lifesitenews--2020-08-14--Gorsuch’s transgender ruling paving the way to destroy single-sex bathrooms

August 14 , 2020 ( Population Research Institute ) — It hasn ’ t even been two months since the Supreme Court ’ s Bostock v. Clayton County decision , and already its disastrous consequences are becoming clear .
Bostock was decided this past June on a 6-3 majority with so-called “ conservative ” Justices Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts siding with the liberal wing of the court to redefine “ sex ” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include “ sexual orientation ” and “ gender identity ” — concepts never mentioned in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law was passed over 50 years ago .
Bostock held that it is a violation of Title VII for an employer to fire an individual because they are gay , lesbian , or transgender because , according to the Supreme Court , such somehow constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex .
This despite the fact that “ sex ” and “ sexual orientation ” and “ gender identity ” are entirely distinct concepts .
The attorneys representing the employers seeking relief in Bostock warned the court that redefining “ sex ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gender identity ” would have far-reaching unintended consequences and they warned that such a redefinition of “ sex ” would make it legally unsustainable to maintain single-sex restrooms , locker rooms , and dress codes .
Now we have proof that they were right .
Last Friday , the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it is unconstitutional for public schools to maintain single-sex restrooms because doing so is “ discriminatory ” towards persons who are deluded into thinking they are a different sex than their biological sex .
The 11th Circuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ School Board of St. John ’ s County , Florida ruled that the St. John ’ s County school board had violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment when it told a young woman , Miss Adams , that she could not use the boy ’ s restroom in school .
Miss Adams “ self-identifies ” as a boy .
The John ’ s County school board had a countywide policy not unlike virtually every other school district in the nation which requires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that corresponded to their biological sex .
If students did not want to use a restroom corresponding to their biological sex , the St. John ’ s County school board gave students the option of using a private gender-neutral restroom instead .
The school board took no issue with allowing Adams to present as a boy in school and the board was fine with Miss Adams dressing like a boy , was fine addressing her with male pronouns , with her receiving male hormones and birth control to stop her periods , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to appear more masculine .
In short , the school board had no issue with treating Adams as a transgender student and had no issue acquiescing to her every desire for the school to affirm her in her deluded false belief that she was a boy .
Because Adams had not undergone sex reassignment surgery , the school had just asked that she not use the boy ’ s restroom .
She had the option of using the girl ’ s restroom or using a gender-neutral restroom if that did not suit her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough for Miss Adams , her mother Erika Adams Kasper , and their legal counsel .
According to the 11th Circuit Court ’ s summary of the facts surrounding the case , Adams considered this common-sense arrangement to use a private restroom to be “ humiliating ” and “ insult [ ing ] .
” As a result , they sued the school board in federal court .
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida found the school board in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Circuit agreed and upheld the district court ’ s ruling .
What this ruling means is that all public schools , libraries , and charter or private schools that receive federal funding from the Department of Education in the states of Georgia , Florida , and Alabama now must allow boys who think they are girls to use girl ’ s restrooms and locker rooms if they merely change a birth certificate or driver ’ s license to reflect their gender preference .
And in most states , changing one ’ s gender @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birth certificate is not very difficult to do .
Public schools and schools receiving federal funding in Georgia , Florida , and Alabama will now be forced to allow students to use whatever restroom corresponds to the sex they want to identify with .
This directive carries the force of federal law and will extend to public universities in these states as well .
Having actually undergone sex reassignment surgery is not required for a student to use a restroom reserved for the opposite biological sex .
All that is required is for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a girl , and to have his driver ’ s license or birth certificate changed to read “ female.
” He would then be able to use the girl ’ s restroom and locker room even though he has male external genitalia .
I don ’ t have to explain why this would be highly problematic for any woman or girl who wishes to use a public restroom or locker room at a public school .
If you object to the fact that your son or daughter may now be exposed at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other private parts of the opposite sex , too bad .
If you ’ re worried about what might happen when teenage hormones encounter nakedness , go away .
As a mere parent you no longer have any legal standing .
In fact , we should not be surprised if sometime in the not-so-distant future we learn that a parent has been taken to court and accused of discrimination for daring to complain to school authorities that a transgender boy is using the same locker room as their daughter .
Given the 11th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do you think the court would favor ?
The potential for not only psychological discomfort but actual trauma for students is real .
There are many good reasons why restrooms are single-sex only facilities and those reasons do not change or go away simply because someone who is transgender enters the room .
The new arrangement should be unacceptable for any parent or for any person charged with the care and safety of young people .
And while trans activists vehemently insist that no groping or sexual contact could ever ever result from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locker room of the opposite biological sex , such claims defy both common sense and recent experience .
For one , transgenders are generally likely to be attracted to persons of the opposite biological sex .
That is to say , there is a reasonably good chance that they are attracted to members of the sex they believe they are a part of ( i.e .
the sex they are in the locker room with ) .
And they are far more likely than the general population to be bisexual .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one-third of transgender survey respondents self-identified as bisexual or pansexual .
But maintaining single-biological-sex-only restrooms doesn ’ t just make sense for the rest of us , it makes sense for protecting youth who identify as transgender as well .
Studies have shown that a shockingly high percentage of transgender individuals are sexually assaulted or forced into sex against their will .
According to the U.S. Department of Justice , Office for Victims of Crime , about one out of every two transgender individuals is sexually abused or assaulted at some point during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transgender girl who is “ transitioning ” to male in a boy ’ s locker room and if those boys happen to be less than moral , you ’ re just asking for trouble .
The bitter irony of the 11th Circuit Court ’ s decision is that the Supreme Court in Bostock specifically avoided the bathroom issue because , according to the Supreme Court , the Bostock case was not about bathroom usage .
During oral arguments in the Bostock case , both “ conservative ” Justices Roberts and Gorsuch appeared concerned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single-sex restrooms .
They both asked probing questions of the attorneys on the bathroom issue .
But there the matter ended .
In the end , both decided to punt on the issue , apparently content to let these issues sort themselves out in future cases .
Now , not even two months later , the sheer recklessness of their approach is now apparent to all .
The Drew Adams case is not the first nor only case in federal court to rule that single-biological-sex restrooms in public schools are a violation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shockingly , the Ninth , Seventh , and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeals have also issued similar rulings .
However , the 11th Circuit ’ s ruling is the first to rely on the Supreme Court ’ s ruling in Bostock .
Given that several circuit courts have now taken a stance on this highly controversial issue , the Supreme Court may feel pressed to address the issue .
When this happens , the key question is : What will Gorsuch do ?
His reasoning in Bostock will leave him hard-pressed to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intact .
Gorsuch and the majority reasoned that firing a gay , lesbian , or transgender person because of their sexual orientation or gender identity violated Title VII ’ s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex .
They asserted this because , as they claimed , the concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity necessarily encompass the notion of sex as a prerequisite .
Traditionally , the Supreme Court has used a simple ‘ but-for causation test ’ to determine what is considered discrimination on the basis of sex under Title @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asks : ‘ if not for X , would Y have occurred ?
’ In other words , if a person ’ s sex were removed from the equation , would the employer ’ s action ( e.g .
hiring , firing , promotion , raise , etc . )
have remained the same ?
For example , if a male employee is given a raise , would the raise in that situation still be given if the man were instead a woman ?
With but-for causation , it is sufficient to show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason for the employer ’ s action .
In Bostock , Gorsuch claimed that firing a gay person because he is gay meets the but-for causation test because if that man ( who is attracted to men ) had instead been a woman , he would not have been fired .
But Gorsuch ’ s reasoning is ridiculous .
A gay man is not fired because he is a man but because he is gay and there is nothing about homosexuality that is inherent to the essence of the male sex .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what it means for someone to be gay without knowing first what it means to be male and female , that does not mean that sex is a but-for cause of his firing .
The two are distinct concepts .
For example , you can ’ t understand the concept of color preference without first understanding discrimination on the basis of color .
But saying that firing Bob simply because he had a strong preference for the color yellow constitutes discrimination on the basis of color under Title VII is clearly ridiculous .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ thereof ) falls into even greater logical traps on the question of gender identity because a person ’ s sex can not change regardless of what they do to themselves hormonally or surgically .
A person ’ s DNA will always be either male or female .
A transgender person is not discriminated against because he is a woman because he never was a woman in the first place .
And if you say that he is discriminated against because he is dressing like a woman or has the physical appearance of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and single-sex restrooms must necessarily go out the window — which I believe is hardly the position Gorsuch was willing to take given his willful avoidance of these topics .
And what about bisexual persons ?
If an employer fires a man for being bisexual , the action the employer takes is not dependent on the sex of the employee because the employer would have done the same thing if it were a bisexual woman in question .
Thus , under Gorsuch ’ s reasoning it is impossible to give bisexuals the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to him ) can be afforded to gays , lesbians , and transgenders under current federal nondiscrimination law .
But surely , no one would think it fair or logical that the law protects gays and lesbians from discrimination and not bisexuals .
Thus , it is easy to see how Gorsuch ’ s reasoning framework has inherent logical gaps and contradictions .
It is well-known that but-for causation tests are inherently susceptible to specious causation and over-causation .
This is precisely the reason why many state courts have largely abandoned using this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opting instead for more rigorous methods .
In order for a but-for causation test to work , it must be firmly rooted in reality .
Otherwise we might attribute the fact that an employee showed up to work that day ( instead of taking a vacation day ) as a but-for cause for him getting a promotion — because after all , he wouldn ’ t have gotten the promotion if he hadn ’ t showed up to work that day .
A simple reality check on causality would have ( or should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court majority to the fact that being gay and one ’ s sex are logically distinct concepts and that causality between the two is a specious one .
But because of Gorsuch ’ s blind rigorous adherence to textualism , he was unable to analyze the concepts in this case properly within their context .
This is not what Justice Antonin Scalia would have done .
Scalia was an originalist , not a strict textualist .
He recognized that laws must be interpreted in light of the original intent with which they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in reality .
In Bostock , the Supreme Court has set up a logic trap for itself that its members will have a hard time climbing out of if they intend to save the legality of something as common-sense as single-biological-sex restroom policies .
The easiest way to do this would be to overturn Bostock , but I ’ m not holding my breath .
Bostock has made clear that , from now on , Senate confirmation hearings must apply a litmus test for all Supreme Court nominees .
No longer can we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nominee that they will faithfully interpret the Constitution as written , or that they will adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis .
We need clear and explicit commitments from nominees on exactly how they will vote on deeply controversial issues of paramount importance such as abortion , gender identity , and religious liberty .
I don ’ t know about you , but I ’ m sick and tired of the Senate approving one “ conservative ” justice after another who , once confirmed , joins with the liberal justices on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violate both reason and common sense .
The liberal wing of the Supreme Court , on the other hand , consistently and predictably votes in lockstep on the social issues that matter to them .
Published with permission from the Population Research Institute .

