umar Lee, one of the organizers of the protests, had said earlier in the day that the statue “is gonna come down,” as reported by Joel Currier of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Lee said that St. Louis “represents hate and we're trying to create a city of love.”
“We're trying to create a city where black lives matter,” he continued. “We're trying to create a city where there is no antisemitism or Islamophobia … this is not a symbol of our city in 2020.”
“It’s a revolution,” another protestor, Moji Sidiqi of the Regional Muslim Action Network, told the local newspaper.
“It's time for change … right now, our number one mission is to take this thing down and sit down with people who want to see positive change take place and continue to heal our country,” she added.
Sidiqi also said that she thinks the city of St. Louis should be renamed “to celebrate the city’s racial, ethnic and religious diversity.”
The protestors have so far been unable to tear down the statue, and Catholics from the St. Louis Forever Rosary Coalition group have been cleaning the graffiti from its base and organizing daily prayer vigils at the site.
Faithful Catholics cleaning off profanity from the statue of St Louis tonight. Ave Maria. pic.twitter.com/1AXDh2fSpM — Beth (@Beth29842221) June 28, 2020
Catholics are beginning to answer the call. Tonight was the largest gathering yet. pic.twitter.com/o7RHzJUAGr — نWalker More (@SirMarchmain) June 29, 2020
‘Black Lives Matter protesters started to harass, berate, and assault the Catholics [who] were peacefully praying’
On Saturday afternoon a number of Catholics were attacked while praying the Rosary in front of the statue.
“Yesterday, while praying for peace and unity in our city and the protection of the Saint Louis statue, Black Lives Matter protesters started to harass, berate, and assault the Catholics that were peacefully praying,” Connor Martin, one of those praying at the vigil, posted to social media.
“We did nothing in retaliation. We allowed them to spit on us, call us names, put their fingers in our faces, push us, and antagonize, but we did not retaliate. We continued to peacefully pray. One male then came over and said he would attack myself, one other Catholic man, and a Catholic woman that was there if we did not leave. We continued to pray,” Martin continued.
“At that moment someone in the crowd poured an unidentified liquid on the older man pictured below in the comments protecting his head, and was then attacked by a violent individual, also pictured below with his arm pulled back about to attack the elderly man. We got the elderly man out of there safely, and I was about to leave to retrieve my lunch as a friend of mine had just come over to tell me my food had arrived, when the mob approached him. They asked if he was with me, and when he said yes they began to berate him. They took his walking stick from him and when he didn’t react they knocked his hat off of his head, called him a skin head, and attacked him. At this point I intervened to pull the attacker off of my friend, and I was attacked by the mob and the attacker. I have a video attached below of the assault.”
Martin said that he will be pressing charges against the attackers and has called on anyone who you can identify anyone in the videos or pictures to let him know.
“This can not stand,” he continued. “The police were called 6 times by others on the sidelines and never showed up. The righteous must defend themselves, as it appears the government no longer is. I hope Donald J. Trump, Mike Parson, Senator Josh Hawley, Senator Roy Blunt, Sam Page, Mayor Lyda Krewson, and other public officials address this, as if not corrected things will only get worse.”
“Please continue to pray for peace as we go through this frightening time in our [nation’s] history,” Martin concluded.
Martin posted a series of videos of the incidents to social media.
We allowed them to spit on us, call us names, put their fingers in our faces, push us, and antagonize, but we did not retaliate. We continued to peacefully pray. 2/8 pic.twitter.com/RekO7742Bm — Conor Martin (@CMartinForMO) June 28, 2020
We got the elderly man out of there, and I was about to leave to retrieve my lunch as a friend of mine had just come over to tell me my food had arrived. The mob then approached him. They asked if he was with me, and when he said yes they began to berate him. 4/8 pic.twitter.com/ZD81bWzvni — Conor Martin (@CMartinForMO) June 28, 2020
I will be pressing charges against the attackers. If you can identify anyone in these videos or pictures, please let me know. This can not stand. The police were called 6 times by others on the sidelines and never showed up. 6/8 — Conor Martin (@CMartinForMO) June 28, 2020
Please continue to pray for peace as we go through this frightening time in our nations history. “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven”
-Matthew 5:10 8/8 — Conor Martin (@CMartinForMO) June 28, 2020
The Archdiocese of St. Louis published a statement on Saturday evening which insisted that St. Louis represented peace and respect for one’s neighbor.
