lifesitenews--2020-01-16--‘Abortion is normal’ art exhibit in New York to benefit Planned Parenthood

NEW YORK CITY , January 16 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A new art exhibit in the Big Apple purports to combat abortion stigma and raise money for the nation ’ s top abortion chain with the title and message “ Abortion is Normal.
” Organized by the group Downtown for Democracy and running for the rest of January , the self-described “ emergency ” exhibit bills itself as an “ urgent call-to-action exhibition to raise both awareness and funding in support of accessible , safe , and legal abortion , ” with a “ heterogeneous array of artists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and abortion access in order to create an inclusive and empathetic entry point to this conversation.
” The titular message “ intended as a statement of camaraderie and caring that in short says : What you choose to do with your body is OK , ” and a “ basic human right ” ( accompanied by a qualifier stressing that the word “ normal ” is not meant in an “ ableist ” way ) .
Proceeds from the event will go to Planned Parenthood ’ s 2020 campaign spending as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Observer ’ s Helen Holmes writes , approvingly , that the show “ features a true murderers ’ row of incredible artwork for sale.
” The Abortion Is Normal website , a Bloomberg highlight video , and a Daily Beast report display and describe several examples of the event ’ s “ art , ” much of which is sexual in nature .
There are nude photographs and paintings , figures bearing “ Thank God for Abortion ” shirts , paintings of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , and various @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buzzwords , like “ Choice ” and “ Dear Judge Kavanaugh , if you don ’ t like abortions don ’ t get one.
” This is just the latest in a long wave of projects like “ Shout Your Abortion ” and “ Thank God for Abortion , ” which are rooted in the theory that “ positive ” abortion narratives are the key to solidifying public opinion , by emphasizing abortion ’ s supposed beneficiaries and pushing back against any suggestion that the practice is less than wholesome .
Such demonstrations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to most abortions , however , because they fail to address the core reasons abortion is opposed : recognition of and compassion for the children threatened by the procedure .
They also fail to account for the testimony of women who speak against abortion from their own experiences of guilt , physical arm , and mental and emotional suffering , via groups such as Silent No More , Rachel ’ s Vineyard , After Abortion , and Abortion Recovery International .

NEW YORK CITY, January 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A new art exhibit in the Big Apple purports to combat abortion stigma and raise money for the nation’s top abortion chain with the title and message “Abortion is Normal.” Organized by the group Downtown for Democracy and running for the rest of January, the self-described “emergency” exhibit bills itself as an “urgent call-to-action exhibition to raise both awareness and funding in support of accessible, safe, and legal abortion,” with a “heterogeneous array of artists countering with their personal response to abortion and abortion access in order to create an inclusive and […]
NEW YORK CITY, January 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A new art exhibit in the Big Apple purports to combat abortion stigma and raise money for the nation’s top abortion chain with the title and message “Abortion is Normal.”
Organized by the group Downtown for Democracy and running for the rest of January, the self-described “emergency” exhibit bills itself as an “urgent call-to-action exhibition to raise both awareness and funding in support of accessible, safe, and legal abortion,” with a “heterogeneous array of artists countering with their personal response to abortion and abortion access in order to create an inclusive and empathetic entry point to this conversation.”
The titular message “intended as a statement of camaraderie and caring that in short says: What you choose to do with your body is OK,” and a “basic human right” (accompanied by a qualifier stressing that the word “normal” is not meant in an “ableist” way).
Proceeds from the event will go to Planned Parenthood’s 2020 campaign spending as well as “voter education and advocacy” efforts. The Observer’s Helen Holmes writes, approvingly, that the show “features a true murderers’ row of incredible artwork for sale.”
The Abortion Is Normal website, a Bloomberg highlight video, and a Daily Beast report display and describe several examples of the event’s “art,” much of which is sexual in nature. There are nude photographs and paintings, figures bearing “Thank God for Abortion” shirts, paintings of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and various simple displays of rudimentary written slogans and buzzwords, like “Choice” and “Dear Judge Kavanaugh, if you don’t like abortions don’t get one.”
This is just the latest in a long wave of projects like “Shout Your Abortion” and “Thank God for Abortion,” which are rooted in the theory that “positive” abortion narratives are the key to solidifying public opinion, by emphasizing abortion’s supposed beneficiaries and pushing back against any suggestion that the practice is less than wholesome.
Such demonstrations have had little impact on majority opposition to most abortions, however, because they fail to address the core reasons abortion is opposed: recognition of and compassion for the children threatened by the procedure. They also fail to account for the testimony of women who speak against abortion from their own experiences of guilt, physical arm, and mental and emotional suffering, via groups such as Silent No More, Rachel’s Vineyard, After Abortion, and Abortion Recovery International.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-16--It’s time for Vermont to give justice to twins killed in mother’s womb in nightmare car crash

January 16 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – In the summer of 2009 , Patricia Blair was driving home from shopping with her husband and children when a reckless 22-year-old woman named Kelly Cook veered into their lane of travel , striking Mrs. Blair ’ s minivan head-on .
Her husband suffered permanent injuries from broken bones , and Patricia ’ s back was broken .
But much worse , Patricia was six-months pregnant with twins , and when she woke up in the hospital she was told both had been killed .
In most states , the offender could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Vermont , where all efforts to afford such protections to pregnant women have been callously resisted by extremist abortion “ rights ” activists .
Vermont ’ s Supreme Court specifically highlighted this shortcoming in the 1989 case of State v Oliver , noting that the responsibility for interpreting the term “ person ” in the criminal statutes was a “ ... task that must be accomplished by the legislature.
” The Vermont legislature has no intention of accomplishing that task -- quite the contrary .
This despite the glaring contrast that doctors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ malpractice where negligence is averred to have caused fetal death in utero ( Vaillancourt v. Medical Center Hospital of Vermont , 1980 ) .
Roe v Wade ( 1972 ) specifically determined that states hold a “ compelling government interest ” to protect that viable third-trimester child : What has been particularly dishonest , even vile , in Vermont ’ s pit-bull justification for the continuing unhindered performance of third-trimester abortions has been the absurd pretense that it is “ protecting the Roe decision ” from incursions by a Kavanaugh Court .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s specific recognition of fetal personhood in the third trimester , and an attempted amendment to its zealous H 57 abortion law to recognize fetal personhood was quickly crushed by the progressive majority in 2019 .
Vermont ’ s current law is now surpassed in its extremism only by the nation of China .
As I stated in my written ( and oral ) testimony before the Vermont Senate Committee on Health and Welfare charged with taking ( and promptly discarding ) public comment on this bill : In its self-appointed crusade to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is uninterested in protecting women from criminal actors who kill their unborn children ; reckless in its readiness to extinguish an existing right in malpractice law .
But this life in the womb , especially as it approaches the daylight of delivery ( where it is safe from arbitrary torture and execution ) , can not be ignored , not even by the Vermont legislature .
Often , it can not be ignored by the women who take a life this way , like Nora Leah Nelson McCovey .
Vermont has not protected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 30 years elapsed ; it has not done a thing since Roe ( 46 years ) to protect “ fetal life after viability , ” something that even secular North Korea , Russia , and France ( waiting period also ) do .
This is not about religion -- it is about being civilized , regardless of religion .
Following my testimony , Patricia Blair addressed the same group of callous bureaucrats , a trip she has made in futility many times for nearly a decade .
This disrespected mother stood by as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sentenced to 30 months to 20 years in prison -- and released after serving 13 months , despite pre-sentencing probation violations which led the prosecutor “ ... to argue against any kind of probationary or deterred sentence.
” Vermont has gone too far .
The shallow abuse of “ women ’ s rights ” to deprive pregnant women of the most fundamental of legal protections has grown stale , and the public is catching on to just how extremist are these faux-defenders .
Efforts have been made to lie about these “ procedures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is time for the pendulum to swing back in the Vermont legislature , in the direction of justice .
Barbarism and dishonesty have held sway far too long , and Vermonters must stand and vote in 2020 if their pregnant women and unborn children are to have the barest of shields from criminals .
Vermont is in the throes of an opioid crisis , where substance abusers are afforded rights ( and free suboxone and methadone ) but babies may be killed with impunity -- Kelly Cook was in possession of narcotics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats have barred women like Patricia from justice : Vermont ’ s Attorney General has brought suit claiming healthcare workers who refuse to participate in abortion “ procedures ” are unfit to care for their patients .
And a recent record request to discover his office ’ s connections with Planned Parenthood revealed that there are more than 3,000 emails between the Vermont Attorney General ’ s Office and Planned Parenthood -- but it will cost $ 7,232 to obtain them .
When he signed H 57 in 2019 , RINO Governor Phil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he deferred to the doctor and patient to decide when to perform even third-trimester abortions , but avoided consideration of fetal homicide in the bargain .
Obviously , a doctor and patient do not decide whether a criminal will be charged for killing an unborn child , deliberately ( domestic violence cases ) or with gross negligence .
Patricia Blair would like the nation to know what she has suffered .
When Vermont finally grants protections -- and justice -- to women who suffer the horrific loss such as she has endured , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Kaleb and Harley ’ s law .
”

