lifesitenews--2020-01-21--University of Ottawa student union strips pro-life club of official status

OTTAWA , Ontario , January 20 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A campus pro-life group vows to fight a recent decision that has stripped it of official club status .
“ So effectively as of right now , the club has lost status , ” says pro-life champion Ruth Shaw , executive director for the National Campus Life Network , to LifeSiteNews .
The pro-life organization serves in an official capacity to speak on behalf of the shut out pro-life club , The University of Ottawa Students for Life ( UOSFL ) .
The National Campus Life Network is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University students to communicate effectively about the realities of abortion with those on campus .
Removing club status means that the pro-life group can no longer access funding or resources through the student union .
The UOSFL will be appealing the recent decision to ban the group and will launch a counter to the ruling at a future board meeting of the newly created University of Ottawa Student Union ( UOSU ) .
The UOSU is a recent formation after the original student union was shut down due to financial mismanagement involving members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to appeal the decision , and we are looking at strategies to employ within the next couple of weeks with them , ” Shaw added .
“ More than anything our aim is to have students keep active .
We are not going anywhere , club status does not really mean much , we can operate.
” The ban on the UOSFL was driven in part by a 500-signature petition against them , started by fifth-year University of Ottawa biology student Bridget Dueck .
She was quoted as saying in a Charlatan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the abortion debate because there is no debate — it is a human right.
” She added , “ We are focusing on the students dictating where the resources they pay for go , making them feel safe on campus and free to access their education without any fear of discomfort or trauma caused by this group.
” The UOSFL has been in a long battle to regain official club status , having been mostly in a shutout state since October of 2017 .
That was when the now defunct Student Federation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) stripped the club of status .
This happened because “ their mandate promotes human rights for all human beings ” as reported in this 2017 LifeSiteNews article .
The club had been operating for ten years as a registered campus club , fostering respectful dialogue and hosting many different events focussing on human rights issues , especially abortion .
Without official club status , the UOSFL does not receive any funding or support from the UOSU .
The club briefly regained status for a short time in October of 2019 as reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still needed , however , the final approval of the UOSU , which also recently announced that it was taking a pro-abortion position , changing its club code of conduct to block any groups from obtaining funding who are against abortion .
The UOSU held a General Assembly at the start of December , in which students were given a choice to vote on the club status of UOSFL .
This meeting failed to meet quorum , meaning the final decision to remove UOSFL ’ s status came down to a December 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was at this meeting where the petition of 500 signatures was brought forward from pro-abortion advocates .
The committee then voted to strip the UOSFL of its status .
Shaw feels that the entire process was not fair , saying to LifeSiteNews , “ They effectively rewrote the rules to work in their favour.
” Shaw also notes that UOSFL is still able to be on campus and has a presence there .
This is something she feels is in large part due to a recent free speech policy mandate from the Ontario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can keep our club and do exactly what we were doing , thanks to the Doug Ford Policy , ” says Shaw .
She noted that she is grateful for this free speech policy , which she says has enabled the UOFSL to operate , despite not being officially supported by the UOSU .
The “ Doug Ford Policy ” is a 2019 mandate from the Ontario Ministry of Training , Colleges and Universities , which requires all publicly assisted colleges and universities to have a free speech policy .
It came about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Ontario Doug Ford .
“ Colleges and universities should be places where students exchange different ideas and opinions in open and respectful debate , ” said Ford in the official press release regarding the mandate .
“ Our government made a commitment to the people of Ontario to protect free speech on campuses .
Promise made , promise kept.
” University of Ottawa — Office of the Ombudsperson Tel .
: 613-562-5342 [ email protected ] Office of the Ombudsperson website : https : //www.uottawa.ca/ombudsperson/

Jan. 29, 2020 update: The University of Ottawa Students for Life will officially challenge the decision to strip it of official club status with an appeal to be heard on February 16. Read full statement at end of this report.
OTTAWA, Ontario, January 21, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A campus pro-life group vows to fight a recent decision that has stripped it of official club status.
“So effectively as of right now, the club has lost status,” says pro-life champion Ruth Shaw, executive director for the National Campus Life Network, to LifeSiteNews.
The pro-life organization serves in an official capacity to speak on behalf of the shut out pro-life club, The University of Ottawa Students for Life (UOSFL). The National Campus Life Network is a group that works to train Canadian University students to communicate effectively about the realities of abortion with those on campus.
Removing club status means that the pro-life group can no longer access funding or resources through the student union.
The UOSFL will be appealing the recent decision to ban the group and will launch a counter to the ruling at a future board meeting of the newly created University of Ottawa Student Union (UOSU). The UOSU is a recent formation after the original student union was shut down due to financial mismanagement involving members of its executive.
“They are going to appeal the decision, and we are looking at strategies to employ within the next couple of weeks with them,” Shaw added. “More than anything our aim is to have students keep active. We are not going anywhere, club status does not really mean much, we can operate.”
The ban on the UOSFL was driven in part by a 500-signature petition against them, started by fifth-year University of Ottawa biology student Bridget Dueck. She was quoted as saying in a Charlatan article, “We are not focusing on the abortion debate because there is no debate — it is a human right.” She added, “We are focusing on the students dictating where the resources they pay for go, making them feel safe on campus and free to access their education without any fear of discomfort or trauma caused by this group.”
The UOSFL has been in a long battle to regain official club status, having been mostly in a shutout state since October of 2017. That was when the now defunct Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) stripped the club of status. This happened because “their mandate promotes human rights for all human beings” as reported in this 2017 LifeSiteNews article. The club had been operating for ten years as a registered campus club, fostering respectful dialogue and hosting many different events focussing on human rights issues, especially abortion. Without official club status, the UOSFL does not receive any funding or support from the UOSU.
The club briefly regained status for a short time in October of 2019 as reported on their Facebook page here. They still needed, however, the final approval of the UOSU, which also recently announced that it was taking a pro-abortion position, changing its club code of conduct to block any groups from obtaining funding who are against abortion.
The UOSU held a General Assembly at the start of December, in which students were given a choice to vote on the club status of UOSFL. This meeting failed to meet quorum, meaning the final decision to remove UOSFL’s status came down to a December 20 UOSU Student Life Committee meeting. It was at this meeting where the petition of 500 signatures was brought forward from pro-abortion advocates. The committee then voted to strip the UOSFL of its status.
Shaw feels that the entire process was not fair, saying to LifeSiteNews, “They effectively rewrote the rules to work in their favour.”
Shaw also notes that UOSFL is still able to be on campus and has a presence there. This is something she feels is in large part due to a recent free speech policy mandate from the Ontario Provincial Government.
“Effectively, we can keep our club and do exactly what we were doing, thanks to the Doug Ford Policy,” says Shaw. She noted that she is grateful for this free speech policy, which she says has enabled the UOFSL to operate, despite not being officially supported by the UOSU.
The “Doug Ford Policy” is a 2019 mandate from the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, which requires all publicly assisted colleges and universities to have a free speech policy. It came about as an election campaign promise from premier of Ontario Doug Ford.
“Colleges and universities should be places where students exchange different ideas and opinions in open and respectful debate,” said Ford in the official press release regarding the mandate. “Our government made a commitment to the people of Ontario to protect free speech on campuses. Promise made, promise kept.”
***
Full Statement from Garifalia Milousis, Co-President of the UOSFL
On January 19th, the University of Ottawa Students' Union (UOSU) held a Board Meeting, where they intended to host the appeals process for the University of Ottawa Students for Life (UOSFL). On January 6th, 2020, the UOSFL club received an e-mail outlining that our club status had been revoked and that reasons for this decision would be provided at this Board Meeting. However, not only were reasons not provided during the January 19th Board Meeting, but the UOSFL was expected to present our appeal on January 19th, without having received any reasons for the decision and without our questions about the appeals process having been answered.
On this basis, citing issues of procedural fairness, I challenged the UOSU and asserted that they should provide the UOSFL club with reasons for the Student Life Committee's decision to revoke our club status and that we could only be expected to respond after that point. They agreed with my argument, and so the appeals process has been delayed until February 16th at noon, which is the next UOSU Board Meeting.
The UOSU clearly did not understand how the appeals process was meant to function. The head of the Student Life Committee stated at the January 19th meeting that he would reach out to the original petitioner and have her provide reasons for the UOSFL to respond to. However, at this point, since the UOSFL club is challenging the decision of the Student Life Committee, not challenging the comments and baseless accusations of the petitioner. After I clarified this important distinction, the head of the Student Life Committee seemed to understand and agree to provide reasons. In my mind, this is evidence that the UOSU is completely unaware of how proper, procedural fair appeals processes are supposed to function. I am also aware at this point that, because the Student Life Committee voted anonymously via a secret ballot, there is no clear set of reasons for the Student Life Committee's decision to revoke our club status.
Therefore, for these reasons, as the UOSFL's representative throughout this process, I will be challenging both the substantive decision and the procedural fairness of the decision. The UOSU is evidently unaware of the severity of the decision that has been made, and I do not feel that they are taking the process seriously. The Student Life Committee's decision has had a profound impact on our club and our members already, including causing significant emotional and mental anguish, and that is a serious concern that the Student Life Committee has not recognized up to this point. Moreover, the entire appeals process was created after the dispute with our club emerged, making it highly questionable whether the process is itself fair. Finally, the fact that the UOSU took a formally “pro-choice” position prior to the enactment of the regulations and appeal process that is now being wielded against our club is evidence of further procedural unfairness. All of these factors combine to create a reasonable apprehension of institutional and systemic bias against our club. All of these points will be discussed at the February 16th meeting, when I will be bringing a formal appeal on behalf of the UOSFL club.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-21--UK sees pro-life victories in 2020 as 5 abortion facilities shut down

