lifesitenews--2020-01-09--UK Christian doctor who prays with patients faces fresh investigation

January 8 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A doctor in England , who says he is “ prepared to take risks on behalf of Jesus , ” is facing fresh scrutiny for sharing his Christian faith with patients after the U.K. ’ s independent regulator for doctors said it will review its decision to close a case that was brought against him by the National Secular Society .
The Christian Legal Centre , which gave legal support to Dr. Richard Scott during last year ’ s investigation , have told media in the U.K. that they are “ confident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing wrong ” .
In June 2019 , the U.K. ’ s General Medical Council ( GMC ) began an investigation into Dr. Scott ’ s fitness to practice after a complaint from the National Secular Society ( NSS ) .
In December last year they closed the investigation , but that decision has now been challenged by the NSS .
The GMC does not comment publicly on investigations unless they progress to tribunals , but according to the Christian Legal Centre , the GMC advised Dr. Scott by letter that there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any patient about [ his ] practice ” .
When advising that they were closing their case against Dr. Scott , the GMC reportedly wrote that “ [ t ] here is no first-hand account of complaint from any patient about Dr. Scott ’ s practice .
The NSS sent an anonymous hearsay account about how Dr. Scott expressed his religious beliefs to a ‘ highly vulnerable ’ patient , ” and “ there is no convincing evidence that Dr. Scott imposes his personal religious beliefs upon potentially vulnerable patients.
” They also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that [ Dr. Scott ] discusses faith in situations where the patient has stated that they do not wish to discuss these matters or that he has continued to discuss faith after a patient has indicated that they do not welcome such a discussion.
” The GMC clarified that Dr Scott ’ s medical practice “ states that the majority of the Partners are Christians and that this faith guides the way in which they view their work.
” Andrea Williams , chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre , said when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rejection of the complaint had given reassurance to Christian doctors and professionals that “ they can share their faith in the workplace ” and that it gave “ clear guidance on how they can share it without fear of losing their jobs.
” But the NSS have now challenged that decision , citing minutes from January 2019 made at a meeting of a patients ’ group at the Bethesda Medical Centre ( where Dr. Scott is based ) , where staff say that “ many complaints are received from patients saying that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religion to be pushed upon them when they attend the surgery ” .
No patient who allegedly made such complaints is named in the minutes , nor is any direct reference made to Dr. Scott .
In December , Dr. Scott told the Mail on Sunday that he had discussed faith with one in forty patients , but he had always asked for permission first .
Section 30 of the GMC ’ s guidance on personal beliefs and medical practice states : “ You may talk about your own personal beliefs only if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or indicates they would welcome such a discussion ” .
He said that in over two decades , “ only about ten ” had complained , with just one going to the GMC , in 2012 .
The NSS have cited Dr. Scott ’ s admission that ten patients in over two decades had complained as a reason for their new challenge .
Tim Dieppe , head of public policy at the evangelical think-tank Christian Concern , told U.K. newspaper The Guardian that “ Dr .
Scott has been put through a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these various complaints in what seems like a targeted campaign from the National Secular Society ” .
Dieppe said that the investigation last year was based on a “ clearly a spurious complaint ” and that “ it would be a real shame if they have decided to review it ” .
Stephen Evans , chief executive of the National Secular Society , has said that “ [ t ] he General Medical Council ’ s decision to review Dr Richard Scott ’ s case is welcome ” .
Evans said that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make clear that he holds the GMC in contempt and considers himself above the rules it puts in place to protect patients .
Being an evangelical Christian should not exempt him from the standards expected of all doctors working in the UK.
” When the complaint was first made in June last year , Dr. Scott told Christian Concern that two patients had recently accepted his help .
One , reportedly , had such bad body dysmorphia that the patient was self-harming , and the patient ’ s marriage was at risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no difference but that the patient had been comforted when he said , “ God made you as you are , he loves you how you are.
” Speaking to BBC Radio Kent last year , Dr. Scott said that “ you have to consider as a Christian doctor who is your ultimate boss .
And it ’ s not the General Medical Council , it ’ s Jesus Christ.
” Dr. Scott added that he was “ prepared to take risks on behalf of Jesus ” because he had seen “ how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve seen hundreds of patients benefit over the years , ” Dr. Scott said , “ and if one or two don ’ t like what I do , then that ’ s a risk I ’ m prepared to take ” .

A doctor in England, who says he is 'prepared to take risks on behalf of Jesus,' is facing fresh scrutiny for sharing his Christian faith with patients.
January 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A doctor in England, who says he is “prepared to take risks on behalf of Jesus,” is facing fresh scrutiny for sharing his Christian faith with patients after the U.K.’s independent regulator for doctors said it will review its decision to close a case that was brought against him by the National Secular Society.
The Christian Legal Centre, which gave legal support to Dr. Richard Scott during last year’s investigation, have told media in the U.K. that they are “confident” that Dr. Scott “has done nothing wrong”.
In June 2019, the U.K.’s General Medical Council (GMC) began an investigation into Dr. Scott’s fitness to practice after a complaint from the National Secular Society (NSS). In December last year they closed the investigation, but that decision has now been challenged by the NSS.
The GMC does not comment publicly on investigations unless they progress to tribunals, but according to the Christian Legal Centre, the GMC advised Dr. Scott by letter that there was “no first-hand account or complaint from any patient about [his] practice”.
When advising that they were closing their case against Dr. Scott, the GMC reportedly wrote that “[t]here is no first-hand account of complaint from any patient about Dr. Scott’s practice. The NSS sent an anonymous hearsay account about how Dr. Scott expressed his religious beliefs to a ‘highly vulnerable’ patient,” and “there is no convincing evidence that Dr. Scott imposes his personal religious beliefs upon potentially vulnerable patients.”
They also added, “There is no evidence that [Dr. Scott] discusses faith in situations where the patient has stated that they do not wish to discuss these matters or that he has continued to discuss faith after a patient has indicated that they do not welcome such a discussion.”
The GMC clarified that Dr Scott’s medical practice “states that the majority of the Partners are Christians and that this faith guides the way in which they view their work.”
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said when the investigation was dropped in December that the rejection of the complaint had given reassurance to Christian doctors and professionals that “they can share their faith in the workplace” and that it gave “clear guidance on how they can share it without fear of losing their jobs.”
But the NSS have now challenged that decision, citing minutes from January 2019 made at a meeting of a patients’ group at the Bethesda Medical Centre (where Dr. Scott is based), where staff say that “many complaints are received from patients saying that they do not wish Christianity or any other religion to be pushed upon them when they attend the surgery”. No patient who allegedly made such complaints is named in the minutes, nor is any direct reference made to Dr. Scott.
In December, Dr. Scott told the Mail on Sunday that he had discussed faith with one in forty patients, but he had always asked for permission first.
Section 30 of the GMC’s guidance on personal beliefs and medical practice states: “You may talk about your own personal beliefs only if a patient asks you directly about them, or indicates they would welcome such a discussion”.
He said that in over two decades, “only about ten” had complained, with just one going to the GMC, in 2012. The NSS have cited Dr. Scott’s admission that ten patients in over two decades had complained as a reason for their new challenge.
Tim Dieppe, head of public policy at the evangelical think-tank Christian Concern, told U.K. newspaper The Guardian that “Dr. Scott has been put through a lot of stress and anxiety from all these various complaints in what seems like a targeted campaign from the National Secular Society”. Dieppe said that the investigation last year was based on a “clearly a spurious complaint” and that “it would be a real shame if they have decided to review it”.
Stephen Evans, chief executive of the National Secular Society, has said that “[t]he General Medical Council’s decision to review Dr Richard Scott’s case is welcome”. Evans said that “Dr Scott’s recent comments appear to make clear that he holds the GMC in contempt and considers himself above the rules it puts in place to protect patients. Being an evangelical Christian should not exempt him from the standards expected of all doctors working in the UK.”
When the complaint was first made in June last year, Dr. Scott told Christian Concern that two patients had recently accepted his help. One, reportedly, had such bad body dysmorphia that the patient was self-harming, and the patient’s marriage was at risk. Dr. Scott said counselling had made no difference but that the patient had been comforted when he said, “God made you as you are, he loves you how you are.”
Speaking to BBC Radio Kent last year, Dr. Scott said that “you have to consider as a Christian doctor who is your ultimate boss. And it’s not the General Medical Council, it’s Jesus Christ.” Dr. Scott added that he was “prepared to take risks on behalf of Jesus” because he had seen “how much patients can benefit”.
“I’ve seen hundreds of patients benefit over the years,” Dr. Scott said, “and if one or two don’t like what I do, then that’s a risk I’m prepared to take”.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-09--Virginia bill would allow birth control, vaccines for kids without parental consent