January 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In the summer of 2009, Patricia Blair was driving home from shopping with her husband and children when a reckless 22-year-old woman named Kelly Cook veered into their lane of travel, striking Mrs. Blair’s minivan head-on. Her husband suffered permanent injuries from broken bones, and Patricia’s back was broken. But much worse, Patricia was six-months pregnant with twins, and when she woke up in the hospital she was told both had been killed.
In most states, the offender could be charged with homicide. But not in Vermont, where all efforts to afford such protections to pregnant women have been callously resisted by extremist abortion “rights” activists. Vermont’s Supreme Court specifically highlighted this shortcoming in the 1989 case of State v Oliver, noting that the responsibility for interpreting the term “person” in the criminal statutes was a “…task that must be accomplished by the legislature.”
The Vermont legislature has no intention of accomplishing that task — quite the contrary. This despite the glaring contrast that doctors in Vermont can be sued for medical malpractice where negligence is averred to have caused fetal death in utero (Vaillancourt v. Medical Center Hospital of Vermont, 1980).
Roe v Wade (1972) specifically determined that states hold a “compelling government interest” to protect that viable third-trimester child:
As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that, at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly. (at p. 159)
What has been particularly dishonest, even vile, in Vermont’s pit-bull justification for the continuing unhindered performance of third-trimester abortions has been the absurd pretense that it is “protecting the Roe decision” from incursions by a Kavanaugh Court. But Vermont has very deliberately negated Roe’s specific recognition of fetal personhood in the third trimester, and an attempted amendment to its zealous H 57 abortion law to recognize fetal personhood was quickly crushed by the progressive majority in 2019. Vermont’s current law is now surpassed in its extremism only by the nation of China.
As I stated in my written (and oral) testimony before the Vermont Senate Committee on Health and Welfare charged with taking (and promptly discarding) public comment on this bill:
In its self-appointed crusade to champion women’s rights, Vermont is uninterested in protecting women from criminal actors who kill their unborn children; reckless in its readiness to extinguish an existing right in malpractice law. But this life in the womb, especially as it approaches the daylight of delivery (where it is safe from arbitrary torture and execution), cannot be ignored, not even by the Vermont legislature. Often, it cannot be ignored by the women who take a life this way, like Nora Leah Nelson McCovey. Vermont has not protected women in response to Oliver in the 30 years elapsed; it has not done a thing since Roe (46 years) to protect “fetal life after viability,” something that even secular North Korea, Russia, and France (waiting period also) do. This is not about religion — it is about being civilized, regardless of religion.
Following my testimony, Patricia Blair addressed the same group of callous bureaucrats, a trip she has made in futility many times for nearly a decade.
This disrespected mother stood by as the unrepentant killer of her children was sentenced to 30 months to 20 years in prison — and released after serving 13 months, despite pre-sentencing probation violations which led the prosecutor “…to argue against any kind of probationary or deterred sentence.”
Vermont has gone too far. The shallow abuse of “women’s rights” to deprive pregnant women of the most fundamental of legal protections has grown stale, and the public is catching on to just how extremist are these faux-defenders. Efforts have been made to lie about these “procedures,” but they have failed.
It is time for the pendulum to swing back in the Vermont legislature, in the direction of justice. Barbarism and dishonesty have held sway far too long, and Vermonters must stand and vote in 2020 if their pregnant women and unborn children are to have the barest of shields from criminals. Vermont is in the throes of an opioid crisis, where substance abusers are afforded rights (and free suboxone and methadone) but babies may be killed with impunity — Kelly Cook was in possession of narcotics at the scene of the crash.
Democrats have barred women like Patricia from justice:
First, my heart goes out to the Blair family,” said Rep. Rachel Weston, a Burlington Democrat, who opposes the Illuzzi bill. “Violent crimes against pregnant women are a real problem, but I don't think fetal personhood put forth in this bill is the answer. There can be unintended consequences both for women's health and fetal health.
Vermont’s Attorney General has brought suit claiming healthcare workers who refuse to participate in abortion “procedures” are unfit to care for their patients. And a recent record request to discover his office’s connections with Planned Parenthood revealed that there are more than 3,000 emails between the Vermont Attorney General’s Office and Planned Parenthood — but it will cost $7,232 to obtain them.
When he signed H 57 in 2019, RINO Governor Phil Scott hid behind the pathetic ruse that he deferred to the doctor and patient to decide when to perform even third-trimester abortions, but avoided consideration of fetal homicide in the bargain. Obviously, a doctor and patient do not decide whether a criminal will be charged for killing an unborn child, deliberately (domestic violence cases) or with gross negligence.
Patricia Blair would like the nation to know what she has suffered. When Vermont finally grants protections — and justice — to women who suffer the horrific loss such as she has endured, Patricia asks that the bill be named “Kaleb and Harley’s law.”
We hear you, Patricia.


lifesitenews--2020-01-16--German Parliament rejects bill to make every citizen an organ donor by default

GERMANY , January 16 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The German parliament has voted down the so-called “ objection solution , ” a proposal to make every citizen an organ donor by default .
Instead , members of parliament accepted the alternative proposal of Annalena Baerbock of the Green Party .
The goal of the Baerbock proposal is to foster a regular examination of the question of organ donation .
People would be encouraged to register their decision , either for or against organ donation , in an online database .
That decision could be changed at any time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minister Jens Spahn , who is a member of the Christian Democratic Union , the “ objection solution ” received only 292 votes in favor , while 379 lawmakers voted against it .
The final vote on the Baerbock proposal had 432 ayes and 200 nays .
Members of parliament were able to vote for both proposals , which explains the fluctuation in the vote count .
Karl Lauterbach , a member of the Social Democratic Party , who together with Spahn had promoted the “ objection solution , ” said after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be here again in a few years , and then there will be a majority for the ‘ objection solution.
’ ” Spahn expressed similar sentiments , mentioning a time frame of three to five years .
The votes were preceded by a debate lasting about two and a half hours .
Paul Victor Pdolay of the Alternative for Germany , the only right-wing party currently part of the German parliament , explained , “ The decision concerning organ donation is a very personal decision .
A braid-dead person is a dying person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corpse .
What really kills him is the harvesting of the organs.
” Otto Fricke of the Free Democratic Party asked the proponents of the “ objection solution ” a key question : “ What happens , if I can ’ t make a decision yet , despite all my efforts ?
” It should be possible , he said , to remain silent without the government making a decision for anybody .
A member of the Left Party , Kathrin Vogel , quoted her friend in opposition to the “ objection solution.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t like that our bodies are considered as warehouses for organs.
” Interestingly , her friend is in need of an organ transplant herself .
After the votes , Reinhard Cardinal Marx , president of the German Bishops ’ Conference and archbishop of Munich and Freising , welcomed the decision for the “ Baerbock proposal ” made by lawmakers .
“ The German Bishops ’ Conference emphatically supports the intention of this law to effectively increase the number of organ donations.
” Marx added , “ The law still grants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision on the issue of organ donation .
At the same time , it takes steps leading to people considering the question of organ donation more intensely.
” The German Bishops ’ Conference is known throughout the Catholic Church for its heterodoxy .
Nevertheless , even it opposed the “ objection solution.
” Representatives of “ Bundesverband Lebensrecht , ” an umbrella organization uniting many other German pro-life entities , were positioned in front of the Reichstag building , which houses the German parliament , in a small demonstration for the individual right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-determination ” is often used by advocates of abortion or euthanasia , it is also a legal term based on the German constitution .
Accordingly , the “ right of self-determination ” refers to the constitution ’ s assertion , “ Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law.
” Alexandra Linder , chairwoman of “ Bundesverband Lebensrecht , ” had told LifeSiteNews in the run-up to the vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only contradict the right of self-determination , but would also lead to “ a virtual obligation imposed by the state to give up your organs .
”

GERMANY, January 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The German parliament has voted down the so-called “objection solution,” a proposal to make every citizen an organ donor by default. Instead, members of parliament accepted the alternative proposal of Annalena Baerbock of the Green Party. The goal of the Baerbock proposal is to foster a regular examination of the question of organ donation. People would be encouraged to register their decision, either for or against organ donation, in an online database. That decision could be changed at any time. Proposed by the openly homosexual health minister Jens Spahn, who is a member of […]
GERMANY, January 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The German parliament has voted down the so-called “objection solution,” a proposal to make every citizen an organ donor by default.
Instead, members of parliament accepted the alternative proposal of Annalena Baerbock of the Green Party.
The goal of the Baerbock proposal is to foster a regular examination of the question of organ donation. People would be encouraged to register their decision, either for or against organ donation, in an online database. That decision could be changed at any time.
Proposed by the openly homosexual health minister Jens Spahn, who is a member of the Christian Democratic Union, the “objection solution” received only 292 votes in favor, while 379 lawmakers voted against it. The final vote on the Baerbock proposal had 432 ayes and 200 nays. Members of parliament were able to vote for both proposals, which explains the fluctuation in the vote count.
Karl Lauterbach, a member of the Social Democratic Party, who together with Spahn had promoted the “objection solution,” said after the vote, “I believe we will be here again in a few years, and then there will be a majority for the ‘objection solution.’” Spahn expressed similar sentiments, mentioning a time frame of three to five years.
The votes were preceded by a debate lasting about two and a half hours. Paul Victor Pdolay of the Alternative for Germany, the only right-wing party currently part of the German parliament, explained, “The decision concerning organ donation is a very personal decision. A braid-dead person is a dying person, at most, but not a corpse. What really kills him is the harvesting of the organs.”
Otto Fricke of the Free Democratic Party asked the proponents of the “objection solution” a key question: “What happens, if I can’t make a decision yet, despite all my efforts?”
It should be possible, he said, to remain silent without the government making a decision for anybody.
A member of the Left Party, Kathrin Vogel, quoted her friend in opposition to the “objection solution.” Her friend had said, “I don’t like that our bodies are considered as warehouses for organs.” Interestingly, her friend is in need of an organ transplant herself.
After the votes, Reinhard Cardinal Marx, president of the German Bishops’ Conference and archbishop of Munich and Freising, welcomed the decision for the “Baerbock proposal” made by lawmakers.
“The German Bishops’ Conference emphatically supports the intention of this law to effectively increase the number of organ donations.”
Marx added, “The law still grants as wide as possible a freedom of decision on the issue of organ donation. At the same time, it takes steps leading to people considering the question of organ donation more intensely.”
The German Bishops’ Conference is known throughout the Catholic Church for its heterodoxy. Nevertheless, even it opposed the “objection solution.”
Representatives of “Bundesverband Lebensrecht,” an umbrella organization uniting many other German pro-life entities, were positioned in front of the Reichstag building, which houses the German parliament, in a small demonstration for the individual right of self-determination.
While the term “self-determination” is often used by advocates of abortion or euthanasia, it is also a legal term based on the German constitution. Accordingly, the “right of self-determination” refers to the constitution’s assertion, “Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law.”
Alexandra Linder, chairwoman of “Bundesverband Lebensrecht,” had told LifeSiteNews in the run-up to the vote that the “objection solution” would not only contradict the right of self-determination, but would also lead to “a virtual obligation imposed by the state to give up your organs.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-17--Abortion is a human right that trumps religious liberty, says top human rights org