President Trump's first nominee to the Supreme Court ruled that employers must treat gender identity the same as biological sex. Now a school is under fire for having single-sex bathrooms.
August 14, 2020 (Population Research Institute) — It hasn’t even been two months since the Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision, and already its disastrous consequences are becoming clear.
Bostock was decided this past June on a 6-3 majority with so-called “conservative” Justices Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts siding with the liberal wing of the court to redefine “sex” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” — concepts never mentioned in the law nor intended by Congress when the law was passed over 50 years ago.
Bostock held that it is a violation of Title VII for an employer to fire an individual because they are gay, lesbian, or transgender because, according to the Supreme Court, such somehow constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex. This despite the fact that “sex” and “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are entirely distinct concepts.
The attorneys representing the employers seeking relief in Bostock warned the court that redefining “sex” to mean “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” would have far-reaching unintended consequences and they warned that such a redefinition of “sex” would make it legally unsustainable to maintain single-sex restrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes.
Now we have proof that they were right.
Last Friday, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it is unconstitutional for public schools to maintain single-sex restrooms because doing so is “discriminatory” towards persons who are deluded into thinking they are a different sex than their biological sex.
The 11th Circuit’s decision in Drew Adams v. School Board of St. John’s County, Florida ruled that the St. John’s County school board had violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment when it told a young woman, Miss Adams, that she could not use the boy’s restroom in school. Miss Adams “self-identifies” as a boy.
The John’s County school board had a countywide policy not unlike virtually every other school district in the nation which requires all students to use only public restrooms that corresponded to their biological sex. If students did not want to use a restroom corresponding to their biological sex, the St. John’s County school board gave students the option of using a private gender-neutral restroom instead.
The school board took no issue with allowing Adams to present as a boy in school and the board was fine with Miss Adams dressing like a boy, was fine addressing her with male pronouns, with her receiving male hormones and birth control to stop her periods, and with her having had a double mastectomy to appear more masculine.
In short, the school board had no issue with treating Adams as a transgender student and had no issue acquiescing to her every desire for the school to affirm her in her deluded false belief that she was a boy.
Because Adams had not undergone sex reassignment surgery, the school had just asked that she not use the boy’s restroom. She had the option of using the girl’s restroom or using a gender-neutral restroom if that did not suit her preferences.
But that wasn’t enough for Miss Adams, her mother Erika Adams Kasper, and their legal counsel. According to the 11th Circuit Court’s summary of the facts surrounding the case, Adams considered this common-sense arrangement to use a private restroom to be “humiliating” and “insult[ing].”
As a result, they sued the school board in federal court. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida found the school board in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The 11th Circuit agreed and upheld the district court’s ruling.
What this ruling means is that all public schools, libraries, and charter or private schools that receive federal funding from the Department of Education in the states of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama now must allow boys who think they are girls to use girl’s restrooms and locker rooms if they merely change a birth certificate or driver’s license to reflect their gender preference. And in most states, changing one’s gender on a driver’s license or birth certificate is not very difficult to do.
Public schools and schools receiving federal funding in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama will now be forced to allow students to use whatever restroom corresponds to the sex they want to identify with. This directive carries the force of federal law and will extend to public universities in these states as well.
Having actually undergone sex reassignment surgery is not required for a student to use a restroom reserved for the opposite biological sex. All that is required is for a boy to “think” he is a girl, and to have his driver’s license or birth certificate changed to read “female.” He would then be able to use the girl’s restroom and locker room even though he has male external genitalia. I don’t have to explain why this would be highly problematic for any woman or girl who wishes to use a public restroom or locker room at a public school.
If you object to the fact that your son or daughter may now be exposed at young age to seeing exposed genitalia or other private parts of the opposite sex, too bad. If you’re worried about what might happen when teenage hormones encounter nakedness, go away. As a mere parent you no longer have any legal standing.
In fact, we should not be surprised if sometime in the not-so-distant future we learn that a parent has been taken to court and accused of discrimination for daring to complain to school authorities that a transgender boy is using the same locker room as their daughter. Given the 11th Circuit’s ruling, whose side do you think the court would favor?
The potential for not only psychological discomfort but actual trauma for students is real. There are many good reasons why restrooms are single-sex only facilities and those reasons do not change or go away simply because someone who is transgender enters the room. The new arrangement should be unacceptable for any parent or for any person charged with the care and safety of young people.
And while trans activists vehemently insist that no groping or sexual contact could ever ever result from a transgender youth using a restroom or locker room of the opposite biological sex, such claims defy both common sense and recent experience.
For one, transgenders are generally likely to be attracted to persons of the opposite biological sex. That is to say, there is a reasonably good chance that they are attracted to members of the sex they believe they are a part of (i.e. the sex they are in the locker room with). And they are far more likely than the general population to be bisexual. According to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, nearly one-third of transgender survey respondents self-identified as bisexual or pansexual.
But maintaining single-biological-sex-only restrooms doesn’t just make sense for the rest of us, it makes sense for protecting youth who identify as transgender as well. Studies have shown that a shockingly high percentage of transgender individuals are sexually assaulted or forced into sex against their will.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, about one out of every two transgender individuals is sexually abused or assaulted at some point during their lifetimes. Put a vulnerable young transgender girl who is “transitioning” to male in a boy’s locker room and if those boys happen to be less than moral, you’re just asking for trouble.
The bitter irony of the 11th Circuit Court’s decision is that the Supreme Court in Bostock specifically avoided the bathroom issue because, according to the Supreme Court, the Bostock case was not about bathroom usage.
During oral arguments in the Bostock case, both “conservative” Justices Roberts and Gorsuch appeared concerned that their ruling could have implications for single-sex restrooms. They both asked probing questions of the attorneys on the bathroom issue. But there the matter ended. In the end, both decided to punt on the issue, apparently content to let these issues sort themselves out in future cases.
Now, not even two months later, the sheer recklessness of their approach is now apparent to all.
The Drew Adams case is not the first nor only case in federal court to rule that single-biological-sex restrooms in public schools are a violation of Title IX’s nondiscrimination statutes. Shockingly, the Ninth, Seventh, and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeals have also issued similar rulings. However, the 11th Circuit’s ruling is the first to rely on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock.
Given that several circuit courts have now taken a stance on this highly controversial issue, the Supreme Court may feel pressed to address the issue.
When this happens, the key question is: What will Gorsuch do? His reasoning in Bostock will leave him hard-pressed to find a textualist solution that keeps biological-sex-only restrooms intact.
Gorsuch and the majority reasoned that firing a gay, lesbian, or transgender person because of their sexual orientation or gender identity violated Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex. They asserted this because, as they claimed, the concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity necessarily encompass the notion of sex as a prerequisite.
Traditionally, the Supreme Court has used a simple ‘but-for causation test’ to determine what is considered discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII. A but-for causation test simply asks: ‘if not for X, would Y have occurred?’ In other words, if a person’s sex were removed from the equation, would the employer’s action (e.g. hiring, firing, promotion, raise, etc.) have remained the same? For example, if a male employee is given a raise, would the raise in that situation still be given if the man were instead a woman?
With but-for causation, it is sufficient to show that sex was only part of the reason for the employer’s action.
In Bostock, Gorsuch claimed that firing a gay person because he is gay meets the but-for causation test because if that man (who is attracted to men) had instead been a woman, he would not have been fired.
But Gorsuch’s reasoning is ridiculous. A gay man is not fired because he is a man but because he is gay and there is nothing about homosexuality that is inherent to the essence of the male sex. And just because you can’t understand what it means for someone to be gay without knowing first what it means to be male and female, that does not mean that sex is a but-for cause of his firing. The two are distinct concepts.
For example, you can’t understand the concept of color preference without first understanding discrimination on the basis of color. But saying that firing Bob simply because he had a strong preference for the color yellow constitutes discrimination on the basis of color under Title VII is clearly ridiculous.
Gorsuch’s reasoning (or lack thereof) falls into even greater logical traps on the question of gender identity because a person’s sex cannot change regardless of what they do to themselves hormonally or surgically. A person’s DNA will always be either male or female. A transgender person is not discriminated against because he is a woman because he never was a woman in the first place. And if you say that he is discriminated against because he is dressing like a woman or has the physical appearance of a woman, then sex-specific company dress codes and single-sex restrooms must necessarily go out the window — which I believe is hardly the position Gorsuch was willing to take given his willful avoidance of these topics.
And what about bisexual persons? If an employer fires a man for being bisexual, the action the employer takes is not dependent on the sex of the employee because the employer would have done the same thing if it were a bisexual woman in question. Thus, under Gorsuch’s reasoning it is impossible to give bisexuals the same protections under existing statutes as (according to him) can be afforded to gays, lesbians, and transgenders under current federal nondiscrimination law. But surely, no one would think it fair or logical that the law protects gays and lesbians from discrimination and not bisexuals. Thus, it is easy to see how Gorsuch’s reasoning framework has inherent logical gaps and contradictions.
It is well-known that but-for causation tests are inherently susceptible to specious causation and over-causation. This is precisely the reason why many state courts have largely abandoned using this test in other areas of law, opting instead for more rigorous methods. In order for a but-for causation test to work, it must be firmly rooted in reality. Otherwise we might attribute the fact that an employee showed up to work that day (instead of taking a vacation day) as a but-for cause for him getting a promotion — because after all, he wouldn’t have gotten the promotion if he hadn’t showed up to work that day.
A simple reality check on causality would have (or should have) alerted Gorsuch and the Supreme Court majority to the fact that being gay and one’s sex are logically distinct concepts and that causality between the two is a specious one. But because of Gorsuch’s blind rigorous adherence to textualism, he was unable to analyze the concepts in this case properly within their context.
This is not what Justice Antonin Scalia would have done. Scalia was an originalist, not a strict textualist. He recognized that laws must be interpreted in light of the original intent with which they were written and he always rooted his decisions in reality.
In Bostock, the Supreme Court has set up a logic trap for itself that its members will have a hard time climbing out of if they intend to save the legality of something as common-sense as single-biological-sex restroom policies. The easiest way to do this would be to overturn Bostock, but I’m not holding my breath.
Bostock has made clear that, from now on, Senate confirmation hearings must apply a litmus test for all Supreme Court nominees. No longer can we trust generic promises and broad assurances from the nominee that they will faithfully interpret the Constitution as written, or that they will adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis. We need clear and explicit commitments from nominees on exactly how they will vote on deeply controversial issues of paramount importance such as abortion, gender identity, and religious liberty.
I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of the Senate approving one “conservative” justice after another who, once confirmed, joins with the liberal justices on the Supreme Court to issue rulings that violate both reason and common sense. The liberal wing of the Supreme Court, on the other hand, consistently and predictably votes in lockstep on the social issues that matter to them.
Published with permission from the Population Research Institute.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-08-14--UN experts quietly pushing ‘recommendations’ to expand agency-wide abortion lobbying