RICHMOND , Virginia , January 8 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A Democrat-sponsored bill in Virginia would treat minors as adults for the purpose of consenting to birth control , vaccines , and “ medical or health services required in case of ... pregnancy or family planning except for the purposes of sexual sterilization.
” The bill , Senate Bill 104 , includes the stipulation that the commonwealth ’ s law requiring parental consent for abortion would remain in effect .
It would also allow minors to receive “ [ m ] edical or health services needed to determine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease or any infectious or contagious disease that the State Board of Health requires to be reported.
” The bill is sponsored by Sen. Barbara Favola , a Planned Parenthood–endorsed leftist whose website touts her work as a “ lifelong pro-choice advocate ” and her “ LGBTQ Rights ” activism .
Favola represents parts of Arlington , Fairfax , and Loudoun counties .
For the first time in 26 years , during November ’ s elections , Democrats seized control of both chambers of the Virginia legislature and the governorship .
They have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a variety of liberal issues , including abortion on demand .
One of the most serious side effects of hormonal birth control is blood clots , which can be fatal .
In 2016 , a 17-year-old Romanian ballerina living in England died from a blood clot caused by hormonal contraception .
She is not the only young woman to have died from taking the pill .
“ We strongly support the right of loving parents to make informed medical decisions with and for their children , ” Michael Ramey , executive director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous interview .
“ Natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interest of their children.
” “ Now lawmakers want to steal that role from the parents at the behest of the pharmaceutical companies , ” he said .
“ Unlike lawmakers , parents aren ’ t getting campaign contributions ; their only motivation is the health and well-being of their child.
” For more than a decade , there have been efforts underway in New York to allow teens to receive the Human Papilloma Virus ( HPV ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York Department of Health ultimately simply changed regulations after legislative efforts failed .
A May 2019 New Jersey bill would have allowed minors as young as 14 to receive various shots without parental consent .
California ; Delaware ; and Washington , D.C. , allow minors to be vaccinated for HPV and hepatitis B without parental involvement .
Meanwhile , “ no jurisdiction explicitly prohibits minors ’ access to PrEP ” — a daily sex drug meant to lower risk of HIV contraction — “ without parental/guardian consent , ” according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Sixteen jurisdictions have statutes/regulations that explicitly allow minors of a particular age to independently access PrEP ; the age for access varies by jurisdiction , ” the CDC says .
“ However , minors might still be legally allowed to access PrEP without parental/guardian consent in some jurisdictions without explicit statutes/regulations.
” PrEP is intended for people who engage in risky sexual activity with partners of unknown or positive HIV status and those who share needles when injecting drugs .
It does not guarantee protection from HIV .
Whether kid is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ‘ health care practitioners ’ S.B .
104 comes amid an aggressive push to force more children to receive optional medical interventions — i.e.
, vaccines — regardless of parental concerns about aborted fetal tissue in most vaccines and the shots ’ manufacturer-acknowledged risks , such as seizures , diabetes , and death .
There has been widespread panicked media coverage about vaccine “ foes ” and diseases like measles , with social media giants censoring or putting warnings above content that questions the safety of vaccines .
If S.B .
104 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guarantee parents will know if their children had received vaccines at daycare , at school , or at another location .
It seems that under the proposed law , after having been deemed “ to the satisfaction of a health care practitioner ” to possess “ the ability to understand at the same comprehension level as an adult the risks and benefits associated with vaccinations and immunizations , ” there is no mechanism in place to notify parents after their children “ consented ” to a vaccine .
“ A minor shall also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of accessing or authorizing the disclosure of medical records related to ” the subdivisions of the bill that allow minors to consent to vaccines and birth control , the bill says .
That language originally did not cover vaccinations — only medical records about birth control , STDs , and some mental health or substance abuse-related matters .
If a child experienced serious side effects from a vaccine or birth control , parents ’ lack of knowledge of the shot or drug having been administered could prevent them and emergency room doctors from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s unclear if parents would ever be able to access the medical records indicating that their child had received birth control or a vaccination .
The bill also opens the door for children to , unbeknownst to parents , receive double doses of government-recommended shots .
This could happen if at daycare or school a child was deemed by a “ health care practitioner ” to be mature enough to consent to a vaccine , received that vaccine , did not tell his parents , and then was subsequently administered by a family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In Virginia , minors need parental permission to be given Advil in school or have their ears pierced .
Concerned citizens can find contact information for legislators HERE and HERE .
State legislatures attempting to allow teens to get HPV shot without parental consent Experts gather in Rome to fight ‘ barbaric ’ use of aborted babies in vaccines

There would be no guarantee parents would ever find out if their children had received contraception or shots at school or daycare.
ANALYSIS
RICHMOND, Virginia, January 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A Democrat-sponsored bill in Virginia would treat minors as adults for the purpose of consenting to birth control, vaccines, and “medical or health services required in case of … pregnancy or family planning except for the purposes of sexual sterilization.”
The bill, Senate Bill 104, includes the stipulation that the commonwealth’s law requiring parental consent for abortion would remain in effect. It would also allow minors to receive “[m]edical or health services needed to determine the presence of or to treat venereal disease or any infectious or contagious disease that the State Board of Health requires to be reported.”
The bill is sponsored by Sen. Barbara Favola, a Planned Parenthood–endorsed leftist whose website touts her work as a “lifelong pro-choice advocate” and her “LGBTQ Rights” activism. Favola represents parts of Arlington, Fairfax, and Loudoun counties.
For the first time in 26 years, during November’s elections, Democrats seized control of both chambers of the Virginia legislature and the governorship. They have promised to implement a progressive agenda focusing on a variety of liberal issues, including abortion on demand.
Efforts to give minors birth control, HPV shot, PrEP sex drug without parental involvement
One of the most serious side effects of hormonal birth control is blood clots, which can be fatal. In 2016, a 17-year-old Romanian ballerina living in England died from a blood clot caused by hormonal contraception. She is not the only young woman to have died from taking the pill.
“We strongly support the right of loving parents to make informed medical decisions with and for their children,” Michael Ramey, executive director of parentalrights.org, told LifeSiteNews in a previous interview. “Natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interest of their children.”
“Now lawmakers want to steal that role from the parents at the behest of the pharmaceutical companies,” he said. “Unlike lawmakers, parents aren’t getting campaign contributions; their only motivation is the health and well-being of their child.”
For more than a decade, there have been efforts underway in New York to allow teens to receive the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine without parental consent. The New York Department of Health ultimately simply changed regulations after legislative efforts failed.
A May 2019 New Jersey bill would have allowed minors as young as 14 to receive various shots without parental consent. California; Delaware; and Washington, D.C., allow minors to be vaccinated for HPV and hepatitis B without parental involvement.
Meanwhile, “no jurisdiction explicitly prohibits minors’ access to PrEP” — a daily sex drug meant to lower risk of HIV contraction — “without parental/guardian consent,” according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
“Sixteen jurisdictions have statutes/regulations that explicitly allow minors of a particular age to independently access PrEP; the age for access varies by jurisdiction,” the CDC says. “However, minors might still be legally allowed to access PrEP without parental/guardian consent in some jurisdictions without explicit statutes/regulations.”
PrEP is intended for people who engage in risky sexual activity with partners of unknown or positive HIV status and those who share needles when injecting drugs. It does not guarantee protection from HIV.
Whether kid is competent to ‘consent’ totally up to ‘health care practitioners’
S.B. 104 comes amid an aggressive push to force more children to receive optional medical interventions — i.e., vaccines — regardless of parental concerns about aborted fetal tissue in most vaccines and the shots’ manufacturer-acknowledged risks, such as seizures, diabetes, and death. There has been widespread panicked media coverage about vaccine “foes” and diseases like measles, with social media giants censoring or putting warnings above content that questions the safety of vaccines.
If S.B. 104 becomes law, there will be no guarantee parents will know if their children had received vaccines at daycare, at school, or at another location. It seems that under the proposed law, after having been deemed “to the satisfaction of a health care practitioner” to possess “the ability to understand at the same comprehension level as an adult the risks and benefits associated with vaccinations and immunizations,” there is no mechanism in place to notify parents after their children “consented” to a vaccine.
“A minor shall also be deemed an adult for the purpose of accessing or authorizing the disclosure of medical records related to” the subdivisions of the bill that allow minors to consent to vaccines and birth control, the bill says. That language originally did not cover vaccinations — only medical records about birth control, STDs, and some mental health or substance abuse-related matters.
If a child experienced serious side effects from a vaccine or birth control, parents’ lack of knowledge of the shot or drug having been administered could prevent them and emergency room doctors from effectively treating the child. It’s unclear if parents would ever be able to access the medical records indicating that their child had received birth control or a vaccination.
The bill also opens the door for children to, unbeknownst to parents, receive double doses of government-recommended shots. This could happen if at daycare or school a child was deemed by a “health care practitioner” to be mature enough to consent to a vaccine, received that vaccine, did not tell his parents, and then was subsequently administered by a family pediatrician the same vaccine with parental permission.
In Virginia, minors need parental permission to be given Advil in school or have their ears pierced.
Concerned citizens can find contact information for legislators HERE and HERE.
RELATED:
State legislatures attempting to allow teens to get HPV shot without parental consent
Experts gather in Rome to fight ‘barbaric’ use of aborted babies in vaccines
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-08--Abortion activists storm office of pro-life House Democrat

