|
|
Texas Court Upholds Ban on Gay ‘Marriage’By Peter J. Smith DALLAS, Texas, September 3, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Texas appeals court has struck down a trial court’s ruling Tuesday that the state’s ban on same-sex “marriage” violated the rights of a homosexual couple seeking a divorce. The court declared that “the natural ability to procreate” constituted the rational basis to restrict marriage to a man and a woman. The Court of Appeals for the 5th District of Texas struck down the previous ruling that said that two homosexual plaintiffs married in Massachusetts, identified as J.B. and H.B., had a right to a same-sex “divorce” in Texas based on the “full faith and credit clause” of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs obtained a marriage license from Massachusetts in September 2006, moved to Texas in 2008, and later that year J.B. demanded a no-fault divorce. Although the plaintiffs said they were not looking to challenge the state ban on same-sex “marriage,” the trial court judge said the state’s ban on same-sex “marriage” and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) also violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, the Texas appeals court rejected those arguments, and ordered the trial court to reverse its decision, saying the standard of constitutional review for marriage was the “rational basis” test, not equal protection. The Texas state court ruling strikes at the heart of U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling on Proposition 8. Walker ruled that Prop. 8 had no “rational basis” for excluding homosexuals from marriage, and was built on "a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples." The Texas court enumerated many reasons for the state having such a rational basis for restricting marriage to a man and a woman, which not only excludes same sex unions, but also polygamous ones. “The persons singled out and favored by Texas's marriage laws, namely opposite-sex couples, have such a distinguishing and relevant characteristic: the natural ability to procreate,” the court said. “Thus, although a person's sexual orientation does not affect his or her ability to contribute to society in general,” stated the decision, “it does bear on whether he or she will enter a relationship that is naturally open to procreation and thus trigger the state's legitimate interest in child-rearing.” The court also added that this rational basis for limiting marriage to heterosexual unions in no way concludes that homosexuals are “a suspect class.” “Disparate treatment of different but similarly situated groups does not automatically violate equal protection.” Furthermore, it concluded that Texas’s constitutional amendment on marriage does not “violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a provision never before construed as a charter for restructuring the traditional institution of marriage by judicial legislation.” The Texas state court affirmed that it was “reasonable for the state to conclude that the optimal familial setting for the raising of children is the household headed by an opposite-sex couple.” It continued, “The state also could have rationally concluded that children are benefited by being exposed to and influenced by the beneficial and distinguishing attributes a man and a woman individually and collectively contribute to the relationship.” Read the full decision here. http://lifesitenews.com
"Miracle" as Baby Begins Breathing after Two HoursBy Hilary White SYDNEY, Australia, August 30, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Doctors were baffled in April when a premature baby boy whom they had pronounced dead appeared to come back to life after two hours of being held by his mother. Staff had given child, Jamie, a twin, to his mother to hold and to “say goodbye” after the 27-week gestation boy had been pronounced dead. The attending doctor had spent 20 minutes after the birth trying to get the boy to breathe.Kate Ogg, of Sydney, Australia, held the child directly next to her skin and when he showed signs of life, gave him some breast milk on the end of her finger. But Kate and husband David Ogg now say that they fear that their son, who was born with his twin sister Emily, may be brain damaged or suffer other long-term medical complications because their doctor didn’t believe them when the boy showed what the parents believed were signs of life. After Jamie began moving, they asked the doctor to return, but he refused, sending the midwife back to say the baby was just going through death throes. “We knew the doctor wasn’t coming back in, so we called for him again,” Kate Ogg later told an interviewer on Australian TVl. “In the interim, the midwife took some footage and my mother and my sister were taking photos for us. Eventually my husband said, ‘Go and tell the doctor we weren't ready to listen to his explanation of how the baby died, can he come and explain it again,’ and that's when he returned.” It was two more hours before Jamie received medical attention. A friend of the Oggs told the Daily Mail that, “To be fair, the doctor genuinely believe Jamie was dead. When he came back into the room, even he told Kate it was a miracle,” but added that if Jamie suffers aftereffects from the lack of treatment, there could be legal action. Mrs. Ogg told the Australian television program Today Tonight that hearing that her child was dead “was the worst feeling I've ever felt.” When Jamie was handed to her, she said she wanted to hold him next to her skin. “I took my gown off and arranged him on my chest with his head over my arm and just held him. He wasn't moving at all and we just started talking to him. “We told him what his name was and that he had a sister. We told him the things we wanted to do with him throughout his life.” Jamie started gasping but his parents were told this was just a “reflex” action. “But then I felt him move as if he were startled, then he started gasping more and more regularly. I gave Jamie some breast milk on my finger, he took it and started regular breathing normally. “I thought ‘Oh my God, what's going on?’ A short time later he opened his eyes. It was a miracle. Then he held out his hand and grabbed my finger. He opened his eyes and moved his head from side to side. The doctor kept shaking his head saying, ‘I don't believe it, I don't believe it’.” http://lifesitenews.com
U.S. Court Halts Obama Admin Stem-Cell Research GuidelinesBy Kathleen Gilbert WASHINGTON, D.C., August 23, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia has intervened to block regulations issued by the Obama administration expanding embryo-destructive research. Pro-life researchers and Nightlight Christian Adoptions, a group that encourages adoption of frozen embryonic children, filed the suit last year. Judge Royce Lamberth had ruled in June that the group has standing to sue over the guidelines that the National Institutes of Health developed for taxpayer-funded research that would involve the destruction of living human embryos.The newly-expanded research was made possible by an executive order signed by President Obama in March 2009. The plaintiffs argue that the new guidelines clearly violate a provision in U.S. law (known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment) that prevents taxpayer monies from funding research in which embryos "are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." In the opinion issued Monday, Lamberth ruled that the Dickey-Wicker language was unambiguous, contrary to the arguments of lawyers with the Department of Health and Human Services, and that the NIH guidelines violated the "plain language of the statute." "ESC [embryonic stem-cell] research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed," wrote Lamberth. "To conduct ESC research, ESC must be derived from an embryo. The process of deriving ESCs from an embryo results in the destruction of the embryo. Thus, ESC research necessarily depends upon the destruction of a human embryo. "Despite defendants' attempt to separate the derivation of ESCs from research on ESCs, the two cannot be separated." Critics have pointed out that, aside from destroying tiny human lives, ESC research has resulted in virtually no therapeutic benefit and has been outstripped by breakthroughs in adult stem-cell research, which has yielded dozens of cures and benefits for previously untreatable illnesses. http://lifesitenews.com
Fallout Continues from ELCA’s Gay Clergy Decision as Lutheran Churches LeaveBy Peter J. Smith CHICAGO, August 16, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The departure of several more congregations in central Illinois from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has once again highlighted how the denomination’s decision to approve active homosexual clergy has triggered a slow, steady bleeding of congregations. One year ago this month at its national convention, the ELCA voted "to open the ministry of the church to gay and lesbian pastors and other professional workers living in committed relationships."The policy change was decided by more than 100 votes – 559 in favor to 451 against; but since the vote the ELCA has both dropped in members and congregations. According to Illinois’s News-Gazette, at least three more churches have initiated the process to leave the ELCA, which claims a membership of 10,400 congregations and 4.6 million baptized members. Under the ELCA’s rules congregations that wish to disaffiliate themselves must take two votes passing by a two-thirds majority to leave, with a 90 day consultation period with the local bishop scheduled between the votes. The congregation officially cuts off ties with the denomination upon passage of the second vote. The journal reports that by the end of June, 462 congregations had cast their first votes to leave the ELCA, with 312 adopting the resolution. Of these, 196 congregations have taken their second vote, with only 11 congregations opting not to leave the ELCA. The pastors of three Lutheran churches in Illinois told the News-Gazette that they were leaving the ELCA over concerns that the denomination was no longer faithful to the biblical basis of the Church’s teaching, especially when it comes to teachings on sin and salvation. Rev. Jeffray Greene, pastor of American Lutheran Church in Rantoul, where 94 percent of his congregation voted to leave, told the News-Gazette that he knew from his seminary days that proponents of a homosexualist theology were determined at the beginning of the ECLA’s history to change the church’s teaching. "Twenty-seven years ago, when I was in the seminary, (Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary in Berkeley, Calif.), there were two mutually exclusive theologies going on in the ELCA,” said Greene. He added, “The ELCA was formed to be what it is. Three gay guys I went to school with had this as their agenda.” Pastor James Lehmann of Immanuel Lutheran in Flatville, where 94 percent also voted to leave, told the Illinois newspaper that the ELCA is sending the message that there are multiple ways of salvation rather than through Jesus Christ, and that posed an insurmountable problem. "I think it's unfortunate that we had to take the vote,” said Lehmann, “but to be true to our faith, we need to do that." Some of the Lutheran congregations revealed they were considering affiliating with the North American Lutheran Church (NALC), which was formed in response to the ELCA’s homosexual clergy decision. There are a number of conservative Lutheran denominations in the United States, such as the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, American Association of Lutheran Churches, Association of Free Lutheran Congregations, and others. Delegates of the Lutheran Church Missouri-Synod in July voted to approve a resolution commending two study documents that stated the ELCA’s decision on homosexual clergy both contravened Sacred Scripture and strained relationships between the two churches, by creating the impression that all U.S. Lutherans were in agreement with ELCA’s position. The LCMS also voted to strengthen efforts to promote fidelity to confessional Lutheranism worldwide as a positive response to the ELCA decision. http://lifesitenews.com
Sears Ignores Calls to Stop Selling PornBy Patrick B. Craine CHICAGO, Illinois, August 9, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Retail giant Sears, which was exposed last week for marketing pornographic posters through their website, could be facing a boycott if they continue their refusal to remove the products. “Sears is playing with fire. Sears is the place that American families are used to going, … and I just cannot imagine that the vast majority of their customer base wants to shop at a place that’s marketing pornography,” said Bryan Fischer, director of issues analysis at the American Family Association (AFA). “There are a lot of other places that American families can shop for the same goods they get at Sears.”The AFA broke the news about the posters in an action alert August 3rd after the company refused to respond to more than a half dozen attempts at communication. The posters, which AFA has published in an edited form behind three warning walls, depict nudity and groups of people involved in sexual activities, including one featuring two women. Sears appears to be digging in its heels on the issue, based on their response to one of AFA’s supporters. Chris B., a Sears employee, wrote: “We … have reviewed the products in question and found that they do not fall outside our marketplace guidelines.” “Sears is taking their stand. They are going to defend the merchandising of soft-core pornography on their website,” commented Fischer. Asked if AFA will launch a boycott, Fischer said they will continue monitoring Sears’ response. “If they continue to stonewall and stick a thumb in the eye of American families and their values, then at some point you need to do something,” he said. The company has also drawn a rebuke from the influential social scientist Dr. Judith Reisman, an expert on the damaging effects of the sexual revolution. In an interview with WorldNetDaily, Reisman lambasted Sears for using pornography to turn a profit, emphasizing that the scientific research clearly shows porn to have a dangerous impact on our brains and our physical and mental health. "Sears' management clearly agreed that pornography would conscript children and vulnerable adults as consumers," she said. "The Sears pornography adverts had to survive multiple administrative debates, redrafts and societal cost-benefit analyses before they got the green light.” "Children cannot buy alcohol because their bodies and brains are corrupted by its toxins," she said. "Similarly, Sears' reckless distribution of pornography, of 'erototoxins' in the public space should be charged with deliberate brain damage - bringing the role of dopamine as a 'natural drug' to an American jury. Let the scientific challenge begin!" The AFA is calling on men and women of good will to demand that Sears remove the products from their website and their line. Larry Costello, Public Relations Director http://lifesitenews.com
Ban Bullfighting but Kill Babies?: Spain’s New Moral Values Criticized by Pro-Life LeaderBy Hilary White ROME, July 30, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – As Spain’s newly liberalized abortion law comes into effect the Spanish regional government of Catalonia has banned the ancient blood sport of bullfighting, and the irony has not been lost on pro-life observers. Catalonia's regional parliament voted Wednesday to ban bullfighting from January 1, 2012, making it the first region in mainland Spain to outlaw the centuries-old tradition, which has inspired artists from Goya to Picasso to Hemmingway. Bullfighting promoters have called the measure “outrageous” and have vowed to “launch a huge battle” in conjunction with the conservative opposition Popular Party (PP), which sees itself as the defender of Spanish cultural traditions. Monsignore Ignacio Barreiro Carambula, the director of the Rome office of Human Life International and an Uruguayan of Spanish descent, said that the banning of bullfighting in Spain, like the banning of fox hunting in Britain, even as those governments promote abortion, represents a triumph of newly invented moral values based on arbitrary “progressive” whims and social fads. He told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that the banning of bullfighting and the promotion of abortion is part of the same liberalizing social re-engineering project being undertaken by the far left in Spain. Barreiro said that “a large percentage of the persons in favor of animal rights are not concerned at all about the rights of the unborn.” Those who voted for the bullfighting ban, he said, are on the progressive left, the same people who have pushed to expand abortion and homosexuality. “This is based in a wrong ideology,” he said. “Animals should not be treated with cruelty, but animals do not have rights. Rights are inherent to the human person, so from the moment of conception, you have a human being who has rights. Animals need to be treated with respect, but is not a bearer of rights.” “It’s an irony that these people are protecting non-existent rights and they conveniently forget about real rights of human beings. And they forget about the most basic of all rights, which is life,” Barreiro said. Barreiro added that the efforts to ban longstanding cultural traditions like bullfighting and fox hunting is a favorite work of “progressive” liberals and socialists. “Bullfighting is part of Spanish tradition,” he said. “It’s a very ancient Spanish tradition that has to be respected. It’s a manly sport and obviously in manly sports you have risks.” He compared it to the determination of the Tony Blair Labour party in Britain to ban fox hunting based on “animal rights,” while working to liberalize abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Barreiro put it down to the creation of “new moral values” that are based on arbitrary social fads instead of perennial philosophical norms. “New moral values are coined that are not part of the Natural Law, and real values are destroyed or not recognized.” “Socialists and liberals are bent on destroying the traditional customs and institutions of society.” “The main issue,” he said, “is the protection of animals against the lack of protection of babies. But it must be mentioned, this conscious policy of different socialist and liberal governments to destroy legitimate cultural traditions of different nations. It’s a conscious decision.”
Newly liberalized abortion law Spanish Archbishop Urges Defiance of New Abortion Law: 'This Law is no Law'
Moms Take Babies Saved from Abortion by Pregnancy Help Centers to CongressWASHINGTON, D.C., July 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Women who rejected the “choice” to abort their babies will be bringing their children to Washington D.C. this week to tell Congress how thankful they are for the life-saving work of pregnancy help centers. Babies Go to Congress, a Heartbeat International project, provides an opportunity for women to speak publicly, on Capitol Hill, about their gratitude for the support they received when faced with an unexpected pregnancy. Heartbeat International, founded in 1971, is a Christ-centered association of more than 1,100 pregnancy help centers, maternity homes, non-profit adoption agencies, pregnancy help medical clinics and abortion recovery programs in 50 countries. One of the testifying moms, Danica Fountain of Arizona, says she felt pressured to abort her baby before she arrived at the Women’s Center of Tucson, a local pregnancy resource center. “I was absolutely shocked to see that this so called ‘blob of tissue,’ the term I so commonly heard people use when referencing a pregnancy this early on, was in fact a fully formed baby! She had a head, arms and legs," says Fountain. “When I saw my baby’s heart beating I knew I would do anything to protect my child." Fountain is scheduled to meet with members of Congress this week. “The emotional support I received from the pregnancy center helped me realize that I could succeed as a single mom," she said. "So I continued in my full time position at the bank, knowing they were there if I needed more encouragement or practical help. I can never thank the Women’s Center of Tucson enough.” The visits will occur only weeks after news broke earlier this month that U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) would introduce a bill, known as the "Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act," to restrict the activities of pregnancy resource centers. The measure aims to force such centers to loudly advertise their lack of abortion services, and is strongly supported by NARAL and Planned Parenthood, who have complained of the centers' siphoning off customers from "legitimate reproductive health care centers." “Congress needs to hear from the women served by nonprofit pregnancy centers,” said Heartbeat President Peggy Hartshorn. Praising the moms for sacrificing their time for the campaign, Hartshorn added, “This is a testament to the fact that our elected officials need to support public policy that preserves the bond between mother and child.” “These moms and babies put real faces on the abortion issue as they testify to the fact that pregnancy help centers are serving communities by uniting thousands of individuals passionate about life,” said Heartbeat Director of Public Policy/PR Virginia Cline. Cline pointed out that pregnancy resource centers affiliated with Heartbeat “provide options and resources for pregnant women who are not satisfied with the choice to abort a child." "Our families and the future of our country are strengthened by the life affirming work of pregnancy help ministries," she said. Another mom heading to Congress, Terrie Thompson, said the volunteers at her local center "have been my rock" as she struggled to raise her daughter. "When I lost my apartment, they helped me find shelter. When I couldn’t work, they supported me financially, and when I needed support, they were there for me emotionally. They listen with an open ear and heart, and always help me find solutions," she said. "For that, I thank them.” With this trip, Heartbeat’s Babies Go to Congress will have brought the stories of real-life moms and their pregnancy resource centers to 125 congressional offices. Heartbeat affiliates provide the emotional support and practical help needed to sustain a healthy pregnancy. Without any financial gain, Heartbeat’s network provides the information that it says women need to make an informed decision, including the facts that abortion providers often leave out. Utilizing more than 25,000 volunteers, Heartbeat says its network saves about 2,000 babies a week from abortion. The organization notes that doctors, lawyers, nurses, social workers, educators and other professionals are pregnancy center volunteers, many of whom have had a personal experience with an unexpected pregnancy. School Group Told Not to Pray on U.S. Supreme Court StepsBy James Tillman WASHINGTON, July 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Earlier this year police reportedly told a Christian school teacher who was leading her students in quiet, private prayer on the steps of the Supreme Court building that she was not permitted to pray there. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian legal association, has sent a letter to Supreme Court officials threatening legal action unless the Supreme Court police retract their policy and permit the teacher to exercise her constitutionally-protected right to the free exercise of religion. “Christians shouldn’t be silenced for exercising their beliefs through quiet prayer on public property,” said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Nate Kellum. “The last place you’d expect this kind of obvious disregard for the First Amendment would be on the grounds of the U.S. Supreme Court itself, but that’s what happened.” On May 5, Mrs. Maureen Rigo, a teacher at Wickenberg Christian Academy in Arizona, was taking an educational tour of the Capitol with ten students and three other parents. The first stop for the day was the front steps of the Supreme Court, where they took a few pictures before quietly gathering on the bottom level of the steps to pray. According to ADF they were holding no signs and speaking only in a conversational tone; nevertheless, a court police officer quickly approached them and told them to stop. “Ma’am, I’m not going to tell you that you can’t pray, but you can’t do it here," he said, according to Mrs. Rigo. "Please go somewhere else.” She asked, "Since when?" He answered, "This week." The group then moved off the steps of the Supreme Court building and began to pray on the streets. Their prayer was stopped based on statute 40 U.S.C. §6135, which pertains to parades and protests. It forbids acting in a way meant "to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement" on the Supreme Court building grounds. The ADF, however, claims that it is absurd to say that 40 U.S.C. §6135 would forbid the sort of prayer in which the school group was engaged. "Mrs. Rigo's prayers were not communicated to anyone outside of God and her very small group," the letter argues. "Her prayers are akin to routine conversations conducted by any other small group of persons touring the Supreme Court grounds." It continues: "Likewise, Mrs. Rigo was not engaging in a parade, procession, or assembly. She was speaking in a conversational level to those around her with her head bowed." This means, according to the ADF, that the police officer had "targeted a particular viewpoint for censorship." "They have singled out and censored religious prayer as the only form of conversation to be silenced," the letters states. Unless Supreme Court officials inform Mrs. Rigo that she may engage in quiet prayer on the Supreme Court grounds within three weeks, the letter says she will have no choice but to take legal action to ensure that her constitutional rights are not infringed. Mrs. Rigo and the students, however, say that they at least found the experience educational. The following day they toured the Holocaust Museum. “Some [students] commented on the way the horror in Germany began so simply with the removal of rights for the Jews while so many others looked the other way,” Mrs. Rigo wrote in an article for the Sonoran News. Other students questioned whether similar policies for Christians were beginning in America. She finished by saying that students at least learned that “now, more than ever before, they need to be praying for our country.” http://lifesitenews.com
Presbyterian Assembly Rejects Gay ‘Marriage,’ Accepts Homosexual ClergyBy James Tillman MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, July 12, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Late Thursday, the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted to postpone a proposal that would have changed their definition of marriage to be a covenant between "two people" rather than between "a man and a woman." They also voted, however, to permit practicing homosexuals to be ordained as ministers within PC(USA). The assembly's subordinate committee on civil union and marriage issues had voted 34-18 on Tuesday to change the definition of marriage. Cindy Bolbach, the moderator for the general assembly, said that the failure of the committee’s proposal in the wider assembly showed that delegates wished to discuss the subject further. Bolbach personally supports same-sex "marriage" but has said she does not believe the denomination is ready to accept it yet. The proposal was postponed for two years, after which it will be considered again. The gay-ordination proposal, which passed 373 to 323, must still be approved by a majority of the 173 local Presbyterian presbyteries or churches before it takes effect. This is the 4th time PC(USA) has approved the ordination of homosexual ministers; each of the previous times it has been rejected by local presbyteries. PC(USA) has permitted the blessing of same-sex couples since 2000, and has endorsed civil unions for same-sex couples since 2004. Rev. Janet McCune Edwards of Pittsburgh, who wore a rainbow-colored knit scarf to show her support of homosexuals, spoke in favor of permitting same-sex "marriage." "The heart of marriage is the love and commitment between two people," Edwards said. "That's what scripture teaches. Two men or two women can show all the love and commitment we recognize as marriage." Many were unconvinced by such arguments. Carmen Fowler, president of the Presbyterian Lay Committee, said she believes such initiatives are to blame for the denomination's falling membership. The Presbyterian church has been rapidly shrinking for the last four decades. In 1965 it had about 4.25 million members; it now has about 2.1 million members. To Bolbach's contention that the church has become paralyzed, Fowler said that that is what happens when the church body is separated from its head: Jesus Christ. The General Assembly also voted to alter another ordination standard during the assembly. Current standards for ministers require that they "live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.” If the General Assembly’s change is approved by local presbyteries, all references to “fidelity” and “chastity” will be dropped. Instead, standards for ordained service will be commanded to "reflect the church's desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life." Such a change has been rejected four times before. Some threatened to leave should ordination standards change. Hector Reynoso, of Mission Presbytery, said during the debate that "homosexuality is either a sin or it's not. But it's not both. Someone is in the right and someone's in the wrong." He said he would leave the PC(USA) if the presbyteries vote to change the ordination standards, saying, "I stand for Jesus and I invite you to stand with me.” The Presbyterian Coalition, which backs current ordination standards, released a statement Thursday night after the General Assembly vote on homosexual ministers was complete. “We grieve the decision today by our General Assembly to recommend removing the moral standard for our ministers and officers that rightly requires fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness,” the Coalition release states. “The action was adopted by a narrow margin. “Nevertheless, it marks a separation from the teaching of the universal Church on holiness of life. The Holy Scripture teaches us to flee sexual immorality”
USA Presbyterians Get Ready to Vote on Gay 'Marriage'MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota July 6, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Presbyterians gathering this week in Minneapolis will face a potentially momentous decision: whether to preserve the teaching that marriage exists only between a man and a woman, or change the definition of marriage to a relationship between any "two people." The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which began Saturday and concludes July 10, will take up a series of items, among them proposed constitutional amendments to change the definition of marriage in the PCUSA Book of Order. The effect would be to allow churches to host and ministers to officiate at same-sex "marriages." Other proposals would interpret the PCUSA constitution as allowing any state-recognized same-sex "marriage" to be celebrated as a Christian marriage. The Christian Post reported Sunday that PCUSA had selected as its moderator Cynthia Bolbach, who was the only candidate out of six to express full support for same-sex "marriage." The Final Report of the Special Committee on Civil Union and Christian Marriage asserts that church members "cannot agree" on "the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community," and must therefore show "mutual forbearance." "The Scriptures and all parts of the PCUSA constitution consistently teach that marriage is instituted by God as a gift to all humankind, and that we are to honor that gift," said Alan Wisdom, IRD's Vice President for Research and Programs and Director of its Presbyterian Action committee. "If the PCUSA embraces sexual revisionism, it would deliberately sideline itself," he said. "It would exalt western liberal notions of individual moral autonomy above shared understandings of the Bible. "It would follow the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church on the road to theological marginalization, internal division, accelerating membership loss, and cultural irrelevance. "Shall we assert the right to redefine marriage to suit our own contemporary notions of justice? Shall we treat marriage as if it were no different from other sexual relationships? Or shall we reaffirm the biblical vision of an exclusive, lifelong, one-flesh union of the two complementary sexes created by God?" 100 Witherspoon Street
Home Depot Hosts Children’s Workshop at Gay Pride FestivalBy Kathleen Gilbert PORTLAND, Maine, June 22, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The American Family Association (AFA) has launched a protest against Home Depot for setting up a children's workshop at the Southern Maine Pride Festival, which took place from June 13-20 in Portland, Maine. The AFA pointed out that homosexual "pride" events are generally marked by obscene displays, including nudity and public sex acts.The Home Depot, which the AFA says conducted Kid's Craft Workshops at the festival, is shown as a sponsor of the event on the 2010 Southern Maine Pride website. "To this end, Home Depot is basically encouraging the attendance of children at events which openly expose them to transvestites, cross-dressers, and homosexual activists," said Tom Wildmon, president of the AFA, in an email to supporters Monday. Home Depot also sponsored and participated in the 2010 Boston Gay Pride parade. "Gay pride events have a long track record for offensive public displays of homosexual conduct. Obviously, Home Depot is OK with the idea of exposing children to an unhealthy and risky environment," said Wildmon. The AFA has set up an email form to lobby Home Depot against participating in the event. http://lifesitenews.com
Gay Couple Take B&B to Human Rights TribunalREAL Women's Landolt says tribunals "reigning like mad emperors or empresses"By Patrick B. Craine GRAND FORKS, British Columbia, June 10, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A retired British Columbia couple have closed their bed and breakfast as a result of a human rights complaint filed against them when they declined to host a homosexual couple. "We've been harassed so bad we're not running [the B&B]," explained Lee Molnar to the National Post. Lee's wife Susan received a call on June 18, 2009 from Shaun Eadie, who wanted to book a room for himself and his partner Brian Thomas. Susan took the names and booked the room, but was concerned that there were 2 men and only 1 bed. Lee called back and Eadie confirmed that they were a homosexual couple, so Lee cancelled the booking. Eadie filed his complaint with the Tribunal in July 2009, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Molnars filed an application to have the case dismissed, but it was denied. "To allow a gay couple to share a bed in my Christian home would violate my Christian beliefs and would cause me and my wife great distress," explained Lee Molnar in the application, reports the National Post. The case was to be presented in Kelowna before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal beginning on Wednesday but it was postponed because the complainants' lawyer fell ill. The Molnar's lawyer, Ron Smith, told the National Post that the Molnars opened their Grand Forks B&B in 2002, after major renovations to their home to set up a separate area and install a jacuzzi for guests. He explained that they felt the need to shut down the operation in the fall of 2009 out of fear that they would receive another request from a homosexual couple. "They don't know what kind of behaviour they can say no to in their home," Smith told the National Post. "They don't want another human-rights complaint [filed against them]." "They're just a retired couple in Grand Forks who thought they would open their home to guests and here they are in the centre of a firestorm," he said. "They're a lovely couple. They don't want to be thought of as discriminating, but they're Christians who don't feel they can violate their religious beliefs." Gwen Landolt, a lawyer and National Vice President for REAL Women Canada, said this case indicates "the relentless pursuit by homosexual activists to impose their values - not just to be tolerated, but to demand that society adapt to their values." Some would argue that closing one's doors to homosexuals violates the Christian's duty to welcome the stranger, but according to Landolt giving a homosexual couple a room at one's bed & breakfast would actually put a stamp on their behaviour. "It would be approving something that their faith says is wrong," she explained. "It would be looking the other way. It would be contrary to their faith and their religious belief." Landolt was strongly critical of the human rights tribunals, saying they are "totally intolerant" and "reigning like mad emperors or empresses." The tribunals, she said, are "ruling not based on logic, common sense, or compassion, but based on the fact that they have the power." "Why must Christians put aside their faith in order to accommodate homosexuals?" http://lifesitenews.com
New Adult Stem-Cell Treatments for Head and Heart AdvanceBy Peter J. Smith “Previously, we’ve seen that adult neural stem cells injected into the spinal column knew, amazingly, exactly where to go,” said Tom Lane, a professor of molecular biology and biochemistry, and co-author with Kevin Carbajal of the new study. “We wanted to find what directed them to the right injury spots.” Lane and Carbajal’s team experimented with mice whose central nervous systems were damaged by viruses in a way that imitated the effects of MS. The virus destroys myelin, a protective tissue that covers the nerves, resulting in chronic pain and loss of motor function. They injected adult neural stem cells into the mice and observed that the inflamed cells activated receptors on the adult stem cells called CXCR-4 receptors. These receptors then gathered “chemokine proteins” (CXCL-12), which guided the adult stem cells to the damaged cells in need of repair. As the adult stem cells made their journey through the brain, they transformed into precursor cells for oligodendrocytes, a key building block for myelin, that can both repair or replace the damaged tissues. Once latched onto the affected sites, the stem cells continued to differentiate, and after three weeks 90% of the cells had transformed into mature oligodendrocytes. Lane stressed that not only did the work reaffirm the power of adult neural stem cells to improve the brain’s motor function, but also provided a crucial stem cell roadmap for researchers looking to develop therapies for those suffering with MS. “In this study, we’ve taken an important step by showing the navigational cues in an inflammatory environment like MS that guide stem cells,” explained Lane. “Hopefully, these cues can be incorporated into stem cell-based treatments to enhance their ability to repair injury.” While advances have been made in treating the diseases of the head, a young girl is undergoing an experimental adult stem cell treatment that, if successful, would finally allow her to overcome a rare disease of the heart called Eisenmenger syndrome. The News Tribune reports that Washington State resident Mailia Goforth, 16, has suffered from the disease since birth. The condition is caused by a structural defect in the heart, where blood flows through a hole in the heart wall. Additionally she suffers from secondary pulmonary hypertension because too much blood flows to her lungs; the blood vessels then constrict, putting even more strain on the heart. In Mailia’s case, doctors identified her condition too late for normal surgical repair or even the more drastic measure of a double lung and heart replacement. The teenager, however, is being treated in the Dominican Republic with stem cells derived from her own blood, which are injected into her lungs via a small catheter. If successful, the therapy – developed by Dr. Zannos Grekos, MD – would significantly reduce the pressure on Mailia’s heart, and enable her to breathe freely. It would also theoretically allow surgeons to repair her heart. The treatment has so far cost Mailia’s parents $64,000. Forty-seven thousand of that amount was raised by the parents, with the rest being covered by a private charity. The family, however, expects that Mailia will need a second round of stem cell treatments in addition to the surgeries, which Grekos speculated to the Tribune could enable her to play sports one day. The Tribune reports that the family has just $33 left, but they have set up a website MailiasMiracle.com http://mailiasmiracle.com/, which lets people know Mailia’s story and how they can help. http://lifesitenews.com
Egyptian Court Orders Coptic Orthodox Church To Allow Divorce and RemarriageBy Thaddeus M. Baklinski CAIRO, June 1, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Egypt's Supreme Administrative Court ruled May 29 that the Coptic Orthodox Church must allow its members to divorce and remarry. The court, headed by Justice Mohammed Husseini, based its ruling on constitutional law which holds that the "right to family formation is a constitutional right, which is above all other considerations." The ruling effectively quashed an appeal by Coptic Orthodox Pope Shenouda III against a lower court ruling that approved the request of litigant Hani Wasfi Naguib to remarry. In his judgment, Justice Husseini said that "By law, a Christian can remarry and the constitution guarantees his rights to have a (new) family. The appeal by Pope Shenouda III to prevent Copts from remarrying is rejected." The verdict of the Supreme Administrative Court is final and no further appeals are possible. Armia added that Islamic law grants the right to Copts, who make up 10% of Egypt's 78 million people, to follow their own laws free from state interference in their internal affairs. "We will take legal measures to challenge the recent court ruling that allows Copts to remarry," Armia stated, He referred to the possibility of church officials petitioning the Constitutional Court to overturn the ruling on the grounds that it violated the right of the Coptic Church to conduct its affairs according to its own constitution. Coptic MP Ibtessam Habib told the media that the Bible represents the Coptic constitution and is firm on the sanctity of marriage. "This ruling will only serve to increase the number of divorces among Copts," she cautioned. Coptic lawyer Mamdouh Ramzi said that divorce and remarriage is allowed in the Coptic tradition only in certain cases, such as where adultery is involved. But he explained that marital matters are under the sole jurisdiction of the church because civil marriage without a religious ceremony is not recognized in Egypt. Dr. Naguib Gobraeel, President of the Egyptian Union of Human Rights and legal adviser to the Coptic Church, told the Assyrian International News Agency that "the ruling is non-binding, because a license to marry lies within the core jurisdiction of the religious authority based on the Bible. There is no control or supervision on this purely religious aspect by any authority." http://lifesitenews.com
Horror in China: Aborted but Still Living Baby Sent for CremationBy Thaddeus M. Baklinski FOSHAN CITY, China, may 25, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An aborted baby boy, who had been declared dead by doctors in Foshan City, China, suddenly cried out as he was about to be cremated, but died later after doctors refused to treat him. A mortuary worker at the Nanhai Funeral Home reportedly was startled by a cry from a box, labeled "medical waste," that he was about to put into the incinerator. He opened the carton and found the baby moving, but choking on some cotton wool in his mouth, the locally based Information Times reported.After the worker cleared his mouth, the baby yawned and breathed normally. He was rushed back to Guanyao Hospital, which had attempted to abort him earlier that day; but doctors in the hospital reportedly ignored him and left him in the lobby to die. He was confirmed dead later in the day and returned to the funeral home for cremation. However, workers put the body in a refrigerator pending further investigation. Liu Sanhong, an official with the hospital, told the Shanghai Daily that staff checked the baby for an hour to make sure that he was dead. Liu declined to comment on whether doctors tried to save the baby or not. A funeral home official told Information Times that he took a video of the baby, who was about seven months gestation, to prove that he was alive when discovered at the crematory. Following this, the report said that all workers at the funeral home had been ordered not to talk about the incident. Earlier this year, outrage was sparked by the mishandling of the bodies of aborted children by the Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University. On March 31, 21 babies' bodies were found dumped in the Guangfu river in east China's Jining City. The bodies, some in diapers, some in plastic bags marked "medical waste," were found under a bridge by a man who had been fishing. Reports suggested most of the dead babies were females who had been allowed to die or were aborted and dumped because parents wanted to keep the option open for a male child within China's coercive one-child system. While human rights groups and international population experts have denounced wide scale sex-selective abortion and female infanticide in China, the state-run Xinhua news agency blamed the incident on "local custom and a lack of regulation."