WASHINGTON , D.C. , August 14 , 2020 ( C-Fam ) — Last week , the chairmen of the committees monitoring compliance with the UN ’ s human rights treaties issued a warning that their work is threatened by underfunding .
The budget shortfall is due to the global coronavirus pandemic , which caused the treaty bodies to meet remotely since March , and postpone country reviews since then .
Meanwhile , the UN General Assembly is undertaking a review of the treaty body system , calling on national governments , human rights experts , and civil society organizations to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the nine core human rights treaties mentions abortion .
Given the controversy around abortion language — even euphemistic references — in non-binding resolutions , UN member states would never have allowed abortion into a binding multilateral treaty when its text was being negotiated .
Since the 1990s , the treaty bodies , expert committees tasked with ensuring that countries that ratify human rights treaties comply with their obligations , have pressured countries to liberalize their abortion laws .
This practice began with the treaty body attached to the treaty against discrimination against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread to several other bodies , and the pressure has only continued to increase in recent years .
In 2019 , two more of the nine treaty bodies issued their first pro-abortion recommendations .
The committee on the rights of migrant workers expressed concern that Libya ’ s laws against abortion were hindering migrant women from reporting crimes .
The committee against racial discrimination told El Salvador to “ review legislation ” criminalizing abortion in all circumstances as it “ has a greater impact on indigenous women and women of African descent.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nine treaty bodies have pressured countries on abortion .
The pro-abortion law firm the Center for Reproductive Rights praised the treaty bodies for this practice in its submission to the General Assembly ’ s review process : “ The jurisprudence from the treaty bodies has been key to advancements in international human rights standards related to contraception , maternal health care , and abortion , ” and stated that they “ attach the utmost importance to the work of the United Nations human rights treaty bodies.
” Within the larger UN system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entry point for other agencies to justify their own pro-abortion statements and practices .
This year , the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights ( OHCHR ) , the umbrella organization that includes the treaty bodies and other human rights procedures , updated its brief on abortion , which includes numerous instances of treaty body pressure organized by category .
They have called for the complete decriminalization of abortion , its legalization at least in certain circumstances , and the removal of barriers to access such as parental or spousal consent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ providers .
Other UN entities , including the World Health Organization , then refer back to the OHCHR and the treaty bodies when implying that access to abortion is a human right .
The General Assembly , made up of all UN member countries , has consistently refused to acknowledge any human right to abortion .
Nevertheless , the treaty bodies have effectively created a mechanism to bypass that reality and turn the UN into a powerful pro-abortion lobby group .
Pro-life organizations , including C-Fam , have also submitted statements to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the General Assembly to institute reforms that ensure accountability for human rights expert bodies and restrict their work to the text of the treaties and their original mandates .

None of the nine core human rights treaties mentions abortion, but U.N. treaty bodies are working around that.
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 14, 2020 (C-Fam) — Last week, the chairmen of the committees monitoring compliance with the UN’s human rights treaties issued a warning that their work is threatened by underfunding. The budget shortfall is due to the global coronavirus pandemic, which caused the treaty bodies to meet remotely since March, and postpone country reviews since then.
Meanwhile, the UN General Assembly is undertaking a review of the treaty body system, calling on national governments, human rights experts, and civil society organizations to submit their recommendations for reform.
None of the nine core human rights treaties mentions abortion. Given the controversy around abortion language — even euphemistic references — in non-binding resolutions, UN member states would never have allowed abortion into a binding multilateral treaty when its text was being negotiated.
Since the 1990s, the treaty bodies, expert committees tasked with ensuring that countries that ratify human rights treaties comply with their obligations, have pressured countries to liberalize their abortion laws.
This practice began with the treaty body attached to the treaty against discrimination against women (CEDAW), but quickly spread to several other bodies, and the pressure has only continued to increase in recent years.
In 2019, two more of the nine treaty bodies issued their first pro-abortion recommendations. The committee on the rights of migrant workers expressed concern that Libya’s laws against abortion were hindering migrant women from reporting crimes. The committee against racial discrimination told El Salvador to “review legislation” criminalizing abortion in all circumstances as it “has a greater impact on indigenous women and women of African descent.”
As of this year, eight of the nine treaty bodies have pressured countries on abortion.
The pro-abortion law firm the Center for Reproductive Rights praised the treaty bodies for this practice in its submission to the General Assembly’s review process: “The jurisprudence from the treaty bodies has been key to advancements in international human rights standards related to contraception, maternal health care, and abortion,” and stated that they “attach the utmost importance to the work of the United Nations human rights treaty bodies.”
Within the larger UN system, the treaty bodies have provided an entry point for other agencies to justify their own pro-abortion statements and practices. This year, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the umbrella organization that includes the treaty bodies and other human rights procedures, updated its brief on abortion, which includes numerous instances of treaty body pressure organized by category.
They have called for the complete decriminalization of abortion, its legalization at least in certain circumstances, and the removal of barriers to access such as parental or spousal consent or the conscience rights of health service providers.
Other UN entities, including the World Health Organization, then refer back to the OHCHR and the treaty bodies when implying that access to abortion is a human right.
The General Assembly, made up of all UN member countries, has consistently refused to acknowledge any human right to abortion. Nevertheless, the treaty bodies have effectively created a mechanism to bypass that reality and turn the UN into a powerful pro-abortion lobby group.
Pro-life organizations, including C-Fam, have also submitted statements to the treaty body review process. They call on the General Assembly to institute reforms that ensure accountability for human rights expert bodies and restrict their work to the text of the treaties and their original mandates.
Published with permission from C-Fam.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-08-14--Democrat congressmen upset diplomats’ report uses ‘Christian-centric’ language