January 8 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – One of last remaining pro-life Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives is under fire for joining more than 200 Republican members of Congress in a Supreme Court amicus brief in support of a Louisiana pro-life law that may lead the court to reconsider its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision .
More than two dozen abortion activists rallied outside U.S. Rep. Daniel Lipinski ’ s Lockport , Illinois office and then stormed inside where they staged a sit-in , hoping to confront the congressman .
Pro-abortion Democrats are outraged by the eight-term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his participation in the court brief and want to see him lose his March 17 primary race where he faces two pro-abortion contenders .
“ Over the years , the courts have gotten more and more conservative , ” Laura Welch , president of Illinois National Organization for Women , told WGN9 .
“ The government is trying to tell women what we can and can ’ t do with our bodies.
” “ And so a supposed Democrat , Dan Lipinski – we call him a Democrat in name only – has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going to the Supreme Court of the United States that potentially has the ability to overturn Roe v Wade , ” said Welch .
One of the protesters , Jas West of Friends Who March , told the Chicago Tribune , “ If they don ’ t support choice , we aren ’ t voting for them.
” “ They have to go , ” she added .
“ This case could decide the future of abortion access in this country , and we will not sit silently , stand by and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking away women ’ s rights , '' said Annie Williams , co-leader of the Illinois Handmaids .
“ Lipinski is trying to violate our rights to healthcare , ” said Holli Fingerle , a fellow for Indivisible South Suburban Chicago .
“ Not just our rights , but the entire country ’ s rights.
” “ That ’ s why I ’ m here , ” continued Fingerle , “ and for that he needs to be voted out of office.
” “ Dan Lipinski doesn ’ t represent the people of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Megan McCullough , a grassroots organizer for Planned Parenthood Illinois Action .
“ We want a candidate , like Marie Newman , who stands up and fights for women ’ s rights.
” Newman is one of the Democratic candidates who hopes to unseat Lipinski on March 17 .
In 2018 , she lost to the incumbent by just 2 percent .
“ Dan has told us for years that he is aggressively working to overturn Roe v. Wade so I think he fulfilled his promise .
He continues to vote against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The other Democratic hopeful , Rush Darwish , thinks Lipinski “ doesn ’ t get it.
” “ We ’ re now in 2020 ; he calls himself a Democrat , ” Darish told WGN9 .
“ But yet the core values of what you should believe as a Democrat is that a woman should have a choice.
” Progressives around the country want to unseat Lipinski Since it became known late last week that Rep. Lipinski was one of the pro-life brief signatories , Democrats from around the country have redoubled their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with 2,500 grassroots activists pouring $ 50,000 into competitor Marie Newman ’ s war chest .
According to Politico , Progressive activists “ are livid and have helped pump up Newman ’ s campaign as a result.
” “ Planned Parenthood ’ s political arm , NARAL and Emily ’ s List have all donated to Newman ’ s campaign , which according to federal filings , raised about $ 900,000 by the end of the third quarter , ” continued the Politico report .
“ Even left-wing darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has pitched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chicago ’ s Democratic Mayor Lori Lightfoot tweeted , “ I support a big tent , but there ’ s no room under the flaps for anyone who is actively seeking to deny women control over our bodies.
” Democrat TV analyst Marj Halperin piled on with a tweet of her own , saying , “ I suspect Lipinski signing onto this brief is the equivalent to signing a resignation letter.
” While Lipinski ’ s detractors are quite vocal , drawing much of the media ’ s coverage of the contentious Third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 28 mayors within his congressional district , according to Politico .
The amicus brief infuriating pro-abortion Democrats was filed by Americans United for Life in support of the case of Gee v. June Medical Services , LLC .
June Medical Services is an abortion facility in Shreveport , Louisiana that seeks to overturn provisions in Louisiana ’ s Unsafe Abortion Protection Act requiring abortuaries to have the same safety standards as other outpatient surgical centers , including requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital .
The brief argues that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It also states that Louisiana ’ s abortion facilities , including June Medical Services , “ have a long history of serious health and safety violations.
” In response to his fellow Democrats who are apolplectic over his continued commitment to pro-life principles , Lipiski issued a statement explaining why he he signed onto the Supreme Court brief : The Louisiana law in question requires hospital admitting privileges for physicians performing abortions .
I signed the amicus brief because I agree with the intention of the law as stated by the author @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : ‘ If you are going to perform abortions in the State of Louisiana , you ’ re going to do so in a safe environment and in a safe manner that offers women the optimal protection and care of their bodies.
’ This is not an ‘ undue burden.
’ Both pro-life and pro-abortion activists believe this may be a watershed case , leading to the weakening or even overturning of Roe v. Wade .