January 21 , 2020 ( Society for the Protection of Unborn Children ) — Five Marie Stopes abortion clinics across Birmingham and the Black Country have closed down over the past month .
Margaret Akers , SPUC Campaign Research Officer said : “ 2020 has kicked off with some fantastic pro-life victories for the pro-life movement .
Marie Stopes abortion clinics have been harming women and killing countless children for decades .
It is a great relief to see their clinics close their doors.
” The clinics which have been closed include the United Kingdom ’ s oldest abortion facility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stopes clinics were closed last month after a re-procurement of services by Sandwell and West Birmingham , Walsall and Wolverhampton Clinical Commissioning Groups , according to Birmingham media outlets .
Mrs Akers said : “ Marie Stopes is an international abortion giant which has not only operated illegal abortion facilities overseas , but has also been promoting a culture of conveyer belt abortion in the United Kingdom .
“ Their safety violations include performing abortions on children without safeguarding referral and physically maiming women .
It is a great relief to see some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been reporting on the damning findings of Care Quality Commission reports on Marie Stopes abortion clinics in the United Kingdom .
The reports revealed a catalogue of abuses and safety violations occurring in the clinics which included paying staff bonuses for promoting abortion and leaving dead unborn children in open rubbish bins .
In 2012 , Aisha Chithira died following an abortion at the Marie Stopes Ealing clinic .
In 2017 , SPUC reported on how the abortion giant sent 11 women to hospital across a short three month period .
Despite the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marie Stopes .
The abortion giant ’ s financial reports across the past 5 years reveal that the UK Department for International Development has been their single biggest donor , granting £44 million .
Simon Cooke , Marie Stopes Chief Executive was placed under scrutiny in 2019 after receiving an extraordinary salary of £434,000 .
Published with permission from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children .

Five Marie Stopes abortion clinics across Birmingham and the Black Country have closed down over the past month.
January 21, 2020 (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) — Five Marie Stopes abortion clinics across Birmingham and the Black Country have closed down over the past month. Margaret Akers, SPUC Campaign Research Officer said: “2020 has kicked off with some fantastic pro-life victories for the pro-life movement. Marie Stopes abortion clinics have been harming women and killing countless children for decades. It is a great relief to see their clinics close their doors.”
The clinics which have been closed include the United Kingdom’s oldest abortion facility in Edgbaston, Birmingham.
The Marie Stopes clinics were closed last month after a re-procurement of services by Sandwell and West Birmingham, Walsall and Wolverhampton Clinical Commissioning Groups, according to Birmingham media outlets.
Mrs Akers said: “Marie Stopes is an international abortion giant which has not only operated illegal abortion facilities overseas, but has also been promoting a culture of conveyer belt abortion in the United Kingdom.
“Their safety violations include performing abortions on children without safeguarding referral and physically maiming women. It is a great relief to see some of their clinics close.”
Marie Stopes ‘Cattle Market’ Abortion
SPUC have been reporting on the damning findings of Care Quality Commission reports on Marie Stopes abortion clinics in the United Kingdom.
The reports revealed a catalogue of abuses and safety violations occurring in the clinics which included paying staff bonuses for promoting abortion and leaving dead unborn children in open rubbish bins.
In 2012, Aisha Chithira died following an abortion at the Marie Stopes Ealing clinic. In 2017, SPUC reported on how the abortion giant sent 11 women to hospital across a short three month period.
Despite the violations, the government continue to fund Marie Stopes. The abortion giant’s financial reports across the past 5 years reveal that the UK Department for International Development has been their single biggest donor, granting £44 million.
Simon Cooke, Marie Stopes Chief Executive was placed under scrutiny in 2019 after receiving an extraordinary salary of £434,000.
Published with permission from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-21--New study suggests babies in womb feel pain when aborted before 24 weeks

January 21 , 2020 ( Society for the Protection of Unborn Children ) — Unborn children may feel pain before the 24-week abortion time limit , meaning they would physically suffer when being aborted .
Dr Anthony McCarthy , SPUC Director of Research said : `` A society that claims to take seriously animal pain should not shrink from confronting pain inflicted on young human beings in the name of 'choice ' . ''
The new research paper , Reconsidering Foetal Pain , published in the Journal of Medical Ethics , indicates that unborn children may be able to feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The medical researchers , one of whom identifies as 'pro-choice ' , argue that to act as if we have certainty that the fetus does not ever feel anything akin to pain `` flirts with moral recklessness . ''
Dr McCarthy said : `` We welcome the re-opening of the fetal pain debate in this important paper .
Making death painless for the one killed does not , however , mean that taking life is thereby justified .
Women who are rightly concerned not to cause pain to their baby even as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not alternative ways of aborting the baby but support to allow their child to live . ''
Methods Of Abortion In The United Kingdom In 2018 in the UK , 218,518 unborn children were killed by abortion .
Unborn children are aborted for any reason until the 24th week of pregnancy and then can be legally be aborted until and during birth if suspected of having a foetal anomaly .
Chemical abortion , also known as medical abortion , is the most common method used to terminate unborn children in the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two drugs , mifepristone and misoprostol , which are used to starve the unborn child of nutrients and then flush them out of the mother 's body .
One of the UK 's largest abortion providers , British Pregnancy Advisory Service 'BPAS ' , recently updated their information regarding chemical abortion stating that women `` may see large blood clots or the fetus at the time of the abortion '' , some `` as big as a lemon . ''
Surgical abortions are typically performed between 5 and 13 weeks of pregnancy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ womb where the unborn baby is then ripped apart and squeezed down the catheter .
A curette is used to scrape the lining of the uterus to ensure all body parts are removed .
Surgical abortions that are carried in the second trimester of pregnancy involve using a sopher clamp to grasp and rip the limbs of the child .
The head is clamped and crushed and the abortionist must assemble the body parts on a tray to ensure no remains are left in the womb .
Published with permission from the Society @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The medical researchers, one of whom identifies as 'pro-choice', argue that to act as if we have certainty that the fetus does not ever feel anything akin to pain 'flirts with moral recklessness.'
January 21, 2020 (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) — Unborn children may feel pain before the 24-week abortion time limit, meaning they would physically suffer when being aborted. Dr Anthony McCarthy, SPUC Director of Research said: “A society that claims to take seriously animal pain should not shrink from confronting pain inflicted on young human beings in the name of 'choice'.”
The new research paper, Reconsidering Foetal Pain, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, indicates that unborn children may be able to feel painful sensations as early as 13 weeks.
The medical researchers, one of whom identifies as 'pro-choice', argue that to act as if we have certainty that the fetus does not ever feel anything akin to pain “flirts with moral recklessness.”
Dr McCarthy said: “We welcome the re-opening of the fetal pain debate in this important paper. Making death painless for the one killed does not, however, mean that taking life is thereby justified. Women who are rightly concerned not to cause pain to their baby even as early as 13 weeks should be offered, not alternative ways of aborting the baby but support to allow their child to live.”
Methods Of Abortion In The United Kingdom
In 2018 in the UK, 218,518 unborn children were killed by abortion. Unborn children are aborted for any reason until the 24th week of pregnancy and then can be legally be aborted until and during birth if suspected of having a foetal anomaly.
Chemical abortion, also known as medical abortion, is the most common method used to terminate unborn children in the United Kingdom. This involves the mother consuming two drugs, mifepristone and misoprostol, which are used to starve the unborn child of nutrients and then flush them out of the mother's body. One of the UK's largest abortion providers, British Pregnancy Advisory Service 'BPAS', recently updated their information regarding chemical abortion stating that women “may see large blood clots or the fetus at the time of the abortion”, some “as big as a lemon.”
Surgical abortions are typically performed between 5 and 13 weeks of pregnancy. A suction catheter is inserted into the womb where the unborn baby is then ripped apart and squeezed down the catheter. A curette is used to scrape the lining of the uterus to ensure all body parts are removed.
Surgical abortions that are carried in the second trimester of pregnancy involve using a sopher clamp to grasp and rip the limbs of the child. The head is clamped and crushed and the abortionist must assemble the body parts on a tray to ensure no remains are left in the womb.
Published with permission from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-21--Unlike capital punishment, abortion re-crucifies Christ again and again