WASHINGTON , D.C. , January 17 , 2020 ( C-Fam ) — The leader of one of the world ’ s top human rights organizations told the U.S. Commission on Unalienable Rights last week that abortion is a “ fundamental right ” for “ anyone who wants or needs it ” and that arguments about the humanity of the unborn are merely “ philosophical , ” with no place in policy .
Human Rights Watch head Kenneth Roth criticized Secretary of State Michael Pompeo ’ s basis for founding the commission .
Pompeo initiated the expert body to guide the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new rights claims that often compete against one another .
Roth said that abortion has always been a human right , and only the claims to it are new .
He warned against “ picking and choosing ” among rights .
Roth admitted that abortion is not mentioned in any of the UN human rights treaties , but said it is grounded in fundamental rights such as the right to health .
He said there are “ millions ” of preventable deaths that could be averted by abortion , based on the presumption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including by extremely dangerous methods , whether it is legal or not .
The reason we know abortion is a right , he said , is because “ authoritative interpretations ” by UN experts have said so .
He said the Human Rights Committee is “ not that different ” from the U.S. Supreme Court , calling it the “ final arbiter ” of rights enumerated in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights , to which the U.S. is a party .
In fact , the committee can only offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on nations .
Commissioner Katrina Lantos Swett pointed out to Roth that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article on the freedom of belief is “ capacious.
” She said rights are rights because they incur duties , that it is because we are free to believe that others must respect that right and not infringe upon it .
Roth said there is no tension between a right to abortion and religious freedom because the only thing protected by human rights is a “ freedom of belief ” and not the right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and societal roles .
He said that a rural doctor must obey “ a different set of rules ” from an urban doctor , and must perform abortions even if she is morally opposed lest women have to travel for the procedure .
Commission member Peter Berkowitz said that while Roth referred to the unborn child as a “ fetus , ” others argue that it is a child and a human being , and a bearer of human rights .
Berkowitz asked Roth about the tension , in that case , between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Roth acknowledged that there are differing philosophical and religious views on this subject , but since agreement will never be reached , policy makers must rely on UN expert interpretations of positive international law .
Based on the opinions of treaty bodies , Roth added , “ we are in no position to take the absolutist position that this is an unborn child.
” If national law is pro-life , Roth told Commissioner David Tse-Chien Pan , then international law trumps .
“ The whole point of human rights law is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The reason we know abortion is a right, Human Rights Watch head Kenneth Roth said, is because 'authoritative interpretations' by U.N. experts have said so.
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 17, 2020 (C-Fam) — The leader of one of the world’s top human rights organizations told the U.S. Commission on Unalienable Rights last week that abortion is a “fundamental right” for “anyone who wants or needs it” and that arguments about the humanity of the unborn are merely “philosophical,” with no place in policy.
Human Rights Watch head Kenneth Roth criticized Secretary of State Michael Pompeo’s basis for founding the commission. Pompeo initiated the expert body to guide the department in response to a proliferation of new rights claims that often compete against one another. Roth said that abortion has always been a human right, and only the claims to it are new. He warned against “picking and choosing” among rights.
Roth admitted that abortion is not mentioned in any of the UN human rights treaties, but said it is grounded in fundamental rights such as the right to health. He said there are “millions” of preventable deaths that could be averted by abortion, based on the presumption that women will inevitably seek out abortions, including by extremely dangerous methods, whether it is legal or not.
The reason we know abortion is a right, he said, is because “authoritative interpretations” by UN experts have said so. He said the Human Rights Committee is “not that different” from the U.S. Supreme Court, calling it the “final arbiter” of rights enumerated in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, to which the U.S. is a party. In fact, the committee can only offer personal views and they are not binding on nations.
Commissioner Katrina Lantos Swett pointed out to Roth that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article on the freedom of belief is “capacious.” She said rights are rights because they incur duties, that it is because we are free to believe that others must respect that right and not infringe upon it.
Roth said there is no tension between a right to abortion and religious freedom because the only thing protected by human rights is a “freedom of belief” and not the right to exercise it in one’s professional and societal roles. He said that a rural doctor must obey “a different set of rules” from an urban doctor, and must perform abortions even if she is morally opposed lest women have to travel for the procedure.
Commission member Peter Berkowitz said that while Roth referred to the unborn child as a “fetus,” others argue that it is a child and a human being, and a bearer of human rights. Berkowitz asked Roth about the tension, in that case, between the rights of the mother and child. Roth acknowledged that there are differing philosophical and religious views on this subject, but since agreement will never be reached, policy makers must rely on UN expert interpretations of positive international law. Based on the opinions of treaty bodies, Roth added, “we are in no position to take the absolutist position that this is an unborn child.”
If national law is pro-life, Roth told Commissioner David Tse-Chien Pan, then international law trumps. “The whole point of human rights law is to limit governments,” he said.
Published with permission from C-Fam.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-17--Little Sisters return to Supreme Court for third time in new contraception case

WASHINGTON , D.C. , January 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — The Supreme Court will once again weigh in on the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor in their legal battle against the HHS contraceptive mandate .
The Supreme Court has twice protected the Catholic nuns , and an HHS rule issued in 2018 protects religious non-profits , but several states have dragged the Little Sisters of the Poor back to court .
In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania , the Little Sisters are defending their hard-won religious exemption from a lawsuit by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Third Circuit ruling against them threatening their ministry of serving the elderly poor .
The HHS contraceptive mandate required the Little Sisters to provide services such as the week-after pill in their health care plans or pay millions of dollars in fines .
In 2016 , the Supreme Court unanimously overturned lower court rulings against the Little Sisters , granting them an exemption from the mandate , and in 2018 , HHS announced a new rule protecting religious non-profits , including the Little Sisters .
Yet several states , including Pennsylvania and California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take that protection away , forcing the Little Sisters back to court .
After a loss in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals , the Sisters now turn to the High Court to finally put an end to their long legal journey .
“ It is disappointing to think that as we enter a new decade we must still defend our ministry in court , ” said Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters of the Poor .
“ We are grateful the Supreme Court has decided to weigh in , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous decision and allow us to focus on our lifelong work of serving the elderly poor once and for all.
” In 2016 , the government admitted before the Supreme Court that it has ways to get contraceptives to women without forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to participate .
California and Pennsylvania each have programs for providing contraceptives to women who want them , yet both states are suing to enforce the federal mandate on religious non-profits like the Little Sisters .
“ Pennsylvania needs to give it a rest , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Becket .
“ Why is Pennsylvania still trying to fight tired and unnecessary culture wars that were settled years ago ?
There are plenty of ways to provide people with contraceptives without forcing Catholic nuns to participate .
It ’ s too bad that the Supreme Court is being forced by Pennsylvania to deal with this issue again , but at least the Court can now bring this litigation to a permanent end.
” • Case Page for California v. Little Sisters of the Poor ( press releases , legal docs )

The Supreme Court has twice protected the Catholic nuns. Now their case is before the Court once again.
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The Supreme Court will once again weigh in on the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor in their legal battle against the HHS contraceptive mandate. The Supreme Court has twice protected the Catholic nuns, and an HHS rule issued in 2018 protects religious non-profits, but several states have dragged the Little Sisters of the Poor back to court. In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Little Sisters are defending their hard-won religious exemption from a lawsuit by the Pennsylvania Attorney General and a recent Third Circuit ruling against them threatening their ministry of serving the elderly poor.
The HHS contraceptive mandate required the Little Sisters to provide services such as the week-after pill in their health care plans or pay millions of dollars in fines. In 2016, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned lower court rulings against the Little Sisters, granting them an exemption from the mandate, and in 2018, HHS announced a new rule protecting religious non-profits, including the Little Sisters. Yet several states, including Pennsylvania and California, immediately sued the federal government to take that protection away, forcing the Little Sisters back to court. After a loss in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the Sisters now turn to the High Court to finally put an end to their long legal journey.
“It is disappointing to think that as we enter a new decade we must still defend our ministry in court,” said Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters of the Poor. “We are grateful the Supreme Court has decided to weigh in, and hopeful that the Justices will reinforce their previous decision and allow us to focus on our lifelong work of serving the elderly poor once and for all.”
In 2016, the government admitted before the Supreme Court that it has ways to get contraceptives to women without forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to participate. California and Pennsylvania each have programs for providing contraceptives to women who want them, yet both states are suing to enforce the federal mandate on religious non-profits like the Little Sisters.
“Pennsylvania needs to give it a rest,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket. “Why is Pennsylvania still trying to fight tired and unnecessary culture wars that were settled years ago? There are plenty of ways to provide people with contraceptives without forcing Catholic nuns to participate. It’s too bad that the Supreme Court is being forced by Pennsylvania to deal with this issue again, but at least the Court can now bring this litigation to a permanent end.”
Additional Information:
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-17--Cdl Sarah: I just met with Benedict over priestly celibacy book, no ‘misunderstanding between us’