Rep. Daniel Lipinski is under fire in his Illinois district for joining Republicans in supporting a Louisiana pro-life law.
January 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – One of last remaining pro-life Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives is under fire for joining more than 200 Republican members of Congress in a Supreme Court amicus brief in support of a Louisiana pro-life law that may lead the court to reconsider its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
More than two dozen abortion activists rallied outside U.S. Rep. Daniel Lipinski’s Lockport, Illinois office and then stormed inside where they staged a sit-in, hoping to confront the congressman.
Pro-abortion Democrats are outraged by the eight-term Representative of Illinois’ Third District for his participation in the court brief and want to see him lose his March 17 primary race where he faces two pro-abortion contenders.
“Over the years, the courts have gotten more and more conservative,” Laura Welch, president of Illinois National Organization for Women, told WGN9. “The government is trying to tell women what we can and can’t do with our bodies.”
“And so a supposed Democrat, Dan Lipinski – we call him a Democrat in name only – has just signed on to a case that is going to the Supreme Court of the United States that potentially has the ability to overturn Roe v Wade,” said Welch.
One of the protesters, Jas West of Friends Who March, told the Chicago Tribune, “If they don’t support choice, we aren’t voting for them.”
“They have to go,” she added.
“This case could decide the future of abortion access in this country, and we will not sit silently, stand by and let Congressman Lipinski pledge his support for taking away women’s rights,” said Annie Williams, co-leader of the Illinois Handmaids.
“Lipinski is trying to violate our rights to healthcare,” said Holli Fingerle, a fellow for Indivisible South Suburban Chicago. “Not just our rights, but the entire country’s rights.”
“That’s why I’m here,” continued Fingerle, “and for that he needs to be voted out of office.”
“Dan Lipinski doesn’t represent the people of Illinois’ Third District,” claimed Megan McCullough, a grassroots organizer for Planned Parenthood Illinois Action. “We want a candidate, like Marie Newman, who stands up and fights for women’s rights.”
Newman is one of the Democratic candidates who hopes to unseat Lipinski on March 17. In 2018, she lost to the incumbent by just 2 percent.
“Dan has told us for years that he is aggressively working to overturn Roe v. Wade so I think he fulfilled his promise. He continues to vote against the district,” Newman told WGN9.
The other Democratic hopeful, Rush Darwish, thinks Lipinski “doesn’t get it.”
“We’re now in 2020; he calls himself a Democrat,” Darish told WGN9. “But yet the core values of what you should believe as a Democrat is that a woman should have a choice.”
Progressives around the country want to unseat Lipinski
Since it became known late last week that Rep. Lipinski was one of the pro-life brief signatories, Democrats from around the country have redoubled their efforts to unseat the pro-life politician, with 2,500 grassroots activists pouring $50,000 into competitor Marie Newman’s war chest.
According to Politico, Progressive activists “are livid and have helped pump up Newman’s campaign as a result.”
“Planned Parenthood’s political arm, NARAL and Emily’s List have all donated to Newman’s campaign, which according to federal filings, raised about $900,000 by the end of the third quarter,” continued the Politico report. “Even left-wing darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has pitched in to Newman’s campaign.”
Chicago’s Democratic Mayor Lori Lightfoot tweeted, “I support a big tent, but there’s no room under the flaps for anyone who is actively seeking to deny women control over our bodies.”
“Time to leave Dan Lipinski,” she added.
I support a big tent but there's no room under the flaps for anyone who is actively seeking to deny women control over our bodies. Time to leave @danlipinski. https://t.co/DvZaSP8jXx — Lori Lightfoot (@LightfootForChi) January 5, 2020
Democrat TV analyst Marj Halperin piled on with a tweet of her own, saying, “I suspect Lipinski signing onto this brief is the equivalent to signing a resignation letter.”
I suspect Lipinski signing onto this brief is the equivalent to signing his resignation letter. I talked to lots of angry voters, canvassing in the 3rd District yesterday, ready to vote for @Marie4Congress More canvassers welcome, join @IndivisibleChi https://t.co/s8XaaoBneu — Marj Halperin (@marjhalperin) January 5, 2020
While Lipinski’s detractors are quite vocal, drawing much of the media’s coverage of the contentious Third District race, Lipinski has been endorsed by 28 mayors within his congressional district, according to Politico.
Rep. Lipinski responds
The amicus brief infuriating pro-abortion Democrats was filed by Americans United for Life in support of the case of Gee v. June Medical Services, LLC.
June Medical Services is an abortion facility in Shreveport, Louisiana that seeks to overturn provisions in Louisiana’s Unsafe Abortion Protection Act requiring abortuaries to have the same safety standards as other outpatient surgical centers, including requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
The brief argues that the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act is constitutional. It also states that Louisiana’s abortion facilities, including June Medical Services, “have a long history of serious health and safety violations.”
In response to his fellow Democrats who are apolplectic over his continued commitment to pro-life principles, Lipiski issued a statement explaining why he he signed onto the Supreme Court brief:
The Louisiana law in question requires hospital admitting privileges for physicians performing abortions. I signed the amicus brief because I agree with the intention of the law as stated by the author, Democratic Louisiana State Representative Katrina Jackson: ‘If you are going to perform abortions in the State of Louisiana, you’re going to do so in a safe environment and in a safe manner that offers women the optimal protection and care of their bodies.’ This is not an ‘undue burden.’
Both pro-life and pro-abortion activists believe this may be a watershed case, leading to the weakening or even overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-09--Could God permit a heretical pope to remain in office, and why would He?

January 9 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Can a pope be a formal heretic but still somehow continue in his office ( although he will be prevented from declaring heresy ex cathedra ) ?
In an article at OnePeterFive , Eric Sammons makes a compelling case that the answer is “ yes.
” St. Robert Bellarmine laid out the various possible scenarios well , but there are two objections to the way he reasoned about them .
On the one hand , his argument against the possibility that “ the pope could be a heretic ” is not tight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he says .
But God ’ s providence could allow even a terrible trial for a time , so long as it did not damage the Church beyond recovery .
On the other hand , his argument for the possibility that “ the Church could simply recognize the fact of the pope ’ s abdication ” encounters insurmountable practical difficulties : by the time the Church has a formal heretic as a pope , she most likely also lacks the highly virtuous churchmen to carry out such a maneuver .
So it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pope could be even a formal heretic .
An obvious objection is that the Church has said no formal heretic can occupy an ecclesiastical office , as found in the 1917 Code of Canon Law : “ Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric : ... 4 .
Publicly defects from the Catholic faith.
” But this is a principle of law , not a principle inherent in the natures of things .
The commentators say it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occupy such an office , not that it is impossible in itself .
The reason it is not impossible for a heretic to occupy an ecclesial office is that the Church is defined not only by belief and loyalty , but also by place and time .
Someone who has defected from the Church ’ s belief and therefore ceased to be Catholic in the most important sense can still , in the stupidly physical sense of the word , occupy an ecclesiastical office : he can sit in a room in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estate , and he can write on official letterhead , and so on .
One could approach him and say , “ Excuse me , but since you are no longer a Catholic , you should leave the room.
” But he will say , “ How dare you say I am no longer a Catholic ?
” Formal heretics , despite their formal heresy , have rarely admitted to being no longer in the fold .
And as long as no one else can occupy the office , and the people subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act , this squatter in the office wields a de facto authority .
It is incongruous that someone outside the Catholic faith continues to tell people what to do in the Church — it is , in fact , rather like someone who does not belong to a family having absolute power over the family .
But it is not impossible .
In actual practice , therefore , formal heretics have occupied ecclesiastical offices , until someone with authority to do so ( and , often enough , with thugs to back him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So the current Code of Canon Law repeats the old canon : “ The following are removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the law itself : … 2 .
One who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith.
” But it merely acknowledges the reality of the situation when it adds : “ The removal mentioned in nn .
2 and 3 can be insisted upon only if it is established by a declaration of the competent authority.
” True , this declaration is a mere recognition of fact , but for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ juridical effect , the recognition must come from a competent authority .
Therein lies the difficulty when it comes to the Petrine office .
This principle stated by Canon Law can have its effect only if we can find someone authorized to say , in an official way , that the pope is a formal heretic .
In any case , it is tricky to get a canon law case up against the man who has absolute power over canon law .
This leaves us with the practical difficulty of getting together a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competent and virtuous enough to “ merely recognize ” the pope ’ s de facto abdication .
Pending that , no one else can occupy the office , and everyone under him continues under an obligation of obeying ( according to a correct notion of obedience : one obeys unless commanded to act against the known truth held with a good conscience ) .
This is to say that , in some real yet irritating sense , he still occupies the office despite having rejected it in some important way .
On a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , most authors say this can happen despite the fact that heresy separates one from the Church , but they will say that the occupancy of such office is made possible by extraordinary jurisdiction supplied by the Church —w hich some interpret to mean “ supplied by the pope.
” If this were true , then a manifestly and notoriously heretical pope could not supply his own jurisdiction , so the usual basis for saying that a heretical cleric can retain office would not apply in the case of such a pope .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse off than all other bishops .
This seems counterintuitive at first but would make sense from the vantage of his office being the first and most important and therefore not capable of retaining someone who ought to believe and act as the visible head of the Church on Earth .
However , this claim about supplied jurisdiction masks a secret papolatry .
Since it is the very nature of the Church that demands the existence of the papal office — in other words , since the pope is not first , simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Church , takes up an office of the Church and for the Church — the pope gets his jurisdiction from the Church .
The Church is the first and abiding reality with and under Christ , and the pope is consequent to that reality .
There are other offices within the Church that are consequent to the Church simultaneously with the pope ’ s office — that is , there are other offices consequent to the Church that are not consequent to the pope .
Hence , it is truer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of jurisdiction supplied by the nature of the Church .
The Lord does not allow any evil except for the sake of some good , and in the case of the just whom the Lord loves , that good will not be merely the eventual punishment of the wicked , but growth in virtue , achievement of sanctity , and everlasting glory for those who remain faithful .
I hope and believe , as part of my basic act of faith in God , that every evil the Church suffers will somehow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That such may be the case in our present mighty trial , I daily beg of the crucified yet risen Lord , adding my prayers to the incense of those martyrs recounted in Revelation 6 , and adding my cry to theirs : “ How long ?
”