PETITION : Urge Catholic bishops to refuse Holy Communion to pro-abortion Biden !
Sign the petition here .
NEW YORK , August 14 , 2020 ( C-Fam ) — Abortion industry and LGBT lobby groups called an internal human rights report of the U.S. State Department “ deeply disturbing ” and “ dangerous.
” The report puts into question the international legal status of abortion and LGBTQI+ rights .
“ We strongly reject the Commission ’ s dismissal of certain rights as divisive social and political controversies , ” reads a comment about the report of the U.S. Commission on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NARAL Pro-Choice , the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood Federation , and LGBT powerhouses the Human Rights Campaign , OutRight International and Lambda Legal .
The groups called the report an attempt to “ substitute the ideology of the Administration and opinion of 11 individuals ” for established law that “ recognizes the protection of LGBTQI+ rights and sexual and reproductive rights , including abortion , as human rights imperatives.
” This , even though the commissioners did not take a position against abortion .
Democrat Congressman Jamie Raskin , Chairman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Congressman Joaquin Castro , Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs , criticized the report for its “ Christian-centric language ” and for rooting human rights in “ America ’ s Biblical traditions and a creator God.
” “ The report discusses specific unalienable rights such as the freedom of speech and religious liberty , ” the congressmen wrote to the commission , “ while labeling other rights such as abortion and same-sex marriage as divisive social and political controversies.
” Shannon Kowalski , of the International Women ’ s Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the report would be read in support of the ability of health professionals and providers to object to performing or referring for abortions .
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the report of the commission will be used as guidance for U.S. diplomats in charge of human rights matters .
The report attempts to describe the relation of U.S. law to human rights law and lays out criteria for U.S. diplomats to assess and weigh competing human rights claims .
Abortion and LGBT groups criticized the commission during a two-week open comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report last month .
They complained about the report ’ s defense of U.S. sovereign prerogatives on human rights and the ability of the President and Senate to choose what UN human rights treaties to democratically adopt and ratify .
They also said the report was wrong to defend the U.S. preference for civil and political rights over economic and social rights .
Above all , they complained that the report did not recognize abortion , same-sex marriage , and affirmative action as established human rights .
Unable to rely on the text @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since none support a human right to abortion or LGBT rights , according to international experts — they relied heavily on the non-binding opinions of UN experts and UN bodies to claim these issues as established rights .
The commission ’ s report criticized the proliferation of non-binding opinions from UN experts , and insisted they can not establish new obligations on States .
Rather than respond with legal arguments , the abortion and LGBT groups derided the commission .
“ The United States is incapable of unilaterally reinterpreting the contours of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They even said complained that the commission ’ s report would only contribute to the proliferations of “ non-legal standards ” like the ones from the UN system criticized by the commission .
“ The Commission has never established any compelling argument for why it need exist , ” they chided .

The representatives were upset that the State Department's internal human rights report rooted human rights in 'America's biblical traditions and a creator God.'
PETITION: Urge Catholic bishops to refuse Holy Communion to pro-abortion Biden! Sign the petition here.
NEW YORK, August 14, 2020 (C-Fam) — Abortion industry and LGBT lobby groups called an internal human rights report of the U.S. State Department “deeply disturbing” and “dangerous.” The report puts into question the international legal status of abortion and LGBTQI+ rights.
“We strongly reject the Commission’s dismissal of certain rights as divisive social and political controversies,” reads a comment about the report of the U.S. Commission on Unalienable Rights by leading abortion industry groups NARAL Pro-Choice, the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood Federation, and LGBT powerhouses the Human Rights Campaign, OutRight International and Lambda Legal.
The groups called the report an attempt to “substitute the ideology of the Administration and opinion of 11 individuals” for established law that “recognizes the protection of LGBTQI+ rights and sexual and reproductive rights, including abortion, as human rights imperatives.” This, even though the commissioners did not take a position against abortion.
Democrat Congressman Jamie Raskin, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and Congressman Joaquin Castro, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, criticized the report for its “Christian-centric language” and for rooting human rights in “America’s Biblical traditions and a creator God.”
“The report discusses specific unalienable rights such as the freedom of speech and religious liberty,” the congressmen wrote to the commission, “while labeling other rights such as abortion and same-sex marriage as divisive social and political controversies.”
Shannon Kowalski, of the International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC), complained that the report would be read in support of the ability of health professionals and providers to object to performing or referring for abortions.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the report of the commission will be used as guidance for U.S. diplomats in charge of human rights matters. The report attempts to describe the relation of U.S. law to human rights law and lays out criteria for U.S. diplomats to assess and weigh competing human rights claims.
Abortion and LGBT groups criticized the commission during a two-week open comment period on the first draft of the report last month.
They complained about the report’s defense of U.S. sovereign prerogatives on human rights and the ability of the President and Senate to choose what UN human rights treaties to democratically adopt and ratify. They also said the report was wrong to defend the U.S. preference for civil and political rights over economic and social rights.
Above all, they complained that the report did not recognize abortion, same-sex marriage, and affirmative action as established human rights.
Unable to rely on the text or history of human rights treaties — since none support a human right to abortion or LGBT rights, according to international experts — they relied heavily on the non-binding opinions of UN experts and UN bodies to claim these issues as established rights. The commission’s report criticized the proliferation of non-binding opinions from UN experts, and insisted they cannot establish new obligations on States. Rather than respond with legal arguments, the abortion and LGBT groups derided the commission.
“The United States is incapable of unilaterally reinterpreting the contours of the human rights framework,” they said. They even said complained that the commission’s report would only contribute to the proliferations of “non-legal standards” like the ones from the UN system criticized by the commission.
“The Commission has never established any compelling argument for why it need exist,” they chided.
Published with permission from C-Fam.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-08-14--Lawsuit seeks to toss social distancing, mask requirements in Minnesota churches

PETITION : Support pastors fighting against oppressive state mandates !
Sign the petition here .
MINNEAPOLIS , Minnesota , August 14 , 2020 ( Thomas More Society ) — The Thomas More Society filed a federal lawsuit against Minnesota Governor Tim Walz yesterday for his Executive Orders requiring face masks at religious worship services .
The United States District Court complaint is on behalf of three Christian churches , their leaders and church-goers who are charging that Walz , his Attorney General , and several county attorneys are violating their religious liberties by limiting capacity , requiring 6 ’ social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Governor Walz , a former teacher , gets a F in religious liberties , ” declared Thomas More Society Special Counsel Erick Kaardal .
“ Other states , including Texas , Illinois , and Ohio have excluded churches from COVID-19 mask mandates .
Unlike Walz , those states have recognized that you can not criminalize religious attendance at houses of worship for any reason .
Governor Walz wants to prosecute Minnesotans for religious attendance .
We are going to do our best not to see that happen.
” Kaardal also observed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this type of religious discrimination have been slapped down by federal courts , as in the case of New York ’ s Governor Cuomo .
“ Minnesota ’ s governor is wreaking havoc on the religious freedoms of the faithful .
Christians of all denominations , Muslims , and Orthodox Jews are bound by their faith to worship together .
Time-honored rites and rituals , including prayers , singing , communion , and a laying of hands in blessing , are among those elements that comprise the free exercise of religion , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thereof , ” explained Kaardal .
“ That is the central tenet of the complaint .
It is only compounded by Walz ’ s expressly imposed no-exception , six-foot social distancing requirements on religious ceremonies in churches and Minnesota ’ s conflicting laws that concurrently criminalize wearing a mask as well as not wearing a mask.
” The complaint asks the court to declare Minnesota ’ s combination of executive orders regarding social distancing and mask wearing at church to be unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also seeking a pronouncement that Walz ’ s Executive Orders violate the Minnesota Constitution ’ s Article III separation of powers provision .
Walz is exercising pure legislative law-making power — a thing only the legislature can constitutionally do .
In particular , we seek an injunction against Executive Order 20-74 , which mandates social distancing during religious worship , and Executive Order 20-81 , which requires face masks and conflicts with existing Minnesota laws outlawing the wearing of face masks.
” Also charged in the lawsuit with Walz are Minnesota Attorney General @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Larson , Wright County Attorney Tom Kelly , and Crow Wing County Attorney Donald Ryan .
Read the Thomas More Society ’ s Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief , filed with the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in Cornerstone Church of Alexandria , et al .
v. Tim Walz , et al .
on August 13 , 2020 , here .
Published with permission from the Thomas More Society .