January 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – In a series of three tweets today , Cardinal Robert Sarah attempted to settle once and for all the controversy that has swirled around his and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI ’ s co-authorship of a book on priestly celibacy .
Some had accused Sarah of manipulating Pope Benedict , said that Benedict was not really a co-author of “ From the Depths of Our Hearts ” ( De Profondeurs de nos cœurs ) , and said that the Pope Emeritus ’ name did not actually belong on the cover .
The fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full-fledged conflagration when Antonio Socci , an Italian Catholic journalist , reported on social media that Pope Francis was infuriated with Pope Benedict ’ s involvement with the book .
“ The end of the world broke out in the Vatican because Bergoglio was furious , ” wrote Socci .
In his three tweets composed in French , Cardinal Sarah attempted to extinguish the fire .
“ Because of incessant arguments , naysayers , and deceptive controversies which have not stopped since the beginning of the week , concerning the book ‘ From @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I met tonight with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.
” “ With Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI , we were able to ensure/certify that there is not one misunderstanding between us .
I left very happy , full of peace and courage from this lovely meeting.
” In his final tweet , Cardinal Sarah simply encouraged people to read the book he wrote with Pope Benedict , lightheartedly saying , “ Enjoy the read.
” “ I ask/call on you to read and meditate on ‘ From the depths of our hearts.
’ I warmly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as my publisher Fayard , for the rigor/strictness , the integrity , the seriousness , and the professionalism which they have shown .
Good reading to all ( of you ) !
Cardinal Sarah is not the only one tamping down on the Vatican drama over the book .
As reported by LifeSiteNews today , Die Tagespost reported that Pope Emeritus Benedict 's private secretary , Archbishop Georg Gänswein , denied Socci ’ s statements .
Gänswein told the German Catholic newspaper that it was “ fictitious ” and a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complete denial of Benedict XVI ’ s co-authorship of From the Depths of Our Hearts .
The German secretary , who is also the head of Pope Francis ’ Papal Household , stated that Pope Francis had said “ nothing ” to him about the book when he met with him last week .
Gänswein denied also that Benedict had agreed to a compromise solution to protect him from “ South American vendettas.
” He maintains that the Pope Emeritus did not see the French version of the work until Monday afternoon .

'I left very happy, full of peace and courage from this lovely meeting,' said Cardinal Robert Sarah.
January 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In a series of three tweets today, Cardinal Robert Sarah attempted to settle once and for all the controversy that has swirled around his and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s co-authorship of a book on priestly celibacy.
Some had accused Sarah of manipulating Pope Benedict, said that Benedict was not really a co-author of “From the Depths of Our Hearts” (De Profondeurs de nos cœurs), and said that the Pope Emeritus’ name did not actually belong on the cover.
The fire of controversy seemed destined to become a full-fledged conflagration when Antonio Socci, an Italian Catholic journalist, reported on social media that Pope Francis was infuriated with Pope Benedict’s involvement with the book.
“The end of the world broke out in the Vatican because Bergoglio was furious,” wrote Socci.
In his three tweets composed in French, Cardinal Sarah attempted to extinguish the fire.
“Because of incessant arguments, naysayers, and deceptive controversies which have not stopped since the beginning of the week, concerning the book ‘From the depths of our hearts,’ I met tonight with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.”
En raison des polémiques incessantes, nauséabondes et mensongères qui ne se sont jamais arrêtées depuis le début de la semaine, concernant le livre Des profondeurs de nos cœurs, j’ai rencontré ce soir le Pape Émérite Benoît XVI. (1) +RS — Cardinal R. Sarah (@Card_R_Sarah) January 17, 2020
“With Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, we were able to ensure/certify that there is not one misunderstanding between us. I left very happy, full of peace and courage from this lovely meeting.”
Avec le Pape émérite Benoît XVI, nous avons pu constater combien il n’y a aucun malentendu entre nous. Je suis sorti très heureux, plein de paix et de courage de ce bel entretien. (2) +RS — Cardinal R. Sarah (@Card_R_Sarah) January 17, 2020
In his final tweet, Cardinal Sarah simply encouraged people to read the book he wrote with Pope Benedict, saying, “Enjoy the read.”
“I ask/call on you to read and meditate on ‘From the depths of our hearts.’ I warmly thank my editor, Nichola Diat, as well as my publisher Fayard, for the rigor/strictness, the integrity, the seriousness, and the professionalism which they have shown. Good reading to all (of you)!
Je vous appelle à lire et à méditer Des profondeurs de nos cœurs. Je remercie chaleureusement mon éditeur, Nicolas Diat, ainsi que la maison Fayard, pour la rigueur, la probité, le sérieux, et le professionnalisme dont ils ont fait preuve. Excellente lecture à tous ! (3) +RS — Cardinal R. Sarah (@Card_R_Sarah) January 17, 2020
Cardinal Sarah is not the only one tamping down on the Vatican drama over the book.
As reported by LifeSiteNews today, Die Tagespost reported that Pope Emeritus Benedict's private secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, denied Socci’s statements. Gänswein told the German Catholic newspaper that it was “fictitious” and a “lie” that Pope Francis ordered a complete denial of Benedict XVI’s co-authorship of From the Depths of Our Hearts.
The German secretary, who is also the head of Pope Francis’ Papal Household, stated that Pope Francis had said “nothing” to him about the book when he met with him last week. Gänswein denied also that Benedict had agreed to a compromise solution to protect him from “South American vendettas.” He maintains that the Pope Emeritus did not see the French version of the work until Monday afternoon.
French translation provided by LifeSiteNews’ Danielle Zuccaro.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-17--US bishops: Pope Francis told us abortion is ‘preeminent’ priority

VATICAN CITY , January 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Pope Francis reportedly told a gathering of U.S. bishops in Rome that protection of the unborn is a “ preeminent priority , ” while also expressing surprise that over 60 million abortions have occurred in the United States since the 1973 Roe v Wade decision legalized abortion .
Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City , Kansas , who is also chairman of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops ( USCCB ) Committee for Pro-Life Activities , was one of fifteen bishops from the U.S. midwest at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visit on Wednesday .
Naumann told Catholic News Service ( CNS ) that the Pope agreed with the U.S. bishops “ identifying the protection of the unborn as a preeminent priority.
” Naumann reported that Pope Francis was then “ truly kind of stunned ” when Naumann told him that an estimated 61 million abortions have taken place in the United States .
Near the beginning of his pontificate , Pope Francis said in a 2013 interview that the Church was “ obsessed ” with opposing “ abortion , gay marriage and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he claimed that challenges faced by refugees and migrants are the “ greatest tragedy since that of World War II ” and has spoken and written in an alarmist tone about climate change .
In his 2018 apostolic exhortation “ Gaudete et Exsultate , ” the Pope indicated that caring for migrants and the poor is as “ equally sacred ” a pursuit as opposing abortion .
“ Our defense of the innocent unborn , for example , needs to be clear , firm and passionate .
Equally sacred , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those already born , the destitute , the abandoned , ” he wrote .
Perhaps sensing the need to explain the seeming paradoxical portrait of the Pope emerging from the meeting , Naumann acknowledged that Pope Francis has previously elevated other issues .
“ I think sometimes as he elevates those things , people mistakenly think , ‘ Well , that means that the abortion issue will become less important , ' ” Naumann told CNS .
The issue remains an important one and has proven to be a flashpoint among U.S. bishops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Francis ’ previous statements to deny that abortion remains the preeminent life issue of the day .
At the most recent gathering of the USCCB in November , a disagreement erupted revealing how the current pontificate had divided them on fighting abortion as a social justice priority .
They voted 143-69 against including a full quote by Pope Francis in their document on citizenship that downplayed abortion and which one bishop argued was necessary to keep the bishops ' priorities in line with the Pope 's .
Bishop Robert W. McElroy of San @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not Catholic teaching that abortion is the pre-eminent issue that we face as the world in Catholic social teaching .
It is not.
” McElroy said he believed that saying the threat of abortion is the USCCB ’ s “ pre-eminent priority ” is “ at least discordant with the pope ’ s teaching if not inconsistent ” and that it is a “ grave disservice to our people if we ’ re trying to communicate to them what the Magisterium teaches.
” Bishop W. Shawn McKnight of Jefferson City , Missouri @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ad limina meeting at the Vatican reported that regarding abortion , Pope Francis “ simply reiterated what he ’ s already said in many different ways , ” that “ without life , what other rights are there ?
So , you have to begin with that .
“ It ’ s not the only issue — I don ’ t think anybody has ever said that , ” continued McKnight .
“ But when you ’ re looking at the core beliefs and the more essential rights , the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important.
” Pope Francis , “ put it in a very beautiful way : Do we always want to simply eliminate those who are inconvenient ?
” said McKnight .
“ And , unfortunately , that ’ s part of our culture in the United States — the practice , the habit , if you will , of just eliminating the uncomfortable , the unwanted , as the solution .
And we ’ re called to be better than that .
We as a country are better than that.
” When the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life is the ‘ preeminent issue , ’ ” that word is “ carefully chosen , ” said McKnight .
“ We want to avoid the perspective or the understanding that it ’ s the only issue — because it is not , ” he added .
Archbishop Robert J. Carlson of St. Louis , said that while the Pope talked about abortion as a preeminent issue , at the same time he said there ’ s another significant issue and that would be ‘ transgender ’ — where we are trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it makes no difference , you can be whoever you want to be.
” Carlson explained that the Pope said that the beliefs of those who promote transgenderism “ fly in the face of what ( St. ) John Paul II talked about on complementarity and it would fly in the face of the dignity of the woman and the dignity of the man , that we could just change into whatever we wanted .
”