January 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Can a pope be a formal heretic but still somehow continue in his office (although he will be prevented from declaring heresy ex cathedra)? In an article at OnePeterFive, Eric Sammons makes a compelling case that the answer is “yes.”
St. Robert Bellarmine laid out the various possible scenarios well, but there are two objections to the way he reasoned about them. On the one hand, his argument against the possibility that “the pope could be a heretic” is not tight: it would be a terrible trial, he says. But God’s providence could allow even a terrible trial for a time, so long as it did not damage the Church beyond recovery. On the other hand, his argument for the possibility that “the Church could simply recognize the fact of the pope’s abdication” encounters insurmountable practical difficulties: by the time the Church has a formal heretic as a pope, she most likely also lacks the highly virtuous churchmen to carry out such a maneuver. So it seems more reasonable to conclude that the pope could be even a formal heretic.
An obvious objection is that the Church has said no formal heretic can occupy an ecclesiastical office, as found in the 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: … 4. Publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” But this is a principle of law, not a principle inherent in the natures of things. The commentators say it is “incongruous” that a heretic should occupy such an office, not that it is impossible in itself.
The reason it is not impossible for a heretic to occupy an ecclesial office is that the Church is defined not only by belief and loyalty, but also by place and time. Someone who has defected from the Church’s belief and therefore ceased to be Catholic in the most important sense can still, in the stupidly physical sense of the word, occupy an ecclesiastical office: he can sit in a room in the Vatican or in a bishop’s estate, and he can write on official letterhead, and so on. One could approach him and say, “Excuse me, but since you are no longer a Catholic, you should leave the room.” But he will say, “How dare you say I am no longer a Catholic?”
Formal heretics, despite their formal heresy, have rarely admitted to being no longer in the fold. And as long as no one else can occupy the office, and the people subject to that office have no power to act, this squatter in the office wields a de facto authority. It is incongruous that someone outside the Catholic faith continues to tell people what to do in the Church — it is, in fact, rather like someone who does not belong to a family having absolute power over the family. But it is not impossible.
In actual practice, therefore, formal heretics have occupied ecclesiastical offices, until someone with authority to do so (and, often enough, with thugs to back him up) insists that they leave. So the current Code of Canon Law repeats the old canon: “The following are removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the law itself: … 2. One who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith.” But it merely acknowledges the reality of the situation when it adds: “The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be insisted upon only if it is established by a declaration of the competent authority.” True, this declaration is a mere recognition of fact, but for the automatic removal from office to have juridical effect, the recognition must come from a competent authority.
Therein lies the difficulty when it comes to the Petrine office. This principle stated by Canon Law can have its effect only if we can find someone authorized to say, in an official way, that the pope is a formal heretic. In any case, it is tricky to get a canon law case up against the man who has absolute power over canon law.
This leaves us with the practical difficulty of getting together a contingent of men somehow either authorized or competent and virtuous enough to “merely recognize” the pope’s de facto abdication. Pending that, no one else can occupy the office, and everyone under him continues under an obligation of obeying (according to a correct notion of obedience: one obeys unless commanded to act against the known truth held with a good conscience). This is to say that, in some real yet irritating sense, he still occupies the office despite having rejected it in some important way.
On a notorious and formal heretic holding ecclesiastical office, most authors say this can happen despite the fact that heresy separates one from the Church, but they will say that the occupancy of such office is made possible by extraordinary jurisdiction supplied by the Church —w hich some interpret to mean “supplied by the pope.” If this were true, then a manifestly and notoriously heretical pope could not supply his own jurisdiction, so the usual basis for saying that a heretical cleric can retain office would not apply in the case of such a pope. In other words, he would be worse off than all other bishops. This seems counterintuitive at first but would make sense from the vantage of his office being the first and most important and therefore not capable of retaining someone who ought to believe and act as the visible head of the Church on Earth.
However, this claim about supplied jurisdiction masks a secret papolatry. Since it is the very nature of the Church that demands the existence of the papal office — in other words, since the pope is not first, simply speaking, but, as a member of the Church, takes up an office of the Church and for the Church — the pope gets his jurisdiction from the Church. The Church is the first and abiding reality with and under Christ, and the pope is consequent to that reality. There are other offices within the Church that are consequent to the Church simultaneously with the pope’s office — that is, there are other offices consequent to the Church that are not consequent to the pope. Hence, it is truer to say a heretical cleric can retain office because of jurisdiction supplied by the nature of the Church.
The Lord does not allow any evil except for the sake of some good, and in the case of the just whom the Lord loves, that good will not be merely the eventual punishment of the wicked, but growth in virtue, achievement of sanctity, and everlasting glory for those who remain faithful. I hope and believe, as part of my basic act of faith in God, that every evil the Church suffers will somehow advance her well-being in the end.
That such may be the case in our present mighty trial, I daily beg of the crucified yet risen Lord, adding my prayers to the incense of those martyrs recounted in Revelation 6, and adding my cry to theirs: “How long?”
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--2020-01-09--5-year-old girl recovering in Italy after UK hospital fought to end life support

GENOA , Italy , January 9 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Tafida Raqeeb , the brain-damaged British five-year-old U.K. doctors wanted to pull the plug on , has been moved out of intensive care in an Italian hospital .
Tafida , who went into a coma last February after a blood vessel ruptured in her brain , was transferred to the Gaslini children ’ s hospital in Genoa on October 15 after the British high court ruled that U.K. health authorities could not take her off life support against her parents ’ wishes .
Construction engineer Mohammed Raqeeb , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 39 , appealed to the court after doctors at the Royal London hospital decided their daughter would not recover and that it would be in her best interest to let her die .
Those doctors have been “ proved wrong — by Tafida herself , ” Begum said this week , reported the U.K. ’ s Daily Mail .
Gaslini doctors and Tafida ’ s parents announced at a press conference Wednesday that the little girl has been transferred from intensive care to a private room in a residential unit , where she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gradually weaned off her ventilator , the U.K. ’ s Guardian reported .
“ Today is a very special day for us .
Tafida was moved from intensive care .
It ’ s a big step , and it means a lot for us .
We are delighted , ” Begum said .
The hospital ’ s goal is to support Tafida ’ s vital functions to the point where it would be “ possible for her to be fed and have mechanical ventilation at home , ” said Dr. Andrea Moscatelli , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care unit , the Guardian reported .
Tafida ’ s parents are from Newham , east London but have been living in Genoa to be close to Tafida , according to the Daily Mail .
“ In cases of very serious neurological damage such as these , the prognosis is practically impossible .
We will know over time , ” Moscatelli observed .
“ We are trying to give this little girl time to understand if there ’ ll be a potential improvement , and much of that potential improvement is yet to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tracheostomy — in which an opening is made in the neck and a tube placed into the windpipe — to help her breathe more easily on her own , as well as a procedure to ease pressure on her brain and stabilize her breathing , the Daily Mail reported .
She is being taken off her ventilator “ for two or three hours a day , so she can breathe by herself , ” Begum said .
“ She has also come off the catheter .
She is in control of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s mother .
“ All these things were not going to happen in the UK.
” Gaslini offered to take Tafida after her parents asked the world-renowned children ’ s hospital for a second opinion in July , in the midst of their legal battle to keep their daughter on life support .
“ We want to express a heartfelt thanks to the entire Gaslini medical team , who took extraordinary care of Tafida , and also to the public who have supported us , ” Begum said Wednesday .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tafida needs .
We will just have to continue waiting to see what happens now.
” Gaslini ’ s general manager Paolo Petralia said the hospital is “ happy to have welcomed Tafida , fulfilling the desire of her parents , who asked for time and all the best possible quality of life .
This time for Tafida and her family is a condition of human dignity.
” The landmark high court decision sparing Tafida ’ s life “ stunned the medical profession , ” according to the Daily Mail .
Tafida ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law , only God could decide to end their daughter ’ s life , and MacDonald alluded to their faith in explaining why he decided to allow Tafida to go to Italy .
“ [ W ] here a child is not in pain and is not aware of his or her parlous situation , these cases can place the objective best interests test under some stress , ” MacDonald said .
“ Tests must be looked for in subjective or highly value laden ethical , moral or religious factors ... which mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diverse , multicultural , multi-faith society , ” the judge said .
LifeSiteNews reporter Dorothy Cummings McLean noted in a previous report that Italian media have compared Tafida ’ s case to those of Charlie Gard , who died in 2017 at the age of 11 months , 24 days , and Alfie Evans , who died in 2018 eleven days before his second birthday .
Charlie was diagnosed with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome and Alfie with GABA-transaminase deficiency .
In highly publicized cases that gripped the world , doctors went to court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ventilators against the wishes of parents who wanted to transfer their sons to foreign hospitals for experimental treatment .
British judges ruled in favor of the hospitals in both cases , “ and the boys died after being removed from life support .
Charlie died the next day ; Alfie hung on , breathing on his own , for five days , ” wrote Cummings McLean .
Both cases evoked a “ great outpouring of sympathy for the children and their parents and criticism of the English hospitals involved and the British justice @ @ @