Ontario Christian Ministry Wins Appeal against Human Rights Tribunal RulingBy Thaddeus M. Baklinski and Patrick Craine TORONTO, May 18, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a landmark ruling on May 14, the Ontario Divisional Court overturned an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (OHRT) decision against Christian Horizons, a faith-based ministry that operates more than 180 residential homes for people with developmental disabilities. The Evangelical Christian ministry, which requires its employees to sign a Statement of Faith and a Lifestyle and Morality Policy, was the subject of a human rights complaint when a staff member resigned after going public as a lesbian. The complainant, Connie Heintz, had freely signed the morality statement as a condition of employment in 1995, and promised not to engage in "homosexual relationships," among other un-Christian activities such as "extra-marital sexual relationships (adultery)", "pre-marital sexual relationships (fornication)," "viewing or reading pornographic material" and "lying." Heintz claimed in her human rights complaint that she was forced out of her employment after she publicly admitted to being an active lesbian. In April 2008, the OHRT ruled against the evangelical social service agency. The OHRT stated that the agency could not insist on faith requirements for moral behavior in its hiring, nor require employees to sign agreements attesting to such requirements because the organization was serving the general public, and not restricting its services to Evangelical Christians. The OHRT also imposed a fine of $23,000, to be paid to the complainant. As a result of the ruling Christian Horizons dropped its requirement that employees sign the morality statement, but appealed the tribunal ruling to the Divisional Court of the Superior Court of Ontario. Lawyers for Christian Horizons argued in court that the OHRT ruling was in error because the tribunal failed to understand the fundamental Christian mission of the social service agency, and ruled against them because they don’t restrict their services to Christians and are not involved in Christian indoctrination. The court heard submissions from Egale Canada, a homosexual "rights" organization, which acted as an intervener for Connie Heintz, as well as from several religious interveners, including the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the Canadian Council of Christian Charities. On Friday the Divisional Court ruled in favor of Christian Horizons' appeal and reversed much of the OHRT's decision. The judge wrote: "It is clear that Christian Horizons operates its group homes for religious reasons – in order to carry out a Christian mission, imitating the work of Jesus Christ by serving those in need." "It would not be doing this work of assisting people with disabilities in a Christian home environment but for the religious calling of those involved," the judge added. The court also struck down a Tribunal directive forcing Christian Horizons to review its employment in consultation with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Don Hutchinson, Vice-President and General Legal Counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, called the court's decision a "significant victory for faith-based charities across Canada." "While they must clarify certain governing documents and review certain employment policies, they may largely continue to require employee compliance with both statements of faith and lifestyle and morality policies," he said. The court's decision "means that Christian charities may continue to serve non co-religionists in society all while maintaining their internal religious ethos and integrity,” Hutchinson added. In a Monday statement published on NoApologies.ca, Christian Horizon's CEO Ed Sider explains that the organization appealed because the Tribunal decision "would have had the effect of preventing Christian Horizons from continuing to operate as a faith-based organization." He thanked Christian Horizon's supporters and affirmed their dedication to Christian ministry. "We are committed to strengthen the spiritual foundation of the ministry. We serve people with developmental disabilities in Ontario because our members, directors and employees have a Christian calling to do so," he wrote. "Your commitment to this ministry was critical to our appeal and – indeed – will sustain our work into the future." http://lifesitenews.com
Another UK Street Preacher Arrested, Charged, for Views on HomosexualityBy Hilary White WORKINGTON, UK, May 3, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Another street preacher in the U.K. has been arrested simply for proclaiming Christian teachings about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. Dale Mcalpine says he was handing out leaflets in the Cumbrian town of Workington on April 20, when he was approached by passers-by and a police community support officer (PCSO) who identified himself as a homosexual. In the course of the conversation Mcalpine, 42, told them that it is his belief that homosexuality is a sin because it is contrary to the word of God in the Bible. The Daily Mail reports that police said he had said this in a “loud voice” that could be overheard by others. Mcalpine was then arrested, charged with using abusive or insulting words or behavior contrary to the Public Order Act 1986, and left in a cell for 7 hours. He is being assisted by the Christian Institute, andsays he will be pleading ‘not guilty’ to the charges.
Mcalpine’s arrest marks the second time in just over a month that a Christian has been arrested in the U.K. for doing nothing more than preaching Christian sexual ethics. In early April LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) reported on the case of Shaw Holes, an American who was arrested in Glasgow while on a preaching tour with a group of British and American colleagues after he told a group of passersby, in response to a direct question about the issue, that homosexual behavior is sinful.
Mcalpine, who describes himself as a “born-again” Christian, told LSN that his arrest is a bad sign for British society. “Someone does not want this wonderful truth of salvation to get out and that is what is happening in my country there is a spiritual battle for souls taking place,” he said. “I felt deeply shocked and humiliated that I had been arrested in my own town and treated like a common criminal in front of people I know,” Mcalpine told the Daily Mail. “My freedom was taken away on the hearsay of someone who disliked what I said, and I was charged under a law that doesn’t apply.” He added, “If you are preaching hate and calling on people to harm others, it is right that is against the law. But I would never do that. If we have a free society, I should be allowed to preach the Gospel as generations have before me.” Mcalpine said in a statement that while he was preaching, a woman approached him and “proceeded to tell me that what we were doing was wrong and the truth has more shades of grey that what I was presenting.” He said he continued his conversation with the woman, disagreeing amicably, but that afterward, a group of PCSOs who were standing nearby spoke to her as she was leaving. One of the officers then approached Mcalpine.
“I asked if everything was ok, and then he replied, ‘We have had complaints and if you say anything racial or make homophobic comments I will have you arrested’.” “I told him that I am not homophobic but that sometimes I get up and preach that homosexuality is a sin and that is what the bible says. I also said that this is not a crime.” Mcalpine said the PCSO then identified himself as the “LGBT liaison officer” for the police: “I said it is still a sin.” The media has identified the PCSO as Sam Adams, a member of Cumbria police’s LGBT staff association who represented the force at the “Gay Pride” parade in Manchester last year. Mcalpine said that he felt the PCSOs present were deliberately attempting to find excuses to arrest him and his colleagues. At one point in the day’s preaching in Workington, he wrote, “a gentleman with a red T-shirt” shouted at him about “God’s forgiveness.” The PCSO who had identified himself as a homosexual then approached this man and spoke to him. “This confirmed my suspicion that he was trying to get some complaint against me,” Mcalpine said. When regular police officers alter arrived, Mcalpine said that one of them asked, “What have you been saying homophobic-wise?” He replied that he had explained to the PCSO that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin, but that this does not constitute “hatred” towards homosexuals. “I explained that there is no law against saying this and the policeman instantly disagreed.” Mcalpine, who has never been in trouble with the law before, was then arrested for “racially aggravated section 5 public order offence.” He was later told he was being charged with “using threatening words/behaviour to cause harassment or alarm or distress” – a class of crime that was originally intended for violent and abusive rioters and soccer hooligans. He was released on bail on the condition that he does not preach in a public place to members of the public. Mike Judge, a spokesman for the Christian Institute, said, “Dale is an ordinary, everyday Christian with traditional views about sexual ethics. Some people will agree with him, others will disagree. But it’s not for the police to arrest someone just because others may disagree with what is said.” Columnist Peter Hitchens wrote in the Mail that this incident is just one more sign of the “revolution” that has occurred in Britain. “The Public Order Act of 1986 was not meant to permit the arrest of Christian preachers in English towns for quoting from the Bible. But it has. The Civil Partnerships Act 2004 was not meant to force public servants to approve of homosexuality. But it has. The Sexual Offences Act of 1967 was not meant to lead to a state of affairs where it is increasingly dangerous to say anything critical about homosexuality. But it did.” The Mcalpine case shows that Britain has gone far down the slippery slope, said Hitchens: “Small and harmless actions, offers of prayer, the wearing of crucifixes, requests to withdraw from duties, are met with official rage and threats of dismissal, out of all proportion. How long before Christians are being blackmailed by work colleagues, for daring to speak their illegal views openly?” http://lifesitenews.com
Oklahoma Senate Overrides Governor Veto of Pro-Life LegislationBy John Jalsevac Tony Lauinger, the state chairman of Oklahomans for Life, told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview Tuesday that “We are very appreciative of the wonderful pro-life actions taken by our Senate and House these past two days.” The first of the two bills, HB2780, requires that women be given an ultrasound within an hour of their abortion, and that the sonographer must explain the results in detail. The senate overrode Gov. Henry’s veto in a 36-12 vote. Governor Henry said last week that he believes the legislation constitutes an “unconstitutional violation of privacy.” “State policymakers should never mandate that a citizen be forced to undergo any medical procedure against his or her will, especially when such a procedure could cause physical or mental trauma,” he said. However, pro-life advocates have countered that the law simply ensures that women are given all the information necessary to give their informed consent to an abortion. Recent investigations by the group Live Action have revealed that, in many cases, women are given incomplete or grossly inaccurate information about the development of their unborn child by abortion facilities. "This legislation will empower those expectant mothers by giving them as much information as possible — in advance — before they make an irrevocable, life-altering decision. "Women should have the choice to see that image, and to deny them that opportunity is baffling.” That original bill has since been split up into separate pieces of legislation. Four pieces of pro-life legislation had already been passed and signed into the law by the governor prior to today’s senate vote – HB3075, SB1891, SB1890, and SB1902. Tony Lauinger said today that legal challenges to some or all of the pieces of legislation are “probable,” but that for now his group will simply have to “wait and see.” In reference to the two bills passed by the legislature today, however, he said that he was confident that they stood well within U.S. Supreme Court precedents. http://lifesitenews.com
Tebow: I Lost Endorsement Opportunities over Pro-Life AdBy Kathleen Gilbert NASHVILLE, Tennessee, April 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Tim Tebow recently told a sold-out crowd at Lipscomb University that "multiple companies told him before the Super Bowl that they could not let him represent their products if he went ahead with his pro-life commercial at the Super Bowl," according to the Palm Beach Post.
The story of Tim and mother Pam Tebow, who was advised to abort Tim after she contracted amoebic dysentery while pregnant in the Philippines, was the center of a Focus on the Family-sponsored ad that ran during the Superbowl in February. The ad became the center of a nationwide uproar after top pro-abortion groups, without ever having seen the ad, drew massive attention to it by lobbying CBS to reject it. However, while the ad ultimately made no mention of abortion, and essentially directed viewers to the Focus on the Family website to learn the real story behind Tim's birth, its impact was still significant: a study released in February suggested that as many as 1.7 million pro-abortion viewers may have reconsidered their stance after watching the short advertisement. Despite the controversy over the ad, Palm Beach Post reporter Ben Volin notes that the former Florida Gators quarterback nonetheless enjoys ties with major brands such as EA Sports and Nike. Because he has graduated and is no longer a member of the NCAA, Tebow is free to market endorsements. The football star has indicated that, as in other aspects of his career, he will let his beliefs define his path, and will therefore stay with companies whose message he agrees with, according to the Post. "I'm very relational based," said Tebow. "So if I feel great with the people that I'm working with, if I feel that we're on the same page and that they have the same interests as me, that they're high character, that they're loyal and they believe in a positive message, then that's the type of people that I want to work with." http://lifesitenews.com
Nebraska Enacts First-Ever Abortion Ban Based on Fetal PainBy Peter J. Smith Updated: 7:16pm EST, 04/13/10 OMAHA, Nebraska, April 13, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman signed into law today another landmark bill banning abortion after 20 weeks gestation, on the basis that an unborn child feels pain at that age. Just hours before, the Nebraska legislature had passed the legislation, the first of its kind in the United States. Pro-life advocates believe it could pose a direct and historic challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that deprived the states the power to regulate or restrict abortion.The “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” (LB 1103), authored by Speaker Mike Flood, was approved Tuesday in the Unicameral on the third and final reading of the bill, by an overwhelming pro-life majority of 44 in favor and 5 against. The governor wasted no time in signing the measure into law. The law portends a fresh challenge and new look at the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, which led to the virtual legalization of abortion on demand. The Nebraska law applies a different standard – that of the unborn child’s ability to feel pain - for restricting abortion, while the high court used the standard of what they then considered to be point of fetal viability. "The Nebraska Legislature took a bold step today which should ratchet up the abortion debate across America," said Julie Schmit-Albin, Executive Director of Nebraska Right to Life in a statement. "LB 1103 creates a case of first impression for the courts to acknowledge the capability to feel pain as a compelling state interest to protect those unborn babies from an excruciatingly painful death.” The legislation bans abortions after 20 weeks of post-fertilization age except in two cases: first, when the pregnancy puts the mother in danger of death or “substantial and irreversible” physical harm to a major bodily function. The second exception allows an abortionist to perform an abortion in order to increase the probability of a live birth, or to preserve an unborn child’s life and health after a live birth. Although the topic of fetal pain is still under much discussion (and controversy, owing to its implications to the abortion debate) a growing consensus of medical knowledge has pointed to the fact that unborn infants experience pain by 20 weeks and possibly earlier. Kanwaljeet “Sunny” Anand, a pioneer in the study of fetal pain and now a professor at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, testified in 2004 on the federal partial birth abortion ban that after 20 weeks gestation, an unborn child would experience “severe and excruciating pain” from an abortion. The pain may even be more acute than it would be for older humans, as some research indicates their immature nervous systems have not developed coping mechanisms that help the body better endure pain. The law notes that unborn children have been observed to “seek to evade certain stimuli” in a manner that “would be interpreted as a response to pain.” Additionally, the bill says unborn children exhibit “hormonal stress responses to painful stimuli” that were reduced with the application of pain medication. Abortionists who break the law would face a Class IV felony charge, which carries a penalty of a five year maximum prison sentence, $10,000 fine, or both. Women who obtain abortions of their unborn children would face no criminal penalties. The bill would allow women and even the fathers of aborted unborn children to sue and seek damages from abortionists who violate the law. The law goes into operation on October 15, 2010. http://lifesitenews.com
Australian Child Experts Demand Ban on Easy-Access Soft PornBy Peter J. Smith CANBERRA, Australia, April 6, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – More than thirty experts on children have made an open call for a ban on selling soft pornography by commercial venders such as newsstands, supermarkets, and convenience stores, saying its easy accessibility is contributing to the sexualization of children, reports the Sydney Morning Herald. Thirty-four academics, child professionals and advocates sent a letter to the current committee of attorneys-general/censorship ministers, arguing that the sale of soft pornography should be banned from areas where children can be exposed to it.The group also asked the ministers and attorneys general to review how so-called men’s magazines, or “lads’ mags,” are evaluated, saying they are getting even more sexually explicit and helping to sexualize children. Julie Gale, director of the lobby group Kids Free 2B Kids, said that even though children have access to pornography over the Internet, the presence of pornography in publicly-accessible places “gives it public validation.” SMH reported that Catherine Manning of Say No 4 Kids sent a petition with 8,000 signatures to the attorneys general, also calling for tighter restrictions on the distribution of pornography and citing her concern with the effect of pornography on the psychological development of children. ''Exposure to adult sexualised material can send the wrong message to children about what's expected of them as adults. Girls think they should behave like 'porn stars' and boys expect them to,'' Manning said. http://lifesitenews.com
Important story to follow, for all who home-school!.. Founding Father's Faith German Homeschooling Family Seeks Asylum in CanadaBy Patrick B. Craine OTTAWA, Ontario, March 23, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A German homeschooling family is seeking asylum in Canada after fleeing their native country due to persecution, reports the Globe and Mail. The family will make their plea on Tuesday in a closed hearing before the Alberta Immigration and Refugee board. They say that they would be persecuted in Germany for homeschooling, based on the German law that forbids homeschooling with little exception. Parents who violate the law have faced hefty fines, as well as imprisonment and state seizure of their children. While many choose to homeschool for religious reasons, these parents, who do not wish to be identified, say rather that they wish to homeschool as a matter of conscience and for the medical well-being of their two teenage sons. The boys both suffer from various illnesses after having been born four months premature. The government had placed them in a school for the physically and mentally disabled, but the parents felt that they would not receive the best education there, so they chose to homeschool. After battles with the government, they were permitted to homeschool in 2006, supported by a state teacher. The teacher later informed the parents that she would be leaving at the end of the school year, and advised them to leave the country. Then, two days later, the police presented the family with a government letter telling them to enroll their children in school for the next year or they would be taken away. After hiding in Germany for three months, they went to Denmark, where they got in touch with the Home School Legal Defense Association, which helped bring them to Canada in April 2007. The German law forbidding homeschooling was established by the Nazis in 1938. The law has been upheld in recent years by the courts, and in 2006, the country's highest criminal court ruled that the government could seize children whose parents attempt to homeschool on the basis of conscience. The European Court of Human Rights also upheld the law in 2006. The German government's persecution of homeschoolers made headlines in January after a U.S. judge granted asylum to the Romeikes, a family who had fled to the U.S. in August 2008. “The rights being violated here are basic human rights that no country has a right to violate,” wrote Immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman. “Homeschoolers are a particular social group that the German government is trying to suppress. This family has a well-founded fear of persecution…therefore, they are eligible for asylum…and the court will grant asylum.” Canadian Member of Parliament Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, CPC) has decried the German law, and called on the Alberta board to protect the rights of this family. “Canada has a strong legacy of parental rights and home schooling has been an accepted expression of these rights in Canada,” he said. “I commend these valiant parents for the commitment and devotion they have to the best interests of their children. I hope the Immigration and Refugee Board in Alberta gives a favourable hearing to this case.” The mother told the Globe and Mail that her boys are thriving in Alberta. "For us, it's a gift, a real gift to be able to homeschool our children," she said.
Hijacking the BrainHow Pornography Works Commentary by Albert Mohler February 2, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - We are fast becoming the pornographic society. Over the course of the last decade, explicitly sexual images have crept into advertising, marketing, and virtually every niche of American life. This ambient pornography is now almost everywhere, from the local shopping mall to prime-time television. By some estimations, the production and sale of explicit pornography now represents the seventh-largest industry in America. New videos and internet pages are produced each week, with the digital revolution bringing a host of new delivery systems. Every new digital platform becomes a marketing opportunity for the pornography industry. To no one's surprise, the vast majority of those who consume pornography are males. It is no trade secret that males are highly stimulated by visual images, whether still or video. That is not a new development, as ancient forms of pornography attest. What is new is all about access. Today's men and boys are not looking at line pictures drawn on cave walls. They have almost instant access to countless forms of pornography in a myriad of forms. But, even as technology has brought new avenues for the transmission of pornography, modern knowledge also brings a new understanding of how pornography works in the male brain. While this research does nothing to reduce the moral culpability of males who consume pornography, it does help to explain how the habit becomes so addictive. As William M. Struthers of Wheaton College explains, "Men seem to be wired in such a way that pornography hijacks the proper functioning of their brains and has a long-lasting effect on their thoughts and lives." Struthers is a psychologist with a background in neuroscience and a teaching concentration in the biological bases of human behavior. In Wired for Intimacy: How Pornography Hijacks the Male Brain, Struthers presents key insights from neuroscience that go a long way toward explaining why pornography is such a temptation for the male mind. "The simplest explanation for why men view pornography (or solicit prostitutes) is that they are driven to seek out sexual intimacy," he explains. The urge for sexual intimacy is God-given and essential to the male, he acknowledges, but it is easily misdirected. Men are tempted to seek "a shortcut to sexual pleasure via pornography" and now find this shortcut easily accessed. In a fallen world, pornography becomes more than a distraction and a distortion of God's intention for human sexuality. It comes as an addictive poison. Struthers explains: Viewing pornography is not an emotionally or physiologically neutral experience. It is fundamentally different from looking at black and white photos of the Lincoln Memorial or taking in a color map of the provinces of Canada. Men are reflexively drawn to the content of pornographic material. As such, pornography has wide-reaching effects to energize a man toward intimacy. It is not a neutral stimulus. It draws us in. Porn is vicarious and voyeuristic at its core, but it is also something more. Porn is a whispered promise. It promises more sex, better sex, endless sex, sex on demand, more intense orgasms, experiences of transcendence. Pornography "acts as a polydrug," Struthers explains. As Dr. Patrick Carnes asserts, pornography is "a pathological relationship with a mood-altering experience." Boredom and curiosity lead many boys and men into experiences that become more like drug addiction than is often admitted. Why men rather than women? As Struthers explains, the male and female brains are wired differently. "A man's brain is a sexual mosaic influenced by hormone levels in the womb and in puberty and molded by his psychological experience." Over time, exposure to pornography takes a man or boy deeper along "a one-way neurological superhighway where a man's mental life is over-sexualized and narrowed. This superhighway has countless on-ramps but very few off-ramps." Pornography is "visually magnetic" to the male brain. Struthers presents a fascinating review of the neurobiology involved, with pleasure hormones becoming linked to and released by the experience of a male viewing pornographic images. These experiences with pornography and pleasure hormones create new patterns in the brain's wiring, and repeated experiences formalize the rewiring. And then, enough is never enough. "If I take the same dose of a drug over and over and my body begins to tolerate it, I will need to take a higher dose of the drug in order for it to have the same effect that it did with a lower dose the first time," Struthers reminds us. So, the experience of viewing pornography and acting out on it creates a demand in the brain for more and more, just to achieve the same level of pleasure in the brain. While men are stimulated by the ambient sexual images around them, explicit pornography increases the effect. Struthers compares this to the difference between traditional television and the new high definition technologies. Everything is more clear, more explicit, and more stimulating. Struthers explains this with compelling force: Something about pornography pulls and pushes at the male soul. The pull is easy to identify. The naked female form can be hypnotizing. A woman's willingness to participate in a sexual act or expose her nakedness is alluring to men. The awareness of one's own sexuality, the longing to know, to experience something as good wells up from deep within. An image begins to pick up steam the longer we look upon it. It gains momentum and can reach a point where it feels like a tractor-trailer rolling downhill with no brakes. Wired for Intimacy is a timely and important book. Struthers offers keen and strategic insights from neurobiology and psychology. But what makes this book truly helpful is the fact that Struthers does not leave his argument to neuroscience, nor does he use the category of addiction to mitigate the sinfulness of viewing pornography. Sinners naturally look for fig leaves to hide sin, and biological causation is often cited as a means of avoiding moral responsibility. Struthers does not allow this, and his view of pornography is both biblical and theologically grounded. He lays responsibility for the sin of viewing pornography at the feet of those who willingly consume explicit images. He knows his audience -- after all, his classrooms are filled with young male college students. The addict is responsible for his addiction. At the same time, any understanding of how sin works its deceitful evil is a help to us, and understanding how pornography works in the male mind is a powerful knowledge. Pornography is a sin that robs God of his glory in the gift of sex and sexuality. We have long known that sin takes hostages. We now know another dimension of how this sin hijacks the male brain. Knowledge, as they say, is power. http://lifesitenews.com
Tim Tebow Defends Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad under FireBy Peter J. Smith MOBILE, Alabama, January 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – College football superstar Tim Tebow is standing fast behind a pro-life ad developed by Focus on the Family and set to air on CBS on Super Bowl Sunday. Although the ad has not been released, abortion advocacy groups are already demanding that it be scrapped, since it likely features the story of how Tebow’s mother chose life when doctors were urging her abort her now-famous son. The college football superstar, who just ended his last season quarterbacking for the Florida Gators, has been an anomaly among top-tier athletes. Tebow makes no bones about his Christian faith, his pro-life convictions, and the fact that he wants to save himself for marriage.
At a Sunday press conference in Mobile, Tebow told the gaggle of reporters: "I know some people won't agree with [the ad], but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe, and I'm never shy about that." "I don't feel like I'm very preachy about it, but I do stand up for what I believe. Unfortunately in today's society not many athletes tend to do that. So I'm just standing for something." But Tebow’s standing for pro-life values has outraged abortion advocacy groups, who fear the effect the Focus on the Family ad could have on millions of Super Bowl viewers on Feb. 7. Tebow’s story is already credited with having influenced a number of women to choose not to abort their babies. The Women’s Media Center has been coordinating efforts with the National Organization for Women and the Feminist Majority to pressure CBS, the broadcasting station hosting the Super Bowl this year, to revoke the 30-second ad called “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.” "An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year -- an event designed to bring Americans together," Jehmu Greene, president of the Women's Media Center, told the Associated Press. Last year, the National Football League and NBC (then broadcasting the Super Bowl) elected to nix an advertisement sponsored by the Catholic watchdog group Fidelis, which hailed the success of President Obama overcoming the difficult circumstances of his early life and featured the message "Life: Imagine the Potential." However one pro-life group says that feminist groups’ obsession with the as-yet-unseen content of the Tebow ad highlights an abysmal ideological attitude when it comes to defending women’s rights and dignity. “In the three and a half years that I advised FCC Chairman Kevin Martin on indecency issues, I can’t recall one time that NOW ever spoke out about the sexually graphic or misogynistic content on CBS,” Penny Nance, CEO for Concerned Women for America told LifeSiteNews.com. “I find it laughable that NOW has a problem with Tim Tebow sharing his own story. If NOW really cared about women they would stop flacking for the abortion industry and start working on behalf of women.” Focus on the Family has dismissed the controversy over the upcoming ad. "There’s nothing political and controversial about it,” said Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Focus on the Family. “When the day arrives, and you sit down to watch the game on TV, those who oppose it will be quite surprised at what the ad is all about." With the Super Bowl set to kick off in about two weeks, CBS, which has already reviewed and approved the ad’s script, has given no indication of yanking the Tebow ad.