The Pope allegedly expressed surprise over the 60 million abortions that have occurred in the United States since the 1973 Roe v Wade decision.
VATICAN CITY, January 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis reportedly told a gathering of U.S. bishops in Rome that protection of the unborn is a “preeminent priority,” while also expressing surprise that over 60 million abortions have occurred in the United States since the 1973 Roe v Wade decision legalized abortion.
Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, who is also chairman of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB) Committee for Pro-Life Activities, was one of fifteen bishops from the U.S. midwest at the Vatican for their “ad limina” visit on Wednesday.
Naumann told Catholic News Service (CNS) that the Pope agreed with the U.S. bishops “identifying the protection of the unborn as a preeminent priority.”
Naumann reported that Pope Francis was then “truly kind of stunned” when Naumann told him that an estimated 61 million abortions have taken place in the United States.
Near the beginning of his pontificate, Pope Francis said in a 2013 interview that the Church was “obsessed” with opposing “abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods.” In 2017, he claimed that challenges faced by refugees and migrants are the “greatest tragedy since that of World War II” and has spoken and written in an alarmist tone about climate change. In his 2018 apostolic exhortation “Gaudete et Exsultate,” the Pope indicated that caring for migrants and the poor is as “equally sacred” a pursuit as opposing abortion. “Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned,” he wrote.
Perhaps sensing the need to explain the seeming paradoxical portrait of the Pope emerging from the meeting, Naumann acknowledged that Pope Francis has previously elevated other issues.
“I think sometimes as he elevates those things, people mistakenly think, ‘Well, that means that the abortion issue will become less important,'” Naumann told CNS.
The issue remains an important one and has proven to be a flashpoint among U.S. bishops, some of whom have used Pope Francis’ previous statements to deny that abortion remains the preeminent life issue of the day.
At the most recent gathering of the USCCB in November, a disagreement erupted revealing how the current pontificate had divided them on fighting abortion as a social justice priority. They voted 143-69 against including a full quote by Pope Francis in their document on citizenship that downplayed abortion and which one bishop argued was necessary to keep the bishops' priorities in line with the Pope's.
Bishop Robert W. McElroy of San Diego objected, saying, “It is not Catholic teaching that abortion is the pre-eminent issue that we face as the world in Catholic social teaching. It is not.”
McElroy said he believed that saying the threat of abortion is the USCCB’s “pre-eminent priority” is “at least discordant with the pope’s teaching if not inconsistent” and that it is a “grave disservice to our people if we’re trying to communicate to them what the Magisterium teaches.”
Bishop W. Shawn McKnight of Jefferson City, Missouri, who was present at this week’s ad limina meeting at the Vatican reported that regarding abortion, Pope Francis “simply reiterated what he’s already said in many different ways,” that “without life, what other rights are there? So, you have to begin with that.
“It’s not the only issue — I don’t think anybody has ever said that,” continued McKnight. “But when you’re looking at the core beliefs and the more essential rights, the right to life of the unborn is very important.”
Pope Francis, “put it in a very beautiful way: Do we always want to simply eliminate those who are inconvenient?” said McKnight. “And, unfortunately, that’s part of our culture in the United States — the practice, the habit, if you will, of just eliminating the uncomfortable, the unwanted, as the solution. And we’re called to be better than that. We as a country are better than that.”
When the U.S. bishops say, “the right to life is the ‘preeminent issue,’” that word is “carefully chosen,” said McKnight.
“We want to avoid the perspective or the understanding that it’s the only issue — because it is not,” he added.
Archbishop Robert J. Carlson of St. Louis, said that while the Pope talked about abortion as a preeminent issue, at the same time he said there’s another significant issue and that would be ‘transgender’ — where we are trying to make all human beings the same, it makes no difference, you can be whoever you want to be.”
Carlson explained that the Pope said that the beliefs of those who promote transgenderism “fly in the face of what (St.) John Paul II talked about on complementarity and it would fly in the face of the dignity of the woman and the dignity of the man, that we could just change into whatever we wanted.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-17--Planned Parenthood launches $45 million campaign to defeat Trump

January 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The nation ’ s largest abortion chain launched its biggest election effort yet this week , devoting $ 45 million to the cause of ousting President Donald Trump and returning Congress and numerous state legislatures to full Democrat control .
The money will go towards “ large-scale ” multimedia advertising , mail , and on-the-ground canvassing focusing on Arizona , Colorado , Florida , Michigan , Minnesota , New Hampshire , North Carolina , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin , centered around the message that Republicans at the state and national levels are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Roe v. Wade .
The Trump administration `` has managed to undo so much over the last three years , '' Planned Parenthood Votes executive director Jenny Lawson told CBS News .
`` The fact that this summer the Supreme Court might gut Roe v. Wade is an indicator of their intention and they 've never been so bold . ''
Lawson added that “ every major Democratic candidate ” currently running for the party ’ s presidential nomination is pro-abortion enough to earn the group ’ s support .
`` The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights policies we 've ever seen , '' she said , adding that “ many of them have actually introduced real plans to protect the reproductive rights in this country . ''
Many responded to the news by contrasting the political expenditure with the money the abortion giant continues to receive from taxpayers : Planned Parenthood received $ 616 million in taxpayer dollars during the most recent fiscal year , and has expressed outrage that the Trump administration has cut almost $ 60 million from that sum by disqualifying abortion groups from Title @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite the facts that the organization not only enjoys almost a billion dollars in annual private revenue and contributions but will continue to receive over $ 500 million from taxpayers even without Title X money .
Pro-life group Live Action argues that Planned Parenthood effectively engages in a “ political money laundering scheme , ” under which politicians funnel tax dollars to Planned Parenthood for “ health ” operations , leading pro-abortion donors to conclude its “ health ” needs are covered , so they can direct their contributions to the abortion giant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in turn , helps Planned Parenthood Votes , Planned Parenthood Action Fund , and Planned Parenthood Federal PAC elect politicians who will protect their federal subsidies .

'If they’ve got $45m laying around, why exactly do they need taxpayer dollars?'
January 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The nation’s largest abortion chain launched its biggest election effort yet this week, devoting $45 million to the cause of ousting President Donald Trump and returning Congress and numerous state legislatures to full Democrat control.
The money will go towards “large-scale” multimedia advertising, mail, and on-the-ground canvassing focusing on Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, centered around the message that Republicans at the state and national levels are engaged in a “coordinated attack” on Roe v. Wade.
The Trump administration “has managed to undo so much over the last three years,” Planned Parenthood Votes executive director Jenny Lawson told CBS News. “The fact that this summer the Supreme Court might gut Roe v. Wade is an indicator of their intention and they've never been so bold.”
Lawson added that “every major Democratic candidate” currently running for the party’s presidential nomination is pro-abortion enough to earn the group’s support. “The Democratic candidates collectively have the boldest reproductive rights policies we've ever seen,” she said, adding that “many of them have actually introduced real plans to protect the reproductive rights in this country.”
Many responded to the news by contrasting the political expenditure with the money the abortion giant continues to receive from taxpayers:
If they’ve got $45m laying around, why exactly do they need taxpayer dollars? https://t.co/FhnfZnHjNE — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) January 17, 2020
Planned Parenthood invests $45 million in electing pro-abortion Democrats. Those Democrats then funnel $616 million a year in taxpayer-funding to Planned Parenthood. Sounds like a quid pro quo. https://t.co/T70EgDeEt8 — Students for Life (@StudentsforLife) January 17, 2020
I think this is called “blood money”https://t.co/WbyKVNTpe3 — Wayne Dupree ���� (@WayneDupreeShow) January 17, 2020
Planned Parenthood received $616 million in taxpayer dollars during the most recent fiscal year, and has expressed outrage that the Trump administration has cut almost $60 million from that sum by disqualifying abortion groups from Title X family planning grants. This is despite the facts that the organization not only enjoys almost a billion dollars in annual private revenue and contributions but will continue to receive over $500 million from taxpayers even without Title X money.
Pro-life group Live Action argues that Planned Parenthood effectively engages in a “political money laundering scheme,” under which politicians funnel tax dollars to Planned Parenthood for “health” operations, leading pro-abortion donors to conclude its “health” needs are covered, so they can direct their contributions to the abortion giant’s political arms. This, in turn, helps Planned Parenthood Votes, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and Planned Parenthood Federal PAC elect politicians who will protect their federal subsidies.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-17--91-year-old who wanted to ‘stay alive’ dies after being removed from life-support