Tafida Raqeeb, the brain-damaged British five-year-old U.K. doctors wanted to pull the plug on, has been moved out of intensive care in an Italian hospital.
GENOA, Italy, January 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Tafida Raqeeb, the brain-damaged British five-year-old U.K. doctors wanted to pull the plug on, has been moved out of intensive care in an Italian hospital.
Tafida, who went into a coma last February after a blood vessel ruptured in her brain, was transferred to the Gaslini children’s hospital in Genoa on October 15 after the British high court ruled that U.K. health authorities could not take her off life support against her parents’ wishes.
Construction engineer Mohammed Raqeeb, 45, and lawyer Shelina Begum, 39, appealed to the court after doctors at the Royal London hospital decided their daughter would not recover and that it would be in her best interest to let her die.
Those doctors have been “proved wrong — by Tafida herself,” Begum said this week, reported the U.K.’s Daily Mail.
Gaslini doctors and Tafida’s parents announced at a press conference Wednesday that the little girl has been transferred from intensive care to a private room in a residential unit, where she will receive rehabilitative care, including being gradually weaned off her ventilator, the U.K.’s Guardian reported.
“Today is a very special day for us. Tafida was moved from intensive care. It’s a big step, and it means a lot for us. We are delighted,” Begum said.
The hospital’s goal is to support Tafida’s vital functions to the point where it would be “possible for her to be fed and have mechanical ventilation at home,” said Dr. Andrea Moscatelli, head of Gaslini’s neonatal intensive care unit, the Guardian reported.
Tafida’s parents are from Newham, east London but have been living in Genoa to be close to Tafida, according to the Daily Mail.
“In cases of very serious neurological damage such as these, the prognosis is practically impossible. We will know over time,” Moscatelli observed.
“We are trying to give this little girl time to understand if there’ll be a potential improvement, and much of that potential improvement is yet to be understood.”
Gaslini doctors gave Tafida a tracheostomy — in which an opening is made in the neck and a tube placed into the windpipe — to help her breathe more easily on her own, as well as a procedure to ease pressure on her brain and stabilize her breathing, the Daily Mail reported.
She is being taken off her ventilator “for two or three hours a day, so she can breathe by herself,” Begum said.
“She has also come off the catheter. She is in control of her urinary function now,” added Tafida’s mother.
“All these things were not going to happen in the UK.”
Gaslini offered to take Tafida after her parents asked the world-renowned children’s hospital for a second opinion in July, in the midst of their legal battle to keep their daughter on life support.
“We want to express a heartfelt thanks to the entire Gaslini medical team, who took extraordinary care of Tafida, and also to the public who have supported us,” Begum said Wednesday.
“We have always said that time is what Tafida needs. We will just have to continue waiting to see what happens now.”
Gaslini’s general manager Paolo Petralia said the hospital is “happy to have welcomed Tafida, fulfilling the desire of her parents, who asked for time and all the best possible quality of life. This time for Tafida and her family is a condition of human dignity.”
The landmark high court decision sparing Tafida’s life “stunned the medical profession,” according to the Daily Mail.
Justice Alistair MacDonald noted in his October 3 ruling that “this is a case in which the sanctity of life is outweighed by other considerations.”
Tafida’s parents argued that according to Islamic law, only God could decide to end their daughter’s life, and MacDonald alluded to their faith in explaining why he decided to allow Tafida to go to Italy.
“[W]here a child is not in pain and is not aware of his or her parlous situation, these cases can place the objective best interests test under some stress,” MacDonald said.
“Tests must be looked for in subjective or highly value laden ethical, moral or religious factors … which mean different things to different people in a diverse, multicultural, multi-faith society,” the judge said.
LifeSiteNews reporter Dorothy Cummings McLean noted in a previous report that Italian media have compared Tafida’s case to those of Charlie Gard, who died in 2017 at the age of 11 months, 24 days, and Alfie Evans, who died in 2018 eleven days before his second birthday.
Charlie was diagnosed with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome and Alfie with GABA-transaminase deficiency.
In highly publicized cases that gripped the world, doctors went to court for permission to remove the patients’ ventilators against the wishes of parents who wanted to transfer their sons to foreign hospitals for experimental treatment.
British judges ruled in favor of the hospitals in both cases, “and the boys died after being removed from life support. Charlie died the next day; Alfie hung on, breathing on his own, for five days,” wrote Cummings McLean.
Both cases evoked a “great outpouring of sympathy for the children and their parents and criticism of the English hospitals involved and the British justice system.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-09--Papal nuncio: Church’s former doctrine head a ‘source of reassurance’ for Catholic

Papal nuncio: Church’s former doctrine head a ‘source of reassurance’ for Catholics

BERN , Switzerland , January 9 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — U.S. archbishop Thomas Gullickson praised Cardinal Gerhard Müller ’ s recent collection of essays , which include his Manifesto of Faith , as a “ source of reassurance ” that will confirm Catholics “ in the faith as you know it and as it is still believed and taught.
” Archbishop Gullickson , 69 , who is the papal nuncio to Switzerland and Liechtenstein , praised the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as a “ good , solid ” source for Catholics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Traveling to and from the States back at the end of November , I had time to read this collection of essays by His Eminence , with his Manifesto of Faith in appendix , ” Gullickson wrote in his January 5 blog post .
“ If you are at all distraught these days by the ambivalence communicated by some charged with the teaching office in the Church , I can guarantee this book of Cardinal Müller will be a source of reassurance for you , ” he continued .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know it and as it is still believed and taught .
My point would be simply that in Cardinal Müller we still have good , solid folk out there.
” Gullickson reminded his readers that the Church has always advised recourse to “ approved authors ” like the Fathers of the early Church , the Doctors of the Church , the saints , and also Catholics still alive today who faithfully hold to the doctrine of the Church .
The archbishop offered this advice to counter heterodox material that has shaken the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supports which they had found in recent years are often now called into question in the social media , especially as far as Catholic moral teaching goes and especially in the area of Christian anthropology , ” he wrote .
“ Too many Sunday homilies or too much stuff out there in the media which would pass itself off as Catholic , is anything but what it could or should be.
” Catholics should not judge a speaker ’ s or writer ’ s trustworthiness by his silver tongue or mellifluous phrasing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underscoring that sanctity is more important than mere eloquence .
“ This notion of truth , here in Cardinal Müller ’ s book referred to as “ the power of truth , '' is indeed grounded in godliness , understood as that integrity of life which binds one to the Person of Jesus Christ , ” he stated .
In a post from December 11 , 2019 , Gullickson praised the traditional Latin Mass ( TLM ) , also known as the Extraordinary Form and the Mass of St. John XXIII , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I would like to say that what the embrace of the tradition and of traditional liturgy has to offer ought ... to be classified , yes , as piety or true devotion , ” the archbishop wrote .
“ Apart from my own personal sense or experience of the profound rightness of worship according to the 1962 Missal , as I have experienced it as a bishop celebrating both solemn pontificals and the more restrained Missa Praelatitia , I wish to testify first and foremost to the devotion with which people assist at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gullickson about Catholics who attend the traditional form of the Mass is their manner of receiving Holy Communion : kneeling along an altar rail and receiving the Host from the hands of a priest on their tongue .
“ Not only will I decry the hectic [ nature ] of Novus Ordo Communion processions by comparison with Communion at the altar rail , but in distributing Holy Communion I am witness to the extreme qualitative difference between Communion as traditionally given on the tongue and Communion in the hand , ” the archbishop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this way : I have never but never been edified by a person who presents himself or herself for Communion in the hand.
” The papal nuncio even stated that he wishes he could always celebrate Mass according to the traditional form .
“ The recovery of the Vetus Ordo with all its intricacies , its Latin , its silences , its absolute orientation is the most people appropriate way to inspire true devotion , ” Gullickson wrote .
“ I just wish I could always celebrate that way.
” Moreover , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reform or recovery or restoration , returning us to the solid ground of the Mass of All Times , that ineluctable and necessary seedbed for the proclamation of the Gospel from the rootedness of a life not so much hidden in Christ as immersed in Him.
” In 2016 , Gullickson celebrated an important anniversary for one of the TLM ’ s most famous modern champions .
To commemorate the 50th anniversary of British Catholic author Evelyn Waugh , the nuncio celebrated pontifical vespers at St. Mary Magdalen Catholic Church in London in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ novel Brideshead Revisited , Waugh wrote letters and articles arguing for the preservation of the traditional form of the Mass from the years of the Second Vatican Council until his untimely death in 1966 at the age of 62 .
Archbishop Gullickson was born in Sioux Falls , South Dakota in 1950 and ordained to the priesthood in 1976 , at the age of 25 .
He studied canon law at the Gregorian University in Rome and joined the Vatican ’ s diplomatic service on May 1 , 1985 .
Gullickson was appointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and also named the apostolic nuncio to a number of Caribbean islands .
In 2015 , he was named the apostolic nuncio to Switzerland and Liechtenstein .