Minnesota's governor requires the wearing of face masks during religious services. The Thomas More Society insists that that's unconstitutional.
PETITION: Support pastors fighting against oppressive state mandates! Sign the petition here.
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, August 14, 2020 (Thomas More Society) — The Thomas More Society filed a federal lawsuit against Minnesota Governor Tim Walz yesterday for his Executive Orders requiring face masks at religious worship services. The United States District Court complaint is on behalf of three Christian churches, their leaders and church-goers who are charging that Walz, his Attorney General, and several county attorneys are violating their religious liberties by limiting capacity, requiring 6’ social distancing and requiring face masks. .
“Governor Walz, a former teacher, gets a F in religious liberties,” declared Thomas More Society Special Counsel Erick Kaardal. “Other states, including Texas, Illinois, and Ohio have excluded churches from COVID-19 mask mandates. Unlike Walz, those states have recognized that you cannot criminalize religious attendance at houses of worship for any reason. Governor Walz wants to prosecute Minnesotans for religious attendance. We are going to do our best not to see that happen.”
Kaardal also observed that other state leaders who have persisted in this type of religious discrimination have been slapped down by federal courts, as in the case of New York’s Governor Cuomo.
“Minnesota’s governor is wreaking havoc on the religious freedoms of the faithful. Christians of all denominations, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews are bound by their faith to worship together. Time-honored rites and rituals, including prayers, singing, communion, and a laying of hands in blessing, are among those elements that comprise the free exercise of religion, for which the First Amendment disallows the prohibition thereof,” explained Kaardal. “That is the central tenet of the complaint. It is only compounded by Walz’s expressly imposed no-exception, six-foot social distancing requirements on religious ceremonies in churches and Minnesota’s conflicting laws that concurrently criminalize wearing a mask as well as not wearing a mask.”
The complaint asks the court to declare Minnesota’s combination of executive orders regarding social distancing and mask wearing at church to be unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
Kaardal added, “We are also seeking a pronouncement that Walz’s Executive Orders violate the Minnesota Constitution’s Article III separation of powers provision. Walz is exercising pure legislative law-making power — a thing only the legislature can constitutionally do. In particular, we seek an injunction against Executive Order 20-74, which mandates social distancing during religious worship, and Executive Order 20-81, which requires face masks and conflicts with existing Minnesota laws outlawing the wearing of face masks.”
Also charged in the lawsuit with Walz are Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Douglas County Attorney Chad Larson, Wright County Attorney Tom Kelly, and Crow Wing County Attorney Donald Ryan.
Read the Thomas More Society’s Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, filed with the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in Cornerstone Church of Alexandria, et al. v. Tim Walz, et al. on August 13, 2020, here.
Published with permission from the Thomas More Society.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-08-14--Veteran journalist proposes creating second White House press corps for real info, not bias

WASHINGTON , D.C. , August 14 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The partisan tenor of White House press conferences has grown so brazen that the Trump administration should form a second press pool geared toward informing the American people , veteran political journalist John Solomon proposed Monday .
Solomon , a former Washington Post reporter , Washington Times executive editor , and former executive vice president of The Hill , floated the idea during an interview with conservative columnist Matt Margolis , in response to Margolis ’ argument that the current press corps , which is assigned by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , is `` trying to create a narrative '' instead of `` trying to get the information . ''
“ It is time for President Trump , for Kayleigh McEnaney , for Mark Meadows , for Jared Kushner , those in the White House who have the ability to make this decision , ” to “ create a second White House press poll to create competition , ” Solomon said .
The current crop of overwhelmingly liberal journalists “ has had a monopoly on that room ” but “ do n't ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask their own grandstanding questions.
” “ America always thrives when there 's competition , ” he argued , but the press corps “ had no competition , and in the middle of coronavirus , in the middle of an economic crisis , in the middle of facing other challenges , it 'd be nice if there are some reporters that are actually interested in the facts and the news of the day.
” “ It 's one thing to ask tough questions .
I 'm all for that .
But it 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's about asking political gotchas and ignoring the news of the day , ” Solomon lamented .
“ If done right , you can bring some real news every day , get the American people what they need to know.
” President Donald Trump and the mainstream media have had a notoriously confrontational relationship , most colorfully expressed during press conference exchanges between reporters and either Trump himself or his press secretaries .
The issue came into focus Thursday when HuffPost White House correspondent S.V .
Dáte asked the president , without examples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do you regret , at all , all the lying you 've done to the American people on everything ? ''
Trump ignored the question and called on another reporter .
Perhaps the most infamous single figure to embody the tone Solomon bemoans is CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta .
Acosta has been with CNN since 2007 , but raised his profile primarily through his questioning of Trump administration figures , which liberals frame as tenacious but conservatives call rude and unprofessional .
In one notorious 2018 incident , Acosta not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s attempts to take someone else ’ s question , but pushed away a female aide attempting to take the microphone to give it to the next journalist .
The administration subsequently revoked Acosta ’ s White House credentials , but a federal judge ordered them reinstated on First Amendment grounds .
McEnaney , Trump ’ s current press secretary , has gained a reputation for forcefully fighting back against the press corps .
As NewsBusters ’ Tim Graham detailed last month , journalists such as Politico ’ s Ryan Lizza complain about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ negative partisanship.
” “ Lizza isn ’ t being honest , ” Graham responded .
“ Because he represents ‘ pure theater ’ and ‘ negative partisanship ’ from the other side of the exchange , ” such as when Lizza asked McEnaney in May : “ What does the White House view as the number of dead Americans where you can say that you successfully defeated this pandemic ?
” The real source of the press corps ’ ire , Graham suggested , is that she gives “ arrogant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own medicine.
” The creation of a second White House press corps would also provide an opportunity for outlets blackballed by the current one , including LifeSiteNews , to present their audience ’ s concerns to the administration .
“ The left-leaning White House Correspondents Association just rejected our application for membership , yet they permit the homosexual newspaper the Washington Blade and even Playboy , ” LifeSite cofounder and editor-in-chief John-Henry Westen said .
“ America deserves better than to have a leftist elite control the information coming from the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the press .
”

The second pool would focus on getting information to inform the public rather than 'trying to create a narrative,' a former Washington Post reporter says.
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 14, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The partisan tenor of White House press conferences has grown so brazen that the Trump administration should form a second press pool geared toward informing the American people, veteran political journalist John Solomon proposed Monday.
Solomon, a former Washington Post reporter, Washington Times executive editor, and former executive vice president of The Hill, floated the idea during an interview with conservative columnist Matt Margolis, in response to Margolis’ argument that the current press corps, which is assigned by the left-wing White House Correspondents Association (WHCA), is “trying to create a narrative” instead of “trying to get the information.”
“It is time for President Trump, for Kayleigh McEnaney, for Mark Meadows, for Jared Kushner, those in the White House who have the ability to make this decision,” to “create a second White House press poll to create competition,” Solomon said. The current crop of overwhelmingly liberal journalists “has had a monopoly on that room” but “don't ask the people's questions anymore. They ask their own grandstanding questions.”
“America always thrives when there's competition,” he argued, but the press corps “had no competition, and in the middle of coronavirus, in the middle of an economic crisis, in the middle of facing other challenges, it'd be nice if there are some reporters that are actually interested in the facts and the news of the day.”
“It's one thing to ask tough questions. I'm all for that. But it's not about asking tough questions. It's about asking political gotchas and ignoring the news of the day,” Solomon lamented. “If done right, you can bring some real news every day, get the American people what they need to know.”
President Donald Trump and the mainstream media have had a notoriously confrontational relationship, most colorfully expressed during press conference exchanges between reporters and either Trump himself or his press secretaries.
The issue came into focus Thursday when HuffPost White House correspondent S.V. Dáte asked the president, without examples: “After 3 1/2 years, do you regret, at all, all the lying you've done to the American people on everything?” Trump ignored the question and called on another reporter.
Perhaps the most infamous single figure to embody the tone Solomon bemoans is CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta. Acosta has been with CNN since 2007, but raised his profile primarily through his questioning of Trump administration figures, which liberals frame as tenacious but conservatives call rude and unprofessional.
In one notorious 2018 incident, Acosta not only attempted to speak over Trump’s attempts to take someone else’s question, but pushed away a female aide attempting to take the microphone to give it to the next journalist. The administration subsequently revoked Acosta’s White House credentials, but a federal judge ordered them reinstated on First Amendment grounds.
McEnaney, Trump’s current press secretary, has gained a reputation for forcefully fighting back against the press corps. As NewsBusters’ Tim Graham detailed last month, journalists such as Politico’s Ryan Lizza complain about McEnany meeting them with “pure theater” and “negative partisanship.”
“Lizza isn’t being honest,” Graham responded. “Because he represents ‘pure theater’ and ‘negative partisanship’ from the other side of the exchange,” such as when Lizza asked McEnaney in May: “What does the White House view as the number of dead Americans where you can say that you successfully defeated this pandemic?”
The real source of the press corps’ ire, Graham suggested, is that she gives “arrogant reporters” a “dose of their own medicine.”
The creation of a second White House press corps would also provide an opportunity for outlets blackballed by the current one, including LifeSiteNews, to present their audience’s concerns to the administration.
“The left-leaning White House Correspondents Association just rejected our application for membership, yet they permit the homosexual newspaper the Washington Blade and even Playboy,” LifeSite cofounder and editor-in-chief John-Henry Westen said. “America deserves better than to have a leftist elite control the information coming from the White House. This cabal is crushing freedom of the press.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-08-14--Hallmark Channel features first gay ‘wedding’. LGBT-themed Christmas specials on the way