Baby Isaiah’s Case Part of a National Trend Say Advocates for the DisabledBy Patrick B. Craine EDMONTON, Alberta, January 20, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – While Isaac and Rebecka May, the Canadian couple who are fighting for their new-born baby’s life, are awaiting a January 27th judgment on their petition for a 90-day injunction against their hospital's order to remove their baby Isaiah's ventilator, some advocates for the disabled are saying that what the May’s are experiencing is shockingly common in Canada. According to Sam Sansalone, father of Katya Sansalone, who was born 8 years ago with full trisomy 13, in Canada “profoundly disabled kids are routinely – and intentionally – not treated with life-saving intervention.” Sansalone serves as co-chair of the Advisory Committee of Family to Family Connections at the Alberta Children’s Hospital, a family-centered care initiative recently launched in Southern Alberta. He said that “the dynamic that we had to fight became very quickly and firmly entrenched as soon as we had a genetic diagnosis.” “The clear mandate, at least at that time, was that you don't save these disabled children's lives,” he continued. “You allow them to die – even though the needed interventions are exactly the same as would routinely and unquestionably be given to quote-unquote normal children.” Katya Sansalone was born with a cardiac condition that is associated with her chromosomal defect. The Sansalones fought hard with their hospital, the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, to have them perform the cardiac surgery that Katya needed. The hospital initially refused to do the surgery, he said, but “they didn't make it look that way.” “Initially they said we had a choice, and then they proceeded with trying to influence that choice by giving us false information about the range of outcomes,” he continued. Sansalone attributed their success in part to the fact that his wife is a doctor, which helped the family to research Katya's condition. This research allowed them to be “not so easily fooled by this kind of misinformation.” Sansalone said the hospital “actually tried to hide medical literature from me.” He saw that on one occasion the neonatologist had a key study on a clipboard that actually dispelled myths about Katya's condition that the hospital had perpetuated, but the doctor held the study out as though it supported their position. “When I tried to read it, the neonatologist doctor actually pulled it away from my view,” he said. Sansalone believes their experience might have some parallels to what the Mays are now going through with the Stollery Children's Hospital. “I hear that they were being denied ... regular access to the patient chart – reading it and seeing the imaging.” “That is completely illegal, and it is entirely in the parents' right to have as much access as they need to become informed,” he said. “When you have that parental scrutiny of the chart, [the hospital staff's] behaviour, because it will be more scrutinized, will be in better form. ... Terrible things are done behind parents' backs.” Sansalone pointed out the case of baby Annie Farlow, who also had trisomy 13, but died five years ago at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. In an September-October 2009 article for the prestigious Hastings Center Report, Annie's mother Barbara told the story of how she and her husband were misinformed and deceived by doctors who she says were not interested in giving Annie the care she needed to survive. Annie was born especially healthy for her condition, but on her 80th day she suffered a respiratory crash. Based on the advice of their pediatrician and hospital staff, the Farlows agreed to not have Annie intubated, and she died shortly thereafter. Barbara writes about how she was suspicious about certain irregularities in the events leading up to Annie's death. “Although I felt guilty, ashamed, and ungrateful to be so suspicious, I ordered Annie’s medical records to look at the events of her last hours,” she says. “I was shocked by what we found.” The intensive care specialist, she discovered, had ordered that Annie not be resuscitated hours before they had consented. Further, they had not been informed that even from the fifth day of her life, there were signs that Annie's condition was deteriorating. Additionally, a pulmonologist had ordered tests for a dangerous condition, which were cancelled. “To this day, it is unclear to us whether our daughter’s death was preventable or inevitable,” she wrote. “In either case, Annie had suffered terribly and unnecessarily as she slowly asphyxiated to death. The lack of transparency in the treatment plan ensured that she received neither appropriate lifesaving care nor effective palliation.” CTV Edmonton reported yesterday on another similar case to Baby Isaiah's, in which the parents were only successful in saving their baby after a fight with medical staff. Turner Kersey was born three years ago, 14 weeks prematurely, with severe brain damage due to a lack of oxygen during birth. Doctors told his family that he would be vegetative for the rest of his life, and pressured them to take him off life support. "It was a large fight on our part in order to have our voices heard," said Brandy Kersey, Turner's mother. They said "that we should take him off life support ... that we should let life take its course.” The Kerseys were successful in obtaining the necessary surgery for Turner, and now, says Brandy, "He's doing everything they said he wouldn't. He walks, he talks, he dances, he sings, he counts to 20." Dr. Paul Byrne, a neonatologist with nearly fifty years of experience, who has been advising Isaac and Rebecka, told LifeSiteNews yesterday how Stollery Children's Hospital has refused to give baby Isaiah appropriate and standard care. Besides putting Isaiah on a ventilator, he said the doctors have not conducted blood tests or blood counts, and that the hospital has refused to do a tracheotomy, which would be standard in Isaiah's case, despite Isaac and Rebecka's pleading. “I have a hard time believing how all of this is going on, but on the other hand, I don't have [a] hard time ... in the sense that these things are going on much more commonly than anybody ever realizes,” he said. Mark Pickup, an advocate for disability issues who has been involved in the Mays' case, urged the hospital to respect the parents' desire to preserve Isaiah's life. “We must always make decisions that default toward life,” he said. “The parents are not in favour of the hospital's actions here, and I would urge the hospital to not make that decision to remove the respirator. Allow other physicians to take a look at this case. There may be a way out that's life-affirming, not life-denying.” http://lifesitenews.com
New Hampshire House Strikes Down Assisted Suicide BillBy Kathleen Gilbert CONCORD, New Hampshire, January 14, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The New Hampshire House of Representatives on Wednesday rejected a bill that would have legalized assisted suicide. Lawmakers voted 242-113 to kill the measure. In November, the House Judiciary Committee had recommended against passing the bill by a wide margin, 14-3.HB 304, introduced by Representative Charles Weed, would have allowed a "mentally competent person who is 18 years of age or older" who was deemed terminally ill to request a fatal drug through a written request. "It's not the function of government to encourage suicide in the young or the old," said Committee Republican Rep. Nancy Elliott in November. "It's a prescription for elder abuse." Local reports say that some members voted against the bill out of principled opposition to assisted suicide, while others said the measure's language was flawed. When a similar bill was introduced in 2006, the committee endorsed the legislation 15-5, but that bill later failed. The state currently has a law that explicitly prohibits assisted suicide. Anti-euthanasia advocates hailed the demise of a bill that they say would have paved the way to abuse of vulnerable seniors and disabled persons. "This vote proves that assisted suicide is a recipe for elder abuse and choice is a lie," remarked Alex Schadenburg, chairman of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
Heroic Mom Who Died of Cancer after Giving Birth "Cherished Motherhood"By Thaddeus M. Baklinski PARSIPPANY, New York, January 6, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The obituary for Cathie Doroshenko, who died in her home on Sunday December 17, 2006, 3 ½ years after giving birth to her daughter Victoria Faith, said she "cherished motherhood" - a statement that was proved in a striking way by the unusual way she brought her daughter into the world. While Cathie died over three years ago, her story has been given fresh life by photojournalist Bob Karp, who documented Cathie's pregnancy, illness, childbirth, and death, and in the process became a close friend of Cathie and her family. This past Dec. 30, Karp reminisced about his experiences with Doroshenko on his blog at the Daily Record, recounting the story that he said "would become the most influential assignment of my 25 year career in photojournalism."
In 2003, when Cathie was 11 weeks pregnant after years of trying to conceive, she was diagnosed with Stage III lung cancer. After being advised by doctors at the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York that it would be in her "best interest to abort her fetus" before beginning treatment for cancer, she told her husband Peter that she was not going to give up on herself or her child because of the cancer. "I want to think about living not about dying," Cathie told Peter. Karp relates how Cathie's father, Mike Beresky, told him about his and his daughter's reaction on the day of Cathie's diagnosis. "My wife and I were in the hospital when doctors gave Cathie the diagnosis," he said. "Cathie said 'I don't want to lose my baby.' I said 'I don't want to lose my baby.' It was mentioned that a victory was needed. I said we need a lot of faith. 'Victoria Faith' was named." Karp reports that at the time only 15 cases of lung cancer during pregnancy were on record, and that there was no known case in which a woman gave birth after receiving the radiation treatment necessary to combat such cancer. A story in the Daily Record at the time said that, "Cathie Doroshenko was prepared to make medical history to have her baby." According to Peter Doroshenko, a shield for Cathie's abdomen was created to protect the baby while she received radiation treatments and used chemotherapy drugs meant for treating breast cancer. Victoria Faith was born on May 9, 2003, weighing 5 pounds 5 ounces, and in perfect health. Karp said that though he knew Cathie would eventually die of cancer he was not prepared for the phone call saying she had passed away. "Everything possible that cancer threw at her, Cathie always found a way to fight back," Karp said, and added that Cathie's sister Marybeth Doyle summed up Cathie's determination and selfless love for her daughter best. Doyle said: "She was very strong and determined through this whole ordeal, rarely asking anyone for help. She was focused on living her life, believing that if she let her guard down, the disease would win." "Cathie became an inspiration to everyone who knew her and many she had never met," Bob Karp observed. "Cathie once said, 'Maybe someday there will be a little statistic here or there from what happened to me that will help someone else.'" "Cathie Doroshenko was a woman whose only wish was to carry her child to term. Against all odds and the wishes of a few New York oncologists, she was given the gift of motherhood for three glorious years, time which she gave back a lifetime of love to her beloved daughter." Victoria Faith is now six-and-a-half, weighs 48 pounds and stands 3-foot-11 high. Her father Peter says that his daughter only knows in a vague way that her birth was in any way unusual. However, he keeps newspaper clippings about the "miracle baby," which he intends to show her one day. Bob Karp concludes his photo-essay with the words, "Victoria Faith is the legacy of her mother's courage." See Bob Karp's photo-essay of Cathie Doroshenko's motherhood here. Global Warming Science? Nope, Global Warming Scam.How do you create a Global Warming panic when the weather isn’t cooperating? Here are a few tricks of the trade.by Steven W. Mosher December 18, 2009 (pop.org) - How do you create a Global Warming panic when the weather isn’t cooperating? Here are a few tricks of the trade that thescammers are using to explain away the recent cooling trend, as revealed by the hacked e-mails of the world’s leading advocates of man-made Global Warming. As you read these disturbing e-mails, bear in mind that Obama administration Trick No. 1: You Destroy Conflicting Data: Phil Jones, who directs the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, was emphatic in his 21 February 2005 e-mail to American Mike “Hockey Stick” Mann and two others: “I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!” Here Jones appears to violate a basic rule of scientific research, namely, that you make your raw data available on request so that others can verify--or disprove--your hypothesis. Why would the CRU director not be happy to turn over his evidence of climate change, unless . . . his original temperature data didn’t show any convincing rise in temperature at all and it had been conveniently “lost” in consequence? And it is not his temperature data anyway. The whole CRU was in fact set up in the early 1980s (with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy!) to produce the world's first comprehensive record of surface temperature. Phil Jones and Tom Wigley were sent data gathered over the course of decades by thousands of temperature recording stations located in dozens of countries. This “Jones and Wigley" record, as it is called, served until 2007 as the primary reference standard for the UN climate panel. After years of stonewalling, Jones now admits that he “merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones. . . . Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.” (See Phil Jones to Graham F Haughton, 27 October 2009) Did the raw temperature data contain an inconvenient truth? Can anyone spell c-o-v-e-r u-p? Mike Mann is the author of the now famous “hockey stick” graph, which asserts that global temperatures remaining virtually fixed for centuries, then shot up in the last few decades. The “hockey stick” was Exhibit Number One in the UN’s 2001 climate report, which went on to claim that this dramatic increase in temperature was the result of human activity. (See Graph 1) The graph was questioned even by the Global Warmers themselves, one of whom wrote that “Mann is an outlier though not egregiously so.” (Curt Covey to Christopher Monckton, 5 February 2007). The story is too complicated to tell in detail (the whole sordid tale can be found here,) but it involves another famous “hockey stick” graph, this one based on tree rings from Yamal, Russia. This was crafted by another CRU Global Warmer, Keith Briffa. It went on to be used in a dozen other temperature reconstructions, all of which the UN climate panel said validated Mann’s original graph. But Briffa, like Mann and his own boss, Phil Jones, for ten years refused to release the data on which he based his graph. Phil Jones later claimed in an e-mail to Graham F. Haughton on 27 October 2009 that “The claims of [Steve McIntyre] are exaggerated.” Left unanswered is the question of why his Institute seems to specialize in cherry-picking data to bolster the case for “Global Warming,” while keeping the original data--which weakens the case--under wraps? The warming trend of the early Twentieth Century, which ran from 1910 to 1940, is a major embarrassment for the Global Warmers. They can’t simply ignore this “bend” in the hockey stick, because it is too well-known and too well-documented. But neither can they blame it on people and their infernal combustion engines, since atmospheric CO2 scarcely increased over this time period. Instead, they go to great lengths to try and “adjust it away,” as Tom Wigley explains to Phil Jones:
In case you didn’t get all that, let me translate what Wigley is saying into plain English:
Why the blip, indeed. By the way, the Climategate deniers who dissed the e-mails as “ten years old” should note that the date on this one is 27 September 2009. Trick No. 4: You Cherry Pick the Model to “Prove” Global Warming is Real. This 14 October 2009 e-mail from insider Tom Wigley to Mike “Hockey Stick” Mann speaks for itself: “The figure you sent [from Gavin Schmidt] is very deceptive. As an example, historical runs with PCM (Parallel Climate Model) look as thought they match observations--but the match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low climate sensitivity--compensating errors. In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by [the UN climate panel].” The response, from Schmidt himself, makes it clear that he was working backward from the recent cooling trend to salvage the Global Warming models. “The kinds of things we are hearing, “no model showed a cooling”, the “data is outside the range of the models,” need to be addressed directly,” Schmidt explained. His “very deceptive” figure was an effort to make the real world data showing static or cooling temperatures appear not to contradict the model predicting Global Warming. You get the idea. You won’t hear them talk like this in public, of course, where they close ranks in defense of their increasingly discredited theory. Trick No. 5: You Spend a Lot of time Promoting Your Views with the Media--and Publicly Attacking Your Skeptics. When the BBC finally--after a decade of no global warming--began to tentatively question whether temperatures were rising after all, the Global Warmers circulated frantic e-mails entitled the “BBC U-turn on climate.” The reaction of Mike “Hockey Stick” Mann was to go after the reporter:
Trick No. 6: “The Science is Settled. The Science is Settled.” Realizing that their models are open to question, the Global Warmers have tried frantically to shut off debate by chanting in unison: “The science is settled. The science is settled.” Critics are mocked and derided. When one scientist suggested that skeptics like Fred Singer and Lord Christopher Monckton be taken seriously, “Hockey Stick” Mann exploded: “I can’t believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans.” What set him off was Lord Monckton’s comment, forwarded in an e-mail, that the UN climate reports were unreliable:
In plain English, this means the graph was rubbish. It is difficult to have confidence in a body which, after its principal conclusion is demonstrated in the peer-reviewed, scientific literature and in numerous independent reports as having been useless, fails to make the appropriate withdrawal and apology. Worse, the UN continues to use the defective graph. This failure of basic academic honesty on the IPCC's part was the main reason why I began my investigation of the supposed climate-change "consensus". Contrary to what you may have heard, the science of “man-made Global Warming” was never settled. Now that these e-mails have exposed the duplicity of that theory’s chief backers, perhaps we can begin trying to understand what, if anything, is really happening with the earth’s climate. For, as Kevin Trenberth admitted to Mike “Hockey Stick” Mann on 14 October 2009: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” The e-mails do prove one thing, however. They make abundantly clear that much of what was presented as objective “scientific research” by the Global Warmers was nothing more than cleverly disguised advocacy for the radical environmentalist, radical anti-people belief that man is slowly destroying his planet. At the end of the day, it may turn out that the only thing “man-made” about Global Warming is the hysteria and hot air that has been generated by theory’s heated backers. That is certainly anthropogenic. Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute. Dutch MP: Homosexual Sexual Education Should be MandatoryBy James Tillman AMSTERDAM, December 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to Dutch member of parliament Boris van der Ham, of the liberal Democrats 66 party, the government should mandate that all schools, including religious schools, include homosexuality as a topic in their sexual education classes. "Too many children are raised with a homophobic morality," said Van der Ham. "Although this is more common in urban immigrant families, rural Dutch families also have such prejudices. Schools should correct that image." The MP's statement was timed to coincide with a Thursday debate upon that subject. Six pro-homosexual organizations have sent a joint letter to the Dutch parliament asking for the inclusion of homosexuality as a mandatory topic. In Amsterdam 82 percent of schools have been found to be silent on the subject of homosexuality in sexual education, according to Radio Netherlands Worldwide. Van der Ham denies that his proposal would violate freedom of religious education as governed by Article 23 of the Dutch constitution. "The schools are free in the form of their lessons," he said, "but the core goals must be met." Boris van der Ham has previously protested against the Polish government's attitude towards homosexuals, stressing Poland's duty to follow European Union rules. He has also supported the amendment of the Dutch constitution to include homosexuals among groups against which discrimination is explicitly forbidden. The Netherlands already has some of the most pro-homosexual and anti-life policies of any country in the world. It was the first country to legalize homosexual "marriage" and to allow homosexual partners to adopt children and has spent millions of Euros to promote homosexuality as normal. The Dutch government also subsidizes abortion and permits Dutch doctors to kill the sick, elderly, and handicapped infants.
Researcher to Dutch Government: Allow Euthanasia for Newborns Based on Foreseeable SufferingBy Patrick B. Craine Hilde Buiting, maintains that such an amendment would only conform the law to the current practice among physicians. The Protocol allows doctors to kill newborns who fit into three separate categories: those who are so ill that they are likely to die very soon; those who could survive after "intensive treatment," but "expectations regarding their future condition are very grim," and; those who can survive without any additional medical treatment whatsoever, but are deemed to be experiencing suffering and "for whom a very poor quality of life, associated with sustained suffering, is predicted." The Dutch government has established a committee to oversee newborn euthanasia, but they have received very few reports of the practice thus far. The Protocol is "a eugenic policy," he insisted, "because we're determining at the newborn stage that these children will have a wretched life, so let's end their lives." "In reality we have little actual knowledge of what is the actual situation for that child," he said. While the Netherlands say they are motivated by compassion, according to Schadenberg, "they've become a cold and harsh society that eliminates those people who are most in need of care." The situation in the Netherlands "should be saying to Canadian society that we need to be going the opposite direction and actually provide care," said Schadenberg, referring to Canada's current debate over euthanasia and assisted suicide. "We actually have to care for people, not kill them."
Massachusetts Episcopal Bishop Approves Solemnizing Same-Sex "Marriages"By Peter J. Smith BOSTON, December 1, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Episcopal priests in the eastern part of Massachusetts, the birthplace of same-sex "marriage" in the United States, now have permission to "solemnize" the marriages of "all eligible couples," including those entering same-sex unions, according to a new pastoral directive from the local Episcopal bishop. Bishop M. Thomas Shaw III, consecrated the 15th bishop of Massachusetts in 1995, released a letter to all priests and parishes in the diocese on Sunday, informing them of the decision. Shaw, who is also a member of the religious order Society of St. John the Evangelist, defended his decision, citing a July resolution from the Episcopal Church's General Convention that recommended: "bishops, particularly in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage is legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this church."
In this vein, Shaw indicated that both heterosexual and homosexual "marriages" are "characterized, just as our church expects, by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, and the holy love which enables spouses to see in one another the image of God." Shaw made no mention in his letter of "procreation" as an essential component of Christian marriage, geared toward the rearing and education of children. Instead Shaw emphasized marriage as primarily an institution of mutual fidelity and commitment without its traditional reference as a good ordered to the begetting and raising children. "It's time for us to offer to gay and lesbian people the same sacrament of fidelity that we offer to the heterosexual world," Shaw explained to the Boston Globe on Sunday. Shaw informed diocesan priests that while the canons of the Episcopal Church allow them to solemnize weddings - in Massachusetts this includes witnessing the declaration of consent, declaring the marriage to the congregation, and signing the marriage certificate - no priests were required to perform same-sex services and could freely decline them. The bishop also stated that the marriage liturgy in the Book of Common Prayer still remains gender-specific and priests were prohibited from using its texts for "marrying" same-sex couples. Instead, Shaw recommended priests "seek out liturgical resources being developed and collected around the church." Bishop Shaw's decision affects only the eastern part of Massachusetts. The diocese of Western Massachusetts, based in Springfield, is under the separate jurisdiction of Bishop Gordon Paul Scruton, who has so far honored the request from Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, the leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, not to further aggravate the seriously fractured nature of the Anglican Communion. In contrast to Shaw, Bishop Scruton told members of his diocese after the 76th General Convention in July that, "Since our church's Constitution and Prayer Book stipulate that marriage is between a man and a woman, and since the Anglican Communion has requested us to exercise restraint in moving forward with Blessings, we will continue our practice of not allowing Blessings in this diocese." http://lifesitenews.com
New U.K. Bill Requires Homeschooled Children be Registered with AuthoritiesBy Hilary White LONDON, November 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The British government announced last week their acceptance of the Badman Review of home education and introduced the new Children, Schools and Families Bill that will require home educated children to be registered with the local authorities. Undertaken by Graham Badman, the former Director of Children's Services at Kent County Council, the review of home education has been denounced by homeschoolers as a "stitch-up" and a "statist" piece of government propaganda. Annette Taberner of the homeschool support organisation Education Otherwise, who met twice with Graham Badman during the course of the review, said, "In a rapidly changing world, government could learn much from the good practice of home educators - instead it has decided to bring forward legislation that will stamp it out." Homeschooling families were furious at the review's results and say the new bill will mean the effective end of the rights of the family in education. The bill will follow recommendations that homeschooling families be subjected to spot-checks by local authorities, and that authorities can interview homeschooled children without the presence of their parents. Taberner said, "To suggest parents can continue to home educate but then give powers to local authorities to enter our homes and interview our children without an adult being present is just extraordinary. This is nothing short of an attempt to regulate the private lives of people. "It is a very bad day for civil liberties in this country." Taberner's group, along with numerous individual homeschooling families, has charged Badman with an anti-family bias and have cited poor research methods and the scarcity of evidence of the need for the changes as the basis for their complaints. At least one MP has called the new measures the preliminary to a government clampdown on homeschoolers that will be an "infringement of civil liberties." Mark Field, Conservative MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, called for a debate on the issue. Field said that despite government assurances that it had no plans to change parents' legal right to educate their children at home, his homeschooling constituents had warned that the government's "hype should not be believed." In its announcement of the impending review in January, the government used language that linked homeschooling with child abuse. Children's minister, Baroness Delyth Morgan, said it was necessary to investigate "claims that home education could be used as a 'cover' for child abuse such as neglect, forced marriage, sexual exploitation or domestic servitude." Mark Field told the House of Commons, "Government are manipulating current anxiety about child abuse to intrude further into home education when they have little legal right to do so." Any action the government takes from the Badman review, Field warned, "could affect the balance of power between civil liberties and state intervention, whether one is innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent." The government admitted, however, that it had no evidence for homeschooling being associated with abuse, merely unspecified "allegations." But the mere suggestion was enough to rile up homeschooling parents, one of whom wrote that, "Home educating parents should be entitled to the same assumption of innocence and competence that parents of schooled children enjoy until there is evidence to the contrary." The government also said it would investigate "whether local authorities and other public agencies are able to effectively discharge their duties and responsibilities for safeguarding and ensuring a suitable education for all children." However, the law in Britain specifically says that education of children is primarily in the hands of parents, not the state. Experts estimate that as many as 50,000 British youngsters are educated at home. Many parents have made the choice to homeschool due to increasing reports of the continued disintegration of the state-controlled school system. Parents often list bullying and the inadequacies of the state curriculum as reasons to keep their children out of schools.
Commentary: The Significance of that Case of the Man Trapped in a "Coma" for 23 YearsBioethicists attempting to define people in supposed PVS as "brain dead" and source of organsBy Alex Schadenberg, Chairman, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition November 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Many people will have read the story of Rom Houben, the Belgium man who was diagnosed as being in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) for 23 years, but who in fact had a condition known as Locked-in Syndrome. A person in locked-in syndrome is fully aware of all of their surroundings and they hear and remember the conversations that take place around them, but due to their cognitive disability they are unable to respond.
Dr. Steven Laureys, the prominent neurologist from Belgium diagnosed Houben as being in a locked-in syndrome rather than PVS based on a brain scan that indicated that Houben's brain was functioning at near to normal response. Dr. Laureys has released a new study concerning PVS stating: "Anyone who bears the stamp of 'unconscious' just one time hardly ever gets rid of it again." He also stated that: "There may be many similar cases of false comas around the world," and "patients classed in a vegetative state are often misdiagnosed." The concern about misdiagnosing PVS is not new. Professor Keith Andrews in the UK stated several years ago in his study that 43% of people diagnosed as PVS are misdiagnosed. This is a significant concern in the UK ever since the 1993 court decision that determined that Tony Bland could be dehydrated to death, even though he was not otherwise dying. Since that decision, many people in the UK, who were not otherwise dying, have died by dehydration because it had been determined that they were in PVS. For instance, Terri Schiavo was dehydrated to death in 2005 based on her diagnosis of PVS and the insistence by her husband that she did not want to live in this manner. In March 2004, I had the opportunity to be at a presentation in Rome by Dr. Laureys concerning people in a vegetative state. At that presentation Dr. Laureys showed us brain scans of people in PVS and compared them to people who were healthy. By analyzing the brain scans he was able to show us the injured parts of the brain of the PVS patients. He then compared the brain scans of people in PVS to healthy people who were sleeping. There were incredible similarities between the scans of the healthy people who were sleeping to the people who were PVS. He concluded that other than the identifiable injured areas of the brain, medical experts know less about PVS than they would like to admit. At the same Congress I heard a presentation by an Italian physician who operated an "Awakening Centre." Awakening centers are places that focus on recovery for people who are in a coma state. This physician explained how the use of stimulation techniques have resulted in incredible successes at regaining consciousness for their patients. At a similar Congress in Rome in 2007 I listened to a Polish physician explain about his incredible success at awakening his patients who are in a coma state. How many awakening centers exist in the world? How many in North America? As executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition I have received many phone calls from friends or family members of people who are in coma. My experience is that medical professionals are too quick to give up on people who are in a coma or cognitively disabled. Family members are often pressured into withdrawing medical treatment or pressured into removing food and fluids from the person in coma, even before they were given a reasonable opportunity for recovery. Medical professionals need to be far more careful before diagnosing a patient as PVS. If society rejects Hippocratic medicine and accepts euthanasia, the time would come where people in PVS would be treated as non-persons, euthanized out of a concept of false compassion or used as an organ donor based on utilitarian ethics. Since approximately 40% of PVS cases are misdiagnosed, and since the PVS diagnosis is often treated like a death sentence, therefore society needs to reject the current paradigm by once again treating people in coma states as human beings deserving of care. We must reject the dehumanizing of the PVS patient and develop new techniques to offer them new opportunities for recovery. The Senate votes on Abortion in Health-care bill. Read it for yourself…
Study what they (those that are pro-abortion) don't want you to know about the Health-care legislation, being debated in the Senate! Page 116, O:\BAI\BAI09M01.xml [file 1 of 9] S.L.C.
SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES. 15 (a) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO COVERAGE OF 16 ABORTION SERVICES.— 17 (1) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE OF 18 ABORTION SERVICES.— 19 (A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any 20 other provision of this title (or any amendment 21 made by this title), and subject to 22 subparagraphs (C) and (D)— 23 (i) nothing in this title (or any 24 amendment made by this title), shall be 25 construed to require a qualified health plan
Page 117, O:\BAI\BAI09M01.xml [file 1 of 9] S.L.C.
1 to provide coverage of services described in 2 subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of 3 its essential health benefits for any plan 4 year; and 5 (ii) the issuer of a qualified health 6 plan shall determine whether or not the 7 plan provides coverage of services described 8 in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part 9 of such benefits for the plan year. 10 (B) ABORTION SERVICES.— 11 (i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC 12 FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.—The services 13 described in this clause are abortions for 14 which the expenditure of Federal funds 15 appropriated for the Department of Health 16 and Human Services is not permitted, 17 based on the law as in effect as of the date 18 that is 6 months before the beginning of 19 the plan year involved. 20 (ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC 21 FUNDING IS ALLOWED.—The services 22 described in this clause are abortions for 23 which the expenditure of Federal funds 24 appropriated for the Department of Health 25 and Human Services is permitted, based
Page 118, O:\BAI\BAI09M01.xml [file 1 of 9] S.L.C.
1 on the law as in effect as of the date that 2 is 6 months before the beginning of the 3 plan year involved. 4 (C) PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDS 5 FOR ABORTION SERVICES IN COMMUNITY 6 HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.— 7 (i) DETERMINATION BY 8 SECRETARY.—The Secretary may not 9 determine, in accordance with subparagraph 10 (A)(ii), that the community health 11 insurance option established under section 1323 12 shall provide coverage of services described 13 in subparagraph (B)(i) as part of benefits 14 for the plan year unless the Secretary 15 (I) assures compliance with the 16 requirements of paragraph (2); 17 (II) assures, in accordance with 18 applicable provisions of generally 19 accepted accounting requirements, 20 cirulars on funds management of the 21 Office of Management and Budget, and 22 guidance on accounting of the 23 Government Accountability Office, that no 24 Federal funds are used for such 25 coverage; and
Page 119, O:\BAI\BAI09M01.xml [file 1 of 9] S.L.C.
1 (III) notwithstanding section 2 1323(e)(1)(C) or any other provision 3 of this title, takes all necessary steps 4 to assure that the United States does 5 not bear the insurance risk for a 6 community health insurance option’s 7 coverage of services described in 8 subparagraph (B)(i). 9 (ii) STATE REQUIREMENT.—If a State 10 requires, in addition to the essential health 11 benefits required under section 1323(b)(3) 12 (A), coverage of services described in 13 subparagraph (B)(i) for enrollees of a 14 community health insurance option offered in 15 such State, the State shall assure that no 16 funds flowing through or from the 17 community health insurance option, and no other 18 Federal funds, pay or defray the cost of 19 providing coverage of services described in 20 subparagraph (B)(i). The United States 21 shall not bear the insurance risk for a 22 State’s required coverage of services 23 described in subparagraph (B)(i). 24 (iii) EXCEPTIONS.—Nothing in this 25 subparagraph shall apply to coverage of
Page 120, O:\BAI\BAI09M01.xml [file 1 of 9] S.L.C.