U.S. archbishop Thomas Gullickson praised Cardinal Gerhard Müller's recent collection of essays, saying Müller's work 'will confirm you in the faith as you know it.'
BERN, Switzerland, January 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — U.S. archbishop Thomas Gullickson praised Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s recent collection of essays, which include his Manifesto of Faith, as a “source of reassurance” that will confirm Catholics “in the faith as you know it and as it is still believed and taught.”
Archbishop Gullickson, 69, who is the papal nuncio to Switzerland and Liechtenstein, praised the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as a “good, solid” source for Catholics distressed by recent developments in the Church.
“Traveling to and from the States back at the end of November, I had time to read this collection of essays by His Eminence, with his Manifesto of Faith in appendix,” Gullickson wrote in his January 5 blog post.
“If you are at all distraught these days by the ambivalence communicated by some charged with the teaching office in the Church, I can guarantee this book of Cardinal Müller will be a source of reassurance for you,” he continued.
“It will confirm you in the faith as you know it and as it is still believed and taught. My point would be simply that in Cardinal Müller we still have good, solid folk out there.”
Gullickson reminded his readers that the Church has always advised recourse to “approved authors” like the Fathers of the early Church, the Doctors of the Church, the saints, and also Catholics still alive today who faithfully hold to the doctrine of the Church. The archbishop offered this advice to counter heterodox material that has shaken the faith of the devout.
“The supports which they had found in recent years are often now called into question in the social media, especially as far as Catholic moral teaching goes and especially in the area of Christian anthropology,” he wrote.
“Too many Sunday homilies or too much stuff out there in the media which would pass itself off as Catholic, is anything but what it could or should be.”
Catholics should not judge a speaker’s or writer’s trustworthiness by his silver tongue or mellifluous phrasing, however. Gullickson quoted Cardinal Müller when underscoring that sanctity is more important than mere eloquence.
“This notion of truth, here in Cardinal Müller’s book referred to as “the power of truth,” is indeed grounded in godliness, understood as that integrity of life which binds one to the Person of Jesus Christ,” he stated.
In a post from December 11, 2019, Gullickson praised the traditional Latin Mass (TLM), also known as the Extraordinary Form and the Mass of St. John XXIII, as source of fervent religious devotion.
“I would like to say that what the embrace of the tradition and of traditional liturgy has to offer ought … to be classified, yes, as piety or true devotion,” the archbishop wrote.
“Apart from my own personal sense or experience of the profound rightness of worship according to the 1962 Missal, as I have experienced it as a bishop celebrating both solemn pontificals and the more restrained Missa Praelatitia, I wish to testify first and foremost to the devotion with which people assist at these Holy Masses.”
What particularly impresses Gullickson about Catholics who attend the traditional form of the Mass is their manner of receiving Holy Communion: kneeling along an altar rail and receiving the Host from the hands of a priest on their tongue.
“Not only will I decry the hectic [nature] of Novus Ordo Communion processions by comparison with Communion at the altar rail, but in distributing Holy Communion I am witness to the extreme qualitative difference between Communion as traditionally given on the tongue and Communion in the hand,” the archbishop wrote.
“Let me put it this way: I have never but never been edified by a person who presents himself or herself for Communion in the hand.”
The papal nuncio even stated that he wishes he could always celebrate Mass according to the traditional form.
“The recovery of the Vetus Ordo with all its intricacies, its Latin, its silences, its absolute orientation is the most people appropriate way to inspire true devotion,” Gullickson wrote. “I just wish I could always celebrate that way.”
Moreover, “I would like to see in a reform or recovery or restoration, returning us to the solid ground of the Mass of All Times, that ineluctable and necessary seedbed for the proclamation of the Gospel from the rootedness of a life not so much hidden in Christ as immersed in Him.”
In 2016, Gullickson celebrated an important anniversary for one of the TLM’s most famous modern champions. To commemorate the 50th anniversary of British Catholic author Evelyn Waugh, the nuncio celebrated pontifical vespers at St. Mary Magdalen Catholic Church in London in his memory. Most famous for his novel Brideshead Revisited, Waugh wrote letters and articles arguing for the preservation of the traditional form of the Mass from the years of the Second Vatican Council until his untimely death in 1966 at the age of 62.
Archbishop Gullickson was born in Sioux Falls, South Dakota in 1950 and ordained to the priesthood in 1976, at the age of 25. He studied canon law at the Gregorian University in Rome and joined the Vatican’s diplomatic service on May 1, 1985.
Gullickson was appointed the titular archbishop of Polymartium in 2004 and also named the apostolic nuncio to a number of Caribbean islands. In 2015, he was named the apostolic nuncio to Switzerland and Liechtenstein.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-09--Poll claims most Irish want pro-life witness banned outside abortion centers

DUBLIN , Ireland , January 9 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A new poll suggests that a majority of people in Ireland support the introduction of “ exclusion zones ” where pro-life witness is banned outside abortion centers .
According to a poll carried out by Amárach Research for RTÉ ( the national public service media of Ireland ) 77 percent of people surveyed support such a ban .
The news comes after Simon Harris , Ireland ’ s health minister , promised last week that he is “ committed ” to banning pro-life witness around abortion facilities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) commissioner Drew Harris said that existing public order legislation was adequate to deal with protests outside abortion centers .
In a letter to the health minister , the police commissioner said that new laws would be “ redundant ” at this time and that there was no evidence that women seeking abortions in Ireland had been abused or insulted outside abortion facilities .
He wrote : “ I confirm my satisfaction with existing public order legislation to adequately deal with any reasonable public order incident that may arise at such centres.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our recent meeting that protests to date at such centres have not contravened the law and are peaceful .
To date no incident of criminality has been reported or observed as a result of a protest placed at or near the vicinity of a service centre.
” The letter continues : “ [ t ] here is no evidence to suggest that there is threatening , abusive or insulting behaviour directed towards persons utilising such services.
” “ Consequently , the introduction of any further legislation to ensure ‘ safe access ’ to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at this time.
” Aoife Collins attends peaceful vigils outside family doctor clinics in Dublin where the abortion pill is given .
Aoife told LifeSiteNews that the role of pro-life vigils is “ to make prayerful reparation for the sins of abortion.
” “ People attending pro-life vigils are not interested in popularity ratings , ” she said .
“ We understand that our presence reminds many of what they voted for in May 2018 .
It makes them uncomfortable .
Our role however , is to make prayerful reparation for the sins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved including the abortionists , the unborn babies , and their mothers.
” Aoife continued , “ those who wish to crush our democratic right to pray in public should be concerned since bullying of pro-life people by Minister Simon Harris and others , may be extended to them by the Government in the future .
Be careful what you wish for.
” Liam Gibson , the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children ’ s Belfast-based political officer and a pro-life leader in Ireland for nearly 20 years , told LifeSiteNews that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irrelevant.
” “ It doesn ’ t matter whether nearly 80 , 90 or even a hundred percent of people want to ban pro-life demonstrations at abortion facilities , freedom of speech and freedom of expression are basic civil and political rights , ” said Gibson .
“ In fact , the more unpopular the cause being espoused , the greater the need for legal safeguards for those who advocate that cause .
Any legislation which targets peaceful demonstrators merely because politicians find their opinions objectionable is incompatible with the rule of law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government has planned will be challenged in court .
Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights , which is binding on the Republic of Ireland , guarantee freedom of speech and freedom of assembly .
And Article 6 of the Irish Constitution protects the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms .
This right can only be lawfully restricted if demonstrations are deemed to be “ calculated to cause a breach of the peace or to be a danger or nuisance to the general public.
” It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restricting pro-life vigils would be considered unconstitutional since they would be designed to discriminate against one section of the public who wish to express a political or religious conviction that killing unborn children is wrong .
The fact that Irish politicians have launched this attack on freedom of speech just days after abolishing the country ’ s blasphemy laws , supposedly in [ defense ] of freedom of speech , highlights the shocking level of hypocrisy which now dominates Irish society .