January 21 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — When I first came across the following words by Dr. Alan Keyes , I knew that I was face to face with a man who really understands the magnitude of the evil we are fighting and is unafraid to speak it openly , so that he might convict hearts of sin : The unborn child is , indeed , a child , a human being .
Not only have modern embryology and genetics done nothing to shake a truth so evident to all ; on the contrary , they support it a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jérôme Lejeune could bear witness in courts all over the world : modern science shows that there is no fundamental biological discontinuity in the entire process from fertilized ovum to born child and beyond .
If one invents a right to kill the former , one logically must invent a right to kill the latter ; if one can kill the latter , there is no end to what life-extinguishing policies governments may approve , as we already see in the spread of euthanasia .
We have now university professors who are coldly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conclusion : since we have legalized abortion , we ought to legalize the killing of small children when they are severely disabled — or perhaps simply unwanted .
Dr. Lejeune saw that either you must defend innocent human life from beginning to end or you have to maintain that limits on killing are purely pragmatic and can be changed at will by legislative fiat .
In a world that prides itself on the fragile construct of a “ social contract ” in which we all belong to the state in exchange for protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to selling all your goods in order to purchase a field of quicksand , and then walking into it .
Twenty nineteen was a year of heartening victories and harrowing losses for the pro-life movement .
Perhaps strangest of all , however , was the continuing subtle undermining of pro-life efforts coming from an unexpected quarter : Pope Francis .
The pope ’ s preoccupation with abolishing capital punishment , going so far as to double down on his claim that longstanding Catholic doctrine can and should change on this matter , reanimated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or “ consistent life ethic , ” which has never accomplished anything more than to diffuse attention from the plight of the unborn slaughtered in their millions .
Consider some statistics .
According to Amnesty International , 23 criminals were executed in the USA in 2017 .
According to the Guttmacher Institute , 862,000 abortions were performed in the USA in the year 2017 .
For each convicted criminal whose life was required of him by justice , nearly 37,500 babies were killed for no other “ crime ” than that of existing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ babies were aborted across the Earth per year in 2010 to 2014 ; in comparison , about 1,000 were sentenced to death in the year 2017 .
That would be a ratio of 56,000 babies per 1 execution .
Another way of seeing the difference : there are 525,600 minutes in each year .
Worldwide , therefore , over 100 children are aborted every minute ; in the USA , almost 100 children are aborted each hour .
In contrast , 1 person was executed every 9 hours somewhere in the world in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was 1 criminal executed every 16 days on average .
These comparisons are mind-boggling .
I am not asserting that the lives of criminals do not matter , nor that some of the executions ( especially in Islamic countries ) are not unjust .
What I am simply trying to show is the sheer disproportion between judicial executions , which are in theory defensible , and the slaughter of the unborn , which can not under any circumstances ever be defended , not for a single child .
The so-called “ seamless garment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our gaze away from the most egregious moral evil the world has ever seen to something that is much more debatable and ambivalent .
What Pope Francis has done is to create the illusion that , for the Catholic Church , the death penalty question is as big a deal as other life questions .
But it is nothing compared to abortion ( and , increasingly , euthanasia ) .
We saw the bitter fruits of Pope Francis ’ s silence in the betrayal of Ireland ’ s Catholics during the abortion referendum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support from Pope Francis in defense of the unborn , in spite of his relative popularity with progressives , which might have made some difference .
He provided no help when it was most desperately needed , and when any worthy successor of the apostles would have spoken out clearly , as Pius X did in his encyclical letter Vehementer Nos when protesting against the evil actions of the French government in 1905 .
The Irish Times ran a headline : “ Pope Francis ’ s non-judgmental style influenced abortion Yes vote ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The crisis of morals , nay , of intelligence , has reached such a grave point that our bishops are no longer even capable of distinguishing between different kinds of dignity that people have .
Bishop Frank Dewane of Venice , Florida , stated : “ All human beings are created in the image and likeness of God , and the dignity bestowed on them by the Creator can not be extinguished , even by grave sin ” — as if this has any bearing on the death penalty — and noted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of society ’ s leaders … to make every effort to eliminate the death penalty ” ( source ) .
The same news story quotes Msgr .
Stuart Swetland : “ Theologians have been arguing that we could make this next step , as a true development of doctrine : to intend the death of a human person violates their human dignity and that the death penalty is always and everywhere non-admissible.
” Remarkable !
A bishop can not see that eliminating the death penalty for practical reasons is not the same as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ se immoral , as Pope Francis maintains .
A noted monsignor can not see that “ development of doctrine ” does not mean contradiction of Scripture , Tradition , and reason .
Neither of them can see that the death penalty is not directed against human nature or the person as such , but against the criminal as a criminal , which is a highly relevant aspect for the State to consider .
Nothing , in fact , more emphasizes human dignity than the realization that moral actions have consequences ; evil may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come , but even here and now .
Why isn ’ t God at fault when He intends the death of a human person ?
Because He has authority over life and death .
The traditional Catholic view is that the State derives its power from God and , to a certain extent , stands in His place , and therefore shares in this power .
Bradley Lewis rightly commented : “ If executing those guilty of capital crimes is wrong , why is this not the case with the intentional killing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
If the protection of the common good does not authorize capital punishment , does it no longer justify killing enemy soldiers ?
” In spite of Pope Francis ’ s diffusive and divisive efforts , and in spite of the left-leaning politics of too many Catholic bishops who are worse than useless when it comes to defending the Church ’ s rights and natural law morality , the pro-life cause remains strong and focused on the supreme moral evil of abortion , which contradicts the most basic right of all human persons @

The crisis of morals has reached such a grave point that our bishops are no longer even capable of distinguishing between different kinds of dignity that people have.
January 21, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — When I first came across the following words by Dr. Alan Keyes, I knew that I was face to face with a man who really understands the magnitude of the evil we are fighting and is unafraid to speak it openly, so that he might convict hearts of sin:
Every time abortionists rip a child limb from limb within the womb; every time they crush the fragile head; every time they scorch the life from its body with a death dealing solution; every time they scrape its nascent cells of life from the walls of a womb — Jesus is savagely beaten again; his skull pressed down with thorns; his limbs pulled savagely in their sockets; his hands and feet pierced through with nails; his breath drawn with fiery pain; his life finally extinguished; every time.
The unborn child is, indeed, a child, a human being. Not only have modern embryology and genetics done nothing to shake a truth so evident to all; on the contrary, they support it a thousandfold. That is why eminent geneticist Jérôme Lejeune could bear witness in courts all over the world: modern science shows that there is no fundamental biological discontinuity in the entire process from fertilized ovum to born child and beyond. If one invents a right to kill the former, one logically must invent a right to kill the latter; if one can kill the latter, there is no end to what life-extinguishing policies governments may approve, as we already see in the spread of euthanasia.
We have now university professors who are coldly “rational” enough to draw the conclusion: since we have legalized abortion, we ought to legalize the killing of small children when they are severely disabled — or perhaps simply unwanted. Dr. Lejeune saw that either you must defend innocent human life from beginning to end or you have to maintain that limits on killing are purely pragmatic and can be changed at will by legislative fiat. In a world that prides itself on the fragile construct of a “social contract” in which we all belong to the state in exchange for protection of our basic rights, this amounts to selling all your goods in order to purchase a field of quicksand, and then walking into it.
Twenty nineteen was a year of heartening victories and harrowing losses for the pro-life movement. Perhaps strangest of all, however, was the continuing subtle undermining of pro-life efforts coming from an unexpected quarter: Pope Francis.
The pope’s preoccupation with abolishing capital punishment, going so far as to double down on his claim that longstanding Catholic doctrine can and should change on this matter, reanimated an almost defunct “seamless garment” or “consistent life ethic,” which has never accomplished anything more than to diffuse attention from the plight of the unborn slaughtered in their millions.
Consider some statistics. According to Amnesty International, 23 criminals were executed in the USA in 2017. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 862,000 abortions were performed in the USA in the year 2017. For each convicted criminal whose life was required of him by justice, nearly 37,500 babies were killed for no other “crime” than that of existing. Statistical models estimate that 56 million babies were aborted across the Earth per year in 2010 to 2014; in comparison, about 1,000 were sentenced to death in the year 2017. That would be a ratio of 56,000 babies per 1 execution. Another way of seeing the difference: there are 525,600 minutes in each year. Worldwide, therefore, over 100 children are aborted every minute; in the USA, almost 100 children are aborted each hour. In contrast, 1 person was executed every 9 hours somewhere in the world in 2017; in the USA, it was 1 criminal executed every 16 days on average. These comparisons are mind-boggling.
I am not asserting that the lives of criminals do not matter, nor that some of the executions (especially in Islamic countries) are not unjust. What I am simply trying to show is the sheer disproportion between judicial executions, which are in theory defensible, and the slaughter of the unborn, which cannot under any circumstances ever be defended, not for a single child.
The so-called “seamless garment” is a diabolic ploy to turn our gaze away from the most egregious moral evil the world has ever seen to something that is much more debatable and ambivalent. What Pope Francis has done is to create the illusion that, for the Catholic Church, the death penalty question is as big a deal as other life questions. But it is nothing compared to abortion (and, increasingly, euthanasia).
We saw the bitter fruits of Pope Francis’s silence in the betrayal of Ireland’s Catholics during the abortion referendum in 2018. The Irish received zero support from Pope Francis in defense of the unborn, in spite of his relative popularity with progressives, which might have made some difference. He provided no help when it was most desperately needed, and when any worthy successor of the apostles would have spoken out clearly, as Pius X did in his encyclical letter Vehementer Nos when protesting against the evil actions of the French government in 1905. The Irish Times ran a headline: “Pope Francis’s non-judgmental style influenced abortion Yes vote” (July 17, 2018).
The crisis of morals, nay, of intelligence, has reached such a grave point that our bishops are no longer even capable of distinguishing between different kinds of dignity that people have. Bishop Frank Dewane of Venice, Florida, stated: “All human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, and the dignity bestowed on them by the Creator cannot be extinguished, even by grave sin” — as if this has any bearing on the death penalty — and noted that Benedict XVI had urged “the attention of society’s leaders … to make every effort to eliminate the death penalty” (source). The same news story quotes Msgr. Stuart Swetland: “Theologians have been arguing that we could make this next step, as a true development of doctrine: to intend the death of a human person violates their human dignity and that the death penalty is always and everywhere non-admissible.”
Remarkable! A bishop cannot see that eliminating the death penalty for practical reasons is not the same as saying that the death penalty is per se immoral, as Pope Francis maintains. A noted monsignor cannot see that “development of doctrine” does not mean contradiction of Scripture, Tradition, and reason. Neither of them can see that the death penalty is not directed against human nature or the person as such, but against the criminal as a criminal, which is a highly relevant aspect for the State to consider. Nothing, in fact, more emphasizes human dignity than the realization that moral actions have consequences; evil may be punished not only in the world to come, but even here and now.
Why isn’t God at fault when He intends the death of a human person? Because He has authority over life and death. The traditional Catholic view is that the State derives its power from God and, to a certain extent, stands in His place, and therefore shares in this power. Bradley Lewis rightly commented: “If executing those guilty of capital crimes is wrong, why is this not the case with the intentional killing of enemy combatants in a just war? If the protection of the common good does not authorize capital punishment, does it no longer justify killing enemy soldiers?”
In spite of Pope Francis’s diffusive and divisive efforts, and in spite of the left-leaning politics of too many Catholic bishops who are worse than useless when it comes to defending the Church’s rights and natural law morality, the pro-life cause remains strong and focused on the supreme moral evil of abortion, which contradicts the most basic right of all human persons.
Peter Kwasniewski, Thomistic theologian, liturgical scholar, and choral composer, is a graduate of Thomas Aquinas College in California (B.A. Liberal Arts) and The Catholic University of America in Washington, DC (M.A. and Ph.D. in Philosophy). He taught at the International Theological Institute in Austria and the Franciscan University of Steubenville’s Austria Program, then helped establish Wyoming Catholic College in 2006. There he taught theology, philosophy, music, and art history and directed the choirs until leaving in 2018 to devote himself full-time to writing and lecturing. Today he contributes regularly to many websites and publications, including New Liturgical Movement, OnePeterFive, LifeSiteNews, Rorate Caeli, The Remnant, and Catholic Family News, and has published thirteen books, including four on traditional Catholicism: Resurgent in the Midst of Crisis (Angelico, 2014, also available in Czech, Polish, German, Portuguese, Spanish, and Belarusian), Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness (Angelico, 2017), Tradition and Sanity (Angelico, 2018), and Reclaiming Our Roman Catholic Birthright: The Genius and Timeliness of the Traditional Latin Mass (Angelico, 2020). His work has been translated into at least eighteen languages. Kwasniewski is a scholar of The Aquinas Institute in Green Bay, which is publishing the Opera Omnia of the Angelic Doctor, a Fellow of the Albertus Magnus Center for Scholastic Studies, and a Senior Fellow of the St. Paul Center. He has published over a thousand articles on Thomistic thought, sacramental and liturgical theology, the history and aesthetics of music, and the social doctrine of the Church. For news, information, article links, sacred music, and the home of Os Justi Press, visit his personal website, www.peterkwasniewski.com.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-22--Pro-life pregnancy center group takes NY to court over extreme pro-abortion laws