PETITION : Support school choice and call on the U.S. Senate to pass the SCHOOL Act !
Sign the petition here .
August 14 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – After coming under attack , the Hallmark Channel has knuckled under to pressure from LGBT groups and will air its first original movie featuring a same-sex ‘ wedding ’ this weekend .
The movie , “ Wedding Every Weekend , ” centers on two single friends , Brooke and Nate , who discover they have both been invited to the same four weddings on consecutive weekends .
One of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vicky , a lesbian couple .
“ Diversity and inclusion is a top priority for us and we look forward to making some exciting programming announcements in the coming months , including announcements about projects featuring LGBTQ storylines , characters , and actors , ” announced George Zaralidis , vice president of network program publicity for Hallmark 's parent company , Crown Media Family Network , in July .
“ We are committed to creating a Hallmark experience where everyone feels welcome , '' Zaralidis added .
After some Hallmark fans complained about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the about-to-be-aired movie , Hallmark doubled down , declaring , “ We are proud of our movie , ‘ Wedding Every Weekend.
’ Our priority at Hallmark Channel is to develop a broad mix of content , characters and stories in order to create a Hallmark experience where everyone feels welcome.
” Among those blasting the Hallmark Channel for changing its programming policy is One Million Moms , which launched a petition asking the formerly wholesome entertainment channel to refrain from adding LGBT content to its lineup .
“ Such content goes against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary audience , ” warned the group , which strives to protect children from unwholesome influences in the entertainment industry .
“ You will lose viewers if you cave to the LBGTQ agenda , ” the group cautioned .
“ So many people feel betrayed by Hallmark over these past seven months , ” the group said .
“ Hallmark Channel was one of the remaining channels that families could watch without being bombarded by politically correct commercials and the LGBTQ agenda.
” So far , the One Million Moms petition has garnered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of LGBT programming on the way for the Christmas holidays In December , Bill Abbott , CEO of Hallmark parent Crown Media Family Networks ( CMFN ) , claimed in an interview that Hallmark “ differentiates itself from its competition ” because its content is “ relentlessly positive , family friendly , always appropriate for all members of the family.
” “ Across the board , we ’ re attracting an audience across every demographic , ” Abbott said .
In the past , Hallmark has stated , “ We are not an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every viewer who comes to us to feel happier and better because they watched.
” That ’ s especially important during the holidays because Hallmark viewers skew younger than the rest of the year .
Abbott explained that viewers can feel comfortable watching Hallmark ’ s movies with their kids without having to worry about running for the remote because an inappropriate scene suddenly pops up .
Yet things changed after a dustup over a controversial commercial Hallmark had aired depicting a for the wedding planning service Zola , featuring a same-sex “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kissing .
After first removing the offending ad , Hallmark reinstated it under pressure from LGBT groups and celebrities such as Ellen DeGeneres and William Shatner .
LGBT activists pushed Hallmark to promise to work with the LGBT media monitoring group , GLAAD , “ to better represent the LGBTQ community.
” Despite having built a huge audience by providing a reliable , safe refuge for family viewing during an era when even Disney offers a minefield of pro-LGBT programming aimed at kids , the head of Hallmark ’ s parent company then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hallmark is ‘ open ’ to doing any type of movie — including with gay leads.
” Abbott was asked , “ Have you talked about incorporating stories about same-sex couples at Christmas ?
” “ We ’ re open to really any type of movie of any type of relationship , ” he admitted .
‘ Diversity activists will never be satisfied ’ “ In a culture that values offensive sex acts , profanity , and violence overall , the Hallmark channel is doomed , ” PJ Media ’ s Megan Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ season controversy .
“ The diversity activists will never be satisfied.
” The majority of TV viewers want “ to watch entertainment that represents them or does n't include a constant assault on morality and decency , ” and so “ they 're relegated to one cheesy channel that plays nothing but sappy Christmas movies most of the year , ” Fox continued .
“ But when the social justice soldiers get done with Hallmark , they wo n't even have that.
” “ The sustained campaign against the Hallmark channel will work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CEO , Bill Abbot , signaling that they are open to gay stories , ” Fox said .
Fox said she believes that “ Hallmark is not interested in pleasing its base of ‘ moms and grandmas ’ and will instead try to please the outrage mob that does n't watch their channel.
” Readers can click here to read , sign , and share LifeSiteNews ’ petition urging Hallmark executives to “ keep sex and sexual practices – including the promotion of homosexuality , transgenderism , etc .
– out of your @ @ @

Hallmark has knuckled under to pressure from LGBT groups and will air its first original movie featuring a same-sex ‘wedding’ this weekend.
PETITION: Support school choice and call on the U.S. Senate to pass the SCHOOL Act! Sign the petition here.
August 14, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – After coming under attack, the Hallmark Channel has knuckled under to pressure from LGBT groups and will air its first original movie featuring a same-sex ‘wedding’ this weekend.
The movie, “Wedding Every Weekend,” centers on two single friends, Brooke and Nate, who discover they have both been invited to the same four weddings on consecutive weekends. One of those ‘weddings’ is for Amanda and Vicky, a lesbian couple.
“Diversity and inclusion is a top priority for us and we look forward to making some exciting programming announcements in the coming months, including announcements about projects featuring LGBTQ storylines, characters, and actors,” announced George Zaralidis, vice president of network program publicity for Hallmark's parent company, Crown Media Family Network, in July.
“We are committed to creating a Hallmark experience where everyone feels welcome,” Zaralidis added.
Hallmark Channel betraying its fans
After some Hallmark fans complained about the inclusion of a same-sex wedding in the about-to-be-aired movie, Hallmark doubled down, declaring, “We are proud of our movie, ‘Wedding Every Weekend.’ Our priority at Hallmark Channel is to develop a broad mix of content, characters and stories in order to create a Hallmark experience where everyone feels welcome.”
Among those blasting the Hallmark Channel for changing its programming policy is One Million Moms, which launched a petition asking the formerly wholesome entertainment channel to refrain from adding LGBT content to its lineup.
“Such content goes against conservative values that are important to your primary audience,” warned the group, which strives to protect children from unwholesome influences in the entertainment industry.
“You will lose viewers if you cave to the LBGTQ agenda,” the group cautioned.
“So many people feel betrayed by Hallmark over these past seven months,” the group said. “Hallmark Channel was one of the remaining channels that families could watch without being bombarded by politically correct commercials and the LGBTQ agenda.”
So far, the One Million Moms petition has garnered more than 65,000 signatures.
Sleigh full of LGBT programming on the way for the Christmas holidays
In December, Bill Abbott, CEO of Hallmark parent Crown Media Family Networks (CMFN), claimed in an interview that Hallmark “differentiates itself from its competition” because its content is “relentlessly positive, family friendly, always appropriate for all members of the family.”
“Across the board, we’re attracting an audience across every demographic,” Abbott said.
In the past, Hallmark has stated, “We are not an issues-oriented network: our goal is for every viewer who comes to us to feel happier and better because they watched.”
That’s especially important during the holidays because Hallmark viewers skew younger than the rest of the year.
Abbott explained that viewers can feel comfortable watching Hallmark’s movies with their kids without having to worry about running for the remote because an inappropriate scene suddenly pops up.
Yet things changed after a dustup over a controversial commercial Hallmark had aired depicting a for the wedding planning service Zola, featuring a same-sex “wedding” that ended with two women kissing.
After first removing the offending ad, Hallmark reinstated it under pressure from LGBT groups and celebrities such as Ellen DeGeneres and William Shatner.
LGBT activists pushed Hallmark to promise to work with the LGBT media monitoring group, GLAAD, “to better represent the LGBTQ community.”
Despite having built a huge audience by providing a reliable, safe refuge for family viewing during an era when even Disney offers a minefield of pro-LGBT programming aimed at kids, the head of Hallmark’s parent company then changed his tune, indicating that “Hallmark is ‘open’ to doing any type of movie — including with gay leads.”
Abbott was asked, “Have you talked about incorporating stories about same-sex couples at Christmas?”
“We’re open to really any type of movie of any type of relationship,” he admitted.
‘Diversity activists will never be satisfied’
“In a culture that values offensive sex acts, profanity, and violence overall, the Hallmark channel is doomed,” PJ Media’s Megan Fox predicted during last year’s holiday season controversy. “The diversity activists will never be satisfied.”
The majority of TV viewers want “to watch entertainment that represents them or doesn't include a constant assault on morality and decency,” and so “they're relegated to one cheesy channel that plays nothing but sappy Christmas movies most of the year,” Fox continued. “But when the social justice soldiers get done with Hallmark, they won't even have that.”
“The sustained campaign against the Hallmark channel will work, as illustrated with the channel's CEO, Bill Abbot, signaling that they are open to gay stories,” Fox said.
Fox said she believes that “Hallmark is not interested in pleasing its base of ‘moms and grandmas’ and will instead try to please the outrage mob that doesn't watch their channel.”
Readers can click here to read, sign, and share LifeSiteNews’ petition urging Hallmark executives to “keep sex and sexual practices – including the promotion of homosexuality, transgenderism, etc. – out of your movies.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-08-14--Grace Community Church defies, sues California for ‘unreasonable’ COVID restrictions