1 services described in subparagraph (B)(ii) 2 by the community health insurance option. 3 Services described in subparagraph (B)(ii) 4 shall be covered to the same extent as such 5 services are covered under title XIX of the 6 Social Security Act. 7 (D) ASSURED AVAILABILITY OF VARIED 8 COVERAGE THROUGH EXCHANGES.— 9 (i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall 10 assure that with respect to qualified health 11 plans offered in any Exchange established 12 pursuant to this title— 13 (I) there is at least one such plan 14 that provides coverage of services 15 described in clauses (i) and (ii) of 16 subparagraph (B); and 17 (II) there is at least one such 18 plan that does not provide coverage of 19 services described in subparagraph 20 (B)(i). 21 (ii) SPECIAL RULES.—For purposes of 22 clause (i)— 23 (I) a plan shall be treated as 24 described in clause (i)(II) if the plan 25 does not provide coverage of services
Page 121, O:\BAI\BAI09M01.xml [file 1 of 9] S.L.C.
1 described in either subparagraph 2 (B)(i) or (B)(ii); and 3 (II) if a State has one Exchange 4 covering more than 1 insurance 5 market, the Secretary shall meet the 6 requirements of clause (i) separately 7 with respect to each such market. 8 (2) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL 9 FUNDS.— 10 (A) IN GENERAL.—If a qualified health 11 plan provides coverage of services described in 12 paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall 13 not use any amount attributable to any of the 14 following for purposes of paying for such 15 services: 16 (i) The credit under section 36B of 17 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and 18 the amount (if any) of the advance 19 payment of the credit under section 1412 of 20 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 21 Act). 22 (ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under 23 section 1402 of thePatient Protection and 24 Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if 25 any) of the advance payment of the
Page 122, O:\BAI\BAI09M01.xml [file 1 of 9] S.L.C.
1 reduction under section 1412 of the Patient 2 Protection and Affordable Care Act). 3 (B) SEGREGATION OF FUNDS.—In the case 4 of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies, 5 the issuer of the plan shall, out of amounts not 6 described in subparagraph (A), segregate an 7 amount equal to the actuarial amounts 8 determined under subparagraph (C) for all enrollees 9 from the amounts described in subparagraph 10 (A). 11 (C) ACTUARIAL VALUE OF OPTIONAL 12 SERVICE COVERAGE.— 13 (i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall 14 estimate the basic per enrollee, per month 15 cost, determined on an average actuarial 16 basis, for including coverage under a 17quailfied health plan of the services described in 18 paragraph (1)(B)(i). 19 (ii) CONSIDERATIONS.—In making 20 such estimate, the Secretary— 21 (I) may take into account the 22 impact on overall costs of the inclusion 23 of such coverage, but may not take 24 into account any cost reduction 25 estimated to result from such services, in
Page 123, O:\BAI\BAI09M01.xml [file 1 of 9] S.L.C.
1 including prenatal care, delivery, or 2 postnatal care; 3 (II) shall estimate such costs as 4 if such coverage were included for the 5 entire population covered; and 6 (III) may not estimate such a 7 cost at less than $1 per enrollee, per 8 month. 9 (3) PROVIDER CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS.—No 10 individual health care provider or health care facility 11 may be discriminated against because of a 12 willingness or an unwillingness, if doing so is contrary to 13 the religious or moral beliefs of the provider or 14 facility, to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer 15 for abortions. 16 (b) APPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS 17 REGARDING ABORTION.— 18 (1) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS 19 REGARDING ABORTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be 20 construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on 21 State laws regarding the prohibition of 22 (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or procedural 23 requirements on abortions, including parental notification 24 or consent for the performance of an abortion on a 25 minor.
Page 124, O:\BAI\BAI09M01.xml [file 1 of 9] S.L.C.
1 (2) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING 2 ABORTION.— 3 (A) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act 4 shall be construed to have any effect on Federal 5 laws regarding— 6 (i) conscience protection; 7 (ii) willingness or refusal to provide 8 abortion; and 9 (iii) discrimination on the basis of the 10 willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, 11 cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or 12 participate in training to provide abortion. 13 (3) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS 14 LAW.—Nothing in this subsection shall alter the 15 rights and obligations of employees and employers 16 under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 17 (c) APPLICATION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES 18 LAWS.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to relieve 19 any health care provider from providing emergency s 20 services as required by State or Federal law, including section 21 1867 of the Social Security Act (popularly known as 22 ‘‘EMTALA’’).
Read the whole piece of legislation here.
Euthanasia Bill Unexpectedly Defeated in South Australia By Patrick B. Craine ADELAIDE, South Australia, November 18, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a surprise victory for pro-life advocates, South Australia's Upper House has narrowly voted down an amendment to their palliative care legislation that would have legalized euthanasia.
In the end, however, member David Ridway announced to the shock of pro-life observers that personal reasons had led him to change his mind, and he voted against the bill. Parnell has stated his intention to make another attempt at legalizing euthanasia after the state elections in March 2010. With the upcoming retirement of two pro-life members, pro-life advocates have indicated that such an attempt has a real risk of succeeding. The UK-based anti-euthanasia group SPUC Pro-Life called the vote "a victory for civilised values." Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager and an expatriate Australian, stated: "Those seeking to develop civilised values which respect the sanctity of human life should be encouraged by this vote. "In spite of all the money, media support and propaganda of the euthanasia lobby, many politicians recognise the dangers to public safety in introducing such legislation. This victory for civilised values joins the recent defeat of a similar bill in Tasmania, as well as the repeated votes by the British House of Lords against assisted suicide." Court Allows Homosexual "Marriage" in ArgentinaBy Thaddeus M. Baklinski BUENOS AIRES, November 16, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A judge in Argentina's capital city has granted a homosexual couple permission to get "married," setting a precedent that could undermine natural marriage in the predominantly Catholic country and lead to acceptance of same-sex "marriage" in Latin America. Last week's ruling by Judge Gabriela Seijas said that two articles in the city's civil code, which say only people of different genders can get married, are illegal. The judge then ordered the city's civil registry to officially confirm the "marriage" of Alejandro Freyre and Jose Maria Di Bello. "The law should treat everyone with the same respect according to their singularities, without the need to understand or regulate them," the judge said in her ruling. The court decision applies only to Buenos Aires, which was the country's first municipality to approve civil unions for homosexual couples in 2002. Same-sex civil unions in most of the rest of Argentina remain illegal. Elsewhere in Latin America, same-sex civil unions are allowed in Uruguay and Mexico City. The court ruling could still be overturned if city authorities appeal, but Argentine media report that Buenos Aires mayor Mauricio Macri has refused to do so. Macri told reporters the ruling was a "very important step," and that "we have to live together and accept reality. ... The world is headed in that direction." "I had an important internal debate, weighing my upbringing with my search for the best customs and best liberties for society," the mayor said. "What we have to learn is to live in liberty without violating the rights of others." Catholic leaders in the country were quick to denounce the judgment. According to an AFP report, Bishop Baldemoro Martini charged that "same-sex unions do not contribute to the public good; they put it especially at risk." http://lifesitenews.com
Interview: Former Gay Youth Leader Re-Emerges to Tell His Dramatic Conversion StoryBy Patrick B. Craine November 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Two years ago Michael Glatze sent shockwaves through the homosexualist establishment when he declared publicly that he had left his life as a prominent homosexual activist, become Christian, and embraced "normal human sexuality."
Glatze started identifying as homosexual at 20. After that he went on to found a popular homosexualist youth magazine - Young Gay America - in his early 20s, and had become a nationally-recognized media source on homosexual issues by 30. During that time, however, he began to have doubts about homosexuality, and in 2005, after a decade working in the homosexual movement, he gave it all up, deciding it was "wrong and immoral." Just prior to leaving his position at the magazine, as he recounted in 2007 when he first went public with his conversion, he wrote on his office computer: "Homosexuality is death, and I choose life." After announcing his conversion, Glatze says he was "trashed by people who didn't know me to such an extent that I felt I needed to go inside, more, to further understand everything I was discussing." "The fury that comes from 'gay' people against people like me can be vicious and vile, and it can hurt," he told LSN. "They stop at nothing to make me feel ashamed for my current stance on homosexuality, and to try to make me doubt what I have experienced in my life." "I got to a point where I decided to be 'silent,' and turn down offers to speak, and process," he said. Since then he says he has "relied on God, and God alone." "I have enjoyed living a relatively 'normal' life," he said. "I go to church. I've dated girls. And, I continue to understand the ramifications of the homosexual sin in increasingly deep ways, as I encounter others in the grip of this sin, learn more about human nature, and watch my own experiences - comparing them to the way I might've responded or acted in certain situations just a few years ago." Now ready to share his story again, he says he is insistent on grounding his identity in God rather than defining himself according to his status as "ex-gay." "I don't want to be some kind of spokesperson that makes this issue seem too much about me," he explained. "There are countless individuals who have successfully left the homosexual lifestyle, have gotten away from the habits of homosexual sin, and who have happy and healthy lives," he continued. He says he has been edified by "many, many e-mails from people in various parts of the world who related to my story ... who encouraged me to keep going down this road, who are happy, who have left homosexuality far, far behind, who have kids, [and] who have beautiful spouses." "Part of the problem with 'getting the word out,' is that we're actually just talking about normal human experience," he said. "It's not the kind of thing where you feel the need to take hours out of your life, run around shouting, 'People breathe air!'" The truth is "obvious," he explained. "Heterosexuality is normal human sexuality, while homosexuality is a deviation. These are obvious things. What is so ground-breaking is how successful activists have been at clouding out reality." "I think as the angry media continues to perpetuate the myth that homosexuality can't be cured, ... I want to continue to send the message of truth in opposition to that lie," he said, "supported by the fact that I have just continued to be happier, more confident, and much, much more healthy - and much less, less gay - since 2007 and the years before." (Read a column by Glatze himself.) See related Lifesitenews article about Glatze: http://lifesitenews.com
UK Parents Lose Right to Remove Children from Sex Ed ClassesReligious schools will be required to teach about homosexuality, contraceptivesBy Hilary White LONDON, November 10, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The British Labour government has announced that parents will have no right to remove their children over the age of 15 from explicit "sex education" programs in schools. Under new plans put in place by the government, sex education will be implemented starting at the age of 5 throughout the education system, including in religious schools. However, Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, has issued a ministerial statement saying that all children need to receive at least one year of sex education as teenagers before the age of consent at 16 - meaning that parents will lose the right to opt-out for children over 15. Under the new sex education rules, Catholic and other religious schools will be forced to teach children about contraception and homosexuality "within the tenets of their faith," a caveat that Daily Telegraph columnist Gerald Warner called "simply a cynical method of enforcing anti-Christian values on faith schools." Balls said in the announcement that religious schools would be forced to give details about sex, contraception and homosexuality. Balls said, "You can teach the promotion of marriage, you can teach that you shouldn't have sex outside of marriage, what you can't do is deny young people information about contraception outside of marriage." "The same arises in homosexuality," he added. "Some faiths have a view about what in religious terms is right and wrong - what they can't do though is not teach the importance of tolerance." Until this change, parents had the right to withdraw their children from sex education under the 1996 Education Act. This summer the Family Planning Association (FPA), a key player in creating the new directive, issued a demand to government that parents' right to remove children from classes be revoked. FPA is the national affiliate of International Planned Parenthood Federation, the world's largest pro-abortion organization. The government granted the demand despite the fact that their own public consultation found that nearly 80 per cent of respondents believed parents should retain the right to withdraw their children at any age. Paul Tully, general secretary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), said the plan was just a means of increasing government control in its determination to "deliver its anti-life policies to children." The Christian Institute's Mike Judge called the move a "terrible intrusion of the right of parents. The government isn't responsible for educating children, parents are. Parent's don't lose that right on their children's fifteenth birthday." "There can't be a teenager left in Britain that doesn't know how to roll on a condom," Judge told the BBC. "Sex education has been a disaster. We need less of it, not more of it." But despite a steady chorus of protest from parents and religious organizations and the mounting evidence of the failure of such programs, the push to introduce very young children to the intricacies of human sexuality has been under way from Britain's abortion and contraceptive lobbyists for decades, and is only intensifying.
Massachusetts Man Fired for Telling Colleague that Homosexual Behavior Is Wrong"If homosexual marriage does become legal in your state," warned Vidala, "you could be fired from your job as well, just for expressing your belief that you disagree with that lifestyle."By James Tillman BOSTON, MA, November 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A deputy manager at a Brookstone retail store in Boston's Logan Airport says he was fired from his job for telling a visiting manager that he believed her homosexual behavior to be wrong. Brookstone, however, has justified its action by referring to Massachusetts' legalization of same-sex "marriage."
The incident leading to Vidala's termination began when a visiting manager told Vidala that she was getting married. Vidala congratulated her and asked where he (her husband) was taking her for the honeymoon. The other manager corrected him, saying "where is she taking me." "I didn't say anything, I quickly changed the subject, and I kind of went on with the workday," Vidala said. But the manager continued to repeatedly mention her female 'fiancée' throughout the day. "It made me uncomfortable because I see that sort of behavior as immoral, personally," Vidala said. And so when the manager mentioned her "marriage" for what Vidala says was "at least the fourth time," Vidala felt compelled to speak. "Regarding homosexuality, I believe that that 's bad stuff," Vidala says he told the manager. He says that he was going to continue by explaining that he would prefer her not to bring it up in the workplace, but she started laughing. "Get over it. HR buddy, keep your opinions to yourself," she said. A few hours later Vidala was suspended; two days later Vidala received a termination letter, which accuses him of "harassment" and of "imposing" his beliefs upon others. Vidala, however, perceives the situation differently. He told Fox News that he felt the manager could discern his opinions and that he was "intentionally goaded" by the manager to comment on her relationship. "She knew how I felt about homosexuality," Vidala said. "When you talk to someone about something like that, you want their support. She was kind of looking into my eyes for that social cue for me to say, 'I'm happy for you.' But I really couldn't feel happy for her." Perhaps more disturbingly, however, Vidala says that Brookstone's letter "cited the fact that so-called homosexual marriage is legal in Massachusetts. And that's why this superior of mine talking about her fiancée wasn't considered harassing to Brookstone." "If homosexual marriage does become legal in your state," he warned, "you could be fired from your job as well, just for expressing your belief that you disagree with that lifestyle." Advocates of homosexual "marriage" have long denied that such legalization would injure those who believe homosexual behavior to be wrong. Vidala's case, however, adds to a growing list of instances that seem to indicate the opposite. For instance, homosexual behavior is taught as normative in Massachussets schools. Parents Robb and Robin Wirthlin lost a case against the school after their 2nd-grade son was taught about homosexual behavior without their permission. Even in states such as New Mexico, where same-sex "marriage" is not legal, a husband-and-wife photography company was successfully sued for refusing to photograph a homosexual commitment ceremony. Similarly, a Methodist association in New Jersey was stripped of its tax-exempt status for part of its property by refusing to allow a homosexual "couple" to use its pavilion for a civil union ceremony. Vidala was also disturbed by a video Brookstone shows to all new employees to help illustrate its personnel policies. According to Vidala, in it a man who describes himself as gay says that he was offended by overhearing another man say, "Well, gee, you know, I'd be uncomfortable if a homosexual hit on me." Vidala continued: "You could have a so-called homosexual person hit on you [if you work for Brookstone], and you won't be able to say anything, because by expressing your belief that what they're doing is wrong, you're harassing them."
Health Care Bill Includes Monthly Abortion Premium: House Minority Leader BoehnerBy James Tillman November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to House Republican Leader John Boehner, the government-run health care bill being considered in Congress would include "a monthly abortion premium ... [to] be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan." On his blog Boehner states that this premium "will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services."
His statement immediately gathered attention among those favoring the health care bill, who denied that Boehner's post accurately portrayed the situation. According to Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee, however, "Boehner's post is perfectly accurate." Johnson told David Brody of CBN News that "we call it the 'abortion surcharge.' It is just one more thing illustrating what we've been saying: The bill explicitly authorizes the big new federal government health insurance plan, the public option, to pay for all elective abortions." Nevertheless, Johnson continued by saying that "even if the Democratic leadership struck out the 'abortion surcharge,' the same fundamental problem would remain: The 'public option' is a federal agency program, and when it pays for elective abortions, that is federal funding of abortion on demand -- no matter what convoluted cloaking devices the pro-abortion politicians invent to try to conceal what they are doing." According to Boehner, such funding of abortion makes "Speaker Pelosi's 2,032-page health care monstrosity" an affront "to the American people." In addition to speaking about the abortion premium, Boehner also states that the Health and Human Services Secretary "is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan." The current Health and Human Services Secretary is Kathleen Sebelius, a pro-abortion "Catholic" who vetoed several pro-life bills during her time as Governor of Kansas. She is infamous for having invited the recently murdered late-term abortionist George Tiller and his staff to a party at the governor's mansion in 2007. Tiller had given significant quantities of money to Sebelius' campaign. Boehner continues to write that, additionally, the "Speaker's plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions." Boehner has previously made no secret of his opposition to the abortion-funding Democratic health-care bill. As he wrote on National Review Online in July, "If a health-care bill doesn't lower costs for middle-class families, but does require them to subsidize abortion-on-demand with their hard-earned tax dollars, one has to ask a fundamental question: For whom was this bill actually written?" He continued: "Was it written for the millions of Americans who were promised a health-care bill that lowers costs? Or is it really for the radical special-interest and lobbying groups that invested millions to elect a cooperative president and Congress?" Newly Identified Corporate Supporters of Planned Parenthood NamedFRONT ROYAL, VA, November 5, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Life Decisions International (LDI) has released a revised edition of The Boycott List, which identifies corporations that are boycott targets due to their support of Planned Parenthood, the world's primary abortion-advocacy group. "As a direct result of the commitment, action and prayers of pro-family people, at least 231 corporations have stopped funding Planned Parenthood," said LDI Chairman Thomas C. Strobhar. It is estimated that the boycott has cost Planned Parenthood more than $40 million since the Corporate Funding Project (CFP) began nearly 17 years ago. "This should serve as a testament to those who thought it impossible to change corporate philanthropic behavior." New boycott targets, appearing on the pre-Christmas 2009 edition of The Boycott List, include Buffalo Wild Wings (restaurants), Estée Lauder (cosmetics/personal care products), Computer Sciences Corporation (information technology), and United Parcel Service (shipping services). Corporations continuing as boycott targets from the previously released Boycott List include eBay (Pay {Pal, etc.), AlphaGraphics, Wells Fargo (including Wachovia), Nike, Time Warner (HBO, AOL, etc.), Bank of America, Walt Disney, Johnson & Johnson, Lost Arrow (Patagonia, etc.), Chevron, and Nationwide Insurance, and Sonic (restaurants), among others. LDI singled out longtime boycott target Whole Foods Market for special attention. "Whole Foods Market has been misleading pro-life consumers for many years. Statements from the Company vary, depending on who is doing the talking at the time," LDI Director of Communications Ken Garvey. "Whole Foods has been emphasizing that it does not support Planned Parenthood at the corporate level, but it does do so on the local level. Corporate officials are telling pro-life advocates it is acceptable to shop at Whole Foods if their particular local market does not give to Planned Parenthood. As one Whole Foods officials said, 'As I explain to many of the people you encourage to boycott us, check with your local store and see if they donate. Many are happy with this.'" Garvey noted that Whole Foods stores located in liberal areas are supporting the pro-abortion group while those in more conservative areas are pleading ignorance and innocence. "It is foolhardy to buy into the idea that one may shop at Whole Foods if their local store claims it is not funding Planned Parenthood," he said. "Every pro-life consumer who accepts this 'reasoning' is doing great damage to the Pro-Life Movement in general and the Corporate Funding Project in particular." The new Boycott List includes an expanded "Dishonorable Mention" section, which identifies charitable groups that are associated with Planned Parenthood and/or its agenda. Groups named in this section include American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Lions Clubs, the American Cancer Society, Camp Fire, Girls Inc., Girl Scouts, Kiwanis Clubs, the March of Dimes, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, Rotary Clubs, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, the Salvation Army, the YWCA, and YMCA, among others. "This has not been some sort of 'Jesse Jackson boycott' where we make news for a few days and then go away," Strobhar said. "Corporate officials are learning that those who value life are among the most dedicated people on earth. We will not go away until corporate involvement with Planned Parenthood comes to an end." More information about the CFP, including the steps taken before a corporation is placed on The Boycott List, please click here.
Shouwang Church Members Forced to Sing in the Snow
BEIJING--This frozen snowy Sunday morning, members of Shouwang Church huddled together outside the East Gate of Beijing Haidian Park for yet another outdoor worship service. Forced outdoors when they were intialliy evicted in April, they met in the park for over 12 weeks during this summer, until they were able to secure a new office space in Huajie Plaza in August. Under pressure from the Beijing authorities, Huajie Plaza managers refused to renew the Shouwang Church's rental contract on October 29, forcing them to meet outdoors once again.
Between 800 and 1000 believers attended Sunday's worship service, singing hymns and offering prayers under a sea of umbrellas. Before the service started at 9 AM, a Beijing policeman showed up and posted a poster at the gate of the park stating "Today the Haidian Park is closed to the public ". In spite of being denied entry to the park, the church members rallied at the East Gate, with the service lasting more than two hours until a little after 11:00 AM.
Since the beginning of August, Beijing Huajie Plaza has received enormous pressure from both the Public Security Bureau and Religious Affairs Bureau of Beijing City, to terminate the rental contract with Shouwang House Church. ChinaAid and Beijing house church Christians learned a secret directive had been issued by the CPC that month, calling for the dismantling of six house churches in Beijing--one of them Shouwang Church. On August 19, Pastor Jin Tianming, along with three other leaders of the church, went to PSB and RAB to make inquiries about the contract, with no response. On August 20th and 26th, the church held a special prayer service for a new worship location. During the outdoor Sunday service on August 23rd, Pastor Jin reiterated that the church would have no choice but to worship outdoors, if no other location for worship could be availed. After Huajie Plaza declined to renew their contract and several other attempts at finding a meeting place failed, church notified believers on October 30 they would be worshipping outdoors on November 1st.
Congress Wolf and Smith, co-chairs of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, attended a Shouwang Church service last year when they visited Beijing before the Olympics. It has long been a respected church in the community. This continued repression, and forced relocation of the church meeting place is a part of the major crackdown against the Chinese House Church enacted by the Chinese government, which has caused the detention of over 30 Christian house church leaders in the past 3 months, and resulted in termendous devastation, as in the case of the demolished Linfen-Fushan Church in Shanxi.
11/3/2009: Watch the video Shouwang Church posted on their church website.
Director of Planned Parenthood at 40 Days for Life Birthplace Resigns after Watching Abortion UltrasoundPlanned Parenthood seeks restraining orderBy Kathleen Gilbert BRYAN, Texas, November 2, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The director of the Texas Planned Parenthood abortion mill where the 40 Days for Life campaign began has resigned, saying she experienced a conversion after watching an ultrasound video of a child being killed by abortion. "I just thought I can't do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought that's it," said Abby Johnson in an interview with local news network KBTX 3.
But the turning point for Johnson was reportedly when she witnessed an actual ultrasound image of an abortion being performed on an unborn child. "I feel so pure in heart. I don't have this guilt, I don't have this burden on me anymore," said Johnson. "And that's how I know that this conversion was a spiritual conversion." Johnson resigned on October 6th, near the beginning of Bryan's sixth annual 40 Days for Life campaign, and she has since joined up with the nearby Coalition for Life to begin praying near her old workplace. Coalition for Life is the local group that began 40 Days for Life, the national prayer and fasting campaign that was ongoing at the time of Johnson's resignation. "This is by far the most amazing thing that has happened to the Coalition for Life throughout its entire history ... we thank God!" wrote Coalition for Life director Shawn Carney, who has been working with Johnson since her resignation, on the group's website. 40 Days for Life national director David Bereit said that Johnson's "amazing conversion demonstrates the importance of a constant, peaceful prayer presence in front of abortion facilities." "From that first campaign in 2004, we've prayed for Abby - and for all abortion workers - that they would come to see what abortion really is, and that they would leave the deadly business. In this case, those prayers have been answered," said Bereit. "We are so proud of Abby's courage to leave the abortion industry and publicly announce her reasons for leaving." The story is receiving broad attention after it was posted on the Drudge Report website today. Planned Parenthood reacted with legal action on Friday by filing for a temporary restraining order, seeking to prevent Johnson and the Coalition for Life from disclosing confidential information. "We regret being forced to turn to the courts to protect the safety and confidentiality of our clients and staff; however, in this instance it is absolutely necessary," said Planned Parenthood in a statement. A hearing for the restraining order has been set for November 10. Johnson is one of eight abortion industry workers who left their jobs during the fifth coordinated 40 Days for Life campaign that concluded yesterday in 212 cities. She was the highest-ranking of the eight. Others who quit their clinic jobs included nurses, office staffers and security personnel. In addition, a Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Kalispell, Montana announced that it will close its doors on November 20, citing a decline in business as the reason for the closure. That clinic was the site of a 40 Days for Life prayer vigil this past spring.
"Death Panels" Return: House Bill Has Potential Physician-Assisted Suicide LoopholeBy Peter J. Smith WASHINGTON, D.C., October 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - They're back. The provisions on advanced-planning directives labeled "death panels" by concerned observers have re-emerged in the final version of the US House of Representatives health-care reform bill. Moreover, the bill also lacks protective language that would prevent reimbursement of physicians counseling assisted suicide as a legitimate "end-of-life" option in states like Washington and Oregon.Section 240 of H.R. 3962 "Affordable Health Care for America Act" requires insurance companies offering a "qualified health benefits plan" on the health insurance exchange to provide information related to "end-of-life planning" to enrolled individuals. Although the section stipulates that advance directives "shall not promote suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing," none of the terms are defined in the bill. That poses a problem since some states like Oregon and Washington have laws legalizing physician-assisted suicide, but these states employ different terms. Oregon instead has opted for the terms "physician-assisted death" or "physician aid in dying" as substitutes for "physician assisted suicide" after the pro-euthanasia group Compassion & Choices (the former Hemlock Society) asked the state's health and human services department for the language change. The state of Washington has also followed suit. On that basis, a huge loophole could emerge through H.R. 3962, by which the distribution of "end of life" materials could also include information about assisted suicide options in states such as Oregon and Washington. The bill makes clear that nothing in that section should be construed to preempt a patient's decision to "withhold or withdraw of medical treatment or medical care" or to "withhold or withdraw of nutrition or hydration." The bill also makes clear that sec. 240 shall not be "construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding advance care planning, palliative care, or end-of-life decision-making." Compassion & Choices was revealed earlier in the summer as a major player behind incorporating the "advanced directives" language and as the only resource on an advanced directives manual for Veterans Hospital patients which critics warned appeared designed to lead patients to the conclusion that their "life is not worth living." A number of analysts have also feared that incentivizing doctors to offer "end-of-life planning consultations" could lead to senior citizens, the terminally ill, or disabled, being pressured into accepting lower quality care from a doctor who figures he can receive higher reimbursement rates for talking with a patient about when or how he can refuse treatment.
West African Health Ministers Call for Legalization of AbortionBy Hilary White LAGOS, October 28, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ministers of health from West African countries are calling for the legalization of abortion. A statement from the Health Ministers from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), a group of 15 West African countries, said that member states should make abortion "safe" by legalization. They claim that legal prohibitions on abortion have contributed to high maternal mortality rates. Using the language common to international population control groups like the United Nations Population Fund, the ECOWAS ministers proposed a special summit of heads of state to discuss "maternal, newborn and child health issues." The recently concluded Synod of African Bishops held in Rome through most of October, warned repeatedly that the pressure is increasing for African countries to legalize abortion.