“The history of the statue of St. Louis, the King is one founded in piety and reverence before God, and for non-believers, respect for one’s neighbor. The reforms that St. Louis implemented in French government focused on impartial justice, protecting the rights of his subjects, steep penalties for royal officials abusing power, and a series of initiatives to help the poor,” the archdiocese said.
“King Louis IX’s renowned work in charity helped elevate him to Sainthood. His daily suppers were shared with numerous beggars, whom he invited to the royal table. On many evenings, he would not let them leave before he washed their feet. He personally paid to feed more than 100 poor Parisians every day. His care for the sick was equally moving; St. Louis frequently ministered to lepers. He also created a number of hospitals, including one for the blind and another for ex-prostitutes,” the statement continued.
Statues of Catholic saints are increasingly being targeted in the violent protests that have swept across the country following the death of George Floyd. Last weekend in California protestors pulled down and desecrated statues of Catholic missionary St. Junipero Serra in both San Francisco and Los Angeles, while a group of courageous young Catholics successfully defended Serra’s statue outside Ventura City Hall.
Shaun King, a leading voice in the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, has called for the destruction of images and statues of a “white” Jesus and Mary his mother. Another Black Lives Matter activist last week used social media to call on mobs and rioters to protest a Catholic parish in San Diego, saying that the “white” parishioners did not think black lives mattered and they were “staunch” Trump supporters.
Reflecting on the current destruction of Catholic statues across the country, an article published last week on the website of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter recalled the words of Bishop John Lancaster Spalding of Peoria and his analysis of the American Know-Nothing riots of the mid-1850s.
“It was not the American people who were seeking to make war on the Church, but merely a party of religious fanatics and unprincipled demagogues who as little represented the American people as did the mobs whom they incited to bloodshed and incendiarism,” Spalding wrote.
“Their whole conduct was un-American and opposed to all the principles and traditions of our free institutions.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-29--BREAKING: Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana abortion regulations

URGENT PETITION : Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade !
Sign the petition here .
WASHINGTON , D.C. , June 29 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The United States Supreme Court decided 5-4 to strike down a Louisiana law requiring basic medical precautions in the event of abortion complications , with Chief Justice John Roberts reversing his own past decision to uphold a similar Texas law .
June Medical Services LLC v. Russo concerned Louisiana ’ s requirement that abortion centers make arrangements for admitting women to nearby hospitals in cases of life-threatening complications .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law is no different from the Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in 2016 ’ s Whole Woman ’ s Health v. Hellerstedt .
Pro-lifers argued that not only was Hellerstedt wrongly decided but that Louisiana ’ s situation is different from that of Texas anyway , including that most Louisiana hospitals don ’ t have the Texas requirement that doctors must see a minimum number of patients per year to qualify for admitting privileges .
“ Louisiana abortion providers have a record of non-compliance with basic safety regulations , and now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical standards that apply to similar surgical procedures in our State , ” Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry declared in March .
“ Women seeking abortions deserve better than that ; they should have the same assurance of prompt and proper care in the event of complications.
” The case garnered significant national attention and involvement with the Trump administration and various pro-life organizations filing numerous amicus briefs backing Louisiana .
Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion , which held that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional for the simple fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Texas one the court already struck down in 2016 .