January 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Arline Lester , the 91-year-old woman from Long Island whose son recorded a video of her pleading for her life , died yesterday after being removed from her ventilator and feeding tube .
The killing of Arline Lester was shrouded in secrecy after judge Julianne Capetola allegedly issued a secret gag order forbidding the parties , attorneys or witnesses from communicating any details of the case .
The gag order , which was never made public , was reported to have been issued out of concern for the privacy rights of Arline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family tell LifeSiteNews that the gag order was simply a way to cover up the inevitable killing of a woman against her express wish to live .
Attempts , including in-person visits to the court of Judge Capetola by the Personhood Alliance to obtain the gag order in order to verify its existence , content , and scope were unsuccessful .
LifeSiteNews can also confirm that the secret gag order was used to threaten pro-life organizations such as LifeSiteNews and the Personhood Alliance who had re-posted the video recorded by Ed Lester and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Neither the NY Post nor the Personhood Alliance took down the distressing video , not having been able to confirm the existence or scope of the alleged gag order .
Parties , witnesses and attorneys related to the case that were contacted refused to comment for fear of the secret gag order .
Family sources , who refused to give any details of the court proceedings and who requested anonymity for fear of being held in contempt of court , told LifeSiteNews that Arline Lester died yesterday after having her respirator removed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sedation , '' a term that refers to aggressive pain medication that inevitably leads to the death of the patient .
The case of Arlene Lester is especially alarming at a time when NY 's Democrat control legislature is considering openly legalizing assisted suicide .
Many pro-lifers worry that if the courts are willing to enforce an old `` living will '' against the express wishes of an elderly woman who was conscious enough to orally communicate them , then what guarantee will there be that people who change their mind at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their right to life respected and protected ?
For the last weeks , Arline Lester 's two sons had engaged in an acrimonious battle in the Nassau County Supreme Court over two competing `` living wills '' .
The first will , signed decades ago , directed that no life support be administered in case she was incapacitated .
The second will was drafted recently after Arline suffered medical complications for which she required the insertion of a feeding tube and ventilator at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan .
The son who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , told ABC7 NY that his mother had asked him for help to revoke her `` living will '' seventeen times after which he helped her hire a specialized attorney who drafted the new living will .
In other comments to News12 , Edward stated that `` My mother 's perception of a living will was , 'If I 'm a vegetable , if I 'm brain dead and I 'm laying there ... pull the plug , ' but that 's not the situation we have now . ''
To support his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was to live , Ed released a video where Arline clearly communicates that she did not want to die , but instead wanted to live .
As the NY Post reported , the other brother , Kyle Lester initiated the lawsuit asking a judge in Nassau County Supreme Court to declare him Arline 's sole guardian , acknowledging that he hoped to take her off life support — but maintaining this is what their mother wanted .
Once the dramatic video of Arline mouthing the words `` I want to live '' was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publications , the court issued the secret gag order , prohibiting any of the parties , witnesses or attorneys from sharing details of the case with the press .
From that point forward , the repeated attempts from the Personhood Alliance to be shown the gag order or be given any information on the status of the case or medical condition were denied by Judge Julianne Capitola 's court .

January 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Arline Lester, the 91-year-old woman from Long Island whose son recorded a video of her pleading for her life, died yesterday after being removed from her ventilator and feeding tube.
The killing of Arline Lester was shrouded in secrecy after judge Julianne Capetola allegedly issued a secret gag order forbidding the parties, attorneys or witnesses from communicating any details of the case.
The gag order, which was never made public, was reported to have been issued out of concern for the privacy rights of Arline Lester, but sources close to the family tell LifeSiteNews that the gag order was simply a way to cover up the inevitable killing of a woman against her express wish to live. Attempts, including in-person visits to the court of Judge Capetola by the Personhood Alliance to obtain the gag order in order to verify its existence, content, and scope were unsuccessful.
LifeSiteNews can also confirm that the secret gag order was used to threaten pro-life organizations such as LifeSiteNews and the Personhood Alliance who had re-posted the video recorded by Ed Lester and first published by local NY media outlets. Neither the NY Post nor the Personhood Alliance took down the distressing video, not having been able to confirm the existence or scope of the alleged gag order. Parties, witnesses and attorneys related to the case that were contacted refused to comment for fear of the secret gag order.
Family sources, who refused to give any details of the court proceedings and who requested anonymity for fear of being held in contempt of court, told LifeSiteNews that Arline Lester died yesterday after having her respirator removed while being put on aggressive “palliative sedation,” a term that refers to aggressive pain medication that inevitably leads to the death of the patient.
The case of Arlene Lester is especially alarming at a time when NY's Democrat control legislature is considering openly legalizing assisted suicide. Many pro-lifers worry that if the courts are willing to enforce an old “living will” against the express wishes of an elderly woman who was conscious enough to orally communicate them, then what guarantee will there be that people who change their mind at the last moment about assisted suicide will have their right to life respected and protected?
For the last weeks, Arline Lester's two sons had engaged in an acrimonious battle in the Nassau County Supreme Court over two competing “living wills”. The first will, signed decades ago, directed that no life support be administered in case she was incapacitated. The second will was drafted recently after Arline suffered medical complications for which she required the insertion of a feeding tube and ventilator at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan.
The son who was taking care of Arline, Edward, told ABC7 NY that his mother had asked him for help to revoke her “living will” seventeen times after which he helped her hire a specialized attorney who drafted the new living will. In other comments to News12, Edward stated that “My mother's perception of a living will was, 'If I'm a vegetable, if I'm brain dead and I'm laying there…pull the plug,' but that's not the situation we have now.” To support his claim that his mother's clear wish was to live, Ed released a video where Arline clearly communicates that she did not want to die, but instead wanted to live.
As the NY Post reported, the other brother, Kyle Lester initiated the lawsuit asking a judge in Nassau County Supreme Court to declare him Arline's sole guardian, acknowledging that he hoped to take her off life support — but maintaining this is what their mother wanted.
Once the dramatic video of Arline mouthing the words “I want to live” was published by the NY Post and other publications, the court issued the secret gag order, prohibiting any of the parties, witnesses or attorneys from sharing details of the case with the press.
From that point forward, the repeated attempts from the Personhood Alliance to be shown the gag order or be given any information on the status of the case or medical condition were denied by Judge Julianne Capitola's court.


lifesitenews--2020-01-17--Wendy’s founder and my family asked Congress to make adoption more affordable 25 years ago. They did

WASHINGTON , D.C. , January 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Twenty-five years ago , on January 18 , 1995 , my wife , Valerie , our 13-month-old adopted son , Michael , and I joined Wendy ’ s Founder and CEO , Dave Thomas , in asking Congress to make adoption more affordable so that more children might find their way into the homes of loving parents .
The measure –– a provision in the Contract With America for a $ 5,000 tax credit for adoptive families–– passed , and President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us , and remains one of the proudest moments of our lives .
Later that year we welcomed Michael ’ s newborn baby brother , Christopher , to our family .
And although the adoption bill was signed into law too late for our family to derive any financial benefit , we are thrilled that the tax credit has put adoption within reach of so many other families across the U.S. who otherwise might not be able to afford to adopt .
Then-speaker of the House , Newt Gingrich ––the mastermind behind the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind its adoption provision –– autographed our copy of the Congressional Record containing our testimony .
I was deeply moved by Dave Thomas ’ testimony as he explained why the subject of adoption was close to his heart : Dave Thomas shared a copy of the text of his testimony with us .
Photo : Doug & Valerie Mainwaring Dave went on to persuade the members of Congress sitting before us as only he could do , making an unassailable common sense , pragmatic argument for making adoption more affordable and less bureaucratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his notes : In closing , for all the young boys and girls waiting in the system to be adopted , I ask you to remember this : It ’ s not their fault .
They can ’ t change their situation … They can ’ t solve their problems by themselves .
But together as partners in business , government and local communities , we can make it easier for these children to become part of a loving family .
Adoption gave me a proper start in life .
Let ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They grow up to be special people .
Closing remarks in Dave Thomas ’ notes for his oral testimony .
Photo : Doug & Valerie Mainwaring In the weeks leading up to our testifying before the House Ways & Means Committee , Valerie and I were briefed on what to expect by Bill Pierce , President of the National Council for Adoption , and others .
I was naive back then , and was shocked when we were told that some Democrats in Congress essentially viewed adoption as the “ enemy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nasty questions ” during the Q & A following our testimony .
I wondered , “ How could anyone be against adoption ?
” One of the questions we were warned might be put to us horrified me : Up until that point , it had never occurred to me that an elected member of Congress might have preferred to have had my son ––sitting next to me on my wife ’ s lap as we testified–– killed in his birth mother ’ s womb rather than be present with us in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that at least one member of that committee thought that way .
That was enough to permanently transform me into a committed pro-life activist .
In anticipation of writing about this anniversary , I wrote to the current CEO of the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption , Ms. Rita Soronon , a few months ago hoping to schedule an interview with her about the organization ’ s achievements over the last 25 years .
She agreed .
I decided , however , not to go ahead with the interview when her assistant advised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be off-limits : 1 . ]
The Foundation ’ s choice to not take a stance for or against abortion and 2 . ]
The Foundation ’ s support of adoptions by homosexuals .
Those were the two topics I was most curious about .
I realize these issues are radioactive for a secular organization like the Dave Thomas Foundation which aims to serve as broad a public as possible , but I had hoped to find out if Dave Thomas himself would have supported those positions .
That said , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stands in sharp contrast with the vast number of well-known corporations actively funding abortion .
The organization ’ s dedication to helping kids who are typically more difficult to place ––those who are older , have special needs , or are part of a sibling group–– to find their way into loving families before they “ age out ” of the system is filling a desperate need .
In particular , the foundation has developed Wendy ’ s Wonderful Kids program which has proven to be up to three times more effective at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care the longest ––a true God-send for children who might otherwise enter the world as young adults with the scary proposition of having no permanent family .
To understand the position that these kids are in , and witness how their lives are changed by the Dave Thomas Foundation , watch this short video .
In an age where corporations threaten to pull out of states that seek to limit abortions within their borders ; and where a movie actress can shamelessly tell the world that she won her Golden Globe Award thanks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the room full of Hollywood celebs and moguls erupt into applause–– Wendy ’ s stands alone in its commitment to adoption .
If you want to see which major corporations give money directly or indirectly to Planned Parenthood , the group 2nd Vote has compiled a list which can be found here .
By the way , when the Adoption Tax Credit was about to be signed into law , Valerie and I received a call from a member of First Lady Hillary Clinton ’ s staff , inviting us to attend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When we were told that our young sons ––who were the reason for our effort to help get the law passed in the first place–– would not be allowed to attend , we declined without regret : “ No , thanks .
We ’ d rather stay home with our boys .
”