DUBLIN, Ireland, January 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A new poll suggests that a majority of people in Ireland support the introduction of “exclusion zones” where pro-life witness is banned outside abortion centers.
According to a poll carried out by Amárach Research for RTÉ (the national public service media of Ireland) 77 percent of people surveyed support such a ban.
The news comes after Simon Harris, Ireland’s health minister, promised last week that he is “committed” to banning pro-life witness around abortion facilities.
In September 2019 Garda (Irish police) commissioner Drew Harris said that existing public order legislation was adequate to deal with protests outside abortion centers.
In a letter to the health minister, the police commissioner said that new laws would be “redundant” at this time and that there was no evidence that women seeking abortions in Ireland had been abused or insulted outside abortion facilities.
He wrote: “I confirm my satisfaction with existing public order legislation to adequately deal with any reasonable public order incident that may arise at such centres.”
“I re-confirm my views expressed at our recent meeting that protests to date at such centres have not contravened the law and are peaceful. To date no incident of criminality has been reported or observed as a result of a protest placed at or near the vicinity of a service centre.”
The letter continues: “[t]here is no evidence to suggest that there is threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour directed towards persons utilising such services.”
“Consequently, the introduction of any further legislation to ensure ‘safe access’ to termination pregnancy services, would be redundant at this time.”
Aoife Collins attends peaceful vigils outside family doctor clinics in Dublin where the abortion pill is given. Aoife told LifeSiteNews that the role of pro-life vigils is “to make prayerful reparation for the sins of abortion.”
“People attending pro-life vigils are not interested in popularity ratings,” she said. “We understand that our presence reminds many of what they voted for in May 2018. It makes them uncomfortable. Our role however, is to make prayerful reparation for the sins of abortion and we pray for everyone involved including the abortionists, the unborn babies, and their mothers.”
Aoife continued, “those who wish to crush our democratic right to pray in public should be concerned since bullying of pro-life people by Minister Simon Harris and others, may be extended to them by the Government in the future. Be careful what you wish for.”
Liam Gibson, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children’s Belfast-based political officer and a pro-life leader in Ireland for nearly 20 years, told LifeSiteNews that the results of the survey are “irrelevant.”
“It doesn’t matter whether nearly 80, 90 or even a hundred percent of people want to ban pro-life demonstrations at abortion facilities, freedom of speech and freedom of expression are basic civil and political rights,” said Gibson. “In fact, the more unpopular the cause being espoused, the greater the need for legal safeguards for those who advocate that cause. Any legislation which targets peaceful demonstrators merely because politicians find their opinions objectionable is incompatible with the rule of law in a civilised society.”
He continued:
Whatever the government has planned will be challenged in court. Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is binding on the Republic of Ireland, guarantee freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. And Article 6 of the Irish Constitution protects the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms. This right can only be lawfully restricted if demonstrations are deemed to be “calculated to cause a breach of the peace or to be a danger or nuisance to the general public.” It’s quite likely that legislation exclusively restricting pro-life vigils would be considered unconstitutional since they would be designed to discriminate against one section of the public who wish to express a political or religious conviction that killing unborn children is wrong. The fact that Irish politicians have launched this attack on freedom of speech just days after abolishing the country’s blasphemy laws, supposedly in [defense] of freedom of speech, highlights the shocking level of hypocrisy which now dominates Irish society.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-09--Left-wing GLAAD to honor Taylor Swift for pro-LGBT activism

January 8 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Pop superstar Taylor Swift has grown steadily more political than her country roots in recent years , and will soon be rewarded for her efforts by the pro-LGBT lobbying organization GLAAD .
This week , GLAAD announced recipients for its 31st annual Media Awards , ceremonies for which will be held in March and April .
ABC News reported that Swift will receive the organization ’ s Vanguard Award , which recognizes `` allies who have made a significant difference in promoting acceptance of LGBTQ+ people . ''
`` From boldly standing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention on the urgent need to protect LGBTQ people from discrimination through the Equality Act , Taylor Swift proudly uses her unique ability to influence pop culture to promote LGBTQ acceptance , '' said GLAAD president Sarah Kate Ellis .
“ In a time of political and cultural division , Taylor creates music that unites and calls on her massive fan following to speak up and call for change.
” Last year , Swift abandoned her former apolitical image ( for which liberals attacked her for years ) by endorsing Tennessee ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed Senate race against Republican Marsha Blackburn , donating $ 113,000 to combat a slate of religious-liberty bills in Tennessee , and releasing a music video depicting religious and conservative Americans as hateful , dim-witted rednecks ( the lyrics of which highlight GLAAD ) .
In August , Swift said she feels “ really remorseful ” about not endorsing Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016 , but will “ do everything I can ” to oust President Donald Trump in 2020 , and demanded that the Trump administration respond to a petition she backed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Equality Act would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include “ sex , ” “ sexual orientation , ” and “ gender identity ” among expressly recognized “ non-discrimination ” categories in “ public accommodations ” ( the definition of which would be dramatically expanded ) ; and force employers of 15 or more people to recognize their claimed “ gender identity , ” forbid them from “ discriminating ” based on “ sexual orientation ” or “ gender identity , ” and mandate transgender “ access ” to sex-specific facilities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill ’ s true purpose is not to protect homosexual or gender-confused Americans from tangible harm , but to force religious adoption agencies to place children in same-sex homes ; force other Americans such as photographers , florists , and bakers to participate in same-sex “ weddings ” ; force employers and businesses to accommodate cross-dressing and sex-change treatments regardless of their own values or policies ; and to force women and girls to sleep , shower , and use the bathroom alongside gender-confused males .
The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s considered a non-starter in the Senate and is opposed by the president .

The pop singer will receive an award for 'allies who have made a significant difference in promoting acceptance of LGBTQ+ people.'
January 8, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Pop superstar Taylor Swift has grown steadily more political than her country roots in recent years, and will soon be rewarded for her efforts by the pro-LGBT lobbying organization GLAAD.
This week, GLAAD announced recipients for its 31st annual Media Awards, ceremonies for which will be held in March and April. ABC News reported that Swift will receive the organization’s Vanguard Award, which recognizes “allies who have made a significant difference in promoting acceptance of LGBTQ+ people.”
“From boldly standing up against anti-LGBTQ elected officials to shining attention on the urgent need to protect LGBTQ people from discrimination through the Equality Act, Taylor Swift proudly uses her unique ability to influence pop culture to promote LGBTQ acceptance,” said GLAAD president Sarah Kate Ellis. “In a time of political and cultural division, Taylor creates music that unites and calls on her massive fan following to speak up and call for change.”
Last year, Swift abandoned her former apolitical image (for which liberals attacked her for years) by endorsing Tennessee’s former Democrat governor Phil Bredesen in his failed Senate race against Republican Marsha Blackburn, donating $113,000 to combat a slate of religious-liberty bills in Tennessee, and releasing a music video depicting religious and conservative Americans as hateful, dim-witted rednecks (the lyrics of which highlight GLAAD).
In August, Swift said she feels “really remorseful” about not endorsing Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016, but will “do everything I can” to oust President Donald Trump in 2020, and demanded that the Trump administration respond to a petition she backed supporting the so-called “Equality Act.”
The Equality Act would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include “sex,” “sexual orientation,” and “gender identity” among expressly recognized “non-discrimination” categories in “public accommodations” (the definition of which would be dramatically expanded); and force employers of 15 or more people to recognize their claimed “gender identity,” forbid them from “discriminating” based on “sexual orientation” or “gender identity,” and mandate transgender “access” to sex-specific facilities.
Conservatives have long warned that the bill’s true purpose is not to protect homosexual or gender-confused Americans from tangible harm, but to force religious adoption agencies to place children in same-sex homes; force other Americans such as photographers, florists, and bakers to participate in same-sex “weddings”; force employers and businesses to accommodate cross-dressing and sex-change treatments regardless of their own values or policies; and to force women and girls to sleep, shower, and use the bathroom alongside gender-confused males.
The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted to pass the act last year, but it’s considered a non-starter in the Senate and is opposed by the president.
Share