He cited the lower court ’ s determination that the Louisiana law “ offers no signficant health benefit , ” but “ places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking abortion , ” and “ will continue to make it impossible for abortion providers to obtain conforming privileges for reasons that have nothing to do with the State 's asserted interests in promoting women 's health and safety.
” In his concurring opinion , Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whole Woman ’ s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided .
The question today however is not whether Whole Woman ’ s Health was right or wrong , but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.
” Roberts invoked the legal doctrine of stare decisis , a controversial theory that claims past opinions gain legal weight simply by virtue of how long they last , regardless of how faithfully they reflect the law or the Constitution .
That doctrine “ requires us , absent special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law , for the same reasons .
Therefore Louisiana ’ s law can not stand under our precedents.
” Justices Clarence Thomas , Sameul Alito , Neil Gorscuh , and Brett Kavanaugh all dissented , with Thomas asserting the challenge to the law should have been rejected for the simple fact that the abortionists in question had no legal standing to bring it in the first place .
“ Today a majority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction , ” Thomas wrote .
“ The plurality concludes that the Louisiana law does nothing to protect the health of women , but that is disproved by substantial evidence in the record , ” Alito wrote .
“ And the plurality upholds the District Court ’ s finding that the Louisiana law would cause a drastic reduction in the number of abortion providers in the State even though this finding was based on an erroneous legal standard and a thoroughly inadequate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Chief Justice hold that abortion providers can invoke a woman ’ s abortion right when they attack state laws that are enacted to protect a woman ’ s health , ” Alito continued .
“ Neither waiver nor stare decisis can justify this holding , which clashes with our general rule on third-party standing .
And the idea that a regulated party can invoke the right of a third party for the purpose of attacking legislation enacted to protect the third party is stunning .
Given the apparent conflict of interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hand in a case not involving abortion.
” Monday ’ s ruling means a reprieve for Louisiana ’ s three abortion facilities and the preservation of a major obstacle to other states regulatinig the abortion industry .
It also means the court missed an opportunity to make a broader determination on the underlying legitimacy of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey , which force all 50 states to permit most abortions .
In January , more than 200 members of Congress signed a brief urging the court to use the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The ruling is largely defended not on its legal merits ( numerous pro-abortion legal minds , including Ginsburg herself , have acknowledged the ruling ’ s flaws ) , but on its status as precedent , with the contemporary interpretation of the stare decisis doctrine holding that Roe ’ s lengthy history staying on the books grants it added weight .
Thomas has forcefully rejected such arguments .
“ We are disappointed that SCOTUS continues to protect the practices of abortion providers at the expense of women ’ s wellbeing , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( NIFLA ) attorney Angie Thomas reacted in a statement .
“ Louisiana abortion providers have an alarming and dangerous record of substandard healthcare—including botched abortions and failure to satisfy basic sanitary requirements .
Unfortunately , this ruling will allow the abortion industry to continue to put profits before patients.
” “ Women were dealt a huge blow in today ’ s ruling from the Supreme Court , ” pro-life activist and former abortion insider Abby Johnson added .
“ By deciding that abortion doctors and clinics need to follow a separate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other medical facility leaves women open to the consequences of an industry that has mastered cutting corners on healthcare .
Most any state health department report on their local abortion clinics will more than likely have repulsive citations that should make any woman question walking inside those doors .
Things like rusty equipment , the use of expired medications , tears in surgery and exam tables , holes in floors where rodents can slip inside are all fairly common citations , which would shut down most restaurants and medical facilities –unless they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marks the third time Roberts , a highly-controversial Republican appointee , has angered social conservatives in June , following his joining the liberal justices in writing homosexuality and transgenderism into “ sex discrimination ” and in upholding California ’ s COVID-19 restrictions on religious assembly .
The fact that he applied a precedent he himself rejected just four years earlier , solely on the basis of stare decisis , strongly suggests he is all but certain to support the 47-year-old Roe v. Wade on the same basis .