NEW YORK , January 21 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — New York is blatantly discriminating against those who advocate for the sanctity of human life , and the Thomas More Society is taking the matter to federal court .
Representing Evergreen Association , Inc. , the non-for-profit public interest law firm is holding New York State and New York City accountable for their disregard of the First Amendment .
Evergreen is a charitable organization operating maternal health and pregnancy centers under the names Expectant Mother Care and EMC Frontline Pregnancy Centers .
The Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York .
The complaint charges both the state and city of New York with discriminating against pro-life organizations in the following ways : • Violation of the right to association ( First Amendment ) Legislation targeting pro-life advocates appears to be in line with Governor Andrew Cuomo ’ s statement denouncing those who espouse pro-life views as “ extreme conservatives , they have no place in the state of New York.
” In the same pattern , a recent string of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ silence peaceful citizens offering abortion-bound women information on life-affirming alternatives .
Thomas More Society Special Counsel Timothy Belz stated , “ This is especially egregious when you consider that the law was packaged with other bills specifically designed to strip away any regulation of abortion .
New York ’ s ‘ Boss Bill ’ was passed in tandem with the state ’ s Reproductive Health Act which legalizes abortion until the birth of the child and the Comprehensive Contraception Coverage Act which requires health insurers to provide no-cost birth control , including abortifacient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chris Slattery , Director of EMC Frontline , explained , “ We are all about saving the unborn lives threatened by abortion .
Thus , we are all about offering alternatives to abortion .
New York ’ s discriminatory laws undermine our charitable mission .
How could we in good conscience hire someone who advocates abortion to encourage expectant mothers not to pursue that deadly route ?
” The case challenges the constitutionality of New York ’ s so-called “ Boss Bills , ” laws that make support of abortion a protected class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York State and New York City , thus forbidding employers from making hiring and promotion decisions based upon “ reproductive health ” decisions of employees or applicants , including the decision to have or promote abortions .
The laws pose existential threats to pro-life organizations because they impose debilitating fines and also provide for statutory damages .
“ These laws violate our client ’ s rights in multiple ways .
Expectant Mother Care and EMC Frontline exist for the purpose of advocating for and providing desperate women with alternatives to abortion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion would completely undermine their mission , ” explained Belz .
“ It ’ s ludicrous and tramples all over Expectant Mother Care and EMC Frontline ’ s right of expressive association guaranteed by the First Amendment .
These state and city laws also violate our client ’ s right to free speech and right to due process .
Finally , the state ’ s failure to define ‘ reproductive health decision making ’ makes the laws unconstitutionally vague.
” Read The Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief , filed January 21 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court for the Southern District of New York by the Thomas More Society , in the action titled The Evergreen Association , Inc. v. Andrew M. Cuomo et al , here .

Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Sign the petition here.
NEW YORK, January 21, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — New York is blatantly discriminating against those who advocate for the sanctity of human life, and the Thomas More Society is taking the matter to federal court. Representing Evergreen Association, Inc., the non-for-profit public interest law firm is holding New York State and New York City accountable for their disregard of the First Amendment. Evergreen is a charitable organization operating maternal health and pregnancy centers under the names Expectant Mother Care and EMC Frontline Pregnancy Centers. The Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief was filed January 21, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaint charges both the state and city of New York with discriminating against pro-life organizations in the following ways:
• Violation of the right to association (First Amendment)
• Violation of due process (Fourteenth Amendment)
• Violation of free speech (First Amendment)
Legislation targeting pro-life advocates appears to be in line with Governor Andrew Cuomo’s statement denouncing those who espouse pro-life views as “extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York.” In the same pattern, a recent string of New York attorneys general has sought to silence peaceful citizens offering abortion-bound women information on life-affirming alternatives.
Thomas More Society Special Counsel Timothy Belz stated, “This is especially egregious when you consider that the law was packaged with other bills specifically designed to strip away any regulation of abortion. New York’s ‘Boss Bill’ was passed in tandem with the state’s Reproductive Health Act which legalizes abortion until the birth of the child and the Comprehensive Contraception Coverage Act which requires health insurers to provide no-cost birth control, including abortifacient drugs, in their health plans.”
Chris Slattery, Director of EMC Frontline, explained, “We are all about saving the unborn lives threatened by abortion. Thus, we are all about offering alternatives to abortion. New York’s discriminatory laws undermine our charitable mission. How could we in good conscience hire someone who advocates abortion to encourage expectant mothers not to pursue that deadly route?”
The case challenges the constitutionality of New York’s so-called “Boss Bills,” laws that make support of abortion a protected class in the employment nondiscrimination laws of both New York State and New York City, thus forbidding employers from making hiring and promotion decisions based upon “reproductive health” decisions of employees or applicants, including the decision to have or promote abortions. The laws pose existential threats to pro-life organizations because they impose debilitating fines and also provide for statutory damages.
“These laws violate our client’s rights in multiple ways. Expectant Mother Care and EMC Frontline exist for the purpose of advocating for and providing desperate women with alternatives to abortion. Forcing them to hire someone who promotes abortion would completely undermine their mission,” explained Belz. “It’s ludicrous and tramples all over Expectant Mother Care and EMC Frontline’s right of expressive association guaranteed by the First Amendment. These state and city laws also violate our client’s right to free speech and right to due process. Finally, the state’s failure to define ‘reproductive health decision making’ makes the laws unconstitutionally vague.”
Read The Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, filed January 21, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Thomas More Society, in the action titled The Evergreen Association, Inc. v. Andrew M. Cuomo et al, here.
Share


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

John-Henry interviews some of the most well-known clergy and laity in the Church while offering commentary on the most important @ @ @ @ @ around the world .