Aborted Fetal Material Used in Anti-Wrinkle CreamsTENNESSEE, Oct. 27, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Children of God for Life announced today that Neocutis, a bio-pharmaceutical company focused on dermatology and skin care, is using aborted fetal cell lines to produce several of their anti-aging skin creams. For years Children of God for Life has been a watchdog on pharmaceutical companies using aborted fetal cell lines in medical products and they have received thousands of inquiries from the public on the use of aborted fetal material in cosmetics.However, the group says that this is the first time they have encountered any company bold enough to put the information right on their own website and product literature. "It is absolutely deplorable that Neocutis would resort to exploiting the remains of a deliberately slaughtered baby for nothing other than pure vanity and financial gain," stated Executive Director Debi Vinnedge. "There is simply no moral justification for this." Neocutis' key ingredient, known as "Processed Skin Proteins," was developed at the University of Luasanne from the skin tissue of a 14-week gestation electively-aborted male baby donated by the University Hospital in Switzerland. Subsequently, a working cell bank was established, containing several billion cultured skin cells to produce the human growth factor needed to restore aging skin. The list of products using the cell line include: Bio-Gel, Journee, Bio-Serum, Prevedem, Bio Restorative Skin Cream and Lumiere. Vinnedge is calling for a full boycott of all Neocutis products, regardless of their source. "There is absolutely no reason to use aborted babies for such selfish motives," Vinnedge said. "It is anti-life, anti-woman and counter-productive as Neocutis is about to find out!" Children of God for Life is advising women who are using Neocutis products to throw them in the garbage and to contact the company to express their concerns. The pro-life group has also said that they will give free publicity to cosmetic companies who are not using immoral ingredients in their products. "We know there are companies using moral sources for collagen and skin proteins. We intend to publicly promote these other cosmetic companies competing with Neocutis that are willing to step forward and contact us." Contact Neocutis: http://lifesitenews.com
Catholics and Orthodox Express "Sadness" over Swedish Lutheran Decision to Embrace Homosexual "Marriage"By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman STOCKHOLM, October 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Representatives of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in Sweden are joining conservative Lutherans in denouncing the recent decision by the Lutheran Church of Sweden to conduct homosexual "marriage" ceremonies, reports the Catholic News Agency. In a joint statement Catholic and Orthodox church officials expressed "sadness" upon learning "about the decision by the synod of the Church of Sweden," which is the largest religious organization in the country."In our churches and communities, we will not unite homosexual couples since it is in complete contradiction with the tradition of the church and our vision of creation," the statement added. It also stated that the decision "is a swing away not only from Christian tradition but also from the point of view on the nature of marriage which is typical of all religions." They noted that although dialogue with the Lutherans would continue, "this decision of the Church of Sweden widens the gap." The views of the Catholic and Orthodox representatives were echoed by more conservative Lutherans, such as Bishop Hans Stiglund, a northern prelate. "In my way of looking at it marriage is defined as a relation between man and woman with no room for a relation between partners of the same sex," he said. Three out of four Swedes are members of the Lutheran Church, which is state supported and controlled. The decision to permit homosexual "marriages" was made by representatives affiliated with the nation's political parties, who are elected to a national assembly. It was approved by a vote of 176-62 with 11 absences. Although Church officials have been "blessing" unions between homosexuals for years, the new decision allows them to call the union a "marriage." Ministers who object in conscience will not be required to carry out the ceremony. Andrew Brown of the liberal Guardian newspaper expressed reservations about the decision, noting that the Swedish church has now gone beyond the bounds of even the ultraliberal Anglican Church. "Outside the Swedish church, this decision is bound to lead to strain ecumenically," wrote Brown in a recent editorial. "The Swedish Lutheran church shares its priesthood in theory with the Church of England, for instance. But no English priest would be permitted to marry a gay couple and few would want to. They are not even allowed to have services of blessing. And, as the details of the story emerge, it will come to seem an object lesson in how not to disestablish." While the leader of the Swedish Lutheran Church, Archbishop Anders Wejryd, supported the decision, even he seemed uneasy about it. "For my part, the right decision was taken, but I can empathize with the many who believe this has gone too fast," he said in a press conference. First Battle of the 2009 Christmas Culture War over Nativity Displays; Federal Lawsuit FiledWARREN, Michigan, October 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Christmas culture wars for 2009 have now begun and ground zero is the Detroit suburb of Warren, which for 63 years has hosted a privately maintained nativity scene set at the crossroads of the city. The Nativity display had been maintained by Warren city resident John Satawa and his family for most of the municipality's history until the Macomb County Road Commission this year ordered the display removed because it "clearly displays a religious message" in violation of the "separation of church and state."The Road Commission had informed Satawa of its decision upon receiving a letter in December 2008 from the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which purported to act on behalf of a complainant in the city of 134,000 residents, saying the display violated the Constitution. However, on Friday the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Satawa against the Road Commission, arguing that its decision violates the Establishment Clause by disfavoring religion. Satawa's legal counsel hopes to obtain a court order permitting the nativity display along with a declaratory judgment that the Road Commission's actions were unconstitutional. Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, said that militant atheists attempt to do through the courts what the Taliban by force had done to Afghanistan: removing all the symbols of the country's national heritage. Thompson added that nowhere in the US Constitution appears the phrase "separation of church and state"; nevertheless, every Christmas those words become a "means of intimidating municipalities and schools into removing expressions celebrating Christmas, a National Holiday." "Their goal is to cleanse our public square of all Christian symbols. However, the grand purpose of our Founding Fathers and the First Amendment was to protect religion, not eliminate it." The nativity crèche dates from 1945, just five years after the incorporation of the Village of Warren, which then boasted 582 inhabitants. The statues at the time were originally donated to the newly formed St. Anne's Church, but as they were too large, the idea was formed to make them part of an outdoor crèche on the median of Chicago and Mound streets. "The United States Supreme Court has long held that all public streets, which includes public medians, are held in the public trust and are properly considered traditional public forums for private speech," said Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the matter. "Moreover, the Supreme Court has also stated that 'private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression.'" "Consequently, by restricting speech because it is religious expression, the Road Commission is imposing a content-based restriction on private speech in a traditional public forum in clear violation of the Constitution." The lawsuit maintains that the Road Commission's content-based restriction on Satawa's private religious expression violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. The lawsuit also alleges that the Road Commissions' policy decision violates the Establishment Clause by disfavoring religion. The case is assigned to the court of U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen, Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Michigan. See the complaint filed by Thomas More Law Center here. See the Freedom From Religion Letter here.
White Ribbon Against Pornography Week (Oct. 25 – Nov. 1) the purpose is to Raise Public Awareness About the Hardcore Pornography Problem and to Promote Enforcement of Obscenity and Related Laws
NEW YORK, Oct. 26, This year, the annual White Ribbon Against Pornography (WRAP) Week runs Sunday, Oct. 25, through Sunday, Nov. 1. WRAP Week is intended to inform the public and public officials about the harms of pornography and the need to enforce obscenity and related laws. Resources for individuals and groups are available at www.moralityinmedia.org ("WRAP Campaign"). These include information about ordering white ribbons and a sheet describing what citizens can do during WRAP Week and throughout the year, sample letter to U.S. Attorney General Holder, sample letter to state prosecutors, sample Proclamation, and sample prayers and sermons.MIM President Robert Peters had the following comments: "Our nation is facing a moral crisis which is giving rise to, among other things, teen promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases (including AIDS), abortions, children born to single mothers, divorces, sexual abuse of children, rape, trafficking in women and children, on-the-job sexual harassment and lost worker productivity. The costs associated with these problems are incalculable. "It is clear that the explosion of hardcore pornography on the Internet and elsewhere is fueling this moral crisis. It is also clear that ignoring the problem (the Clinton administration) and failing to take necessary steps to effectively curb the problem (the Bush administration) won't solve the problem. "The government's ongoing failure to enforce federal obscenity laws should be a matter of great concern to President Obama and Attorney General Holder. "While enforcement of obscenity laws is not the whole answer to the pornography problem, vigorous enforcement will put many hardcore pornographers out of business and encourage others to get or stay out. It will also send the message that pornography is a moral and social evil. Youth especially need to hear this message. "The Supreme Court has held that obscenity laws can be enforced against 'hardcore pornography,' and these days most commercially distributed pornography is 'hardcore.' Among other things, hardcore pornography depicts teen promiscuity, group sex, gang bangs, marital infidelity, sex with prostitutes, siblings and animals, sex mixed with excrement, and the rape and torture of women. "The Court has also said there are 'legitimate governmental interests' at stake in stemming the tide of commercialized obscenity, which include protecting public safety, family life, and morality, and maintaining a decent society. "Clearly, children also need protection both from exposure to hardcore pornography and from sexual predators who use this material to groom their victims and arouse themselves." Christian Newswire
Obama's "Safe Schools Czar" Funds Pornographic Display at HarvardBy James Tillman WASHINGTON, DC, October 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Obama's controversial and embattled "safe schools czar," Kevin Jennings, has helped fund a pornographic, anti-Catholic and sado-masochistic art display currently being shown at Harvard University, reports massresistance.org. The Harvard exhibition, entitled, ACT UP New York: Activism, Art, and the AIDS Crisis, 1987-1993, chronicles the efforts of the homosexual civil disobedience group, Aids Coalition To Unleash Power (ACT UP), through the graphic stickers, posters, and other visual media used as propaganda in the early years of the homosexualist movement.ACT UP describes itself as a "diverse, non-partisan group of individuals united in anger and committed to direct action to end the AIDS crisis." According to Jenning's homosexual partner, Jeff Davis, Jennings was once a member of the group. Jenning's name is listed on the Harvard art display's website, beneath those who provided a gift or grant. The posters on display, which were designed in the early days of the movement, were part of ACT UP's protest against a government that they saw as having failed to do its duty in the AIDS crisis. One poster is comprised of an up-close photograph of a woman's genitals, with text objecting to the Supreme Court's ban on abortion. Another, ostensibly about sexism and AIDS, includes an up-close shot of male genitalia.
ACT UP also vented rage against another figure of authority: the Catholic Church. One image visually compares New York's late Cardinal O'Connor to a condom, stating that the condom, at least, helps prevent AIDS. Cardinal O'Connor was well known for maintaining the Church's teaching on contraception and homosexuality. The poster states in large letters: "Know your scumbags." Similarly, another poster depicts two gay men kissing in front of New York's St. Patrick's Church. ACT UP is infamous for its involvement in a "protest" in St. Patrick's Church on December 10, 1989, wherein a Blessed Sacrament was desecrated. Yet the displays of how ACT UP raged against all and any authority are perhaps less disturbing than those regarding the sexual desires of the homosexualist movement. One image features a female toddler, with the word "Dyke" written beneath her in typeset. "Dyke" is a term used to designate a homosexual female, and often carries the connotation of a "butch" homosexual female. In another part of the museum one finds text apparently describing an adult's violent sexual assault on a child. ACT UP is described on their website as a group "united in anger" to help end the AIDS crisis. They are notorious for their disruptive protests; their website includes instructions regarding how to handle being arrested. Kevin Jennings has increasingly come under fire in the last number of months, as more information about his radical views has come to light. Jennings is a co-founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which targets children in public schools and classroom curricula to embrace homosexuality as a normative behavior. In addition, during a speech in 2000, Jennings admitted failing to report the statutory rape of a fifteen-year old who was involved in a homosexual relationship with a much older man. Rather than reporting the situation, Jennings instead instructed the boy to wear a condom. Jennings has also come under fire for his praise of Harry Hay, an ardent admirer of the North American Man/Boy Love Association and an advocate of lowering the age of consent laws. Additionally, it has recently come to light that Jenning's helped raise money for the Obama presidential campaign. 53 House Republicans have asked President Obama to fire Jennings, stating that he will push a homosexual agenda and that he clearly "lacks the appropriate qualifications and ethical standards to serve in this capacity."
10 More Arrested After Detainees Refuse to Leave Without Fellow Linfen Pastor October 18, 2009 SHANXI--The skies were clear when Shan Yongchang, the Linfen-Fushan church member who was arrested for text-messaging about the 9/13 incident, was released on Friday, October 9. The next day, PSB officials offered to release ten Linfen-Fushan Church leaders from their detention, under the condition of holding Pastor Yang Rongli until further notice. Protesting her continued detention in an act of solidarity, the church leaders refused to leave without Pastor Yang. "We are one team in the one body of Christ! We won't leave her behind alone. We will not leave prison without her."
To break their spirit, the PSB arrested pastor Yang Rongli's younger sister, Yang Linli, and ransacked Pastor Wang Xiaoguang's home. The PSB raided and arrested ten more Linfen church members, including Yang Xuan and his wife Yang Caizhen, from their homes on October 11. Officials blamed Pastor Yang for the unrest and refused to release her, threatening the church leaders with further raids and abuse if they did not comply with their orders.
On Oct 16, 2009, Yang Linli was released under the condition that she not petition on behalf of her sister or other church members, nor engage in any further illegal activities. She was forcefully prohibited from communicating with outside world. Pastor Yang Rongli and Hua Mei, another female church leader, were formally accused of committing crimes of "illegal building and disturbing the social order by organizing masses."
The following five leaders were sentenced to criminal detention on October 17: Pastor Wang Xiaoguang, Yang Caizhen, Yang Hongzhen, Su Qing and Li Shuangping. ChinaAid's latest updates indicate that three leaders have been released on parole, nine are still serving detention (five for criminal sentences), and ten leaders are still missing. Pastor Yang and six other church leaders were arrested by Fushan officials on September 23, in order to keep them from visiting Beijing and appealing to the higher authorities on behalf of the Linfen Church. On September 24, PSB raided Linfen Church and members homes again, confiscating any remaining valuables including the church computers. After holding an emergency meeting on September 28, Huozhou City officials agreed Linfen Christian Church could not be considered a "cult"--but vowed they would no longer tolerate the abuses and legal violations of Pastor Yang Rongli and her "foolish and misguided" followers. View the CAA Press Release. Although the document was not presented at the time, ChinaAid has since received and translated the RAB's statement of Pastor Yang Rongli's alleged abuses. The Linfen Ethnicity and Religious Affairs Bureau accuses Pastor Yang of illegally establishing religious groups and religious sites, holding religious services and activities without permit, nominating religious personnel, illegally sharing the Gospel with the minors, and "jeopardizing the social order." According to Linfen Church members, 80 policemen and around 10 police cars continue to guard the church around the clock, preventing them from gathering to worship on Sundays. View footage of the police guard stationed outside the Linfen Fushan Church. The guards stand as a militant reminder that faith is not free for believers in communist China.
Maine Homosexualists Frantically Refute Evidence that Same-Sex "Marriage" Would Affect SchoolsBy James Tillman WASHINGTON, DC, October 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Homosexualist advocates are denying evidence indicating that making same-sex "marriage" legal in Maine would lead to the encroachment of homosexual themes in school classrooms - a claim that pro-family advocates have dismissed as simply untrue and contrary to the experiences of parents in other states where same-sex "marriage" has already been legalized. The frantic repudiation of same-sex "marriage" advocates comes in response to ads and information from "Stand for Marriage Maine," detailing how Massachusetts schools began to indoctrinate children with homosexualist ideas after the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized homosexual "marriage."One ad features excerpts from an interview with a Massachusetts teacher on National Public Radio (NPR). The teacher says that if someone wishes to challenge the fact that she is teaching about homosexual activities, she knows that she is safe because of the same-sex "marriage" law: "I know that, ok, this is legal now. If someone wants to challenge me, I say, 'Oh give me a break.'" In another part of the interview not included in the ad, the same teacher explained the nature of her lessons on homosexuality, which were astonishingly explicit. She describes how she goes through a chart with her class: "Can a woman and a woman kiss and hug? Yes. Can a woman and a woman have vaginal intercourse? And they will all say 'No!' And I'll say 'Hold it!' Of course they can. They can use a sex toy ... and we discuss that."
Then there's the case of Robb and Robin Wirthlin of Massachusetts, which is featured in another pro-marriage ad. Without their permission, the Wirthlin's 2nd-grade son was read "King & King," a book about a prince who turns away from every princess he meets, until he finally falls in love with another prince and "marries" him. According to Robb Wirthlin, when he and his wife lost a legal challenge against the school, it was troubling for him to hear the judge suggest "that the state must teach these things to children before they've had a chance to make up their own minds."
There are other, similar cases that pro-family groups point to as evidence for the inevitable encroachment of homosexualist propaganda into schools. Nevertheless, those pushing same-sex "marriage" have obstinately insisted that such accusations are absurd. "That's the kind of stuff I find really offensive," said Jim Bishop, a volunteer for the Protect Marriage Equality campaign, in an interview with NPR. "Saying that we're going to teach about gay marriage and gay lifestyle in the schools, and that we're going to try to convert. This is just absurd." Many who agree with Pingree point to a statement released by Maine's Attorney General, Janet Mills, on Thursday. In this statement, Mills says that "whatever the benefits and burdens of the civil institution of marriage, the state's definition of marriage has no bearing on the curricula in our public schools, either under current law or under LD 1020 [the homosexual "marriage" law]." In the same statement she attempts to assure parents that their religious beliefs will be respected by arguing that there are already "safeguards for persons with religious beliefs ... in the law." According to Marc Mutty of Stand for Marriage Maine, however, Mills' legal opinion "has not even a shred of pretense of independence or objectivity." He continued: "The opinion poses a position that our campaign does not advocate - that LD 1020 affirmatively changes the curricula to require instruction on gay marriage. That is not our position. Our position is that no change to Maine's curricula is necessary in order for homosexual marriage to be taught in our schools. Further, that homosexual marriage is taught in other states where it has been legalized. When they study the facts, Mainers will see right through Ms. Mills' opinion for what it is: a shameless political ploy by supporters of homosexual marriage." "We have demonstrated how it could be taught in schools, and that it HAS been taught in other states that have legalized gay marriage. It's a shame that Maine's top lawyer is using her good office for such a transparent political stunt." Arguments and advertisements both for and against the legalization of homosexual "marriage" are aimed at influencing votes on an upcoming referendum this November. Maine's legislature had passed a law to make homosexual "marriage" legal, but the due to a signature drive, the law is subject to a People's Veto and will not become law unless a majority accepts it.
Pornography, Pills, Planned Parenthood and PrayerCommentary by Judie Brown, American Life League Of course, our friend is correct. But the tangled web of grime and sludge, Planned Parenthood's stock in trade, goes quite a bit deeper than that. Let's start with the announcement of the event that was held in the Museum of Sex. I looked at the announcement from last year's sold-out soiree, which is included in the organization's 2008 annual report. Since this is the second year for the event, it was apparently worth repeating. And for New York City, it had all the right elements: a bar that stayed open all night, after-hours access to the exhibits, raffle prizes and live DJs. A regular party, Planned Parenthood style, complete with all the hoopla one would expect from an organization steeped in sleaze. But upon further examination of its web site, I found out that this month, Planned Parenthood of New York City is hosting a far more egregious - and, I might suggest, deadly - activity. It is pursuing a project labeled "We're Going To The Principal's Office Because Real Sex Ed = Healthy Futures." At the top of the list is the money it makes by marketing birth control and assuring those who fail to use birth control properly that abortion is just around the corner should they need it. Why, it's as simple as using your phone to text a friend. Then follow along and learn about how PPNYC shares information with children. It sponsors a special MySpace page so teens can learn "Under NYS law a doctor can't tell your parents or anyone else that you've had services such as a gynecologist exam or emergency contraception." It's nice to know that PPNYC is working hard, in all the right places, to make sure youngsters are not going to think twice about talking to their parents about serious problems and situations that could result in sexually transmitted disease or pregnancy. But today we would be frowned upon for calling people under the age of 17 "youngsters," wouldn't we? These young men and women have legally protected reproductive rights, so I guess that makes them mini-adults, even though few can even keep a room clean or finish their homework on time. If denial of parental rights isn't enough to get every parent out of his La-Z-Boy and into a mode of discussing daily events with his children, what is? Or could it be that parental apathy is the biggest reason why Planned Parenthood and their pals are gaining greater access to young people on a daily basis? Parents appear to be reassigning their role as the first line of defense, discipline and discovery over to the school. And that, in far too many cases, means Planned Parenthood. This defies a simple explanation, but clearly, Planned Parenthood is more than happy to take over. All these people need is the opportunity. And state governments are much too willing to protect a minor's rights to the point where parents need not apply, even if they want to be involved before there is a health crisis or a dead child. Victor Medina, a columnist from Texas who is no stranger to controversy, has reported that there are some versions of the health care reform bill that will exacerbate this situation to an even greater degree. Some argue that certain language in a couple of the versions of the bill would give Planned Parenthood another leg up on parents by putting school-based sex clinics in the schools. As Medina tells it:
When members of Congress, such as Minnesota's Rep. Michele Bachmann, bring this sort of information to the public, the media jumps all over them. In Bachmann's case, the left-leaning media is hard at work discrediting her comments, even though the information she described is contained in at least one of the legislative proposals. Clearly the problem is far greater than where PPNYC holds a fundraiser, though the choice of location says a lot about its level of decency. Or is that considered to be a bad word as well these days? My sense is that we have not seen anything yet, if indeed health care reform's final version takes on the complexion of a "sex ed for one and all" sort of law. In the meantime, there is a great deal that parents and our communities can do to stop Planned Parenthood's bandwagon in its tracks. To start, if you are a parent, pray for the insight needed to become a master communicator with your own children. Encourage parents of young people to learn more about properly communicating. I recommend picking up one of Dr. Ray Guarendi's audiotapes or books. Learn about the reasons why sex outside of marriage is a bad idea, regardless of who is selling it and the attractive packaging being presented. And pray, pray for young parents, for their children and for an end to the madness that is currently defining our culture.
Relieving or Regrouping? Chinese Authorities Release Pastor Hua Huiqi with WarningBEIJING--After three weeks in a secret holding place, Pastor Hua Huiqi was finally released and returned home to his family on Saturday, October 10. He was not physically tortured during his confinement, but received threats on his families life. To provoke him, and scare him into silence about his detention, his public security guards threatened the life of his 13-year-old daughter before they released him, warning him not to cause any trouble or they would make his daughter pay. As he recovers from fasting and the long separation from his family, Pastor Hua has promised to give a detailed account of his detention, and asks the international community to continue praying for his ailing mother Shuang Shuying and dying brother Hua Huilin. Watch for Pastor Hua's testimony in upcoming ChinaAid news.
Judge Rules that Obstetricians Have a Duty of Care to the UnbornBy Patrick B. Craine LONDON, Ontario, October 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Ontario Superior Court ruled last Wednesday that obstetricians owe a duty of care to the unborn. The question about the responsibility of healthcare workers towards the unborn arose after Guelph General Hospital had claimed that there was no such responsibility in August, during a preliminary proceeding to a malpractice case brought by a family who claim that hospital staff were negligent in the birth of their son.Kevin Liebig, 8, from Rockford, was born with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, a type of brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, and has since been diagnosed with cerebral palsy. His family, who have fought a seven-year-long legal battle against the hospital and members of its staff, maintain that Kevin's condition is due to the fact that his mother, Susan, was given too much oxytocin during his delivery without adequate monitoring. The defendants in the case are Guelph General Hospital, Dr. Benjamin Ayandabejo, Dr. Roger Perron, Dr. Donald Huband, and nurses Jean McLean, Laura Lobo, Deb Rendall, and Amy Forsythe Tettman. The defendants argued that they did not owe a duty of care to Kevin prior to birth, citing two 2008 cases in which Ontario judges had determined that a physician does not have a duty of care to a woman's "future children," whether yet conceived or not, but merely to the woman. Regarding obstetrics, however, the judge in the current case disagreed. "The duty to both mother and fetus in the maternal-fetal care scenario has been long established in Canadian jurisprudence," stated Justice Wolfram Tausendfreund. "The existence of the duty of care owed by physicians and nurses to a fetus has been recognized by numerous trial decisions across Canada," he writes, giving examples from four provinces. Pointing out that many of these cases referred to the use of fetal monitoring, he continues, "Rhetorically, I must ask why the medical profession would see the need for such fetal monitoring, but for the recognition of the obligation to both mother and the fetus during the labour and delivery process?" With duty of care now having been established, the malpractice case is scheduled to be heard next September.
Harry Potter and Dumbledore Used to Entice Fans into Activism for Maine Gay "Marriage" PushEvanna Lynch, 18, who plays the character Luna Lovegood in the Potter Films, featured in effortBy Peter J. Smith PORTLAND, Maine, October 16, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - "What would Dumbledore do?" is the slogan of the popular Harry Potter fansite called the Harry Potter Alliance, which aims to turn fans into activists for a better world. However, the fansite is now directing tweens, teens, and young adults into a new kind of activism: pushing same-sex "marriage" and it has now set its sights on Maine.
The Massachusetts-based Alliance has also contracted with MassEquality to recruit its Potter fan base into Potter telephone activists, who will call up Maine voters asking them to vote "No" on the people's veto of the state's same-sex "marriage" law. The Alliance intends to have its activist fans take part in a one-day House Cup Competition and register in one of the four Hogwarts Houses: Ravenclaw, Gryffindor, Slytherin and Hufflepuff. The event employs a point-system - 5 points per call, 15 points for knocking on a door, and 20 points for speaking directly with an individual. The effort also features Irish actress Evanna Lynch, 18, who plays the character Luna Lovegood in the Potter Films. The Harry Potter Alliance is the brain-child of 29-year-old Andrew Slack. The site urges fan to interpret current events in light of the lessons of Harry Potter and sets up Potter's mentor, the wizard Albus Dumbledore, as a moral teacher. Interestingly, the author of the Harry Potter books, J.K. Rowling, had stated in response to a question from a fan in October, 2007, that Dumbledore was homosexual. Arthur Slack makes clear that the Alliance intends to be "Dumbledore's army in the real world" and the fight against the "Dark Arts in the real world" includes not only poverty, genocide, and disease - but traditional marriage as well. For over the past nine months, Arthur Slack has used the star-power of Harry Potter to attempt to motivate Potter fans to lobby against ballot measures designed to preserve the traditional institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman and the natural environment for the rearing of children. The Alliance did not succeed in its efforts to overturn Prop 8 in California, but with the electorate so sharply divided in Maine, it tells its members that their involvement can have a decisive influence in that state. In November, Maine voters will vote either "yes" or "no" on Prop. 1, which reads: "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?" The latest poll results from the Portland-based Pan Atlantic SMS Group shows that 51.8 percent of voters would vote "no" on Prop. 1, while 42.9 percent would vote "yes". 5.2 percent report they are "undecided." The poll carries a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percent.
Miracle Baby: Mother Successfully Battles for Right to Deliver Healthy Baby Despite Terminal CancerCommentary by Georgia Froncek LONG BEACH, California, October 15, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - When I pulled up to the Long Beach Family Planning Associates Abortion mill at on February 3, 2009 at 8:30 a.m., I saw my fellow street counselor Charlotte talking to an Hispanic man named Carlos, who was visibly very upset. As soon as I exited the car, Charlotte motioned me to come over to join the conversation.
Carlos explained to me that his wife and mother of five children, named Nereyda, was in the abortion mill because their H.M.O. insurance company would not treat her for her serious stage 4 sarcoma cancer - unless she aborted her 5-month-old unborn child. I replied in Spanish that this was illegal, and that we could help them obtain care without having an abortion.
At the consultation, there attended one thoracic surgeon, one internal medicine cancer specialist and one high risk obstetric doctor. The thoracic surgeon displayed Nereyda's MRI scan - revealing a huge tumor spreading tentacles around her heart, lungs, and other vital organs. I had never seen a tumor like that! I turned my head away from Carlos and Nereyda so they would not see that I was weeping. I asked God for healing as I watched Nereyda holding her womb - concerned not at all for herself, but only for her unborn baby. The doctors said that this was one of the worst and fastest spreading cancers they had ever seen, and that without being able to shrink it with radiation and chemotherapy, it was inoperable, and Nereyda would die within two months. The high risk OB-GYN doctor us that Nereyda would have to abort the baby as soon as possible so she could begin the most aggressive therapy to prolong her life. Carlos and Nereyda once again insisted they would not abort the unborn baby. With my background as a former pharmaceutical representative, I asked the doctors if they could use a drug called Adriamycin, which would not harm the baby in utero. The doctors said that they could use Adriamycin, although it would not provide the best or most aggressive therapy. I explained this to Carlos and Nereyda, who said that after the birth of the baby they would permit the use of stronger drugs. The doctors finally agreed, prescribing some very potent synthetic pre-natal vitamins, and reluctantly writing the couple's wishes in Nereyda's chart. When the doctors asked us if we wanted the insurance company to provide us with an advanced health care directive, I answered that we would produce one. Later I explained to the couple that, had we not taken the initiative, the directive supplied by the HMO would have almost certainly reinforced the original decision to abort the child in case Nereyda took a turn for the worse. With the providential help of a doctor, a lawyer and a former corporate attorney - all strongly pro-life - I was able to draft a health care directive that ensured the baby would be safe from abortion. While Nereyda's cancer remains, she was able to deliver a boy by caesarian section on May 18, 2009 - three months after the doctors said she had two months to live. I was overjoyed to visit three days later to meet their new son, Angel Jesus Candalario. Since then, the tumor has shrunk from chemotherapy - but Nereyda still needs our prayers.
Editor's note: Georgia Froncek, a veteran pro-life sidewalk counselor from California, has agreed to publish her experiences with a cancer-stricken woman who was nearly coerced by her insurance company into aborting her child in order to obtain treatment.
Schwarzenegger Signs California Law Recognizing Out-of-State Same-Sex "Marriages"By Peter J. Smith SACRAMENTO, California, October 15, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Californians may have voted in November to amend their state constitution to define the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, but new legislation signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger now requires California to validate and recognize same-sex "marriages" performed outside the state as either legal "marriage" or marriage-like "unions." Earlier in the week, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed into law Senate Bill 54, which allows the state to recognize same-sex "marriages" performed outside California between June 16, 2008, when the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex "marriage," and November 5, 2008, when Proposition 8 came into effect banning homosexual "nuptials." Proposition 8, which passed by a 42 percent to 48 percent majority, reads, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." However, the new legislation requires California to recognize same-sex "marriages" from out of state as legal "unions" that must be accorded the "same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage." Such unions, says the bill, will receive the "same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law … with the sole exception of the designation of 'marriage.'" Originally Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill, when it first came to his desk. But he changed his mind the second time around, hailing the legislation as a benefit for the state's resident homosexual couples as well as for Californians who passed Proposition 8. "In short, this measure honors the will of the people in enacting Proposition 8 while providing important protections to those unions legally entered into in other states," said Schwarzenegger in a signing statement. The bill passed the Senate by a margin of 23-14, and in the Assembly by 47-29. "This is tragic news for California families," stated Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. "The governor has chosen to completely undermine the will of the people -- the millions of Californians who have twice stated that they intend for only traditional marriage to be recognized in our state." The governor, England added, has struck a blow to the state's democratic institutions by signing SB 54, and showed great disrespect to the "voters who trust that their vote means something." "The governor has joined with other elected representatives by choosing to place the demands of special interest groups over more than 7 million California voters," said Evertt Rice, the Legislative Coordinator for California Family Council, a family policy council associated with Focus on the Family. "The failure of our elected representatives to support the people illustrates the need for new leaders who value the people over special interests," added CFC Director Ron Prentice. However, the family advocacy organizations that fought to preserve the institution of marriage through Prop. 8 are soon likely to mount a legal challenge, saying that the legislation is unconstitutional. Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel (LC), a public advocacy group that fought to defend Prop. 8 before the state Supreme Court, has litigated in California for almost six years to uphold the natural institution of marriage. He told LifeSiteNews.com that LC and other pro-family advocates are looking to mount a legal challenge to SB 54. Staver said that the legislature has tried to circumvent Prop. 8 by trampling upon Prop. 22, a super-statute passed by voters in 2000 by a 61 percent to 38 percent majority that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and barred the state from recognizing out-of-state same-sex "marriages." "People can go to California and apply for a separate domestic partnership, but they cannot be automatically recognized just by crossing the border, and magically having either same-sex 'marriage' in California or something identical that they call by a different name," said Staver. "That is contrary to Prop. 22." Although the state Supreme Court had invalidated Prop. 22 in its ruling on legalizing same-sex "marriage," Staver believes that the legislation still has the force of law, because Prop. 8 reversed the high court's ruling. As a super-statute, only the people, not the governor or the legislature, have the power to override those provisions, he said. Staver says that the timing of filing a challenge will depend in part on how a change in the composition of the bench could affect the case. A new appointment is expected to the state high court by as early as next year. Staver pointed out that at the moment the court is still narrowly divided 4-3. "We're going to assess the timing of the matter as well as the substance of the matter," said Staver. "But we are definitely not going to sit there and let it happen without seriously considering the timing of a challenge."