'That was quite a day for us, and remains one of the proudest moments of our lives.'
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Twenty-five years ago, on January 18, 1995, my wife, Valerie, our 13-month-old adopted son, Michael, and I joined Wendy’s Founder and CEO, Dave Thomas, in asking Congress to make adoption more affordable so that more children might find their way into the homes of loving parents.
The measure –– a provision in the Contract With America for a $5,000 tax credit for adoptive families–– passed, and President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law.
That was quite a day for us, and remains one of the proudest moments of our lives. Later that year we welcomed Michael’s newborn baby brother, Christopher, to our family. And although the adoption bill was signed into law too late for our family to derive any financial benefit, we are thrilled that the tax credit has put adoption within reach of so many other families across the U.S. who otherwise might not be able to afford to adopt.
Then-speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich ––the mastermind behind the Contract With America and a driving force behind its adoption provision –– autographed our copy of the Congressional Record containing our testimony. Photo: Doug & Valerie Mainwaring
I was deeply moved by Dave Thomas’ testimony as he explained why the subject of adoption was close to his heart:
I know first-hand how important it is for every child to have a home and a loving family. I was born out of wedlock and adopted when I was six weeks old. I never knew my birth parents. Life wasn’t easy ––My adoptive mother died when I was five, and my father remarried and moved from town to town looking for work. But without a family, I would not be where I am today.
Dave Thomas shared a copy of the text of his testimony with us. Photo: Doug & Valerie Mainwaring
Dave went on to persuade the members of Congress sitting before us as only he could do, making an unassailable common sense, pragmatic argument for making adoption more affordable and less bureaucratic.
These paragraphs were in bold lettering in his notes:
In closing, for all the young boys and girls waiting in the system to be adopted, I ask you to remember this: It’s not their fault. They can’t change their situation … They can’t solve their problems by themselves. But together as partners in business, government and local communities, we can make it easier for these children to become part of a loving family. Adoption gave me a proper start in life. Let’s help parents adopt a special child. They grow up to be special people.
Closing remarks in Dave Thomas’ notes for his oral testimony. Photo: Doug & Valerie Mainwaring
In the weeks leading up to our testifying before the House Ways & Means Committee, Valerie and I were briefed on what to expect by Bill Pierce, President of the National Council for Adoption, and others.
I was naive back then, and was shocked when we were told that some Democrats in Congress essentially viewed adoption as the “enemy of abortion” and might ask us “nasty questions” during the Q&A following our testimony.
I wondered, “How could anyone be against adoption?”
One of the questions we were warned might be put to us horrified me:
You talk about a tax credit for your child: Wouldn’t it be cheaper to provide federal funds so his mother could have terminated the pregnancy?
Up until that point, it had never occurred to me that an elected member of Congress might have preferred to have had my son ––sitting next to me on my wife’s lap as we testified–– killed in his birth mother’s womb rather than be present with us in that hearing room. Yet we were advised that at least one member of that committee thought that way.
That was enough to permanently transform me into a committed pro-life activist.
Fast forward to 2020
In anticipation of writing about this anniversary, I wrote to the current CEO of the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, Ms. Rita Soronon, a few months ago hoping to schedule an interview with her about the organization’s achievements over the last 25 years.
She agreed. I decided, however, not to go ahead with the interview when her assistant advised me that there were two topics that would be off-limits: 1.] The Foundation’s choice to not take a stance for or against abortion and 2.] The Foundation’s support of adoptions by homosexuals.
Those were the two topics I was most curious about. I realize these issues are radioactive for a secular organization like the Dave Thomas Foundation which aims to serve as broad a public as possible, but I had hoped to find out if Dave Thomas himself would have supported those positions.
That said, in the corporate world, Wendy’s stands in sharp contrast with the vast number of well-known corporations actively funding abortion. The organization’s dedication to helping kids who are typically more difficult to place ––those who are older, have special needs, or are part of a sibling group–– to find their way into loving families before they “age out” of the system is filling a desperate need.
In particular, the foundation has developed Wendy’s Wonderful Kids program which has proven to be up to three times more effective at serving children who have been in foster care the longest ––a true God-send for children who might otherwise enter the world as young adults with the scary proposition of having no permanent family.
To understand the position that these kids are in, and witness how their lives are changed by the Dave Thomas Foundation, watch this short video.
In an age where corporations threaten to pull out of states that seek to limit abortions within their borders; and where a movie actress can shamelessly tell the world that she won her Golden Globe Award thanks to having aborted her child ––and then have the room full of Hollywood celebs and moguls erupt into applause–– Wendy’s stands alone in its commitment to adoption.
If you want to see which major corporations give money directly or indirectly to Planned Parenthood, the group 2nd Vote has compiled a list which can be found here.
By the way, when the Adoption Tax Credit was about to be signed into law, Valerie and I received a call from a member of First Lady Hillary Clinton’s staff, inviting us to attend the signing ceremony at the White House.
When we were told that our young sons ––who were the reason for our effort to help get the law passed in the first place–– would not be allowed to attend, we declined without regret: “No, thanks. We’d rather stay home with our boys.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-17--Mainstream media’s blatant hatred of Christians may boost Trump’s chances of re-election

January 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – I wish the mainstream media and the Democratic politicians realized that one of the primary reasons Donald Trump has a decent shot at getting re-elected despite the nonstop snarl of scandals that have plagued his presidency is that they can not stop showing their utter contempt for millions of Christian Americans .
As one Christian commentator recently noted : All they have to do is not hate us , and they can ’ t even do that .
Consider a recent headline over at the Associated Press : “ Tennessee governor says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It seems that Tennessee Governor Bill Lee announced earlier this week that he will be signing a bill affirming tax-payer funding for faith-based adoption agencies and foster care “ even if they exclude LGBT families and others based on religious beliefs.
” Translation : Tennessee is passing a bill preventing the LGBT movement from shutting down Christian organizations that seek to operate according to the tenets of their faith and wish to place children in homes with both a mother and a father .
While the LGBT movement has made it a heresy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a dad , reasonable people should be able to agree that children are obviously best off with both a mother and father if at all possible .
An alternative headline could be this : “ Tennessee governor will sign law protecting the right of Christian organizations to abide by tenets of their faith.
” Or : “ Tennessee governor affirms right of religious organizations to place children in homes with both a mother and a father.
” But no : The headline , of course , has to refer to this bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” which follows on the heels of similar laws passed in Texas , Kansas , Oklahoma , Alabama , South Dakota , North Dakota , Virginia , Mississippi , and even Michigan .
Governor Lee agreed to this , the AP noted ominously , “ amid warnings by critics of possible negative consequences for Tennessee ’ s reputation.
” I wonder who will be spearheading the efforts to smear Tennessee ’ s reputation .
These sorts of laws are necessary in 2020 because the LGBT movement wants to shut down every Christian organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of marriage and family .
In fact , the Trump Administration has proposed similar protections that would remove an Obama Administration rule prohibiting foster care agencies from receiving federal funds “ if they discriminated against families based on sexual orientation and identity.
” Critics of religious liberty legislation claim that these laws only hurt children , limiting the number of homes that they can be placed in .
This is nonsense .
If their primary concern was for children , then the LGBT movement wouldn ’ t be willing to shut down entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principles , but as Mary Eberstadt ’ s book It ’ s Dangerous to Believe highlights , they are more than willing to do so .
That ’ s why the LGBT movement is willing to go so far as to attack the Salvation Army for being Christian : Because this is about forcing affirmation of their lifestyle practices at any cost—even if the brunt is borne by children , homeless people , and the hungry .
“ People mystified by Evangelical support for Trump don ’ t seem to get the reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approve of his personal conduct , ” Fox News host Brit Hume commented recently .
“ It is that they think he ’ s their enemy ’ s enemy and he ’ s willing to fight.
” David French responded to him on Twitter , saying : “ Brit , the very use of the word ‘ enemy ’ demonstrates the flaw in that reasoning .
While there are extremists on both sides , fellow citizens who disagree about law and policy are not ‘ enemies , ’ and treating them as such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrongs.
” I get what David French is saying , but I ’ m not sure many evangelicals agree with him .
Are activists who wish to shut down Christian adoption agencies , bully Christian charities , defund churches , force their sexual views into Christian schools , and eliminate religious liberty the “ enemies ” of Christian communities ?
I think it is pretty hard to argue that they are not .
In fact , I think the LGBT activists themselves would happily cop to this .
And that is why many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roman emperor disinclined to persecute them—while Obama was happy to help those who wished to dismantle Christian communities .
This doesn ’ t mean that we can behave like them or even fight like them .
They might despise us , but we are commanded by Scripture to love our enemies .
But being genuinely honest about what they want to do to Christian communities and taking steps to protect ourselves is necessary , as well .