Remnant newspaper editor Michael Matt joins John-Henry in Munich to discuss the Catholic Church in Germany. He issues a clarion call for Catholics to fulfill their obligation to be militant soldiers for Christ.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-21--In Paris, tens of thousands protest extending artificial reproduction to lesbians

PARIS , January 21 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Shortly before the French Senate was scheduled to contemplate a bill to permit in vitro fertilization for single women , including lesbians , more than 40,000 people demonstrated against the measure on the streets of Paris on Sunday .
Led by the populist La Manif pour Tous movement , tens of thousands of demonstrators protested against legislation that will allow women in same-sex couples to resort to “ artificial conception ” — that is , taking sperm from a random or pre-selected father , whom the conceived child will likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be raised by his mother , alone or with another female — and allow the mother and the other woman to be listed as parents on the birth certificate of the resulting children .
Pro-family activists of La Manif have disputed official estimates for the number of participants in the massive demonstration , saying there were far more .
The leader of La Manif , Ludovine de La Rochère , said she was happy with the turnout , which came about despite the cold and a prolonged and crippling transport strike .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a draft bill with amendments for review by the Senate , sparking public protests in opposition in the fall .
Protesters on Sunday objected especially to extending legal access to artificial procreation , such as in vitro fertilization ( IVF ) , to single women .
President Emmanuel Macron expressed support for the concept while running for office in 2017 .
The Senate began debate on Tuesday and will continue to review the reform bill through February 4 , at which time the measure will return to the National Assembly .
Macron and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ submitted the bioethics bill in July to the National Assembly .
Currently , France ’ s Public Health Code allows artificial reproduction only to couples , in consultation with medical experts , that consist of a “ man and a woman ” who are either experiencing fertility problems or wish to avoid transmitting a serious illness to their child .
Macron ’ s La République en Marche !
( LREM ) party wants to see the reform pass , but without the public backlash that came upon the legalization of same-sex “ marriage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill includes access to artificial reproduction “ sans père ” ( using sperm from an uninvolved male — French literal translation , “ without a father ” ) for single women , it remains to be seen whether the procedure will be covered by the French social security system .
Senator Muriel Jourda of the party Les Républicains has proposed that only heterosexual couples should be covered for artificial reproduction but only when specific medical criteria are met , such as diagnosed infertility or in order to prevent transmission of a serious illness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jourda ’ s proposal , single women , including lesbians in a couple with another woman , would have to pay the full price for the procedure , which in France is available only in publicly funded facilities .
However , France ’ s minister of health , Agnès Buzyn , wants to see total coverage for artificial procreation for all .
Despite opposition by pro-family legislators and activist groups , language in the bill establishing the identity of the mother and a biologically unrelated second woman on birth certificates remained unamended during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Last year , the lower house agreed that both a mother and her same-sex paramour would have to officially recognize a child born to the former in an act before a notary public .
Therefore , the non-mother in the pair would be recognized as one of the two parents and on equal footing with the mother .
Birth certificates could therefore claim to list two “ mothers.
” Storing frozen embryonic babies who are conceived by artificial procreation , when women are subjected to dangerous mega-doses of hormones and injected with sperm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only .
Leftist advocates of the process contend that the public facilities are storing frozen human beings beyond their capacity , leading to delays .
Therefore , they successfully passed an amendment in committee in the lower house to allow for-profit private facilities to store embryonic babies , which would ostensibly be able to absorb a growing number of women seeking artificially conceived children .
Another amendment raised the period for cultivating an embryo from seven days to 14 .
Storage of embryonic babies would be increased from five to 10 years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hormone treatment , superovulation in the woman ’ s body releases perhaps dozens of eggs ( oocytes ) , which are then frozen .
They can be fertilized with sperm , and the resulting embryonic babies are frozen for later implantation in other women , scientific research , or destruction .
Unfertilized eggs and sperm can also be frozen for later use .
In advance of the National Assembly vote in September , the French National Academy of Medicine issued an official opinion that expressed “ a number of reservations ” about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Academy recognized the “ equal rights of all women regarding procreation , ” it also recognized “ the right of every child to have a father and a mother as far as possible . ''
Asserting that the proposed reform would mean a “ voluntary breach of equality between children , ” the body declared : “ As such , the deliberate conception of a child deprived of a father constitutes a major anthropological rupture which is not without risks for psychological development and the development of the child.
” The Catholic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bill and called on Christians to sign a petition and march in protest .
Archbishop Michel Aupetit of Paris released a statement , saying : “ You would think the senators had some form of wisdom and that we could count on a certain reserve on their part.
” He went on to say , “ One has the impression that there is a total loss of consciousness .
We are totally drifting !
” Archbishop Aupetit is a medical doctor who once practiced medicine and taught bioethics in a medical school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to destroy the planet , are we going to let our humanity be disfigured ?
Who will dare to raise their voices ?
” Alluding to the internationalization of the IVF business , and the possibility of human-animal hybrids ( chimeras ) , he said , “ For years , we have been committing ourselves ever further towards a mercantile drift of wealthy countries which buy themselves the luxury of organizing eugenic trafficking , with the systematic elimination of the most fragile , the creation of transgenic embryos and chimeras.
” He asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the natural environment yet show comparatively little concern for humanity .
“ A child is a gift to be received , not an order to be manufactured .
The absence of a father is an injury that can be suffered , but it is monstrous to inflict it on purpose , ” said Archbishop Aupetit .
He added , “ As the Permanent Council of the Conference of Bishops of France has just recalled , the right to conscientious objection in these areas must be guaranteed in the name of freedom .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pull itself together , to dare to go beyond ideological postures and for all citizens to make the voice of common sense , conscience and human brotherhood heard .
”

PARIS, January 21, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Shortly before the French Senate was scheduled to contemplate a bill to permit in vitro fertilization for single women, including lesbians, more than 40,000 people demonstrated against the measure on the streets of Paris on Sunday.
Led by the populist La Manif pour Tous movement, tens of thousands of demonstrators protested against legislation that will allow women in same-sex couples to resort to “artificial conception” — that is, taking sperm from a random or pre-selected father, whom the conceived child will likely never know, so the child can be raised by his mother, alone or with another female — and allow the mother and the other woman to be listed as parents on the birth certificate of the resulting children. Pro-family activists of La Manif have disputed official estimates for the number of participants in the massive demonstration, saying there were far more. The leader of La Manif, Ludovine de La Rochère, said she was happy with the turnout, which came about despite the cold and a prolonged and crippling transport strike.
In October, the lower-house National Assembly passed a draft bill with amendments for review by the Senate, sparking public protests in opposition in the fall. Protesters on Sunday objected especially to extending legal access to artificial procreation, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), to single women.
President Emmanuel Macron expressed support for the concept while running for office in 2017. The Senate began debate on Tuesday and will continue to review the reform bill through February 4, at which time the measure will return to the National Assembly.
Macron and the French minister of health and solidarity submitted the bioethics bill in July to the National Assembly. Currently, France’s Public Health Code allows artificial reproduction only to couples, in consultation with medical experts, that consist of a “man and a woman” who are either experiencing fertility problems or wish to avoid transmitting a serious illness to their child. Macron’s La République en Marche! (LREM) party wants to see the reform pass, but without the public backlash that came upon the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in 2013.
While the amended bill includes access to artificial reproduction “sans père” (using sperm from an uninvolved male — French literal translation, “without a father”) for single women, it remains to be seen whether the procedure will be covered by the French social security system. Senator Muriel Jourda of the party Les Républicains has proposed that only heterosexual couples should be covered for artificial reproduction but only when specific medical criteria are met, such as diagnosed infertility or in order to prevent transmission of a serious illness or condition to the child.
Under Jourda’s proposal, single women, including lesbians in a couple with another woman, would have to pay the full price for the procedure, which in France is available only in publicly funded facilities. However, France’s minister of health, Agnès Buzyn, wants to see total coverage for artificial procreation for all.
Despite opposition by pro-family legislators and activist groups, language in the bill establishing the identity of the mother and a biologically unrelated second woman on birth certificates remained unamended during committee debate in the National Assembly. Last year, the lower house agreed that both a mother and her same-sex paramour would have to officially recognize a child born to the former in an act before a notary public. Therefore, the non-mother in the pair would be recognized as one of the two parents and on equal footing with the mother. Birth certificates could therefore claim to list two “mothers.”
Cold storage for babies
Storing frozen embryonic babies who are conceived by artificial procreation, when women are subjected to dangerous mega-doses of hormones and injected with sperm, is currently permitted in public facilities only. Leftist advocates of the process contend that the public facilities are storing frozen human beings beyond their capacity, leading to delays. Therefore, they successfully passed an amendment in committee in the lower house to allow for-profit private facilities to store embryonic babies, which would ostensibly be able to absorb a growing number of women seeking artificially conceived children.
Another amendment raised the period for cultivating an embryo from seven days to 14. Storage of embryonic babies would be increased from five to 10 years.
When a woman subjects herself to IVF hormone treatment, superovulation in the woman’s body releases perhaps dozens of eggs (oocytes), which are then frozen. They can be fertilized with sperm, and the resulting embryonic babies are frozen for later implantation in other women, scientific research, or destruction. Unfertilized eggs and sperm can also be frozen for later use.
In advance of the National Assembly vote in September, the French National Academy of Medicine issued an official opinion that expressed “a number of reservations” about the proposed revision of bioethics laws. While the Academy recognized the “equal rights of all women regarding procreation,” it also recognized “the right of every child to have a father and a mother as far as possible.”
Asserting that the proposed reform would mean a “voluntary breach of equality between children,” the body declared: “As such, the deliberate conception of a child deprived of a father constitutes a major anthropological rupture which is not without risks for psychological development and the development of the child.”
A child is a gift, not a commodity
The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of France has condemned the bill and called on Christians to sign a petition and march in protest. Archbishop Michel Aupetit of Paris released a statement, saying: “You would think the senators had some form of wisdom and that we could count on a certain reserve on their part.” He went on to say, “One has the impression that there is a total loss of consciousness. We are totally drifting!”
Archbishop Aupetit is a medical doctor who once practiced medicine and taught bioethics in a medical school.
He asked, “After starting to destroy the planet, are we going to let our humanity be disfigured? Who will dare to raise their voices?” Alluding to the internationalization of the IVF business, and the possibility of human-animal hybrids (chimeras), he said, “For years, we have been committing ourselves ever further towards a mercantile drift of wealthy countries which buy themselves the luxury of organizing eugenic trafficking, with the systematic elimination of the most fragile, the creation of transgenic embryos and chimeras.” He asked how society can be so concerned for the natural environment yet show comparatively little concern for humanity.
“A child is a gift to be received, not an order to be manufactured. The absence of a father is an injury that can be suffered, but it is monstrous to inflict it on purpose,” said Archbishop Aupetit. He added, “As the Permanent Council of the Conference of Bishops of France has just recalled, the right to conscientious objection in these areas must be guaranteed in the name of freedom. There is still time for the legislature to pull itself together, to dare to go beyond ideological postures and for all citizens to make the voice of common sense, conscience and human brotherhood heard.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-21--Christians who oppose Trump should remember Obama