Mother Says Miss. Doctor Refused Care to Baby Girl Born at 22 WeeksBy Kathleen Gilbert FLOWOOD, Mississippi, October 14, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a case echoing the tragic story of Britain's Sarah Capewell and son Jayden, a Mississippi mother says that her neonatologist refused to help her baby daughter survive because he believed she was too young, at 22 weeks 4 days gestation, to merit intervention.
Franklin said that Jessa gasped for breath twice while in her arms, but was told by nurses that it was "just a reaction" - leading her to believe the child had died. Only after Jessa had been taken away, says Franklin, did she learn that the child still had a heartbeat. Franklin, who says she has lost a child to a premature birth before, said it "shocked" her when Robbins said he would not help Jessa breathe. "I looked at him and said, so you're telling me you're not going to do anything for my daughter?" said Franklin. She says Robbins "simply flat out refused." "He actually told me this - This is what stuck in my mind most of all for days afterwards - was that I would be torturing my child to do something, because she was so little," the mother recalled. "She weighed just over a pound - which there are children who weigh less than that, that actually make it." "They took so long to bring her back to me that she had already passed away by the time they had brought her back to me," said Franklin. "I don't know how many times after she left my sight that she gasped for breath. And they didn't even put a respirator on her to make her a little more comfortable." She says Jessa's heart beat for about an hour and a half before she died. Lori Rushkin, Franklin's niece who was present during the ordeal, confirmed that Franklin and her family expressly pleaded for treatment for Jessa, to no avail. "We all kept saying, 'Why not try? What's the harm in at least trying?'" Rushkin told LSN in a phone interview. "We said, 'Look: miracles happen every day, it's not up to you to determine when a child lives or dies, it's going to be in God's hands. If you try, and the child lives, then that's what she was meant to do. "And that's when [Robbins] started talking about, 'Well, there's so many papers that have been written, and literature and books that you can go through, and see that a baby this young is not going to make it.'" Rushkin said she and the other family members felt Robbins' attitude was "ridiculous." "What was so bad about at least taking an hour out of his time and trying to do something for that baby?" she asked. LSN's multiple attempts to reach Dr. Kenny Robbins for further information were not answered. However, Dr. Robbins did reply to Franklin's request for further information, saying that "resuscitation was not indicated" for Jessa. Only after 23 weeks would parents be allowed to choose whether to permit resuscitation, said Robbins, "because outcomes are very poor in this age range and even those who survive have a high risk of permanent complications." Robbins said that the protocol used in Jessa's case was "a universally accepted one by neonatologists, it is in full compliance with Christian medical ethics," and that the literature he referenced was "produced by Catholic ethicists - and you can't get more strict and pro-life regarding the protection of the unborn and newly born than that." However, Dr. Paul Byrne, M.D., the Director of Pediatrics and Neonatology at St. Charles Mercy Hospital in Oregon, Ohio, said he disagrees. "There is no specific gestational age at which a baby cannot survive outside the uterus," Byrne told LSN. While a shorter gestational age and lower birth rate increase risk of mortality, Byrne said he has known of infants as young as 18 weeks' gestation to survive. The limiting factor that determines whether the doctor could intervene to help the baby, according to Byrne, is related to whether the baby's trachea is large enough to allow a 2.5 millimeter tube to be inserted to aid breathing. Byrne said that Robbins' use of the term "potentially viable" was "not the correct approach." "The baby is living," said Byrne. "We can protect and preserve the life of the infant person. A doctor ought not to impose or hasten death." Franklin said she felt prompted to share her story after hearing that a similar tragedy befell British mom Sarah Capewell. Capewell told media last month that her son Jayden was refused intervention at 21 weeks 5 days gestation, despite crying and staying alive on his own for two hours. In that case, doctors cited guidelines offered by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics as their reason for refusing treatment. "Just because they have literature stating that the statistics are that these children don't usually survive - that's not God in the mix," said Franklin. "Because he can do anything, and that's what we were trying to tell the doctor." "It needs to be brought to light that people are doing this, that doctors are doing this, ... and nobody is standing up and telling them, 'You shouldn't do this, you shouldn't play God,'" she said. River Oaks Hosptial did not return LSN's request for comment.
The Oppression of Linfen-Fushan Church ContinuesOctober 7, 2009 SHANXI--Huozhou City officials met on October 3rd to discuss results of the emergency meeting held on September 28th, where officials assembled to determine whether Linfen Fushan Church would be charged as an "evil cult." Citing the need to preserve stability in the province, local officials had seized Linfen-Fushan Church's Senior Pastor Wang Xiaoguang, his wife Yang Rongli, and more than ten co-leaders on September 25 for attempting to petition Beijing, and have since continued to hold them in detention. Three days after the arrests, the Fushan Government held the emergency meeting to determine whether the Linfen-Church violated Chinese laws on religion, which explicitly ban "evil cults." On October 3rd, the Religious Affairs Bureau of Huozhou (RAB) deemed the 50,000 member church to legitimate, but the government reported they would no longer tolerate the "gross violations and law-breaking actions" of Pastor Wang Xiaoguang and his wife Yang Rongli over the past ten years. The RAB reportedly listed these violations, but no legal record of these abuses have been issued or confirmed. According to an inside source, the officials expressed satisfaction that the ten church leaders were being held in their "rightful place" in administrative detention, and the government resolved that the situation must be fully "dealt with" in the upcoming weeks. Though a state military numbers have decreased slightly in the past two weeks, ten police vehicles are still stationed at the main Fushan Church around the clock, barring members from entry and assembly. ChinaAid President Bob Fu is preparing for the gathering storm: "The Chinese communist government has used the National Day celebration as an excuse to intensify religious persecution throughout China. With the celebrations coming to an end, they show no intention of scaling back the attacks on house churches. They have tried to place blame for the destruction on the church itself, kidnapping the church leaders, and unjustly accused them of inciting a "violent uprising." It is an excuse to declare martial law, and use national military police forces to deny religious freedom! We urge the international community to raise their voice against this gross abuse of state power, and call for the immediate release of the innocent church leaders. The Chinese communist government cannot justify their abuse of basic human freedoms."
UK Doctors who Allowed Suicidal Woman to Die Acted Lawfully: Coroner's InquestBy Hilary White LONDON, October 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Doctors who allowed a young British woman to die in hospital after she swallowed poison and declared her intention to commit suicide acted lawfully, according to the findings of an inquest this week. Under the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the coroner's inquest ruled that doctors had no choice but to allow the woman to die after she had written a letter saying she did not want to be saved.
In October 2008, Kerrie Wooltorton, 26, swallowed anti-freeze and, after arriving at a Norwich hospital emergency ward, presented a suicide note asking doctors not to save her life. The doctors followed her request, claiming that her wishes were legally binding under the provisions of the Act. Pro-life advocates in Britain have long warned that the Mental Capacity Act is an open door to legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide. SPUC Pro-Life, a leading anti-euthanasia group, has said that the case is clearly one of doctors assisting in a suicide, which remains a criminal offense. SPUC has argued that the case should be prosecuted as such "to highlight the perverse state of the law." Anthony Ozimic, spokesman for SPUC Pro-Life, said, "It appears from press reports that doctors either did not have regard for the concerns of Miss Wooltorton's relatives, or that they ignored their wishes. "The coroner's verdict in this case is disgraceful. It sends out the message that if you are depressed and attempt suicide, doctors need not treat you. Depressed people are being officially treated as worthless. It is clear that Miss Wooltorton's relatives regarded her as having committed suicide while suffering from depression." Wooltorton, who was reportedly depressed about not being able to have children and had attempted suicide nine previous times, arrived at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital fully conscious and stated that she was "100 per cent aware of the consequences" of her actions. Wooltorton had called an ambulance, but claimed it was because she did not want to die "alone and in pain." After consulting legal advice, the attending physician decided to allow her to die. Wooltorton's family has urged Parliament to revisit the Mental Capacity Act that Health Secretary Andy Burnham has said was never meant to be used in this way. Her father said, "I am ashamed to be English with the way the law stands. It is plain daft. Hospitals should not be allowed to let people die like this." The Daily Telegraph quoted Dr. Vivienne Nathanson, Head of Ethics and Science at the British Medical Association, who confirmed the decision, saying that doctors must follow the patient's wishes when they are competent to make decisions for themselves. She said, "The main issue for doctors in these cases is to determine a patient's mental capacity in deciding whether or not they want treatment to save their life." She praised the Mental Capacity Act for having "clarified matters," saying it "establishes the legal framework for such decisions." "However hard doctors find this issue, their ultimate aim is to act in the best interests of their patients, normally this means following competent patients' wishes." The Wooltorton decision comes shortly after the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) issued guidelines that said that while the law prohibiting assisting suicide is not being overturned, people who help their relatives commit suicide will not be prosecuted as long as they do so without a view to personal gain. George Pitcher, Religion Editor of Telegraph Media and an Anglican minister said that while the DPP guidelines are not directly related to the Woolterton case, they are part of a "new climate of creeping 'suicide rights' and stealth-euthanasia" in Britain. He added that the state of the law that allowed Woolterton to die, is "where euthanasia's enthusiasts - from Dignity in Dying to the manipulative Lord Falconer and the malleable DPP - have brought us."
Progress Made But Persecution Continues: Bob Fu Issues Public Statement on CPC's 60th AnniversaryCHINAAID--On the 60th Anniversary of the Communist Party's rule in China, ChinaAid President Bob Fu continues to remember the victims of religious persecution, and issues the following public statement:
Some Progress Made while Persecution Continues: 60 Years Communist Rule in China
October 1, 2009 As a Chinese native-born citizen who was forced to flee my home country twelve years ago, I am conflicted by the events of China’s National Day celebrations. While I, too, celebrate the history and traditions of China with the people from my motherland and acknowledge the progress and positive changes in many areas of Chinese society, such as economic prosperity and freedom of movement, I cannot forget the pain and suffering inflicted upon persons of faith in these 60 years of communist rule in China.
In the areas of religious freedom and rule of law, the past 30 years have shown great progress when compared to the time of the "Cultural Revolution" (1966-1976), and the nation of China now imprisons more people of faith and conscience than all the countries in the rest of the world combined. According to Daniel Southerland's investigative report called "Mass Death in Mao's China,” which was released in 1994, the number of deaths caused by starvation, persecution and execution since the CPC took power in 1949 may be estimated to 80 million or more. (Southerland is a former reporter in Beijing for Washington Post and now the Deputy Director of Radio Free Asia). From 1950 to 1955 alone, over two million Chinese people were executed by CPC, including thousands of Christians. Today, the Chinese people still lack the basic protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms, such as freedom of press, speech, and assembly, as well as association. The Chinese judicial system is still under the total control of the CPC, without tolerance or independence from the political regime. Millions of Chinese citizens are still being held in Chinese Laogai (labor) camps, black detention cells, and work prisons, for simply exercising their rights—even those guaranteed by their own Chinese Constitution.
Thousands of Protestant Christians, Catholics, Falun Gong practitioners, Uyghur Muslims and Tibetan Buddhists and other faithfuls have been executed or tortured to death in the past 60 years. At the same time, millions of them were detained, kidnapped, arrested and sentenced to re-education through labor arbitrarily, without any due process. Hundreds of thousands are still being held illegally today and corrupt local governments deny their citizens’ basic rights.
Following the Tiananmen Square Memorial events on June 4th, ChinaAid has received and issued over 80 reports exposing 178 incidents of abuse against churches, human rights lawyers, and Protestant Christians in 14 provinces in China, including 118 arrests and over 914 cumulative days of forced detention—not including the continued disappearance of two Chinese missionaries on June 12 in a house church raid in Sichuan, or the absence of human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng, whose whereabouts have been unaccounted for 240 days. Most recently in Beijing, Pastor Hua Huiqi was arrested upon his return from a “forced vacation” in Shanxi on September 17, and Pastor “Bike” Zhang Mingxuan was sent on a forced vacation to Henan on September 23—to allegedly prevent any uprisings in the capital during the National Day celebrations. The crackdown by the Beijing PSB was foreshadowed by a secret directive sent in early August, calling for the dismantling of six specific Beijing house churches, including Pastor Hua’s and Pastor Bike’s.
Since June, Public Security and Religious Affairs Bureau officers have raided 13 churches, Bible-training schools, and homes, forcing the Autumn Rain Church to meet outdoors for nine weeks, and others to file suits against the bans placed on their churches illegally. The most devastating church attack occurred the night of September 13. With shovel loaders, bricks, and batons, nearly 400 local Fushan government officials and hired-ruffians demolished 17 buildings on Linfen Church property, beat and injured more than 100 church members, with 20 left in critical condition and 10 still hospitalized, and looted valuable personal property. Seeking to delay any action against the central government, the same officials engaged in false negotiations, promising church leaders 1.4 million yen in reparations, before seizing and detaining 9 church leaders, and installing military police in the main church buildings, to prevent the 50,000 member church from assembling to worship. Military police have been ordered to suppress any religious gatherings throughout the 60th Anniversary of the People’s Republic of China—for the purpose of preventing “violent uprisings.” The National Day celebratory events are shadowed by these blatant human rights abuses.
News agencies reported over 1.4 million troops guarded Beijing today, a military presence amplified by the 108 anti-ballistic missiles on display and the hundreds of thousands marching in the parade. Tens of thousands of smiling children in bright colors illustrated a strong and vibrant China—but did not truthfully tell the story of religious persecution and denied human rights.
I believe the appeasing efforts of some free countries, by ignoring these continuous human rights violations in China, will have contrary effects in advancing religious freedom and rule of law in China. But above everything else, I firmly believe that God will bless China, by raising more than 100 million Chinese Gospel believers—through whom a new, hopeful, transformed China becomes possible. Instead of more sophisticated nuclear-armed missiles in front of the Tiananmen Square, as we have seen displayed on October 1, a peaceful, loving and forgiving China will be the true blessing to the world in 21st century.
May God redeem and bless China, and bless all the nations who defend the fundamental freedom of belief!
“Bob” Xiqiu Fu President of ChinaAid ChinaAid challenges the international community to see beyond the fireworks, and recognize the true need for advancing religious liberty and fundamental human rights in China.
Federal Government Bans Religious Ornaments for 2009 Capitol Christmas TreeArizona schoolchildren chosen to decorate tree told to keep religion outPHOENIX, Arizona, September 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) called on Arizona state and federal officials on Monday to stop enforcing a requirement prohibiting the state's schoolchildren from expressing religious viewpoints through Christmas themes while decorating ornaments for the 2009 Capitol Christmas Tree. Arizona was chosen this year to present 4,000 handcrafted ornaments made by elementary, middle-school, and high-school students to decorate Washington, D.C.'s annual Christmas tree. Guidelines for the ornaments include specifications for their size, weight, composition, and the directive that "Ornaments cannot reflect a religious or political theme… Instead share your interpretation of our theme 'Arizona's Gift, from the Grand Canyon State.'" In a letter to federal and state officials, including Arizona Governor Janice Brewer, ADF attorneys demanded that they abandon the discrimination against religious viewpoints. "Banning Christmas from the Capitol Christmas tree is just absurd. Christian students shouldn't be discriminated against for expressing their religious beliefs," said ADF Litigation Staff Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. "The First Amendment does not allow government officials to exclude schoolchildren's ornaments for the capitol's Christmas tree merely because they communicate a religious viewpoint." The request was issued on behalf of a mother whose son expressed a strong desire to submit three religious ornaments for the tree: One reading "Merry Christmas," another "Happy Birthday, Jesus," and the third portraying a manger scene with the Christ child. Each of these ornaments will also honor Arizona, using as a theme the state's history, geography, or motto, "Ditat Deus," which means "God Enriches." ADF attorneys indicate in the letter that they will take legal action if officials do not comply by October 4, the day before the deadline to submit ornaments for consideration. "It is well established that expression of religious beliefs is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," the letter reads. "Religious expression is speech and is entitled to the same level of protection as other kinds of speech ... even expression that comes through symbols, such as ornaments."
14 Year Old British Girl Dies after HPV VaccinationBy Thaddeus M. Baklinski COVENTRY, UK, September 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Natalie Morton, a 14-year-old girl who attended the Blue Coat Church of England School in Coventry, died today, hours after being given Cervarix - the controversial cervical cancer vaccine manufactured for the UK market by Glaxo SmithKline. Natalie was injected with the vaccine as part of the UK National Health Service's (NHS) immunization program directed at teenage girls with the purpose of protecting them against strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV), which is a sexually transmitted disease.
Health officials said today they are not sure whether Natalie had an extreme reaction to a standard vaccine, or whether the particular dose she was given was from a "rogue contaminated batch." Either situation raises serious questions about the safety of the vaccine. Dr. Caron Grainger, director for public health at Coventry city council, said an autopsy will be conducted to investigate if the vaccine played a role in Natalie's death. "No link can be made between the death and the vaccine until all the facts are known and a post-mortem takes place," Grainger told the UK Daily Mail. Mike Attwood, a spokesman for Coventry Primary Care Trust said: "An urgent investigation has been launched and while we wait for the results from the post mortem all vaccinations using the drug have been temporarily stopped." The National Vaccine Information Centre (NVC), a private vaccine-safety group based in the US, reported that from 2006 as many as 11,900 girls and young women had reported adverse events after receiving the Gardasil vaccine, which is manufactured by Merck Pharmaceutical for use in the US and Canada. These adverse events included such mild reactions as pain, fever, nausea, dizziness and itching, to serious effects such as Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures. The number of deaths associated with the Gardasil vaccine by the NVC is between 32 and 45 in the US alone.
Man Charged with Double Murder for Shooting 8-Mo. Pregnant Girlfriend Who Refused AbortionBy Kathleen Gilbert ARLINGTON, Tennessee, September 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Tennessee man is facing a double murder charge after his girlfriend and her unborn child were shot to death, in what police say was the conclusion to the couple's disagreement over getting an abortion. Shelby County detectives say they believe Tarence Nelson, 26, shot schoolteacher Tonya Johnson, 35, as a result of an argument over whether Johnson should abort the child, who was at eight months' gestation. Johnson was found in her home by neighbors who said she had bullet wounds to the right abdomen, chest, and the back of her head. Those who discovered Johnson say they and paramedics attempted without success to save the mother and baby's life. Neighbor John Ingram told a local news station that Nelson's intent to kill the child was obvious by her wounds. "It looked like he was intent on killing both of them," he told WMC-TV. "I think it should be a double homicide, the baby was ready to come." Detectives have agreed that Nelson will be charged with first-degree murder of both Johnson and her unborn child. In 2004, President George W. Bush signed into law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which recognizes a child in the womb as a legal victim if he or she is killed or injured in an act of violence against the mother.
Hardcore Adult Porn Contributes to Child Sexual Abuse: MIM ReportNEW YORK, September 28, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In the fight against child sexual abuse, the explosion of hardcore adult pornography on the Internet and elsewhere is a direct causal factor that cannot be ignored, according to the media watchdog group Morality in Media in an expansive survey released Friday. The 40-page report entitled "How Adult Pornography Contributes to Sexual Exploitation of Children" is supplemented by 175 pages of appendices, and draws from sources including news articles, court cases, scholarly journals, social science studies, books, and Congressional testimony since 1980. The report was compiled by MIM President Robert W. Peters. (Click here to download.) The evidence compiled shows that: In the report, Peters commends government and private entities for finally working together to curb sexual exploitation of children. "For the most part, however," says Peters, "these same … entities have turned a blind eye towards the explosion of hardcore adult pornography on the Internet and elsewhere … [T]hose who fight sexual exploitation of children but who turn their backs to the adult pornography problem are making a tragic mistake." Peters observes that while hardcore adult pornography does not depict actual children, he notes that it often includes "hardcore depictions of sex with persons who look like children and with 'barely legal teens.'" Responding to critics who say hardcore adult pornography is legal, Peters points out that Congress amended federal obscenity laws in 1996 "to clarify that distribution of obscene matter is prohibited on the Internet." In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Miller v. California that it has been "categorically settled" that "obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment." "The Miller Court went on to define the term 'obscene' in a manner intended to restrict the reach of … obscenity laws to 'hardcore' pornography," he notes. "Today, most adult pornography distributed commercially, whether online or elsewhere, is 'hardcore.'" Peters also rejects the notion that the average American no longer deems hardcore adult pornography unacceptable. "Pornography defenders overlook at least three factors," wrote Peters. "First, much if not most hardcore adult pornography is consumed by a relatively small percentage of individuals who are addicted to it. "Second, just because a person experiments with hardcore adult pornography for a period of time or on occasion succumbs to the temptation to view it does not mean he or she approves of what is viewed, especially when hardcore adult pornographers promote their products aggressively … Third, many visitors to 'adult websites' are minors." He also cites the results of several polls by Harris Interactive and Pew Research Center indicating that most adults do not consider pornography morally acceptable or harmless and that they want federal obscenity laws enforced. Thus, he concluded, it is a mistake for the Justice Department and FBI to focus their energies almost exclusively on child molesters and child pornography, while ignoring the rapid spread of hardcore pornography. "In the first place," Peters writes, "the explosion of hardcore adult pornography is contributing to sexual exploitation of children in various ways. In the second place, children are harmed not just by predators; they are also harmed by exposure to hardcore adult pornography. ... "In the third place … a frequent result of a successful federal obscenity prosecution is a significant fine and/or forfeiture of property … [which] can offset in whole or part the cost of these cases. In the fourth place … it isn't just children who are harmed by hardcore adult pornography." Peters states that "parental involvement, public education, the involvement of religious groups, and corporate responsibility are all desperately needed" in addition to law enforcement. Click here to download "How Adult Pornography Contributes to Sexual Exploitation of Children."
Britain Already Has a "Government Policy of Silent Euthanasia": Anti-Euthanasia ActivistsBy Hilary White LONDON, September 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Evidence is mounting that Britain may already have not only de facto legalised assisted suicide thanks to new prosecution guidelines issued this week, but also involuntary euthanasia by means of a tangled combination of rationing of government-funded medical care, end of life medical practice protocols that allow the withdrawal of hydration and the existing Mental Capacity Act. British and international anti-euthanasia and disability rights groups are expressing their alarm at the publication of prosecution guidelines earlier this week by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for England and Wales. These guidelines make clear that those who assist someone commit suicide, but who do not have anything personal to gain by doing so, will not be prosecuted, even though assisted suicide technically remains a crime. Alison Davis, head of the disability rights group No Less Human, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN), "If the guidelines remain in force, we will see that those who assist suicide, whether for misguided 'merciful' or for merciless reasons, will be able to do so with impunity. Like many other disabled people I am alarmed by the DPP's guidelines." But these same anti-euthanasia groups are also warning of a legal situation that already exists in Britain, in which patients and residents in hospitals and nursing homes are increasingly under threat of involuntary euthanasia, usually by a combination of deep sedation and dehydration. While bills intended to weaken the legal prohibition on assisted suicide continue to be defeated at Westminster, existing guidelines for end of life care called the Liverpool Care Pathway, guidelines on healthcare rationing from the government's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the 2005 Mental Capacity Act, have combined to create de facto legal euthanasia, which activists say is already being widely practiced. John Smeaton, Director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), Europe's leading pro-life organisation, told LSN, "We have a government policy of silent euthanasia right now in this country. "This is being brought about through a number of different factors, but significantly the Mental Capacity Act of 2005, that formally defined the provision of food and fluids as medical treatment." Under the Act, such "medical treatment" can be withdrawn as "futile" - even from patients who are not terminally ill and can benefit from it - on the advice of a physician, until the patient dies. Anti-euthanasia activists have said that the determination that food and water constitute "futile treatment" in a patient who is not terminally ill really means only that it is the patient's life that is considered "futile." According to an increasing number of reports, food and hydration is being removed from patients on the Liverpool Care Pathway in many cases where patients are not terminally ill but are merely elderly or suffering from dementia or stroke and would benefit from normal medical care. Under the protocol, the patient can be sedated or given pain medication; food and water are then withdrawn until death by dehydration. A recent national audit by researchers with the Royal College of Physicians and the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute found that, of 4,000 patients put on the Liverpool Care Pathway last year, 28 per cent of their relatives were not told that the patient was being cared for under the protocol. The report found that about 20,000 patients die this way each year in Britain. Only thirty-nine per cent of patients on the Pathway suffered from cancer, while others had conditions such as pneumonia, stroke, organ failure and dementia. The average age of patients was 81 and they were typically on the pathway for 33 hours before death. 76 per cent of families were told that their loved one "had entered the dying phase." The report also said that hospitals and care homes that routinely put patients under deep sedation should review their practices. The Pathway is now in use in 300 hospitals and 560 care homes across the country. Peter Millard, emeritus professor of geriatrics at the University of London, told media, "The risk as this is rolled out across the country is that elderly people with chronic conditions like Parkinson's or respiratory disorders may be dismissed as dying when they could still live for some time." Millard blamed government downsizing of the British socialised medical system. "Governments have got rid of respite care and geriatric wards, so we're left with a crisis," he said. "The Government has said let's develop a service to help people die at home - what they should be doing is helping them live. Only when death is unavoidable should you start withdrawing treatment." SPUC's Anthony Ozimic said that euthanasia opponents had warned all along that the Labour government's 2005 Mental Capacity Act had "massive potential scope for euthanasia combining denial of food & fluids with sedation." Ozimic said that although "assisted suicides usually involve mentally competent and ostensibly consenting persons, a significantly larger number of intentional killings may well emerge under government-endorsed end-of-life policies." Referring to the guidelines on end of life care already in use in hundreds of hospitals and care homes, Ozimic said, "The Liverpool Care Pathway and the Mental Capacity Act involve the far larger number of patients who are not intent on suicide and whose diminished mental and physical powers leave them very vulnerable."
Missouri Planned Parenthood Facility to CloseBy Patrick B. Craine KIRKSVILLE, Missouri, September 23, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - American Life League's Stop Planned Parenthood Project (STOPP) is celebrating the closure of another Planned Parenthood (PP) facility, this time in Kirksville, Missouri. Tri-Rivers Planned Parenthood has announced that it will be closing its facility, which has stood for 38 years, as of November 14, 2009. They cite fewer clients and a lack of donations as reasons for the closure. "According to our records this marks the 14th Planned Parenthood clinic to either close or announce its closing in 2009," stated STOPP national director Rita Diller in a press release Wednesday. Pointing to the lack of donations and clients, she said, "It just goes to prove that when people find out the truth about Planned Parenthood, they stop contributing and quit going." American Life League reported in March that the number of PP facilities in the United States had dropped from 855 in 2007 to 844 in 2008. The number of local affiliates had dropped from 108 to 99. At the same time, PP is increasing its facilities that offer medical abortions, through the use of drugs such as Mifepristone (RU-486) and Methotrexate. These were up to 121 in 2008 from 108 in 2007.
Uruguayan Legislators Approve Gender Change as a "Right"Latest anti-family legislation to pass to Senate for approvalBy Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent MONTEVIDEO, September 22, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Days after the Uruguayan Senate approved a bill that analysts say will legalize adoption by homosexual couples, the nation's Chamber of Deputies (its lower legislative house) has passed a measure to allow people to decide what their gender will be -- regardless of their actual sex. The bill states that "everyone has the right to the free development of his personality regarding his own gender identity, independently of his biological, genetic, anatomic, morphologic, hormonal, assigned, or other sex."After two years of identifying one's self as belonging to the opposite sex, and with the approval of an "interdisciplinary" committee of specialists, one will have the right to change one's sex legally. In the case of "sex change" operations, in which the patient is mutilated to resemble the opposite sex, the two year waiting period will not be required. However, the bill prohibits people who have changed their "gender identity" from marrying a person of the same biological sex, according to a provision that has been added to the legislation. Although homosexuals can enter into "civil unions" according to Uruguayan law, they cannot "marry" -- a distinction that is largely a matter of terminology. The Chamber of Deputies also added a provision requiring an individual to be at least 18 years old before changing his sex legally. Those who wish to switch back must wait five years. The legislation, which was approved on September 15, will now return to the Senate where it is expected to be approved. It is supported by the socialist Broad Front coalition as well as other parties. Uruguay has been in the vanguard of anti-family legislation in Latin America. It has legalized homosexual adoption and homosexual civil unions, and is on the verge of legalizing adoption by homosexual couples as well as unmarried heterosexual couples. It also recently announced that gays would be permitted to enter the armed forces.
Chairman Steele Says Pro-Abortion Candidates "Absolutely" Welcomed by GOPBy Kathleen Gilbert WASHINGTON, D.C., September 22, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has again cast doubt on his professed loyalty to the pro-life movement by saying he "absolutely" believes there is room for a pro-abortion candidate in the GOP. Steele gave the remarks during a brief interview with the Columbus Dispatch in a local restaurant Thursday after leading a Republican rally against President Obama's health care legislation.
"There absolutely is, there absolutely is," said Steele. "The key thing right now - and I think this is true for Republicans across the country - is to have leadership that reflects the communities I live in, where we're from," he continued. "As we get ready for the battles that lie ahead from this district to all the districts surrounding the state, that you're going to find those candidates emerge and rise up who reflect those values in those communities, and that's a very important step for the party to take, I think, and I'm looking forward to help lead that charge in the future." In response, Ohio Right to Life executive director Michael Gonadakis told the Dispatch: "I'm scratching my head, because I believe Republican candidates should reflect the views of the Republican platform." According to his organization's survey, Gondakis noted that a majority of Ohioans are pro-life, even in the less conservative 15th district. Though Steele has insisted that he is deeply pro-life, his comments on abortion appear largely guided by his stated priority of opening the party to a broader voter base - a tactic that has landed him on shaky ground with pro-life leadership. In a March GQ interview, Steele called abortion an "individual choice" that should be decided by the states. The remarks drew fire from organizations such as the Family Research Council and Americans United for Life, and prompting Indiana's Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger to protest Steele's presence at a Right to Life banquet in March. While campaigning for the GOP chairmanship in January, Steele was also forced to retract statements he gave in a 2006 Meet the Press interview, in which he appeared to favor upholding Roe v. Wade.