January 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – I wish the mainstream media and the Democratic politicians realized that one of the primary reasons Donald Trump has a decent shot at getting re-elected despite the nonstop snarl of scandals that have plagued his presidency is that they cannot stop showing their utter contempt for millions of Christian Americans.
As one Christian commentator recently noted: All they have to do is not hate us, and they can’t even do that.
Consider a recent headline over at the Associated Press: “Tennessee governor says he will sign anti-gay adoption bill.” It seems that Tennessee Governor Bill Lee announced earlier this week that he will be signing a bill affirming tax-payer funding for faith-based adoption agencies and foster care “even if they exclude LGBT families and others based on religious beliefs.”
Translation: Tennessee is passing a bill preventing the LGBT movement from shutting down Christian organizations that seek to operate according to the tenets of their faith and wish to place children in homes with both a mother and a father. While the LGBT movement has made it a heresy to claim children need both a mom and a dad, reasonable people should be able to agree that children are obviously best off with both a mother and father if at all possible.
An alternative headline could be this: “Tennessee governor will sign law protecting the right of Christian organizations to abide by tenets of their faith.” Or: “Tennessee governor affirms right of religious organizations to place children in homes with both a mother and a father.”
But no: The headline, of course, has to refer to this bill as an “anti-gay adoption bill,” which follows on the heels of similar laws passed in Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, South Dakota, North Dakota, Virginia, Mississippi, and even Michigan. Governor Lee agreed to this, the AP noted ominously, “amid warnings by critics of possible negative consequences for Tennessee’s reputation.”
Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook
I wonder who will be spearheading the efforts to smear Tennessee’s reputation.
These sorts of laws are necessary in 2020 because the LGBT movement wants to shut down every Christian organization that refuses to agree with their redefinition of marriage and family. In fact, the Trump Administration has proposed similar protections that would remove an Obama Administration rule prohibiting foster care agencies from receiving federal funds “if they discriminated against families based on sexual orientation and identity.”
Critics of religious liberty legislation claim that these laws only hurt children, limiting the number of homes that they can be placed in. This is nonsense. If their primary concern was for children, then the LGBT movement wouldn’t be willing to shut down entire adoption agencies for refusing to compromise their principles, but as Mary Eberstadt’s book It’s Dangerous to Believe highlights, they are more than willing to do so. That’s why the LGBT movement is willing to go so far as to attack the Salvation Army for being Christian: Because this is about forcing affirmation of their lifestyle practices at any cost—even if the brunt is borne by children, homeless people, and the hungry.
“People mystified by Evangelical support for Trump don’t seem to get the reason why, which is not that Evangelicals approve of his personal conduct,” Fox News host Brit Hume commented recently. “It is that they think he’s their enemy’s enemy and he’s willing to fight.” David French responded to him on Twitter, saying: “Brit, the very use of the word ‘enemy’ demonstrates the flaw in that reasoning. While there are extremists on both sides, fellow citizens who disagree about law and policy are not ‘enemies,’ and treating them as such is justifying a host of profound moral wrongs.”
I get what David French is saying, but I’m not sure many evangelicals agree with him. Are activists who wish to shut down Christian adoption agencies, bully Christian charities, defund churches, force their sexual views into Christian schools, and eliminate religious liberty the “enemies” of Christian communities? I think it is pretty hard to argue that they are not. In fact, I think the LGBT activists themselves would happily cop to this. And that is why many Christian voters see Donald Trump as the Roman emperor disinclined to persecute them—while Obama was happy to help those who wished to dismantle Christian communities.
This doesn’t mean that we can behave like them or even fight like them. They might despise us, but we are commanded by Scripture to love our enemies. But being genuinely honest about what they want to do to Christian communities and taking steps to protect ourselves is necessary, as well.
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 Terry Schilling, Executive Director of the American Principles Project, an organization dedicated to supporting family values and their expression in politics. Today’s episode delves into the debate surrounding governmental regulations on pornography, the arguments from various sides, today’s laws, and what we can do to protect our children and save our culture. 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--2020-01-17--Reporter to sue trans activist, who demands women wax his genitals, for punching him in head

SURREY , British Columbia , January 17 , 2019 ( LifeSiteNews ) – An investigative journalist who alleges that a transgender activist , infamous for bringing lawsuits against female beauticians who refuse to wax his genitals , punched him in the head intends to sue the man in civil court .
Earlier this week Keann Bexte of Rebel News filmed an altercation outside a Surrey , British Columbia courthouse in which Jonathan “ Jessica ” Yaniv approached him and allegedly punched him in the head .
Bexte issued a public statement last night asserting that he is going to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ― even if the criminal justice system is reluctant .
“ I will cooperate with the RCMP ’ s criminal investigation , but the problem with that is , it ’ s ultimately in the hands of politically-sensitive police and prosecutors , ” the reporter said .
“ They could agree to a plea bargain ; they could even drop the charges outright , in response to political or media pressure — something Yaniv is very good at generating.
” Bexte indicated that he is going to take control of the situation by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News reporter , David Menzies , who was also recently assaulted by Yaniv .
In the August incident , Menzies filmed Yaniv hitting him with a cane .
Bexte explained that they are suing Yaniv to show him that “ he ’ s not allowed to physically assault journalists , even if he doesn ’ t like their questions.
” The lawsuit is also about , he said “ self-respect ” and “ deterring a serial harasser.
” Yaniv , who is male , first attracted widespread public attention by using the British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sue beauticians who refused to wax his genitals .
His attempt failed : the tribunal turned the tables and accused him of using the law to punish ethnic minorities he thought were hostile to homosexual and transgender rights .
Yaniv was forced to pay damages to three of his respondents , two of whom had stopped working .
Some of them could not speak English .
“ Most of Yaniv ’ s victims didn ’ t know how to fight back — they were new immigrant women who didn ’ t have access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even know they could sue him , ” Bexte said in his statement .
He estimated that the lawsuit will cost “ as much as $ 40,000 ” , but believes it is worth it .
“ ... it ’ s about finally standing up to a bully who is so brazen that he actually felt confident attacking me , right outside a courthouse where he was already on trial for weapons offences , ” the reporter said .
“ Someone ’ s got to finally stop him , and it looks like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” In a Twitter statement , Yaniv accused Bexte of “ harassment ” and “ mischief ” : “ There ’ s a difference between ‘ journalism ’ and harassment and mischief , ” he tweeted on Tuesday .
“ The ‘ reporter ’ committed harassment and mischief stalking me for 5 hours after being banned from the courthouse.
” The transgender activist alleged that someone named “ Donald ” was in prison for similar behavior .
Yaniv ’ s attention-grabbing behavior does not stop at using the provisions of the British Columbia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Last July he requested permission from the City of Langley , BC for “ LGBTQ2S+ organizations ” to host a topless ‘ All-Bodies Swim ’ at its municipal pools “ for people aged 12+ ” .
Parents and “ caretakers ” were barred from admittance .
Yaniv is also alleged to have contacted underage girls online , and screenshots of his comments about whether he would see nude girls in women ’ s change-rooms and about menstruation of 10- to 12-year-old girls have circulated on the internet .
In a tweet pinned to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he described himself as a “ proud lesbian.
” “ One proud Lesbian , ” he wrote last June .
“ I ’ ll never stop fighting for human rights equality .
”

SURREY, British Columbia, January 17, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – An investigative journalist who alleges that a transgender activist, infamous for bringing lawsuits against female beauticians who refuse to wax his genitals, punched him in the head intends to sue the man in civil court.
Earlier this week Keann Bexte of Rebel News filmed an altercation outside a Surrey, British Columbia courthouse in which Jonathan “Jessica” Yaniv approached him and allegedly punched him in the head. Bexte issued a public statement last night asserting that he is going to make sure justice is served in his case ― even if the criminal justice system is reluctant.
“I will cooperate with the RCMP’s criminal investigation, but the problem with that is, it’s ultimately in the hands of politically-sensitive police and prosecutors,” the reporter said.
“They could agree to a plea bargain; they could even drop the charges outright, in response to political or media pressure — something Yaniv is very good at generating.”
Bexte indicated that he is going to take control of the situation by starting a civil lawsuit with another Rebel News reporter, David Menzies, who was also recently assaulted by Yaniv. In the August incident, Menzies filmed Yaniv hitting him with a cane.
Bexte explained that they are suing Yaniv to show him that “he’s not allowed to physically assault journalists, even if he doesn’t like their questions.” The lawsuit is also about, he said “self-respect” and “deterring a serial harasser.”
Yaniv, who is male, first attracted widespread public attention by using the British Columbia Human Rights Commission to attempt to sue beauticians who refused to wax his genitals.
His attempt failed: the tribunal turned the tables and accused him of using the law to punish ethnic minorities he thought were hostile to homosexual and transgender rights. Yaniv was forced to pay damages to three of his respondents, two of whom had stopped working. Some of them could not speak English.
“Most of Yaniv’s victims didn’t know how to fight back — they were new immigrant women who didn’t have access to justice and possibly didn’t even know they could sue him,” Bexte said in his statement.
He estimated that the lawsuit will cost “as much as $40,000”, but believes it is worth it.
“…it’s about finally standing up to a bully who is so brazen that he actually felt confident attacking me, right outside a courthouse where he was already on trial for weapons offences,” the reporter said.
“Someone’s got to finally stop him, and it looks like it has to be David and me.”
In a Twitter statement, Yaniv accused Bexte of “harassment” and “mischief”:
“There’s a difference between ‘journalism’ and harassment and mischief,” he tweeted on Tuesday.
“The ‘reporter’ committed harassment and mischief stalking me for 5 hours after being banned from the courthouse.”
The transgender activist alleged that someone named “Donald” was in prison for similar behavior.
Yaniv’s attention-grabbing behavior does not stop at using the provisions of the British Columbia Human Rights Code to sue beauticians. Last July he requested permission from the City of Langley, BC for “ LGBTQ2S+ organizations” to host a topless ‘All-Bodies Swim’ at its municipal pools “for people aged 12+”. Parents and “caretakers” were barred from admittance.
Yaniv is also alleged to have contacted underage girls online, and screenshots of his comments about whether he would see nude girls in women’s change-rooms and about menstruation of 10- to 12-year-old girls have circulated on the internet. In a tweet pinned to the top of his Twitter feed, he described himself as a “proud lesbian.”
“One proud Lesbian,” he wrote last June. “I’ll never stop fighting for human rights equality.”
Share