On the other hand , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may help reassure social conservatives going into the 2020 election that , despite Gorsuch joining Roberts and the liberals on the LGBT ruling , President Donald Trump ’ s judicial nominees have still made and would continue to make a critical difference compared to the nominees of former Vice President Joe Biden .

URGENT PETITION: Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade! Sign the petition here.
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 29, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The United States Supreme Court decided 5-4 to strike down a Louisiana law requiring basic medical precautions in the event of abortion complications, with Chief Justice John Roberts reversing his own past decision to uphold a similar Texas law.
June Medical Services LLC v. Russo concerned Louisiana’s requirement that abortion centers make arrangements for admitting women to nearby hospitals in cases of life-threatening complications.
The abortion industry’s attorneys argued the law is no different from the Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in 2016’s Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Pro-lifers argued that not only was Hellerstedt wrongly decided but that Louisiana’s situation is different from that of Texas anyway, including that most Louisiana hospitals don’t have the Texas requirement that doctors must see a minimum number of patients per year to qualify for admitting privileges.
“Louisiana abortion providers have a record of non-compliance with basic safety regulations, and now they want a special exemption from generally-accepted medical standards that apply to similar surgical procedures in our State,” Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry declared in March. “Women seeking abortions deserve better than that; they should have the same assurance of prompt and proper care in the event of complications.”
The case garnered significant national attention and involvement with the Trump administration and various pro-life organizations filing numerous amicus briefs backing Louisiana.
Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which held that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional for the simple fact that it was “almost word-for-word identical” to the Texas one the court already struck down in 2016. He cited the lower court’s determination that the Louisiana law “offers no signficant health benefit,” but “places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking abortion,” and “will continue to make it impossible for abortion providers to obtain conforming privileges for reasons that have nothing to do with the State's asserted interests in promoting women's health and safety.”
In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that he had “joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.”
Roberts invoked the legal doctrine of stare decisis, a controversial theory that claims past opinions gain legal weight simply by virtue of how long they last, regardless of how faithfully they reflect the law or the Constitution. That doctrine “requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”
Justices Clarence Thomas, Sameul Alito, Neil Gorscuh, and Brett Kavanaugh all dissented, with Thomas asserting the challenge to the law should have been rejected for the simple fact that the abortionists in question had no legal standing to bring it in the first place. “Today a majority of the Court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction,” Thomas wrote.
“The plurality concludes that the Louisiana law does nothing to protect the health of women, but that is disproved by substantial evidence in the record,” Alito wrote. “And the plurality upholds the District Court’s finding that the Louisiana law would cause a drastic reduction in the number of abortion providers in the State even though this finding was based on an erroneous legal standard and a thoroughly inadequate factual inquiry.”
“Both the plurality and the Chief Justice hold that abortion providers can invoke a woman’s abortion right when they attack state laws that are enacted to protect a woman’s health,” Alito continued. “Neither waiver nor stare decisis can justify this holding, which clashes with our general rule on third-party standing. And the idea that a regulated party can invoke the right of a third party for the purpose of attacking legislation enacted to protect the third party is stunning. Given the apparent conflict of interest, that concept would be rejected out of hand in a case not involving abortion.”
Monday’s ruling means a reprieve for Louisiana’s three abortion facilities and the preservation of a major obstacle to other states regulatinig the abortion industry. It also means the court missed an opportunity to make a broader determination on the underlying legitimacy of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which force all 50 states to permit most abortions.
In January, more than 200 members of Congress signed a brief urging the court to use the case as an occasion to reconsider Roe. The ruling is largely defended not on its legal merits (numerous pro-abortion legal minds, including Ginsburg herself, have acknowledged the ruling’s flaws), but on its status as precedent, with the contemporary interpretation of the stare decisis doctrine holding that Roe’s lengthy history staying on the books grants it added weight. Thomas has forcefully rejected such arguments.