48% Say No to Abortion in Healthcare: PollBy Kathleen Gilbert WASHINGTON, D.C., September 18, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey released Thursday, almost half of all Americans want President Obama's health care overhaul to explicitly exclude abortion-providing health care plans from using taxpayer dollars, while only about a third want no abortion requirements. Forty-eight percent of the survey's respondents said that any government-subsidized health care plan should be prohibited from covering abortion procedures. Thirty-two percent said they favor no requirements regarding abortion, while only thirteen percent said they think such plans should be required to cover abortions.President Obama has dismissed pro-life Americans' concerns about abortion in the bill by calling it a "fabrication" that taxpayer funds would directly fund abortion procedures. However, Obama has not denied that taxpayer subsidies would go to abortion-providing health insurance plans. A provision known as the Capps amendment in the House version of the bill explicitly calls for taxpayer subsidies for abortion-providing plans. The amendment also opens the public plan to covering abortions. The pollster notes that a survey of polls over many years shows that Americans are generally uncomfortable with abolishing abortion, but most are opposed to having taxpayer funds pay for the procedure. "If the Congressional leadership and the President fall on the sword of abortion coverage, pleasing their allies and weaving it into the fabric of our daily lives, they do so at the peril of the entire bill and their own political futures."
Uruguay Approves Adoptions for Homosexual and Unmarried CouplesCatholic bishops protest measureBy Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent MONTEVIDEO, September 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Uruguayan Senate has approved a bill that, according to analysts, will likely allow homosexual and other unmarried couples to adopt children. Under the terms of the bill, couples that have been registered in a civil union for over four years will be eligible to adopt children, as well as couples who can prove that they have been cohabiting for four years or more. Since homosexuals are allowed to establish civil unions, the legislation is expected to permit them to adopt as couples.The bill, which is expected to be signed by Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez, will be the first of its kind in Latin America, and is one of several reforms that have been implemented in recent years to reward homosexual behavior in Uruguay. Although Vazquez opposed the Broad Front when it attempted in 2008 to legalize abortion on demand, he has shown support for the homosexualist agenda in the past, and that support is expected to continue. Homosexuals may already adopt children individually based on a law passed in 2004, and recently were permitted to enter the armed forces. Civil union legislation for homosexuals was passed in 2007, and a new law requiring schools to give pro-homosexual sex education classes was passed in 2008. The Vice-President of the Uruguayan Episcopal Conference, Bishop Rodolfo Wirz, denounced the measure, calling it "counterproductive" for the society for failing to acknowledge the need of children to develop a sense of sexual identity, of the "complementarity between paternity and maternity," in an interview with the Catholic news agency ACI Prensa. "I believe that the approval of the bill is a step backward for the development of society," Wirz added. "Furthermore, to be the first Latin American country in which this law is approved in favor of the adoption of homosexuals is not any point in favor; to the contrary it is lamentable, sad, because in this way those children who need to be adopted are not helped." "This is not a matter of religion, philosophy, or sociology. This is something that refers essentially to respect for human nature," said the Archbishop of Montevideo in a public statement against the legislation. The archbishop also stated that the measure goes "against the fundamental human rights of human beings as persons." Although President Vazquez' majority Broad Front coalition, a grouping of socialist parties, supports the bill, it is opposed by one of Uruguay's traditional political parties, the Nationalist Party, also known as the White Party (Partido Blanco). White Party senator Eber da Rosa condemned the legislation in an interview with the Spanish press agency EFE, noting that "the father and the mother carry out the two key roles" in the upbringing of a child. "In homosexual couples, those roles appear to be intermixed and for that reason the most appropriate thing is for adoptions to be done by heterosexual couples."
Many U.K. Families are Not Told When Doctors Deny Loved Ones Treatment, Report Has FoundBy Patrick B. Craine September 15, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to a new report, more than a quarter of U.K. families are not told when their loved ones are taken off of life support, reports the Daily Mail. Researchers from the Royal College of Physicians and the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool conducted an audit of 4,000 patients put on the Liverpool Care Pathway, the end-of-life care plan that has brought 'slow' euthanasia into Britain through the back door.The Pathway, approved by the National Health Service (NHS), allows doctors to deny "treatment," including food and water, to patients they deem incurable and put them in continuous deep sedation until they die. According to the Daily Mail, this protocol is used in 300 hospitals and 560 care homes across the country. According to the report, 28 percent of the patients' relatives were not told that their loved one had been put on the pathway. In fact, doctors are not required by law to consult patients' families - Britain's 2005 Mental Capacity Act has given them the power to make decisions on behalf of patients who they deem mentally incapable without requiring them to heed the wishes of patients' families. Social services and police have even been called to intervene in certain cases where families attempt to save the lives of their loved ones. Peter Millard, emeritus professor of geriatrics at the University of London, confirmed other reports that the protocol is being used to kill patients that are not actually dying. "The risk as this is rolled out across the country is that elderly people with chronic conditions like Parkinson's or respiratory disorders may be dismissed as dying when they could still live for some time," he told the Daily Mail. "Discussions about the future of patients are being bypassed; the supportive nature of hospitals has gone. We are hearing complaints from all round the country. "Governments have got rid of respite care and geriatric wards, so we're left with a crisis," he continued. "The Government has said let's develop a service to help people die at home - what they should be doing is helping them live. Only when death is unavoidable should you start withdrawing treatment." "The problem is that there isn't enough discussion between doctors and patients and their relatives," he said. "Nobody is talking to them." The average age of the 4,000 patients audited was 81. Thirty-nine per cent had cancer, and others had conditions such as dementia, stroke, pneumonia, organ failure, and dementia. Patients averaged 33 hours on the pathway before death. The BBC reported last month that continuous deep sedation is increasingly being used by U.K. doctors to slowly euthanize their patients. The practice of continuous deep sedation is estimated to be associated with 16.5 percent of all deaths in the country. While, according to Euthanasia Prevention Coalition executive director Alex Schadenberg, the practice of deep sedation can legitimately be used to alleviate pain in certain extreme cases, he also warns that it "can be a backdoor route to euthanasia if it is used unethically." Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.com last month that "a good palliative care physician won't use the technique very often."
Indian Abortion Proponents "Stumped" By Growing Dearth of Girls Due to Sex-SelectionBy Patrick B. Craine September 14, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - India's feminists and population control-pushing government are "stumped" by the dramatic drop of female births among the wealthier classes due to sex-selective abortions, reports the Globe and Mail's Indian correspondent Stephanie Nolen. Due to a 'son preference' in Indian culture, the use of new technologies to detect and abort baby girls has become widespread. Technically it has been illegal in India to tell couples the sex of their unborn child or to abort based on sex since 1994. This law, however, is rarely enforced. Consequently, sex-selective abortion practices are rampant and the ratio of girls to boys is continuing to fall. India's 2001 census revealed that there were only 927 girls aged 0-6 per 1,000 boys, a marked drop from the 1991 census, which found 945 per 1000. This means that in that decade there were 35 million fewer females registered in the country than males, according to Canada's International Development Research Centre. The statistics in certain areas are shocking. The IDRC revealed last year that the wealthier urban families of the Indian Punjab have merely 300 girls for every 1,000 boys. In South Delhi, the ratio is 832:1000, and in the state of Haryana it's 822:1000. "Conventional wisdom has long held that as India develops - as more families struggle their way into the middle class, more girls go to school and more women join the work force - traditional ideas about the lesser value of girls will erode," writes Nolen. "The incentive to abort them would fall away." "Instead, the opposite has happened," she continues, "and the reasons - and solutions - have government and activists stumped." Abortion proponents operate based on a purported concern for women, and so, as Nolen points out, they are faced with a dilemma when confronted by the targeting of women in abortion. "The campaign to protect female fetuses presents complicated moral questions for defenders of reproductive rights," she says. "[The campaign] uses language such as 'defending the rights of the girl child,' but Indian feminists debate the issue uncomfortably: Is the implication that male fetuses do not have rights? Or have different ones?" The Indian government has been pushing abortion as part of its population-control agenda since it became legal in 1971. Recently, however, the government has spoken out against the use of abortion for sex-selection. In her July 2007 inaugural speech, Indian President Pratibha Patil, the first female president, condemned female foeticide. "Empowerment of women is particularly important to me as I believe this leads to the empowerment of the nation," she said. "We must banish malnutrition, social evils, infant mortality and female foeticide." Further, in April 2008 the Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, joined his cabinet in decrying this "national shame." "No nation, no society, no community can hold its head high and claim to be part of the civilized world if it condones the practice of discriminating against one half of humanity represented by women," he said. Navsharan Singh, who heads the gender research at IDRC's India office, indicated to Nolen that there was an "incoherence" between the state allowing the woman a right to abortion and, at the same time, restricting her use of it in sex-selection. "We've been struggling with these questions. Choice is individual but the consequences are societal, when the rights of those who survive are also compromised - I'm rendered less wanted and my claims as a citizen are less valid." "It's a devaluation of women manifest in such violent form: Your very sex is so worthless it's being eliminated," says Singh. The increasing dearth of women has contributed to gross atrocities, including the trafficking of women as wives for wealthy men. In some cases, as Nolen says, a woman is made the sex slave of an entire family of men, with the sole purpose of bearing them sons. There is a growing movement in India to "save the girl child," to fight against sex-selective abortion. In June, thousands of women marched for this cause in Coimbatore, southern India, carrying signs such as "Do not kill us," and "Adoption against abortion."
Rape Victim says God Granted a "Rush of Love" for her Unborn Child Moments before AbortionBy Hilary White September 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A British policewoman and born-again Christian says it was a sudden and unexpected "rush of love" that in her mind transformed her unborn child, conceived in a date-rape, from "an alien" to a beloved daughter on the day of her scheduled abortion. Miriam Virgo credits God with stepping in to save her daughter's life.
"Coming from such a Christian family," she said, "I've never believed in abortion, but suddenly finding myself pregnant with a rapist's baby, I looked at it differently." She continued, "I just couldn't face the thought of the baby being born and looking like Rob [her alleged rapist] - it would be a constant reminder of what had happened." After "counselling," Virgo said, she was ready for an abortion; but when the moment came, and she was already dressed in the hospital gown, she changed her mind after what she describes as a moment of help from God. Ultimately, after she gave birth to Kayleigh, now seven, she found that the child did look like her attacker, and she experienced some difficulty bonding. But ultimately she overcame this, saying, "After all, none of this was her fault." A year after her daughter's birth, Virgo applied to and was accepted by the police force. She said that when Kayleigh is old enough, she will tell her of the circumstances of her conception, and "I'll also tell her about the moment I decided to keep her, and how I felt all this love for her, love that is even stronger now." In another interview, Virgo said, "God knew what my life would be without the girl and he knew what it would be with the girl. I prayed to God and asked for his will to be done in my life." The so-called "rape exception" is commonly accepted, even by many who are inclined to the pro-life position, as a "compassionate" act for a rape victim. But pro-life apologists refute this, saying that it is neither just for the innocent child who is killed, nor beneficial for the mother. Stephanie Gray, the head and founder of the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, told LifeSiteNews.com that Miriam Virgo's story should be one that inspires others to make the same choice in favor of life. It illustrates, she said, the basic principle of the entire pro-life cause, that an unborn child has dignity and value, no matter what the circumstances of her conception. "If the unborn are valuable because they're human," Gray said, "then how they come into existence does not change the fact that they are persons with inherent dignity." Gray illustrated the principle with a hypothetical: had Virgo been married and "had consensual sex with her husband the night prior to her date rape, upon discovering her pregnancy she would not have known the identity of the child's father." "Imagine if she hoped it was her husband's child and carried on with the pregnancy, and only after birth, with paternity test results, discovered the child's father was a rapist. Would she be permitted to kill the infant then because of the father's crime? Obviously not. Likewise, we may not kill an unborn child because of her father's crime." Gray said that Virgo's "witness is a powerful example to all people, and that is that we should be other-focused, not self-focused." "Even amidst her own victimization and deep pain, Miriam chose not to victimize an innocent child."
British Doctors Left Premie to Die: at 21 Weeks 5 Days, Baby Boy "Just a Fetus"Mother launches campaign to change utilitarian British health care rationing guidelinesBy Hilary White GORLESTON, UK, September 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A young British mother has criticized medical guidelines that, she said, resulted in doctors refusing treatment and leaving her newborn premature son to die. 23 year-old Sarah Capewell told media that her son Jayden, born at 21 weeks and five days gestation, was refused intensive care because he was two days under the limit set by the British government's National Health Service (NHS) rationing guidelines.
Since her son's death, Capewell has launched an internet campaign to change the guidelines and says that she has received messages of support from around the world. Health care rationing guidelines set down by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in 2006 say that intensive care should never be given to babies below 22 weeks gestation, and rarely to those below 23 weeks. In secular bioethics, this is called Futile Care Theory, which holds that in cases where there is no hope for improvement of an incapacitating condition, such as extreme prematurity, no treatment should be offered. In the case of Sarah Capewell' son, the Nuffeld Council guidance that staff reportedly cited was backed up by advice published by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine (BAPM) last year. The BAPM paper itself, however, does not mandate the refusal of treatment, saying only, "This is not a set of instructions, but a framework to highlight the range of evidence and opinion that needs to be considered by staff and parents." "The care of the mother, her fetus and the baby, will always need to be individualized and should be led by senior staff in all disciplines. The parents' hopes and expectations need to be explored with honesty and compassion in a realistic way, drawing upon the available evidence." The BAPM paper says that in cases where children are born before 23 weeks gestation, "it would be considered in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out." It continues, however, "If the parents wish they should have the opportunity to discuss outcomes with a second senior member of the perinatal team." But Capewell reports that her wishes were ignored by hospital staff. "When I asked about my baby's human rights," she said, "the attitude of the doctors seemed to be that he did not have any. They said before 22 weeks he was just a fetus." Under British criminal law, an unborn child can be killed by abortion up to 24 weeks gestation without any cause being stated and up to the time of full gestation if he is suspected of suffering from some disability. The British national health care rationing body, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (N.I.C.E.), has plainly stated that such guidelines are based on financial motives, in consideration of how expensive a treatment will be compared to the "quality of life years" it can provide. This is an expression of a new utilitarian trend in the philosophy of medical care that has replaced classical medical ethics in recent decades. In traditional medical ethics, the governing principle, according to the ancient Hippocratic Oath, is to "do no harm" to the patient. In modern utilitarian bioethics, the guiding principle is to produce "the greatest good for the greatest number," whether that good benefits the patient or not. Under this principle, which has swept the medical world in most western countries that have adopted government socialized medical care, it is increasingly common for medical guidelines to allow doctors to decide, against a patient's wishes or those of his family, that further medical treatment is "futile" and can be discontinued. In countries such as Britain and Canada, where the provision of food and water are considered "medical treatment," this can mean that a patient can be legally dehydrated to death, often while being placed in permanent sedation.
Study: Abortion, Hormonal Contraceptives Influence Breast Cancer RiskBy John Jalsevac Sept. 8, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A paper published this week in the journal, The Linacre Quarterly, by Angela Lanfranchi, MD shows how different pregnancy outcomes influence breast cancer risk. According to Lanfranchi, 52 years of research has pointed to the fact that abortion, as well as hormonal contraceptives, can significantly increase the risk of breast cancer. Lanfranchi is the Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and the president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. "In utero, (the mother's) offspring produce hormones that mature 85 percent of the mother's breast tissue into cancer-resistant breast tissue," explains Lanfranchi. This accounts for the protective effect of full term pregnancy (FTP) that experts universally recognize. Delayed first full term pregnancy (FTP) is associated with a temporary risk increase because it lengthens the period during the reproductive years when nearly all of the breast lobules are immature and cancer-susceptible and exposed to the cancer-causing effects of estrogen during menstrual cycles. However, in terms of lifetime risk, says Lanfranchi, the mother will eventually benefit from the protective effect of FTP, provided it lasted at least 32 weeks. Short pregnancies that end before 32 weeks (except for first trimester miscarriages) leave the breasts only "partially matured" and "with more places for cancers to start." "Induced abortion is a recognized cause of premature birth... and prematurity more than doubles breast cancer risk if it is before 32 weeks," she observes. Most first trimester miscarriages, however, do not raise risk according to Lanfranchi, because "inadequate levels of the pregnancy hormones" during an abnormal pregnancy do not stimulate breast growth and "leave the mother's breasts unchanged." Lanfranchi also points out that among women experiencing breast cancer during pregnancy, those who had FTPs had the longest survival rate in comparison to women who miscarried and had "slightly shorter survivals," and those who chose abortion and had the "shortest survivals." However, "There is data that suggests that a woman who has a complete pregnancy and lactates within five years of an abortion has a lower risk of breast cancer than if a woman waits more than ten years before her first child is born." In addition, hormonal contraceptives containing "estrogen- progestin combination drugs prescribed in any manner of delivery: orally, transdermally, vaginally, or intrauterine, increase risk." On the other hand, breastfeeding reduces risk "in proportion to the length of breastfeeding." Lanfranchi concludes: "There is a well-known and documented physiology supporting both induced abortion and hormonal contraceptives as risk factors for breast cancer. Yet these risks are largely unknown to women seeking family planning services. Without this knowledge, women cannot make informed choices when they are faced with the choice of an induced abortion or life for their child and the use of hormonal contraceptives." "Women suffer tremendously when 'breast cancer awareness groups' keep us in the dark about breast physiology, especially when millions unwittingly damage their health by choosing abortion and combined hormone replacement therapy," said Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, about Lanfranchi's findings. "We encourage the public to send Dr. Lanfranchi's paper to the American Cancer Society and Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Ask them if they can find any inaccuracies concerning the physiology presented in her paper. Challenge them to defend their position in the customary way - before their peers - by stating their objections in a letter to the editor of the medical journal." Lanfranchi's paper is entitled, "Normal breast physiology: The reasons hormonal contraceptives and induced abortion increase breast cancer risk," and is available here.
Secret CPC Directive Calls for the Dismantlingof Six House Churches in Beijing! ChinaAid August 25, 2009 BEIJING—On August 25, 2009, ChinaAid learned the Chinese government recently issued a secret directive calling the government agencies to dismantle at least six major house churches before the end of August. ChinaAid believes these actions have been taken in preparation for the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the CPC's rule in China.
Photo from shchurch.com: Over 1,000 Believers worship at Beijing Shouwang Church every week
Reliable sources told ChinaAid that the Beijing Huajie Plaza received an order from the PSB to terminate its rental contract with the Beijing Shouwang house church. One of the largest house churches in the area, Beijing Shouwang Church has been renting two floors for their worship and Sunday school services in Huajie Plaza for a few years. The church has over 1,000 church members, and most of them are intellectuals from universities. This is the most recent action against Beijing Shouwang Church since government officials forcibly shut down their church website on April 13, 2009, and raided the church on May 11, 2008.
Other house churches in Beijing recently received similar pressure to stop church gatherings. This is believed to be the first step taken by the Chinese government to crack down on the house churches in Beijing.
President Bob Fu believes,“the upcoming 60th anniversary of the CPC is not cause for trampling on rights of peaceful citizens gathering in accordance with their right to religious freedom. ChinaAid urges the Chinese government to revoke the secret directive, which is contrary to international covenants signed by the CPC, to acknowledge the positive societal influence of these house churches, and to allow these churches to meet freely throughout the anniversary period.” www.ChinaAid.org and www.MonitorChina.org
Mexican State of Queretaro Overwhelmingly Passes Pro-Life Amendment, 21-0Over 58,000 letters sent to legislature urging adoption of the measureBy Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent QUERETARO, MEXICO, September 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Mexican state of Queretaro has passed a pro-life amendment to its constitution, protecting the right to life from the moment of conception until natural death. The passage of the measure followed a letter writing campaign that brought over 58,000 notarized letters to the state's congress in support of the right to life. The text of the amendment, which was approved by an absolute majority of 21-0, was quoted in the Mexican media several weeks ago as follows: "In the state of Queretaro the existence of life from the moment of conception is recognized, therefore, respect for it and for all human rights will be guaranteed, its defense will be promoted, and the conditions necessary for its exercise will be provided." It also stated that, "the State has the obligation to respect life as a fundamental right and to not offend it, nor expose it to any danger, a protection that should be understood from the moment of conception until its natural end, because it is a primordial, universal, absolute, and inalienable right." However, in cases of rape, the penal code continues to provide no penalty for abortion, according to the Mexican newspaper Mileneo, which also reported that women who go to hospitals after failed abortions would not be prosecuted. Queretaro is the 15th Mexican state to pass a pro-life amendment in the past year. The amendments have followed Mexico City's decision to legalize abortion in 2007, creating fear that the same could happen at the state level. Parties from across the political spectrum voted for the measure, following the example of other states in which left-wing and right wing politicians have come together to support the value of human life.
Government's New End of Life Protocol = Death Sentence for British PatientsPractice causing "national wave of discontent" as family members watch loved ones killed by dehydration.
 Under a National Health Service (NHS) protocol called the Liverpool Care Pathway, patients are being labelled as dying "without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong" the physicians said in their letter. Under the guidelines, the diagnosis that a patient is close to death must be made by the entire medical team, including a senior doctor. This diagnosis, under existing rules, then allows a patient to be sedated and to have food and hydration and other treatment, such as antibiotics, withdrawn until death. Under the Pathway protocol, patients can be diagnosed as "close to death" if they become confused or have difficulty swallowing. But the doctors warn that these symptoms can be caused by the sedating medication and dehydration, creating a self-fulfilling diagnosis. In the letter, Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics at the University of London, Dr. Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke's cancer centre in Guildford and four others, said that the practice is causing a "national wave of discontent" as family members watch their loved ones killed by dehydration. John Smeaton of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children commented that the "practice of consigning vulnerable patients to a death pathway" is the result of years of changes to the legal system that is building up to the effectively legalisation of euthanasia. "The government's 2005 Mental Capacity Act," Smeaton said, "extended the possible scope of this practice. The inherent right to life of all patients, whether they are terminally ill or not, must be defended in the face of the government's war against the weak." Barbara Wilding, Britain's longest serving female chief constable, said last month that the growing public approval of assisted suicide is a threat to elderly people. Wilding said that "a growing rift" between the generations is becoming a significant challenge for police who are concerned that increasing relaxation of assisted suicide laws could be exploited by families to kill "burdensome elderly relatives". Wilding told the Daily Telegraph, "From a policing perspective we need to be very careful on this to make sure it does not become a way of getting rid of a burden. I will be watching any change in legislation very carefully".  The Liverpool Care Pathway, described by its formulators as a "template" to guide the care of the dying, was approved in 2004 by the notorious National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government's health scrutiny body in charge of rationing health services. The NICE is known to be heavily biased in favour of dehydrating patients to death, as was revealed in the case of Leslie Burke, a British man who attempted unsuccessfully to obtain court guarantees that he would not be killed by this method once his motor neurone disease had rendered him unable to communicate. The Pathway has been adopted nationwide with more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England using it to allocate health care resources. In August, the BBC reported that some physicians in Britain and abroad are concerned with the increasing use of "continuous deep sedation" in treating the terminally ill. Deep sedation, in which a patient is kept continuously unconscious or at a low level of consciousness, is ethically used in cases where pain is treatable by no other means. It can have the effect of reducing life expectancy by suppressing respiration but classical ethics allows this if it is an undesired and unintended secondary effect to the relief of pain. But reports from the Netherlands show that the use of continuous deep sedation until death was becoming more widespread in that country where direct euthanasia is legal. In 2001, researchers found that in six European countries deep sedation was used in 8.5 percent of all deaths in patients with cancer and other diseases. In most cases patients under deep sedation were also denied fluids. In the Czech republic, where assisted suicide is illegal, it was revealed that some doctors were using large doses of morphine to kill patients in order "not to prolong" patients' suffering.
Baptist Children's Home Ok to Dismiss Homosexual Employee: Court
The court ruled that the home did not violate Title VII, the federal employment discrimination law, or the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought the lawsuit against the home, which provides social services for at-risk children. The Alliance Defense Fund provided funding for attorneys with the Christian Legal Society and Thomas More Law Center to defend the home in the suit. "Faith-based organizations should not be discriminated against for their beliefs. This is an important victory for the ability of faith-based social service providers to hire employees who share their values," said Greg Baylor, attorney for the Christian Legal Society Center for Law & Religious Freedom. In its ruling, the 6th Circuit also dismissed the ACLU's claim that the home should not receive partial expense reimbursements from the federal government for its needy youth programs because of the home's religious affiliation. The court, however, allowed the claim that partial expense reimbursements from the state government might violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to proceed, which the home intends to appeal. "The reimbursement Sunrise receives has been used to serve abused and neglected children," Baylor explained. "We are confident that the ultimate outcome of this case will be that the home will continue to help at-risk youth as it has been doing for years." The suit began when the children's home, formerly known as Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children, dismissed Alicia Pedreira, an employee who was involved in homosexual behavior. The Kentucky ACLU attempted to characterize Pedreira's dismissal as religious discrimination and challenged the state and federal reimbursement the home receives, claiming its religious affiliation made the reimbursement a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Same-Sex 'Marriages' Begin Today in Vermont By Patrick B. Craine Vermont, September 1, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - As of midnight today, September 1, 2009, same-sex 'marriages' began to be performed in Vermont. Vermont became the fourth state to legally redefine 'marriage' on April 7th, and the first state to do so through legislation rather than through the courts. The new law gives full marriage rights to same-sex couples who choose to 'marry.'Vermont Governor Jim Douglas vetoed the House of Representatives' April 6th vote in favor of the same-sex 'marriage' bill, but the next day his veto was overturned when the House obtained the needed votes for a two-third's majority. Vermont was the first state to institute same-sex civil unions in July 2000. Following this legislation, the state became a sort of mecca for same-sex couples seeking this official status, and it is expected that the same will be true of the new 'marriage' bill. According to the Associated Press, 78 percent of Vermont's civil unions came from out-of-state couples. Shari Rendall, director of legislation and policy for Concerned Women for America, told Focus on the Family's CitizenLink that the legislation is a disaster for America. "Marriage between one man and one woman is critical to maintaining social stability," she said. "Society as a whole pays a high price when marriage is devalued. You see divorce; you see single-parenting; you see a rise in out-of-wedlock pregnancies."
Dr. Alveda King Remembers Sen. Edward KennedyATLANTA, GA, August 28, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - – Dr. Alveda King, Pastoral Associate of Priests for Life and niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., today reflected on the passing of Sen. Edward Kennedy. “The Ted Kennedy I want to remember is the man who, before he embraced the pro-abortion cause, was like his dearly departed sister Eunice, who was pro-li fe. Senator Kennedy once compassionately and consistently fought for civil rights. In 1971, he wrote that every human being, wanted or unwanted, had the right to be born. He later changed his position and supported and even sponsored pro-abortion legislation. There were many tragedies in the Senator’s life, but to me, one of the worst is that he stopped supporting the civil rights of those in the womb.” Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, stated, “I recall the visit Dr. King and I made to the Senator’s office last year, during which we quoted abortionists about decapitating children and asked if that was what the Senator meant by the word abortion. Sadly, we got no clear answer. We join in prayer for God’s forgiveness for all who tolerate this violence.”
http://lifesitenews.com/
Statistics Canada's "Scandalous" Failure to Report Accurate Abortion Numbers"Stats Canada has records available within thirty days of, for example, the number of baby chicks hatched in the previous month in the entire country, yet stats for the number of abortions are three years old."By Thaddeus M. Baklinski OTTAWA, August 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Statistics Canada released its most recent numbers for abortion in Canada on Monday. The data reported are from 2002 to 2006, which StatsCan claims are the most current numbers available, and on the surface would seem to indicate a reduction in the numbers of abortions committed in Canada, dropping from 105,535 in 2002 to 91,377 in 2006. However, the government statistics agency may in fact be manipulating the numbers to hide the true state of abortion in Canada, says one Canadian pro-life leader.Significantly absent from the 2006 data are any numbers for abortions in British Columbia, New Brunswick and Manitoba. The StatsCan report says in a footnote that numbers for these provinces are "too unreliable to be published." Hospital and clinic abortions for Prince Edward Island are not reported at all for any of these years. John Hof, president of Campaign Life Coalition BC, told LifeSiteNews.com that the refusal by Statistics Canada to provide true and up to date data for abortion in Canada in scandalous. "It's scandalous that no accurate record-keeping is being done, and the records we get are so scant and out of date," Hof said. Illustrating the disparity between abortion stats and those of just about anything else the government keeps track of, Hof observed, "Stats Canada has records available within thirty days of, for example, the number of baby chicks hatched in the previous month in the entire country, yet stats for the number of abortions are three years old." "The way stats on abortion are recorded in Canada would not be tolerated in any other industry or about any other subject," Hof said. "They keep track of everything, expect the number of babies that die." 2006 is the first year that the national abortion statistics have come out with no numbers for BC, New Brunswick and Manitoba. "BC has legislation in place that prevents abortion stats from being released to anyone," Hof explained and added that an initiative concerning freedom of information legislation is under consideration by pro-life groups in the province. "For three provinces to not have numbers included in the report," Hof continued, "from BC where there is a law against releasing the information, New Brunswick where the province is fighting a court battle with abortionist Henry Morgentaler over government funding of abortion in his private clinic, and Manitoba which has been in litigation about government funding of abortion, its obvious they just don't want people to know." "These numbers are a sham," Hof concludes. "If you add the 2005 numbers for those provinces (18,322) to the 2006 totals you come up with a number of 109,699 (not 91,377 as StatsCan reports). This is the highest annual total on the chart and a very concerning number."