January 21 , 2020 ( American Thinker ) — The problem for conservatives debating progressives and leftists is that those on the far left always choose the playing field .
Using a sports analogy , progressives wisely choose a baseball field for a confrontation , putting conservatives at a decisive disadvantage .
Conservatives need to stop playing progressives in baseball and start playing them in football .
Think about it : in football , your opponent can start out with the ball on offense but suddenly have it taken away by a pass interception or by recovering a fumble .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in a position to score .
In fact , in the vast majority of major team sports — football , basketball , hockey , soccer — in all of them , you can actually score on defense — by taking the ball ( or puck ) away from the other team and going in for a goal ( or basket ) .
Baseball is the only sport where you can score only on offense .
One team gets to bat , to score as many runs as possible before making three outs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bat and score .
I mean , a player in the field ca n't suddenly knock over a runner who 's rounding third base and then run down the line himself , cross home plate , and score a run for his team , right ?
So , how does this sports analogy carry over into debating and , in a larger sense , effecting changes in the culture ?
What seems to be happening in every matchup between conservatives and progressives is that progressives are always up at bat and conservatives are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep sending their pundits to the plate and keep getting hits and scoring runs , and all the conservatives can do is hope to make some outs — and not just three , either .
In this warped brand of baseball , the progressives keep racking up all the outs they want , losing all the arguments they want , but they still get to bat and sometimes score .
Conservatives can make all kinds of great plays in the field , create all kinds of outs using brilliant arguments , but they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ca n't score .
How does this play out in real life ?
Progressives masquerading as Christians ( or at least feigning sympathy with Christian causes ) will ask , `` How can a Christian support Trump ? ''
The question itself immediately puts the conservative ( or Christian who supports Trump ) on the field playing defense .
Jesus himself was confronted by many who wanted to trip him up .
They 'd ask a question designed to back him up against a wall , but he always turned the tables on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a group of Pharisees , wanting to trap Jesus and shame him in front of his followers , showed Jesus a coin and asked him if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar .
The Pharisees wanted Jesus to say either `` do n't pay taxes '' ( which would be unlawful and could lead to his arrest ) or `` give your money to the Romans '' ( the very rulers who were oppressing the Jewish people of that day ) .
Did Jesus take the bait ?
No , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by asking them a question : `` Whose inscription is on the coin ? ''
Suddenly , the Pharisees were rocked back on their heels and forced to play defense .
( By the way , if you want to find out who won that argument , read `` the rest of the story '' in your Bible in the Book of Matthew , Chapter 15 , verses 15 through 22 ) .
A similar turnabout can be found when Jesus is confronted by the Pharisees who brought him the woman caught in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Book of John , Chapter 2 , verses 2 through 11 . )
Progressives always enjoy setting the stage for a debate by asking a question they find incendiary — and asking a question sets an agenda , thus immediately putting the progressive on offense .
Now it seems that the only thing a conservative can do is take the field and play defense .
By way of example , here again is that progressive question heard quite a bit these days : `` How can a Christian support Trump ? ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is something wrong with supporting Trump , so the person who is asked it must assume a defensive position .
But how do you turn things around , go on offense , and score ?
Should n't a conservative ( and especially a Christian ) be taking a page out of Jesus 's playbook and turning the tables on progressives ?
A conservative Christian could respond : `` I will answer that question after you answer mine : how could a Christian have supported Obama ? ''
Most likely , the progressive , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has perhaps never heard anyone dare challenge Obama 's awesomeness , will ask , `` What do you mean ? ''
This very question has now put him in a position to play defense , and you can ask an `` offensive '' question or two .
Examples : `` What about Obama 's support of partial-birth , even live-birth abortion ? ''
and `` How could Obama celebrate same-sex 'marriage ' by lighting up the White House in rainbow colors immediately following the Supreme Court 's decision to legalize it ? ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is anathema to biblical Christianity by justifying how a Christian could champion late-term abortion and `` marriage '' between same-sex couples .
In other words , `` How could a Christian have supported Obama ? ''
So , grab your helmet and shoulder pads — suit up !
It 's time to hit the grid iron .
Once we conservatives get off the progressives ' and far left 's hallowed baseball diamond , scoring and winning big will no longer be an elusive goal .
Published with permission from the American Thinker .

January 21, 2020 (American Thinker) — The problem for conservatives debating progressives and leftists is that those on the far left always choose the playing field. Using a sports analogy, progressives wisely choose a baseball field for a confrontation, putting conservatives at a decisive disadvantage. Conservatives need to stop playing progressives in baseball and start playing them in football.
Think about it: in football, your opponent can start out with the ball on offense but suddenly have it taken away by a pass interception or by recovering a fumble. Now, your team is on offense and in a position to score. In fact, in the vast majority of major team sports — football, basketball, hockey, soccer — in all of them, you can actually score on defense — by taking the ball (or puck) away from the other team and going in for a goal (or basket). Baseball is the only sport where you can score only on offense. One team gets to bat, to score as many runs as possible before making three outs, then the other team gets to bat and score. I mean, a player in the field can't suddenly knock over a runner who's rounding third base and then run down the line himself, cross home plate, and score a run for his team, right?
So, how does this sports analogy carry over into debating and, in a larger sense, effecting changes in the culture?
What seems to be happening in every matchup between conservatives and progressives is that progressives are always up at bat and conservatives are always playing the field. Progressives will keep sending their pundits to the plate and keep getting hits and scoring runs, and all the conservatives can do is hope to make some outs — and not just three, either. In this warped brand of baseball, the progressives keep racking up all the outs they want, losing all the arguments they want, but they still get to bat and sometimes score. Conservatives can make all kinds of great plays in the field, create all kinds of outs using brilliant arguments, but they still won't ultimately win because they can't score.
How does this play out in real life? Progressives masquerading as Christians (or at least feigning sympathy with Christian causes) will ask, “How can a Christian support Trump?” The question itself immediately puts the conservative (or Christian who supports Trump) on the field playing defense.
Jesus himself was confronted by many who wanted to trip him up. They'd ask a question designed to back him up against a wall, but he always turned the tables on them. One time, for example, a group of Pharisees, wanting to trap Jesus and shame him in front of his followers, showed Jesus a coin and asked him if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. The Pharisees wanted Jesus to say either “don't pay taxes” (which would be unlawful and could lead to his arrest) or “give your money to the Romans” (the very rulers who were oppressing the Jewish people of that day). Did Jesus take the bait? No, he turned the tables on the Pharisees by asking them a question: “Whose inscription is on the coin?” Suddenly, the Pharisees were rocked back on their heels and forced to play defense. (By the way, if you want to find out who won that argument, read “the rest of the story” in your Bible in the Book of Matthew, Chapter 15, verses 15 through 22). A similar turnabout can be found when Jesus is confronted by the Pharisees who brought him the woman caught in the act of adultery. (See the Book of John, Chapter 2, verses 2 through 11.)
Progressives always enjoy setting the stage for a debate by asking a question they find incendiary — and asking a question sets an agenda, thus immediately putting the progressive on offense. Now it seems that the only thing a conservative can do is take the field and play defense.
By way of example, here again is that progressive question heard quite a bit these days: “How can a Christian support Trump?”
Notice that the question immediately assumes there is something wrong with supporting Trump, so the person who is asked it must assume a defensive position.
But how do you turn things around, go on offense, and score?
Shouldn't a conservative (and especially a Christian) be taking a page out of Jesus's playbook and turning the tables on progressives?
A conservative Christian could respond: “I will answer that question after you answer mine: how could a Christian have supported Obama?” Most likely, the progressive, who greatly admires the former president and has perhaps never heard anyone dare challenge Obama's awesomeness, will ask, “What do you mean?” This very question has now put him in a position to play defense, and you can ask an “offensive” question or two. Examples: “What about Obama's support of partial-birth, even live-birth abortion?” and “How could Obama celebrate same-sex 'marriage' by lighting up the White House in rainbow colors immediately following the Supreme Court's decision to legalize it?” Progressives would have to defend that which is anathema to biblical Christianity by justifying how a Christian could champion late-term abortion and “marriage” between same-sex couples. In other words, “How could a Christian have supported Obama?”
So, grab your helmet and shoulder pads — suit up! It's time to hit the grid iron. Once we conservatives get off the progressives' and far left's hallowed baseball diamond, scoring and winning big will no longer be an elusive goal.
Published with permission from the American Thinker.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-21--Indiana bill would ban all abortions, regardless of what courts say