“We are disappointed that SCOTUS continues to protect the practices of abortion providers at the expense of women’s wellbeing,” National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) attorney Angie Thomas reacted in a statement. “Louisiana abortion providers have an alarming and dangerous record of substandard healthcare—including botched abortions and failure to satisfy basic sanitary requirements. Unfortunately, this ruling will allow the abortion industry to continue to put profits before patients.”
“Women were dealt a huge blow in today’s ruling from the Supreme Court,” pro-life activist and former abortion insider Abby Johnson added. “By deciding that abortion doctors and clinics need to follow a separate, less stringent set of rules than every other medical facility leaves women open to the consequences of an industry that has mastered cutting corners on healthcare. Most any state health department report on their local abortion clinics will more than likely have repulsive citations that should make any woman question walking inside those doors. Things like rusty equipment, the use of expired medications, tears in surgery and exam tables, holes in floors where rodents can slip inside are all fairly common citations, which would shut down most restaurants and medical facilities –unless they were abortion clinics.”
Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser called the ruling a “bitter disappointment.”
Monday’s ruling marks the third time Roberts, a highly-controversial Republican appointee, has angered social conservatives in June, following his joining the liberal justices in writing homosexuality and transgenderism into “sex discrimination” and in upholding California’s COVID-19 restrictions on religious assembly. The fact that he applied a precedent he himself rejected just four years earlier, solely on the basis of stare decisis, strongly suggests he is all but certain to support the 47-year-old Roe v. Wade on the same basis.
On the other hand, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joining the conservative dissenters may help reassure social conservatives going into the 2020 election that, despite Gorsuch joining Roberts and the liberals on the LGBT ruling, President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees have still made and would continue to make a critical difference compared to the nominees of former Vice President Joe Biden.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-27--UN secretary general calls for ‘global governance’ with ‘teeth’

PETITION : Investigate George Soros ' role in funding domestic terrorism !
Sign the petition here .
NEW YORK , June 26 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres is calling for a “ multilateral ” level of governance with the “ teeth ” to “ function as an instrument of global governance where it is needed.
” “ The problem is that today ’ s multilateralism lacks scale , ambition and teeth , ” Guterres said during a Thursday press conference on the launch of the UN ’ s “ comprehensive response to COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Wuhan , China .
“ And some of the instruments that do have teeth , show little or no appetite to bite , as has recently been the case with the difficulties faced by the Security Council.
” In the interdependent world of today , “ national interests are not easily separated from the global good , ” Guterres said .
Moreover , economic and social upheaval caused by the coronavirus pandemic “ has laid bare severe and systemic inequalities ” across the world , and underscored its fragility in the face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat of nuclear war , and “ lawlessness in cyberspace , ” he warned .
In the face of such problems , “ world leaders need to be humble and recognize the vital importance of unity and solidarity , ” he said .
“ We must reimagine the way nations cooperate , ” Guterres contended .
“ We need a networked multilateralism , bringing together the UN system , regional organizations , international financial institutions and others , ” he said .
“ And we need an effective multilateralism that can function as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is needed.
” He reiterated the same message at a virtual press conference on June 26 to mark the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the UN Charter in San Francisco .
To emulate those who seized on the Charter as the opportunity to “ plant something new ” after the depression and world wars , multilateralism must change , he said .
“ We need to reimagine multilateralism , give it teeth to function as the founders intended , and ensure that effective global governance is a reality when it is needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must also bring others to the table in an inclusive and networked multilateralism , since governments are only part of today ’ s political realities , ” he added .
“ Civil society , cities , the private sector and young people are essential voices in shaping the world we want.
” To the globe ’ s “ fragilities ” he mentioned Thursday , Guterres added further troubles : widespread and increasing distrust of national governments , “ inequality , discrimination , corruption and lack of opportunities all over the world – grievances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including with a renewed social contract.
” There ’ s also the possibility of another pandemic of “ a new virus transmitted as easily as COVID-19 but as deadly as Ebola , ” he warned .