PETITION : Support pastors fighting against oppressive state mandates !
Sign the petition here .
LOS ANGELES , August 14 , 2020 ( Thomas More Society ) — Thomas More Society Special Counsel Jenna Ellis and Charles LiMandri filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles on behalf of Pastor John MacArthur and Grace Community Church against Governor Gavin Newsom , Attorney General Xavier Becerra , Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti , and other California and Los Angeles County public health officials .
The suit seeks to prohibit California from enforcing its unconstitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Community Church and seeks a judgment that the health orders violate the California Constitution .
The complaint states that the American people have begun to see that they are being cheated by their own government .
“ They have witnessed how the onerous restrictions imposed on them by public officials to allegedly fight the COVID-19 pandemic simply do not apply to certain , favored groups .
When many went to the streets to engage in ‘ political protests ’ against ‘ racism ’ and ‘ police brutality , ’ these protestors refused to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of enforcing the public health orders , public officials were all too eager to grant a de facto exception for these favored protestors.
” “ Having irreparably damaged the confidence of Americans — and Californians especially — who now realize that the pandemic restrictions are neither necessary nor good , on Sunday , July 26 , 2020 , Grace Community Church decided to resume worship services — joining millions of Americans in deciding that enough is enough .
With deaths from the ‘ COVID-19 suicide pandemic ’ exceeding those from the actual coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would no longer sit by and watch its congregants and their children suffer from an absence of religious worship and instruction .
Perhaps unsurprisingly — perhaps not — this led the County of Los Angeles to submit a demand letter to Grace Community Church , ordering it to comply with the restrictions that Los Angeles County deems unnecessary to enforce against so many others .
Grace Community Church does not intend to comply.
” According to attorneys for the church it is time for California to recognize that Christians are not second-class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in to do its job applying the protections the U.S. and California State Constitutions provide to every individual equally and to churches in particular .
Pastor MacArthur opened the Sunday morning service on August 9 , welcoming worshippers to “ the Grace Community Church peaceful protest.
” He was met with a standing ovation and extended applause from the congregation .
Pastor MacArthur said of the lawsuit , “ We are simply continuing to do today what we have done for the past 63 years that Grace Community Church has been open to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their spiritual needs .
We will remain open and teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all who decide they want to come worship with us.
” Ellis said , “ We hoped that Los Angeles County would see its error on its own , but after attempted negotiations with their counsel , California is still intent on targeting churches — specifically , Grace Community Church .
Pastor MacArthur and the Board of Elders will stand firm in their leadership and resolve that church is essential , and California has no legitimate power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the fundamentally protected right to freely participate in church .
After Grace Community Church voluntarily complied with state orders for nearly six months , California ’ s edicts demanding an indefinite shut down have gone now far past rational or reasonable and are firmly in the territory of tyranny and discrimination .
This isn ’ t about health .
It ’ s about blatantly targeting churches.
” LiMandri stated , “ It is unconstitutional for Governor Newsom and the State of California to discriminate against churches by treating them less favorably than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protected by the First Amendment .
Pastor MacArthur and his church , as well as all churches , are entitled to practice their religion without government interference .
This is especially the case when the government has given free rein to protestors , and is not similarly restricting marijuana dispensaries , large retail outlets and factories , and abortion providers .
The government orders are also unconstitutional because there is no compelling need for the onerous restrictions on the churches at this time .
The hospitals are not overwhelmed and the percentage death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is time for Governor Newsom and Mayor Garcetti to recognize what President Trump has already proclaimed : Churches are providing an ‘ essential ’ service to the people .
Therefore , they must be allowed to serve the people in the manner in which God has called them.
” Read the Thomas More Society ’ s Complaint filed with the Superior Court for the State of California County of Los Angeles — in Grace Community Church and Pastor John MacArthur v. Gavin Newsome et al.
, on August 12 , 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sent to Pastor John MacArthur by attorney Jason Tokoro , representing the County of Los Angeles in California , on July 29 , 2020 , here .
Published with permission from the Thomas More Society .

PETITION: Support pastors fighting against oppressive state mandates! Sign the petition here.
LOS ANGELES, August 14, 2020 (Thomas More Society) — Thomas More Society Special Counsel Jenna Ellis and Charles LiMandri filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles on behalf of Pastor John MacArthur and Grace Community Church against Governor Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, and other California and Los Angeles County public health officials.
The suit seeks to prohibit California from enforcing its unconstitutional and onerous coronavirus pandemic regulations against Grace Community Church and seeks a judgment that the health orders violate the California Constitution.
The complaint states that the American people have begun to see that they are being cheated by their own government. “They have witnessed how the onerous restrictions imposed on them by public officials to allegedly fight the COVID-19 pandemic simply do not apply to certain, favored groups. When many went to the streets to engage in ‘political protests’ against ‘racism’ and ‘police brutality,’ these protestors refused to comply with the pandemic restrictions. Instead of enforcing the public health orders, public officials were all too eager to grant a de facto exception for these favored protestors.”
“Having irreparably damaged the confidence of Americans — and Californians especially — who now realize that the pandemic restrictions are neither necessary nor good, on Sunday, July 26, 2020, Grace Community Church decided to resume worship services — joining millions of Americans in deciding that enough is enough. With deaths from the ‘COVID-19 suicide pandemic’ exceeding those from the actual coronavirus pandemic, Grace Community Church decided that it would no longer sit by and watch its congregants and their children suffer from an absence of religious worship and instruction. Perhaps unsurprisingly — perhaps not — this led the County of Los Angeles to submit a demand letter to Grace Community Church, ordering it to comply with the restrictions that Los Angeles County deems unnecessary to enforce against so many others. Grace Community Church does not intend to comply.”
According to attorneys for the church it is time for California to recognize that Christians are not second-class citizens, and the court must step in to do its job applying the protections the U.S. and California State Constitutions provide to every individual equally and to churches in particular.
Pastor MacArthur opened the Sunday morning service on August 9, welcoming worshippers to “the Grace Community Church peaceful protest.” He was met with a standing ovation and extended applause from the congregation. Pastor MacArthur said of the lawsuit, “We are simply continuing to do today what we have done for the past 63 years that Grace Community Church has been open to welcome the Los Angeles community and serve their spiritual needs. We will remain open and teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all who decide they want to come worship with us.”
Ellis said, “We hoped that Los Angeles County would see its error on its own, but after attempted negotiations with their counsel, California is still intent on targeting churches — specifically, Grace Community Church. Pastor MacArthur and the Board of Elders will stand firm in their leadership and resolve that church is essential, and California has no legitimate power to enforce such onerous and unconstitutional restrictions against the fundamentally protected right to freely participate in church. After Grace Community Church voluntarily complied with state orders for nearly six months, California’s edicts demanding an indefinite shut down have gone now far past rational or reasonable and are firmly in the territory of tyranny and discrimination. This isn’t about health. It’s about blatantly targeting churches.”
LiMandri stated, “It is unconstitutional for Governor Newsom and the State of California to discriminate against churches by treating them less favorably than other organizations and activities that are not protected by the First Amendment. Pastor MacArthur and his church, as well as all churches, are entitled to practice their religion without government interference. This is especially the case when the government has given free rein to protestors, and is not similarly restricting marijuana dispensaries, large retail outlets and factories, and abortion providers. The government orders are also unconstitutional because there is no compelling need for the onerous restrictions on the churches at this time. The hospitals are not overwhelmed and the percentage death rate from COVID-19 is now extremely small. It is time for Governor Newsom and Mayor Garcetti to recognize what President Trump has already proclaimed: Churches are providing an ‘essential’ service to the people. Therefore, they must be allowed to serve the people in the manner in which God has called them.”
Read the Thomas More Society’s Complaint filed with the Superior Court for the State of California County of Los Angeles — in Grace Community Church and Pastor John MacArthur v. Gavin Newsome et al., on August 12, 2020, here.
Read the Demand Letter sent to Pastor John MacArthur by attorney Jason Tokoro, representing the County of Los Angeles in California, on July 29, 2020, here.
Published with permission from the Thomas More Society.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-08-14--Biden and Harris would force all Americans to wear masks for next three months