INDIANAPOLIS , January 21 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A pro-life Indiana lawmaker has introduced a measure to fully recognize preborn babies ’ humanity in state law , ban abortion as murder , and declare Indiana ’ s prerogative to protect all human life in defiance of federal opposition .
Introduced by Republican state Rep. Curt Nisly , HB 1089 replaces usage of the word “ fetus ” in state law with “ unborn child , ” corrects a previous legal definition of “ human being ” as “ an individual who has been born.
” It also declares @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or mandate that violates the right to life is “ is null , void , and unenforceable in Indiana.
” “ The courts of the United States have no jurisdiction to interfere with Indiana 's interest in protecting human physical life from the moment that human physical life begins , ” the bill continues .
“ It is unlawful for any official , agent , or employee of the United States government or an employee of a private entity providing services to the United States government to enforce any act , law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulation of the United States government that interferes with Indiana 's interest in protecting human physical life from the moment that human physical life begins.
” '' It 's clear Rep. Nisly is emboldened by the Trump administration and the spate of anti-abortion attacks across the country and will stop at nothing to strip Hoosiers of their rights and freedoms , ” Planned Parenthood of Indiana & Kentucky chief legal counsel Hannah Brass Greer responded , Fort Wayne ’ s NBC reported .
“ We have a message to the out of touch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our rights , our bodies and our health care : We decide . ''
Nisly ’ s bill , which he also introduced in three previous legislative sessions , faces an uphill battle to become law .
The state group Hoosiers for Life has delivered 40,000 signatures to the state capitol in support of HB 1089 but accused Republican state Rep. Ben Smaltz of attempting to bury it in the House Public Policy Committee .
“ Yes , the Indy Swamp is swarming with liars who only care about getting elected , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ Smaltz knows he has to say he ’ s pro-life to win a seat at the Statehouse , but once he ’ s safely in office , he downright opposes ending abortion in our state.
” “ Since 2020 is a ‘ short session , ’ we do not have much time to convince Rep. Ben Smaltz to change his mind , ” she continued .
“ Pro-aborts are calling the Statehouse daily , and Smaltz may be assuring them the bill will not get out of committee .
Let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s clothing that it was pro-life voters who elected him to his REPRESENTATIVE position in the first place.
” The group is requesting that Indiana pro-lifers call Smaltz at 317-232-9620 to urge him to release the bill and to sign their petition to support HB 1089 .

A state representative faces opposition from Planned Parenthood and other lawmakers in his attempt to protect all unborn children.
INDIANAPOLIS, January 21, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A pro-life Indiana lawmaker has introduced a measure to fully recognize preborn babies’ humanity in state law, ban abortion as murder, and declare Indiana’s prerogative to protect all human life in defiance of federal opposition.
Introduced by Republican state Rep. Curt Nisly, HB 1089 replaces usage of the word “fetus” in state law with “unborn child,” corrects a previous legal definition of “human being” as “an individual who has been born.” It also declares that any federal action, ruling, or mandate that violates the right to life is “is null, void, and unenforceable in Indiana.”
“The courts of the United States have no jurisdiction to interfere with Indiana's interest in protecting human physical life from the moment that human physical life begins,” the bill continues. “It is unlawful for any official, agent, or employee of the United States government or an employee of a private entity providing services to the United States government to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule, or regulation of the United States government that interferes with Indiana's interest in protecting human physical life from the moment that human physical life begins.”
“It's clear Rep. Nisly is emboldened by the Trump administration and the spate of anti-abortion attacks across the country and will stop at nothing to strip Hoosiers of their rights and freedoms,” Planned Parenthood of Indiana & Kentucky chief legal counsel Hannah Brass Greer responded, Fort Wayne’s NBC reported. “We have a message to the out of touch politicians who have spent their careers attacking our rights, our bodies and our health care: We decide.”
Nisly’s bill, which he also introduced in three previous legislative sessions, faces an uphill battle to become law. The state group Hoosiers for Life has delivered 40,000 signatures to the state capitol in support of HB 1089 but accused Republican state Rep. Ben Smaltz of attempting to bury it in the House Public Policy Committee.
“Yes, the Indy Swamp is swarming with liars who only care about getting elected,” Hoosiers for Life executive director Amy Schlichter said. “Smaltz knows he has to say he’s pro-life to win a seat at the Statehouse, but once he’s safely in office, he downright opposes ending abortion in our state.”
“Since 2020 is a ‘short session,’ we do not have much time to convince Rep. Ben Smaltz to change his mind,” she continued. “Pro-aborts are calling the Statehouse daily, and Smaltz may be assuring them the bill will not get out of committee. Let’s remind this wolf in sheep’s clothing that it was pro-life voters who elected him to his REPRESENTATIVE position in the first place.”
The group is requesting that Indiana pro-lifers call Smaltz at 317-232-9620 to urge him to release the bill and to sign their petition to support HB 1089.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-22--BREAKING: Trump to be first president to attend March for Life

Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade .
Sign the petition here .
January 22 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – For the first time in history , a U.S. president will attend in person and speak at the annual March for Life that is happening in Washington D.C. on Friday .
President Trump announced today that he will be speaking at the 2020 on January 24 , an annual event attended by hundreds of thousands to protest legal abortion .
“ We are deeply honored to welcome President Trump to the 47th annual March for Life , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March for Life .
`` He will be the first president in history to attend and we are so excited for him to experience in person how passionate our marchers are about life and protecting the unborn , '' she continued .
`` From the appointment of pro-life judges and federal workers , to cutting taxpayer funding for abortions here and abroad , to calling for an end to late-term abortions , President Trump and his Administration have been consistent champions for life and their support for the March for Life has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these pro-life accomplishments and look forward to gaining more victories for life in the future , '' she added .
Trump tweeted today that he will see the `` big crowd '' on Friday .
The theme of this year ’ s March is , .
In a surprise appearance last year via video link , President Trump addressed pro-life advocates at the 2019 March for Life , telling them that `` every life is worth protecting '' and that he will veto any legislation that crosses his desk that `` weakens the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Today , I have signed a letter to Congress to make clear that if they send any legislation to my desk that weakens the protection of human life , I will issue a veto .
And , we have the support to uphold those vetoes .
Every child is a sacred gift from God , '' he said in the pre-recorded video message .
“ Today I am very proud to welcome tens of thousands of families , students , and people of all faiths and backgrounds to our nation ’ s capital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the President said at that time .
Trump is considered by many veteran pro-life activists to be the most pro-life president in history .
As president , Trump has reinstated and expanded the ban on foreign aid to abortion-involved groups ( including International Planned Parenthood Federation ) , banned groups that commit or refer abortions from Title X family planning funds , overturned Obama-era regulations that barred states from defunding Planned Parenthood , and issued rules protecting Americans from being forced to subsidize abortion in government-mandated health insurance plans .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calling attention to Democrats ’ opposition to anti-infanticide legislation and calling on Congress to send him a ban on late-term abortion to sign .
Most of his judicial nominees have pleased pro-lifers , as well .
In addition , the administration has consistently worked to defend life and oppose abortion at the United Nations , from resisting pro-abortion agenda items and resolution language to affirming that abortion isn ’ t a human right and promoting abstinence education .
This year , Trump declared January 22 , the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country , to be “ National Sanctity of Human Life Day.
” In a proclamation issued yesterday , Trump declared that “ every person — the born and unborn , the poor , the downcast , the disabled , the infirm , and the elderly — has inherent value ” and said that the U.S. “ proudly and strongly reaffirms our commitment to protect the precious gift of life at every stage , from conception to natural death.
” He touted his administration ’ s pro-life achievements at home and abroad .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts to build “ an international coalition to dispel the concept of abortion as a fundamental human right ” and said that his administration would “ oppose any projects that attempt to assert a global right to taxpayer‑funded abortion on demand , up to the moment of delivery.
” “ We will never tire of defending innocent life — at home or abroad , ” he promised .

Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Sign the petition here.
January 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – For the first time in history, a U.S. president will attend in person and speak at the annual March for Life that is happening in Washington D.C. on Friday.
President Trump announced today that he will be speaking at the 2020 March for Life on January 24, an annual event attended by hundreds of thousands to protest legal abortion.
“We are deeply honored to welcome President Trump to the 47th annual March for Life,” said Jeanne Mancini, President of March for Life.
“He will be the first president in history to attend and we are so excited for him to experience in person how passionate our marchers are about life and protecting the unborn,” she continued.
“From the appointment of pro-life judges and federal workers, to cutting taxpayer funding for abortions here and abroad, to calling for an end to late-term abortions, President Trump and his Administration have been consistent champions for life and their support for the March for Life has been unwavering. We are grateful for all these pro-life accomplishments and look forward to gaining more victories for life in the future,” she added.
Trump tweeted today that he will see the “big crowd” on Friday.
See you on Friday…Big Crowd! https://t.co/MFyWLG4HFZ — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 22, 2020
The theme of this year’s March is, Life Empowers: Pro-Life is Pro-Woman .
In a surprise appearance last year via video link, President Trump addressed pro-life advocates at the 2019 March for Life, telling them that “every life is worth protecting” and that he will veto any legislation that crosses his desk that “weakens the protection of human life.”
“Today, I have signed a letter to Congress to make clear that if they send any legislation to my desk that weakens the protection of human life, I will issue a veto. And, we have the support to uphold those vetoes. Every child is a sacred gift from God,” he said in the pre-recorded video message.
“Today I am very proud to welcome tens of thousands of families, students, and people of all faiths and backgrounds to our nation’s capital for the 46th annual March for Life,” the President said at that time.
Trump is considered by many veteran pro-life activists to be the most pro-life president in history.
As president, Trump has reinstated and expanded the ban on foreign aid to abortion-involved groups (including International Planned Parenthood Federation), banned groups that commit or refer abortions from Title X family planning funds, overturned Obama-era regulations that barred states from defunding Planned Parenthood, and issued rules protecting Americans from being forced to subsidize abortion in government-mandated health insurance plans.
The president has also forcefully denounced abortion, calling attention to Democrats’ opposition to anti-infanticide legislation and calling on Congress to send him a ban on late-term abortion to sign. Most of his judicial nominees have pleased pro-lifers, as well.
In addition, the administration has consistently worked to defend life and oppose abortion at the United Nations, from resisting pro-abortion agenda items and resolution language to affirming that abortion isn’t a human right and promoting abstinence education.
This year, Trump declared January 22, the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision imposing abortion on demand across the country, to be “National Sanctity of Human Life Day.”
In a proclamation issued yesterday, Trump declared that “every person — the born and unborn, the poor, the downcast, the disabled, the infirm, and the elderly — has inherent value” and said that the U.S. “proudly and strongly reaffirms our commitment to protect the precious gift of life at every stage, from conception to natural death.”
He touted his administration’s pro-life achievements at home and abroad.
The proclamation referenced his administration’s efforts to build “an international coalition to dispel the concept of abortion as a fundamental human right” and said that his administration would “oppose any projects that attempt to assert a global right to taxpayer‑funded abortion on demand, up to the moment of delivery.”
“We will never tire of defending innocent life — at home or abroad,” he promised.
Editor's note: LifeSiteNews' Calvin Freiburger contributed to this report.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-22--Second Sanders staffer caught praising Soviet Union, fantasizing about violence

January 22 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Kyle Jurek isn ’ t the only member of Bernie Sanders ’ presidential campaign with a soft spot for Soviet Russia ’ s handling of political enemies , Project Veritas revealed this week with an undercover video detailing the views of Sanders campaign South Carolina field organizer Martin Weissgerber .
“ I think I was radicalized from the day , first day I was born … my dad , is a Marxist ” explained Weissgerber , who identifies as a Communist “ all about ” the “ complete seizure ” of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ My mom is really left as well , but she can ’ t make her views known because she works for WBUR , which is NPR , so she ’ s more held back.
” In the video , Weissgerber can be seen declaring himself “ ready to start tearing bricks up and start fighting ( ... ) I ’ ll straight up get armed , I want to learn how to shoot , and go train .
I ’ m ready for the f***ing revolution , bro … I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He also declared his intention to get an AK-47 tattoo in honor of the Russian-made “ destroyer of imperialism and colonization.
” Weissgerber echoes Jurek ( Sanders ’ Iowa field organizer and the subject of Project Veritas ’ previous videos ) on a number of points , including a desire to force billionaires to “ rebuild our roads , rebuild our dams , rebuild our bridges , ” as well as to “ send all the Republicans to the reeducation camps.
” He also says he ’ s “ serious ” about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ branches of the federal government so that someone like “ Bernie Sanders and a cabinet of people ” can “ make all decisions for the climate.
” He goes a step further in declaring the Soviet Union “ the most progressive place to date in the world ” for “ women ’ s rights ” – an assessment at odds with the historical reality that women not only suffered in the gulags alongside men but were often sent there as a means to punish their husbands or fathers .
Worse , after imprisonment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as orphans , often never to be reunited and indoctrinated into despising their parents as class traitors .
Female inmates were also raped , in addition to the harms that fell on both sexes .
Yet in Weissgerber ’ s telling , it was a “ beautiful thing ” for the gulags to turn people allegedly ill-served by capitalism into willing , fulfilled workers competing to exceed their quotas .
Project Veritas founder James O ’ Keefe , who teased that there will be “ more soon , ” also released a follow-up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a comment on the revelations from Weissgerber and Sanders regional field director Victoria Felder .
Weissgerber remained silent , while Felder shouted at the reporter to “ get out !
” ( Another Sanders spokesperson dismissed the previous revelations about Jurek as “ political gossip.
” ) RealClearPolitics currently has Sanders , an avowed socialist and ardent abortion supporter , in second place among the Democrat primary field , with 21.6 percent of the vote to former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s 28.1 percent .

'I'll straight up get armed, I want to learn how to shoot, and go train. I'm ready for the f***ing revolution, bro … I'm telling you. Guillotine the rich.'
January 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Kyle Jurek isn’t the only member of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign with a soft spot for Soviet Russia’s handling of political enemies, Project Veritas revealed this week with an undercover video detailing the views of Sanders campaign South Carolina field organizer Martin Weissgerber.
“I think I was radicalized from the day, first day I was born … my dad, is a Marxist” explained Weissgerber, who identifies as a Communist “all about” the “complete seizure” of the private sector by the federal government. “My mom is really left as well, but she can’t make her views known because she works for WBUR, which is NPR, so she’s more held back.”
In the video, Weissgerber can be seen declaring himself “ready to start tearing bricks up and start fighting (…) I’ll straight up get armed, I want to learn how to shoot, and go train. I’m ready for the f***ing revolution, bro … I’m telling you. Guillotine the rich.” He also declared his intention to get an AK-47 tattoo in honor of the Russian-made “destroyer of imperialism and colonization.”
Weissgerber echoes Jurek (Sanders’ Iowa field organizer and the subject of Project Veritas’ previous videos) on a number of points, including a desire to force billionaires to “rebuild our roads, rebuild our dams, rebuild our bridges,” as well as to “send all the Republicans to the reeducation camps.” He also says he’s “serious” about the possibility of dissolving the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government so that someone like “Bernie Sanders and a cabinet of people” can “make all decisions for the climate.”
He goes a step further in declaring the Soviet Union “the most progressive place to date in the world” for “women’s rights” – an assessment at odds with the historical reality that women not only suffered in the gulags alongside men but were often sent there as a means to punish their husbands or fathers. Worse, after imprisonment the state sent mothers’ children away as orphans, often never to be reunited and indoctrinated into despising their parents as class traitors. Female inmates were also raped, in addition to the harms that fell on both sexes.
Yet in Weissgerber’s telling, it was a “beautiful thing” for the gulags to turn people allegedly ill-served by capitalism into willing, fulfilled workers competing to exceed their quotas.
Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe, who teased that there will be “more soon,” also released a follow-up video of one of his reporters requesting a comment on the revelations from Weissgerber and Sanders regional field director Victoria Felder. Weissgerber remained silent, while Felder shouted at the reporter to “get out!” (Another Sanders spokesperson dismissed the previous revelations about Jurek as “political gossip.”)
BREAKING: @PVeritas_Action tried getting a comment from Martin Weissgerber on his way into the Charleston, SC @BernieSanders office today. Martin remained silent and Field Organizer @VictoriaFelder7 slammed the door screaming “GET OUT!” What are they hiding?#Expose2020 pic.twitter.com/Tsrx9gM6DM — James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) January 21, 2020
RealClearPolitics currently has Sanders, an avowed socialist and ardent abortion supporter, in second place among the Democrat primary field, with 21.6 percent of the vote to former Vice President Joe Biden’s 28.1 percent.
Share