And there is “ the plague of misinformation ” to be fought .
Guterres is looking forward to discussing these matters at the UN ’ s annual general assembly in September “ in whatever format necessary , ” he said Thursday .
“ We absolutely must come together to reimagine and reinvent the world we share.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the former president of the Socialist International from 1999 to 2005 , has used the coronavirus pandemic to push “ global governance ” in one form or another .
He proposed in March that 10 percent of the world ’ s GDP be put into an internationally administered fund and “ coordinated stimulus package ” to respond to economic and social fallout from the pandemic .
“ If countries were to accept the plan , the United Nations or some similar coordinating agency would be given the equivalent of approximately 8.7 trillion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be 2,900 times greater than the UN ’ s annual budget of 3 billion USD , ” LifeSite ’ s Matthew Cullinan Hoffman wrote at the time .
The plan would also “ effectively place a global agency , presumably the UN itself , in charge of propping up the economies of the world during the coronavirus crisis.
” However , Guterres ’ proposed international fund dovetails neatly with the “ Great Reset ” initiative launched by the World Economic Forum , along with Prince Charles of England and the International Monetary Fund @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jeanne Smits wrote last month .
Guterres fully supports the “ The Great Reset , ” which the world ’ s globalist elites will be discussing in January 2021 in Davos , Switzerland , along with online participants from around the world .
The initiative has the objective of “ rebuilding ” the world ’ s economic and social system in order to make it more “ sustainable.
” Indeed , the UN took a “ giant step ” toward global government with their 2015 proposal : “ Transforming the World : 2030 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jeffrey Ludwig pointed out two years ago in the American Thinker .
He noted the similarity between the UN World Commission on Environment and Development ’ s definition of “ sustainable development ” as that which “ meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs , ” and the “ Marxist axiom that society should be organized around the idea of ‘ from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.
’ ” Therefore , “ Marxism is implicit in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alliance with seemingly scientific adjustments and goals related to environmentalism , ” Ludwig observed .
“ The one-worlders of the 1950s and early 1960s are now in the UN driver 's seat , and they have made their move .
The overlay of Marxist talk about ‘ meeting needs ’ has moved to center stage .
The UN has assigned itself a time frame for moving forward in its plan for planetary hegemony , ” he warned .
Guterres is also aggressively pushing a global right to abortion in the context of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Human Rights ( C-Fam ) reported in April that Guterres ’ March appeal for $ 2 billion to help developing countries deal with the novel coronavirus repeatedly highlights “ sexual and reproductive health and rights ” as a priority area of food security and health policy .
Moreover , “ contradicting U.S. state governors who want to concentrate all medical personnel on the coronavirus emergency , World Health Organization officials and staff are promoting abortion as an ‘ essential service , ’ ” C-Fam stated .

'We absolutely must come together to reimagine and reinvent the world we share,' says Antonio Guterres.
PETITION: Investigate George Soros' role in funding domestic terrorism! Sign the petition here.
NEW YORK, June 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres is calling for a “multilateral” level of governance with the “teeth” to “function as an instrument of global governance where it is needed.”
“The problem is that today’s multilateralism lacks scale, ambition and teeth,” Guterres said during a Thursday press conference on the launch of the UN’s “comprehensive response to COVID-19” — the novel coronavirus that originated in Wuhan, China.
“And some of the instruments that do have teeth, show little or no appetite to bite, as has recently been the case with the difficulties faced by the Security Council.”
In the interdependent world of today, “national interests are not easily separated from the global good,” Guterres said.
Moreover, economic and social upheaval caused by the coronavirus pandemic “has laid bare severe and systemic inequalities” across the world, and underscored its fragility in the face of “climate crisis,” the threat of nuclear war, and “lawlessness in cyberspace,” he warned.
In the face of such problems, “world leaders need to be humble and recognize the vital importance of unity and solidarity,” he said.