PETITION : Support pastors fighting against oppressive state mandates !
Sign the petition here .
WILMINGTON , Delaware , August 14 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Joe Biden and running mate Kamala Harris are calling for a nationwide mask mandate for at least three months to stop the spread of the coronavirus .
After a briefing with health experts in Wilmington , Delaware , the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee stated at a virtual press conference that Americans should be required to wear a mask while outside for the next three months , and that all states should mandate masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Every single American should be wearing a mask when they ’ re outside for the next three months , at a minimum .
Every governor should mandate mandatory mask-wearing , ” he said .
“ Let ’ s institute a mask mandate nationwide starting immediately , and we will save lives.
” “ It ’ s not about your rights , ” Biden added .
“ It ’ s about your responsibilities as an American .
… Be a patriot .
Protect your fellow citizens .
… Step up .
Do the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the press conference and echoed Biden ’ s call for a nationwide mask mandate .
“ That ’ s what real leadership looks like .
We should all be wearing a mask for the next three months because it will save lives , ” said Harris , an abortion extremist and Planned Parenthood ally .
Harris also pushed the idea that Americans are anxiously awaiting a COVID-19 vaccine .
“ I think it ’ s important that the American people , looking at the election coming up , ask the current occupant of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually gon na to get vaccinated ?
” she said .
“ Because there may be some grand gestures offered by the current president about a vaccine .
But it really doesn ’ t matter until you can answer the question : When am I going to get vaccinated ?
” Trump responded to the Biden-Harris call for a mask mandate by stating that “ I trust the American people , and the governors want to do the right thing , to make the right decisions , and Joe doesn ’ t , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also suggested a mask mandate would override the individual liberties of the American people .
“ If the president has the unilateral power to order every single citizen to cover their face in nearly all instances , what other powers does he have ?
” Trump said , as quoted in The New York Times .
“ While Joe Biden would allow rioters and looters and criminals and millions of illegal aliens to roam free in our country , he wants the federal government to issue a sweeping new mandate to law-abiding citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quoted in CBS News .
“ He wants the president of the United States , with the mere stroke of a pen , to order over 300 million American citizens to wear a mask for a minimum of three straight months , because … he thinks it 's good politics , I guess , no matter where they live , and no matter their surroundings . ''
Biden did not qualify his statement with an age range , Breitbart noted , adding that Biden was seen last week riding a bicycle with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face coverings in public , according to the American Association of Retired Persons , and The New York Times cited two polls that found a majority of Americans favor such measures .
In Wisconsin , “ an important battleground state , 69 percent of voters said people should be required to wear masks in all public places , according to a poll released Tuesday by Marquette University Law School .
Polling by Quinnipiac University last month found that four in five voters in Florida and Texas also supported mask mandates , ” it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study alleging that if masks had been mandated in April and May , 40,000 Americans would not have died .
But in a detailed two-part analysis , LifeSiteNews co-founder Steve Jalsevac debunked the “ pro-mask propaganda that paints mask critics as uncaring , heartless , ignorant persons ” and asserted that the push for mandatory masks is driven by fear , not science , and comes as the number of deaths from the coronavirus has dropped sharply .
“ The climate is oddly getting increasingly demanding about what we all must do now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been dramatically declining and , although massive testing has revealed far more people are infected than previously thought , the large majority of these infected persons will experience mild or no symptoms from infection , ” Jalsevac wrote .
Moreover , many people remain terrified by the threat of infection , and it is next to impossible to get clear information on the current state of the Wuhan coronavirus , or the successful treatments for it , he said .
The reason is that the coronavirus crisis is being exploited by globalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t want Trump to be re-elected so that they can gain an unprecedented level of social and political control over the public , Jalsevac contended .
“ ( M ) ost of the information sources are controlled by truth-hostile forces , especially all the mainstream media , wanting to paint the most negative picture to facilitate their plan to radically change world society , ” he said .
By the time the November presidential election arrives , Americans will be so “ disoriented , frightened , anxious , emotionally and physically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial straits ” that they will vote for the Democrats , not realizing they will be “ voting for the very people who have most wanted the frightening disorientation they have been living through for the past several months.
” Explosion in mandatory masking isn ’ t driven by science , but fear Biden : COVID-19 an opportunity to ‘ fundamentally change the science relating to global warming ’ Bioethicist who thinks people should die at 75 advising Biden on coronavirus To Mask , or not to mask ?
That is the question

The Democrat presidential and VP candidates said that every governor should mandate ‘mandatory mask-wearing.’
PETITION: Support pastors fighting against oppressive state mandates! Sign the petition here.
WILMINGTON, Delaware, August 14, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Joe Biden and running mate Kamala Harris are calling for a nationwide mask mandate for at least three months to stop the spread of the coronavirus.
After a briefing with health experts in Wilmington, Delaware, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee stated at a virtual press conference that Americans should be required to wear a mask while outside for the next three months, and that all states should mandate masks, The New York Times reported.
Biden claimed this would save 40,000 American lives, CBS News reported.
“Every single American should be wearing a mask when they’re outside for the next three months, at a minimum. Every governor should mandate mandatory mask-wearing,” he said.
“Let’s institute a mask mandate nationwide starting immediately, and we will save lives.”
“It’s not about your rights,” Biden added. “It’s about your responsibilities as an American. … Be a patriot. Protect your fellow citizens. … Step up. Do the right thing.”
Harris also appeared at the press conference and echoed Biden’s call for a nationwide mask mandate.
“That’s what real leadership looks like. We should all be wearing a mask for the next three months because it will save lives,” said Harris, an abortion extremist and Planned Parenthood ally.
Harris also pushed the idea that Americans are anxiously awaiting a COVID-19 vaccine.
“I think it’s important that the American people, looking at the election coming up, ask the current occupant of the White House: When am I actually gonna to get vaccinated?” she said.
“Because there may be some grand gestures offered by the current president about a vaccine. But it really doesn’t matter until you can answer the question: When am I going to get vaccinated?”
Trump responded to the Biden-Harris call for a mask mandate by stating that “I trust the American people, and the governors want to do the right thing, to make the right decisions, and Joe doesn’t,” according to CBS News.
He also suggested a mask mandate would override the individual liberties of the American people.
“If the president has the unilateral power to order every single citizen to cover their face in nearly all instances, what other powers does he have?” Trump said, as quoted in The New York Times.
“While Joe Biden would allow rioters and looters and criminals and millions of illegal aliens to roam free in our country, he wants the federal government to issue a sweeping new mandate to law-abiding citizens,” the president said, as quoted in CBS News.
“He wants the president of the United States, with the mere stroke of a pen, to order over 300 million American citizens to wear a mask for a minimum of three straight months, because … he thinks it's good politics, I guess, no matter where they live, and no matter their surroundings.”
Biden did not qualify his statement with an age range, Breitbart noted, adding that Biden was seen last week riding a bicycle with a mask on:
Seems like he’s clearly doing a bit here? pic.twitter.com/bN8RXW99Ya — Jeremy Barr (@jeremymbarr) August 8, 2020
Thirty-four states currently mandate face coverings in public, according to the American Association of Retired Persons, and The New York Times cited two polls that found a majority of Americans favor such measures.
In Wisconsin, “an important battleground state, 69 percent of voters said people should be required to wear masks in all public places, according to a poll released Tuesday by Marquette University Law School. Polling by Quinnipiac University last month found that four in five voters in Florida and Texas also supported mask mandates,” it reported.
CBS News cited a July study alleging that if masks had been mandated in April and May, 40,000 Americans would not have died.
However, the evidence shows that not only are masks ineffective in stopping the spread of the Wuhan coronavirus, but they actually harm the wearer, according to American neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock and physician Jim Meenan.
And in a detailed two-part analysis, LifeSiteNews co-founder Steve Jalsevac debunked the “pro-mask propaganda that paints mask critics as uncaring, heartless, ignorant persons” and asserted that the push for mandatory masks is driven by fear, not science, and comes as the number of deaths from the coronavirus has dropped sharply.
“The climate is oddly getting increasingly demanding about what we all must do now just as deaths from the Wuhan virus have been dramatically declining and, although massive testing has revealed far more people are infected than previously thought, the large majority of these infected persons will experience mild or no symptoms from infection,” Jalsevac wrote.
Moreover, many people remain terrified by the threat of infection, and it is next to impossible to get clear information on the current state of the Wuhan coronavirus, or the successful treatments for it, he said.
The reason is that the coronavirus crisis is being exploited by globalists, the pharmaceutical industry and those who don’t want Trump to be re-elected so that they can gain an unprecedented level of social and political control over the public, Jalsevac contended.
“(M)ost of the information sources are controlled by truth-hostile forces, especially all the mainstream media, wanting to paint the most negative picture to facilitate their plan to radically change world society,” he said.
By the time the November presidential election arrives, Americans will be so “disoriented, frightened, anxious, emotionally and physically exhausted” and in such “dire financial straits” that they will vote for the Democrats, not realizing they will be “voting for the very people who have most wanted the frightening disorientation they have been living through for the past several months.”
RELATED
Explosion in mandatory masking isn’t driven by science, but fear
Biden: COVID-19 an opportunity to ‘fundamentally change the science relating to global warming’
Bioethicist who thinks people should die at 75 advising Biden on coronavirus
To Mask, or not to mask? That is the question
Share