“We must reimagine the way nations cooperate,” Guterres contended.
“We need a networked multilateralism, bringing together the UN system, regional organizations, international financial institutions and others,” he said.
“And we need an effective multilateralism that can function as an instrument of global governance where it is needed.”
He reiterated the same message at a virtual press conference on June 26 to mark the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the UN Charter in San Francisco.
To emulate those who seized on the Charter as the opportunity to “plant something new” after the depression and world wars, multilateralism must change, he said.
“We need to reimagine multilateralism, give it teeth to function as the founders intended, and ensure that effective global governance is a reality when it is needed,” Guterres stated.
“We must also bring others to the table in an inclusive and networked multilateralism, since governments are only part of today’s political realities,” he added.
“Civil society, cities, the private sector and young people are essential voices in shaping the world we want.”
To the globe’s “fragilities” he mentioned Thursday, Guterres added further troubles: widespread and increasing distrust of national governments, “inequality, discrimination, corruption and lack of opportunities all over the world – grievances that still need to be addressed, including with a renewed social contract.”
There’s also the possibility of another pandemic of “a new virus transmitted as easily as COVID-19 but as deadly as Ebola,” he warned.
And there is “the plague of misinformation” to be fought.
Guterres is looking forward to discussing these matters at the UN’s annual general assembly in September “in whatever format necessary,” he said Thursday.
“We absolutely must come together to reimagine and reinvent the world we share.”
This is not the first time Guterres, the former president of the Socialist International from 1999 to 2005, has used the coronavirus pandemic to push “global governance” in one form or another.
He proposed in March that 10 percent of the world’s GDP be put into an internationally administered fund and “coordinated stimulus package” to respond to economic and social fallout from the pandemic.
“If countries were to accept the plan, the United Nations or some similar coordinating agency would be given the equivalent of approximately 8.7 trillion USD, an unprecedented amount that would be 2,900 times greater than the UN’s annual budget of 3 billion USD,” LifeSite’s Matthew Cullinan Hoffman wrote at the time.
The plan would also “effectively place a global agency, presumably the UN itself, in charge of propping up the economies of the world during the coronavirus crisis.”
However, Guterres’ proposed international fund dovetails neatly with the “Great Reset” initiative launched by the World Economic Forum, along with Prince Charles of England and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), LifeSite’s Jeanne Smits wrote last month.
Guterres fully supports the “The Great Reset,” which the world’s globalist elites will be discussing in January 2021 in Davos, Switzerland, along with online participants from around the world.
The initiative has the objective of “rebuilding” the world’s economic and social system in order to make it more “sustainable.”
Indeed, the UN took a “giant step” toward global government with their 2015 proposal: “Transforming the World: 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” E. Jeffrey Ludwig pointed out two years ago in the American Thinker.
He noted the similarity between the UN World Commission on Environment and Development’s definition of “sustainable development” as that which “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” and the “Marxist axiom that society should be organized around the idea of ‘from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.’”
Therefore, “Marxism is implicit in sustainability, but is nuanced by its alliance with seemingly scientific adjustments and goals related to environmentalism,” Ludwig observed.
“The one-worlders of the 1950s and early 1960s are now in the UN driver's seat, and they have made their move. The overlay of Marxist talk about ‘meeting needs’ has moved to center stage. The UN has assigned itself a time frame for moving forward in its plan for planetary hegemony,” he warned.
Guterres is also aggressively pushing a global right to abortion in the context of the coronavirus pandemic.
The Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam) reported in April that Guterres’ March appeal for $2 billion to help developing countries deal with the novel coronavirus repeatedly highlights “sexual and reproductive health and rights” as a priority area of food security and health policy.
Moreover, “contradicting U.S. state governors who want to concentrate all medical personnel on the coronavirus emergency, World Health Organization officials and staff are promoting abortion as an ‘essential service,’” C-Fam stated.
Share