Federal Court Tosses Lawsuit Challenging Federal Defense of Marriage ActSANTA ANA, CA, August 25, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A federal court Monday threw out a lawsuit filed against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The decision to dismiss the case comes just over a month since the same court threw out a portion of the lawsuit that challenged California's constitutional amendment protecting marriage. Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorneys represent ProtectMarriage.com in the suit. In December 2008, two men filed the lawsuit Smelt v. United States of America, claiming that the California marriage amendment, which voters decisively passed as Proposition 8 in last November's election, violates the U.S. Constitution. They also challenged the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The two men had obtained a "marriage" license in California during the short window of time in which such licenses were allowed to be issued to members of the same sex. On July 16, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, threw out the portion of the lawsuit filed against the California marriage amendment. The court dismissed the rest of the suit Monday, saying that the case had been improperly filed in state court prior to being moved to federal court and that, therefore, the federal court does not have jurisdiction over the case. "Marriage is not just any two people in a committed relationship. Americans understand and believe that there's more to a marriage than that. Therefore we are pleased that this challenge to the federal law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been dismissed," said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum. "If another lawsuit is filed against the federal DOMA, we are confident that it will be found to be constitutional." ADF-allied attorneys Andrew Pugno of Folsom and Sam Kim of Buena Park also represent ProtectMarriage.com in the case. Pugno and ADF attorneys continue to defend marriage in a separate lawsuit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
Women in SD Must be Told Unborn Child is a Human Being: Federal JudgeBy Hilary White PIERRE, South Dakota, August 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Federal Court has upheld the constitutionality of a South Dakota law requiring doctors to inform patients that abortion kills a human being. U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier handed down the ruling on Thursday in a lawsuit against the state filed by Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota objecting to the 2005 law requiring that full information be given to women seeking abortions. Judge Schreier said that although doctors must use the term 'human being,' it can be used in a "biological sense" and not an "ideological" one. The law specifies that a woman must be told that abortion "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." In the same ruling Schreier, who had issued an order in 2005 preventing the law from coming into effect, overturned a requirement that women be informed that abortion increases the risk of suicide Also struck down was a provision requiring doctors to tell a woman that she has an existing legally protected relationship with her unborn child. Schreier ruled that "in the legal context, a pregnant mother cannot have a 'relationship' with a 'human being,' as that word is defined in the statute." Both Planned Parenthood and the state of South Dakota are considering whether to appeal. "I think the most important part of the statute has been upheld," Assistant Attorney General John Guhin said. Sarah Stoesz, CEO of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota said, "We're thrilled. It's a major victory for women in South Dakota and doctors who want to be free" from having to make ideologically charged statements. Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) who had authored and filed an amicus curiæ brief on behalf of the Family Research Council, said, "A woman's life is worth more than Planned Parenthood's bottom line, so we're pleased the abortion industry failed in its attempt to strike down this law." In a statement, ADF Senior Legal Counsel Steven H. Aden commented, "We find it incredible, however, for the court to determine that the law cannot acknowledge that a 'pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being' because some human beings are somehow not 'persons.'" "The court ruled that a woman has more of a relationship with the abortionist than her preborn baby. All human beings are persons," Aden added. Leslee Unruh, founder of the pro-life Alpha Center pregnancy counseling centre in Sioux Falls, an intervening party in the suit, said the ruling is a "huge, fatal blow" to the abortion lobby and a step forward in the "unraveling" of Roe v. Wade. Unruh told the New York Times that her organization will appeal the decisions on the suicide and relationship provisions. "We take the human being part and go to the Supreme Court and put the human relationship in. That knocks out Roe v. Wade," she said. South Dakota recently attempted to ban abortion within the state entirely. In 2006 the state Legislature passed a bill that prohibited all abortion except in those cases where continuing a pregnancy would pose a medical threat to the mother's life. This measure was overturned by voters in the 2006 election by a margin of 56-44 per cent after abortion lobbyists ran a campaign focusing on the bill's exclusion of exceptions in cases of rape. Another measure was attempted by the state that included the exceptions for pregnancy resulting from rape or incest as well as when there is "substantial risk" of serious permanent injury or death to the mother. This second attempt, Measure 11, was defeated in the November 2008 election after pro-life advocates were split over support for the measure. Leslee Unruh, a leading supporter of Measure 11, said at the time it was a victory for abortion advocates whose only interest, she said, was not in the health of women but an ideological devotion to abortion on demand. http://lifesitenews.com/
Oklahoma Pro-Life Abortion Ultrasound Law OverturnedBy Thaddeus M. Baklinski OKLAHOMA CITY, August 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Oklahoma pro-life law that requires abortion doctors to tell a woman she has a right to a free ultrasound exam and an explanation of the development of her unborn child, has been struck down by a district court judge. Oklahoma County District Judge Vicki Robertson ruled that the 2008 law, which included a number of pro-life initiatives and expanded on anti-abortion legislation passed in 2006, violated a state constitutional provision that requires laws to address only one subject. The notable pro-life measures in the legislation include the creation of the Freedom of Conscience Act, which protects the rights of healthcare providers to refuse to take part in the destruction of human life; ensuring the chemical abortion pill, RU 486, is used in accordance with FDA guidelines; ensuring the mother's consent to abort is not coerced and truly voluntary; providing a woman with an ultrasound of her unborn child which she can view prior to undergoing the abortion; and cultivating respect for disabled children by banning the wrongful-life lawsuits that claim a baby would have been better off aborted. A Tulsa abortion mill run by Nova Health Systems, represented by the New York-based pro-abortion law firm Center for Reproductive Rights, filed a lawsuit charging that the law not only violated the state Constitution's "single-subject" rule but also infringed on a woman's right to privacy, violated her dignity and endangered her health. Director of state legislation for the US National Right to Life Committee, Mary Spaulding Balch, said the judge granted the injunction against the legislation based on a "procedural issue" and not because of the pro-life nature of the law. "The court's ruling is by no means a condemnation of the commonsense protections provided for in the legislation," Balch said in a statement yesterday. "The court's decision was based solely on a procedural issue and not the substantive matters addressed in the bill." "When all is said and done and the dust has settled from today's ruling we fully expect that each of these laws will be given full effect in Oklahoma," Balch said. Senator Todd Lamb, R-Edmond, and State Representative Pam Peterson, who introduced the original legislation, said they are considering a request to the attorney general to appeal Judge Robertson's ruling. "This legislation is pro-woman, pro-child and pro-life," State Rep. Peterson said after the bill was passed in April, 2008. "The more information a woman can have before making this life-altering decision, the better." http://lifesitenews.com/
Quebec Anti-Homophobia Action Plan to be Tabled by Year-End, Says Justice MinisterBy Patrick B. Craine MONTREAL, Quebec, August 16, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The province of Quebec will be proposing a new wide-ranging action plan to fight 'homophobia' by the end of this year, announced Quebec Justice Minister Kathleen Weil at the Montreal Pride event on Sunday - reiterating her original promise made in May. "We are fortunate to live in a society that is so open, but that does not mean that the work is done, there are other measures to provide," said the Minister at the event, reports Canoe. Weil, whose mandate includes "the fight against homophobia," had announced on May 17, the annual International Day Against Homophobia, that a multi-ministry committee was working on developing a provincial policy against homophobia, to be adopted by the end of the year. Now, according to Weil, ten ministries are involved in developing the action plan, which will offer concrete measures to combat negative reactions to homosexuality. Weil will not yet discuss the details of the plan, reports The Canadian Press, but she insists that it will involve not just promises, but "real actions - what we'll do and how we'll do it differently." "Minorities are often confronted with obstacles, obstacles that stop them from reaching their full potential as human beings," she said. "Society can't afford that, can't afford to lose these great people." Montreal Pride spokesman Jasmin Roy told The Canadian Press that the homosexual community expects "enormous" results from the new plan. "It's a big step," he said. "That's why we're marching: to say that finally, this year, Quebec will have a policy against homophobia." On the day of the Montreal Pride event, QuÚbec solidaire, a radical left-wing political party, issued a statement criticizing the Quebec government for not following through on their commitment to respond to the human rights commission's report. According to Dr. Amir Khadir, the party's sole member in the Quebec National Assembly, it is "absurd to note that 40 years after the partial decriminalization of homosexuality, practically no significant measure has been adopted to combat homophobia in Quebec." Khadir called on the government to act in the schools and to work with organizations that need more funding to fight 'homophobia' or assist victims of 'homophobia'. "It's time to act," he said. The action plan is being developed based on the recommendations of the Quebec human rights commission in its 2007 report, "From legal equality to social equality: toward a national strategy to fight against homophobia," which had been commissioned in 2005 by Justice Minister Yvon Marcoux. The report documents the difficulties experienced by homosexuals, including higher rates of depression, drug abuse, alcoholism, and suicidal tendencies. While many would point to these as symptoms of sexual disorder, the report attributes these difficulties to 'homophobia'. Calling on the government, then, to fight 'homophobia', the report even recommends the creation of a separate ministry for the cause. Quebec Immigration Minister Yolande James, who is also heavily involved in the action plan, expressed pleasure to The Canadian Press about Quebec's initiative in promoting openness to homosexuality. "We've always been avant-garde in our progress towards equality," she said, "and I think this policy will allow us to do more and continue to be the front-runners." The province has indeed been strongly pushing the homosexualist agenda. Last week, for example, it was reported that the Quebec Ministry of Education had funded the development of a training program for primary school teachers that helps them promote openness to same-sex parenting in their classrooms. The training had already begun in Montreal.
Thousands of Under-Age Abortions in Scotland under Government Sex-Ed PushBy Hilary White EDINBURGH, August 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Freedom of Information request has revealed that Britain's National Health Service (NHS) has sponsored dozens of abortions for underage girls in Scotland in recent years. The Daily Record newspaper reports that 87 13-year-old girls and eight 12 year-olds as well as almost 3,000 girls under 15 had NHS abortions between 2000 and 2008. The government has responded to the statistics with promises of still more sex education in Scotland for young people, despite statistics demonstrating the failure of the strategy. Public Health Minister Shona Robison told media that the numbers were "cause for concern" and said that the government is working with health boards and local councils to ensure "appropriate" education on sex and relationships will be delivered in all schools. A spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland called the numbers "appalling and distressing." Peter Kearney, told the BBC, "If anything it indicates that the government's sexual health strategy, which was created by the last administration and perpetuated by the current administration, is working perfectly. "Because part of that strategy was fast and instant access to widespread abortion services. Unfortunately, it is completely the wrong strategy." "Until politicians and health professionals stop counting abortion as a solution and realize what an appalling problem it is, these numbers will probably get worse." Kearny said that the statistics on abortions on girls under the legal age of consent indicated that a "serious question" should be asked of GPs in Scotland. In 1997, at the time the Labour Party came to power under Tony Blair, a major campaign platform had been promises to cut Britain's soaring rates of teenage pregnancy, largely through the expansion of sex education programs for young people in schools. While contraception and abortion campaigners continue to tout the sex-ed strategy, a government pilot program was recently cancelled when it was discovered that girls targeted for intensive sex-ed were more than twice as likely to become pregnant than their peers not in the program. The government's so-called 'abstinence-plus' strategy is to encourage under-age children to say no to sex until they are 16, while at the same time being given explicit information on sex and contraceptives. But critics have said that the British sex-ed programs expurgate mention of objective morality and say that young people are not to be given any clear moral direction. They are instead encouraged to "clarify their own values" and decide what is right "for them." Norman Wells, head of Family Education Trust, wrote in his 2009 book "Too Much Too Soon," that the program of study for 11-14 year-olds makes several references to the need to teach 11-14-year-olds about sexual orientation, same-sex relationships and civil partnerships and recommends two of Britain's leading abortion and contraception advocates, the Family Planning Association and Brook as sources of help. In 2006, a 14-year-old girl, Josie Parkinson, described the sex education provided in her local secondary school. "As a 14 year-old girl," Parkinson told the Daily Mail, "I have had to attend four talks in the past nine months from a woman from a family planning clinic. "I have been taught three times how to put on a condom; how easily pupils can acquire condoms free at a clinic; how to recognise sexually transmitted diseases and have them treated confidentially at a clinic; and that we do not need to tell our parents, GP, the police or anyone else in authority about being provided with contraception, or even having an abortion." Parkinson added, "There was not one mention of abstaining or any discouragement of sex. At the first lesson we were told: 'As you know, it is unlawful for a girl or boy to have sex before 16. However, if you are under 16, we can still provide you with contraception and you do not need to tell your parents about it.'" Doreen Massey, former director of the Family Planning Association and current chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children, said that sex education should teach children "to express love without embarrassment, and to find and give pleasure in sexual encounters when it is appropriate." The age of consent in Scotland, England and Wales is 16. http://lifesitenews.com/ Planned Parenthood Continues Boasting Close Ties with White House on Obamacare BillBy Kathleen Gilbert WASHINGTON, D.C, August 13, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - As calls for protection against abortion in President Obama's health care legislation fall on deaf ears, Planned Parenthood (PP) has made no secret of its continued communications with the White House on its interest in ensuring that "reproductive health" plays a central role in the final version of the legislation.
The latest meeting continues an apparently tight relationship between Planned Parenthood and the White House, where Obama administration officials have expressed their full cooperation with and encouragement of Planned Parenthood's stake in the bill. In the opening session of the Planned Parenthood 2009 Organizing and Policy Summit last month, White House Public Engagement director Tina Tchen gave an update on the administration's progress in attaining health care reform and assured the crowd of President Obama's commitment to "women's health." According to the PP release, participants at the three-day summit set their sights on the current health care legislation, to ensure it includes "access to comprehensive reproductive health care and access to essential community providers within the network." "Health care reform is moving full steam ahead, and policymakers in Washington need to know the importance of including women's health care as part of a reform package," said Richards. As Family Research Council president Tony Perkins has pointed out, Planned Parenthood, America's largest abortion provider, stands to gain substantially if the legislation includes them as an "essential community provider." Insurance providers, in order to be certified, would be required to contract with Planned Parenthood under that designation. During a meeting of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee last month, when pro-life Senator Orrin Hatch expressed concern that Planned Parenthood would be included in the bill, Sen. Barbara Mikulski admitted that Planned Parenthood was slated for "essential community provider" status. Yet while the Obama White House has been swift to attack other criticisms of the bill, it continues to remain silent on the impact the bill will have on America's abortion landscape While the abortion expansion embedded in the bill - called the "Planned Parenthood Bailout Bill" by Family Research Council's Tony Perkins - has sparked considerable public backlash in its own right, the issue is notably missing in the White House's "reality check" page on health care reform legislation. When CBS news anchor Katie Couric in July asked President Obama point blank whether he favored a government option that covered abortions, Obama evaded the question, saying it was important not to "micromanage" the content of the benefits package or "get distracted by the abortion debate at this station."
Nonetheless, Obama's current legislation appears to be making good on his promise to Planned Parenthood in July 2007, when he assured that abortion availability played a central role his plans for health care reform. Obama, a senator at the time, told attendees at the Planned Parenthood Action Fund event that he intended to include abortion in the public health insurance option, and require such coverage by private insurers. In response to a question on the role of "reproductive health care" in his health care reform, Obama answered: "Well look, in my mind reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care, and so it is at the center, and at the heart of the plan that I propose. "Essentially, what we are doing is to say that we're going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don't have health insurance. it will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services. "We also will subsidize those who prefer to stay in the private insurance market, except the insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care," he added. In addition, Obama stated that "it is important for organizations like Planned Parenthood to be part of that system." http://lifesitenews.com/
UN Health Data Show Liberal Abortion Laws Lead to Greater Maternal DeathAfrican nations with most pro-life laws have by far the lowest maternal death rates on the continentBy Aracely Ornelas NEW YORK, August 13, 2009 (c-fam.org) - The world's largest abortion provider, International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), has recently acknowledged an alarming "surge" in maternal deaths in South Africa, challenging the pro-abortion mantra that liberal abortion laws decrease maternal mortality. Maternal deaths increased by twenty per cent in the period 2005-2007 in South Africa, a country that since 1996 has had one of the most permissive abortion laws on the African continent. While deaths attributable to HIV/AIDS account for the biggest portion of maternal deaths in South Africa, IPPF acknowledges that a portion of deaths are "due to complications of abortion" in a country where the procedure is legal and widely available. Developing countries have been badgered in recent years by various United Nations agencies and pro-abortion civil society organizations, including IPPF, to decriminalize abortion as a measure to reduce maternal mortality rates. However, the latest IPPF revelation is the latest fact in a growing body of evidence showing the opposite relationship in which legal abortion and high maternal deaths coincide. To illustrate, the nation with the lowest African maternal mortality rate is Mauritius, according to a 2009 World Health Organization (WHO) report. Mauritius' laws are among the continent's most protective of the unborn. The report further shows how countries that have decriminalized abortion in recent years in response to pressure, such as Ethiopia, have failed to lower dramatic maternal death rates. Ethiopia's maternal death rate is 48 times higher than in Mauritius. According to WHO, the country with the lowest maternal mortality rate in South America is Chile, which protects unborn life in its constitution. The country with the highest is Guyana, with a maternal mortality rate 30 times higher than in Chile. Guyana has allowed abortion without almost any restriction since in 1995. Ironically, one of two main justifications used in liberalizing Guyana’s law was to enhance the "attainment of safe motherhood" by eliminating deaths and complications associated with unsafe abortion. Nicaragua has been in the crosshairs of the international pro-abortion lobby since it amended its law three years ago to grant full protection to prenatal life. Sweden, for example, reportedly cut over $20 million in foreign aid as a result. More recently, Amnesty International issued a report claiming maternal death rates increased following Nicaragua's law going into effect. Media critics, however, have contested the veracity of Amnesty's claims , and Nicaraguan government statistics show a decline in maternal deaths since 2006. Similarly, WHO statistics for the South East Asia region show Nepal, where there is no restriction on the procedure, has the region's highest rate of maternal mortality. The lowest in the region is Sri Lanka, with a rate fourteen times lower than that of Nepal. According to the pro-abortion public interest law firm Center for Reproductive Rights, Sri Lanka has among the most restrictive abortion laws in the world. Worldwide, the country with the lowest maternal death rate is Ireland, a nation that prohibits abortion and whose constitution explicitly protects the rights of the unborn. http://lifesitenews.com/
Cat out of the Bag: Dem Congresswoman Admits ObamaCare Covers Elective AbortionsBy Peter J. Smith SAN JOSE, California, August 12, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Democratic Congresswoman admitted to her California constituents gathered at a town-hall meeting what the Obama administration has tried desperately to keep quiet: the health care reform bill covers abortions.
"We know that over 90 percent of abortions are purely elective, not medically necessary. Why is this being covered when abortion is not clearly health care," Ignacio Reyes, a local pro-life advocate, asked Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Cali.) at a San Jose town-hall meeting.
As the applause for Reyes subsided, Lofgren, who represents California's 16th Congressional District, responded that the proposed Congressional reforms included "a basic benefit plan developed by health professionals."
"Abortion will be covered as a benefit by one or more of the healthcare plans available to Americans, and I think it should be," said Logren, eliciting jeers and protests from the crowd. Footage of Logren's town-hall meeting (complete with subtitles) was recorded and posted to the internet by David Schmidt, a young pro-life videographer and founder of the website "Issues and Justice". Although abortion groups, such as Planned Parenthood Federation of America and NARAL Pro-Choice America, continue to claim the existence of an abortion mandate is a "myth," the Associated Press instead confirmed that H.R. 3200 - the only version accessible to the general public out of five other bills on health-care reform - includes abortion coverage under the Capps Amendment. The Capps Amendment explicitly mandates that the public health insurance option - which aims to provide for 46 million Americans who now lack coverage - will cover abortions through federal funding not restricted by the Hyde amendment. The Hyde amendment, which must be renewed on an annual basis, only prohibits federal funding going to the Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) from paying for abortion. But as the AP report confirmed, that leaves open other streams of federal funding, which under the health bill (HR 3200) could be used to subsidize abortion.
Although the Capps provision forbids the proposed "Health Benefits Advisory Committee" from mandating abortion-coverage as an essential service in the "Health Insurance Exchange," it does mandate that every U.S. region have at least one abortion-covering private insurance plan. It also mandates one non-abortion-covering private insurance plan for every region. The amendment goes on to require taxpayer subsidies in the form of "affordability credits" to flow to insurance plans that include abortion, but then demands insurers guarantee the "affordability credits" do not subsidize abortion procedures, as if somehow money loses its fungible nature.
Family Research Council first brought attention to the abortion mandate attached to HR 3200 in a provocative ad in which an elderly man finds out he is denied a surgical procedure, while the government plan covers abortions. http://lifesitenews.com/ Socialist Sweden Moves to Ban Homeschooling for Religious or Philosophical ReasonsGovernment accused of "showing off its worst totalitarian socialist roots".By Hilary White STOCKHOLM, August 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Swedish Association for Home Education (ROHUS) is asking for support from the international community to stop an attempt by the Swedish government to outlaw homeschooling. The new legislation argues that because a child's education should be "comprehensive and objective" it must be "designed so that all pupils can participate, regardless of what religious or philosophical" views of parents or children. The government's explanation of the draft law says, "there is no need for the law to offer the possibility of homeschooling because of religious or philosophical reasons in the family." On June 15 the Swedish government unveiled the draft legislation which, if passed, would impose severe restrictions on parents wishing to homeschool their children. Citing the European Convention on Human Rights, the law only allows parents to homeschool if "extraordinary circumstances" exist. The programme being used must pass muster with state officials and authorities will inspect and monitor home schooling families. Permission to homeschool must be renewed each year. The final law will be presented to Parliament during the spring of 2010 and if passed, will take effect in 2011. ROHUS said the legislation represents "a return to darkness". The group noted the irony that the law, ostensibly based on the European Convention on Human Rights, proposes to outlaw homeschooling on religious or philosophical grounds. Article 9 of the Convention guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the right to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance. The Swedish Government, the group says, "is making homeschooling illegal, for religious or philosophical reasons, thus showing off its worst totalitarian socialist roots". They are calling for international support "to show that Sweden, as a member of the international democratic community, cannot take such a position". "As Sweden is often seen as the great social utopia of the world, it is important for Swedish homeschoolers to win this battle. Any and all help is appreciated immeasurably." Parents who homeschool children in Sweden consistently report that the state-run schools are in a state of chaos due to their adoption of trendy "progressive" educational theories that have been out of use in other countries for years. At the website of Trivium Pursuit, a website that provides resources for homeschoolers interested in classical Christian education, a group of expatriate British, American and Australian parents wrote of their experiences with homeschooling in Sweden. One American woman wrote to say that the government's officially socialist educational philosophy has hampered any possible pursuit of excellence. "[N]o one could be 'better' than anyone else in their gifted areas, so there are no competitions like we have in the US, like the science fairs, etc." Another wrote that "the Swedish school system still has not realized that the rest of the world changed curriculum directions some time ago". One English mother, married to a Swedish man, said she was worried about the impact of the Swedish system that eschews traditional grading systems on their son. "Our main worry is the 'no-one should aspire to be better' mentality that pervades here in schools and the bullying which is increasing dramatically." http://lifesitenews.com/
Communities Organize Against Health Care, While Professional Protestors Organize at White House BehestBy Peter J. Smith WASHINGTON, D.C., August 7, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – After a series of humiliating town-hall meetings suffered by Congressional Democrats, the White House has called out professional "community organizers" and labor unions to fight-back against a vigorous grassroots movement protesting President Barack Obama health-care reform. 
But opponents of the Democrats health-care plans, many of whom are concerned about the potential for involuntary euthanasia and abortion coverage, are gaining momentum and show no signs of backing down, even in the face of union violence. "If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard!" Jim Messina, the White House Deputy Chief of staff, told Senate Democrats in a meeting to prepare them to respond to constituent protests according to staffers. In a similar vein, labor union bosses, such as the AFL-CIO and Service Employees International Union (SEIU), sent out memos urging their members to turn out in force and "drown out" opponents’ voices. Violence erupted at one Missouri town-hall meeting when several thugs from the (SEIU) attacked a conservative African-American man passing out yellow "Don’t Tread on Me" flags outside the event. Three men wearing SEIU shirts and another unidentified woman assaulted Kenneth Gladney, 38, punching him in the face, and then kicking him in the head and back as they swore racially-charged epithets at him outside of Rep. Russ Carnahan's (D-MO) town hall meeting in Melville, Missouri. Police made six arrests. The local "Tea Party" group organized a protest on Saturday outside of SEIU’s headquarters in St. Louis to demand justice for Gladney, who had to be admitted to the emergency room for his injuries. Gladney appeared in a wheel-chair, and signed similar flags, and other signs that said, "Don’t Tread on Kenny."In Tampa Bay, over 1,500 protestors showed up to a town-hall featuring Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) that was equipped to seat just 250 people and cameras. The vast majority assembled were opposed to Obama’s health care plan. SEIU members, on the other hand, were admitted through a side-door, instead of the main entrance, and shoved a number of opponents, including seniors, outside to close the doors on the meeting.
Sola was ushered away by the police, but not before denouncing Dingell, the main author of HR 3200, as a "fraud." In a Fox News interview after the event Sola explained his position and the information he had contradicting Dingell's answer to his question. He also claimed that he and his family were threatened in the middle of the night after his protest. Although Dingell insisted that HR 3200 did not provide abortion coverage, many in the audience did not buy it according to the Detroit Free Press. Pro-life advocates have attacked the bill, because abortion-coverage could be mandated at any time on all insurers – public and private – by the "Health Benefits Advisory Committee," which would fall under the oversight of the Executive Branch, not Congress. "The government wants to control my body, my health care decisions and the doctors I see," said Christine Wofford, 56, who brought and distributed literature from the Liberty Counsel, a Christian civil liberties legal defense firm.Some Democrats have chosen to retreat from the town-hall forum rather than face a testy reception from voters, in favor of telephone town-hall meetings or one-on-one meetings with constituents. Meanwhile, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, communicating through postings on her Facebook page, has urged Americans to continue to make their voices heard, but to make sure that passion over the health-care debate does not lead to charges of "intimidation or harassment." Palin also joined her voice in condemnation of the bill. "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care," said Palin. "Such a system is downright evil." Congressional Democratic leadership and the White House have engaged in a public relations campaign to discredit town-hall protests as an "astro-turf" grassroots organized by Republicans and operatives from private health insurers, instead of a genuine expression of civil discontent at Obama’s proposed reforms. "I think they’re AstroTurf, you be the judge," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a reporter with the San Francisco Chronicle. "They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare." However, the only pictures available show protestors holding signs with the Nazi (National Socialist) imagery crossed out and as a reference to what many of those protestors perceive as President Barack Obama’s subtle attempt to nationalize the health-care industry. Also in contrast to the citizens protesting the potential for rationing, abortion-coverage, or involuntary euthanasia under health-care reform, Craig's List is now featuring listings of full or part-time positions for paid activists to push Obama’s health-care agenda. One ad offers between $400-600 per week at a rate of $10-15 per hour.Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer have also accused opponents massing at town-halls of being "un-American." "These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American," the two Democrat leaders wrote in an op-ed for USAToday. "Now — with Americans strongly supporting health insurance reform, with Congress reaching consensus on a plan, and with a president who ran and won on this specific promise of change - America is closer than ever to this century-deferred goal."Yet the latest polls, not just the overwhelming turnout at town hall meetings, reveal that a majority of Americans now oppose Obama’s proposals for health-care reform. According to Rasmussen polls, 51 percent of the nation’s voters fear the federal government more than private insurance companies, while 41 percent fear private insurers over the federal government. 76 percent of Democrats favor the proposal, while 76 percent of Republicans are opposed. But among independent voters, only 35 percent favor Obama’s plan, while 60 percent are opposed with 47 percent strongly opposed. An August 6 Quinnipiac poll found Obama’s approval rating at 50 percent, a sign that the President is now bleeding supporters. Voters disapproved of his health care proposals by a margin of 52 percent to 39 percent. "Now — with Americans strongly supporting health insurance reform, with Congress reaching consensus on a plan, and with a president who ran and won on this specific promise of change - America is closer than ever to this century-deferred goal.""Now — with Americans strongly supporting health insurance reform, with Congress reaching consensus on a plan, and with a president who ran and won on this specific promise of change - America is closer than ever to this century-deferred goal." "Now — with Americans strongly supporting health insurance reform, with Congress reaching consensus on a plan, and with a president who ran and won on this specific promise of change - America is closer than ever to this century-deferred goal." "Now — with Americans strongly supporting health insurance reform, with Congress reaching consensus on a plan, and with a president who ran and won on this specific promise of change - America is closer than ever to this century-deferred goal."
"Now — with Americans strongly supporting health insurance reform, with Congress reaching consensus on a plan, and with a president who ran and won on this specific promise of change - America is closer than ever to this century-deferred goal." http://lifesitenews.com/
Teachers Dissatisfied with Pro-Abortion, Homosexualist NEA Turn to Ethical AlternativesBy Kathleen Gilbert ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, August 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - After the National Education Association (NEA) last month confirmed its support for abortion and same-sex "marriage," one teacher's association is reporting an influx of new members seeking an ethical alternative source of liability insurance and other benefits. The American Association of Educators (AAE) says that more teachers are discovering their legal options, after the NEA in its July convention voted down an attempt to end the group's abortion advocacy, and strengthened their support for same-sex "marriage." In addition, they say, teachers coming to the AAE have expressed outrage with retiring NEA general counsel Bob Chanin's speech at the same convention, where he launched into a tirade against "right-wing bastards" who are challenging the organization's liberal politics. As the largest teacher's association in America, the AAE says it can provide teachers with liability insurance, access to legal assistance, and supplementary insurance benefit plans - all without the politics of the NEA. Although many American teachers are unable to break free of paying union dues, says the group, the story does not end there. Gary Beckner, AAE's Executive Director, said many teachers are unaware of the legal options available to keep their dues from supporting the NEA's liberal politics. "The Supreme Court has said that even though teachers may be a part of a collectively bargained contract in a district, and have to pay them dues for that representation ... that's all they have to pay for legally," Beckner told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) this week. "They do not have to pay for any part of the dues that union collects that goes to anything other than representation." Beckner noted that some states have established a percentage of union dues teachers are allowed to keep if they wish only to pay for representation. When a teacher chooses to become an "agency-fee only payer," he said, the union will drop them from many of their usual benefits, such as liability insurance - which is where the AAE comes in. "The biggest perk [in joining the AAE] that most teachers like is that we charge them for what they really want, which is liability insurance, legal protection, and professional development, without the politics," Beckner explained. "The perk is what we don't do. We don't spend their money on things that they don't want to have their money spent on." Beckner said the AAE has received "a lot of calls" from interested teachers in recent weeks - a phenomenon he says tends to correspond with the annual outrage of conservative teachers following each NEA convention. "It comes this time every year when teachers start looking," he said, "but it also seems to come this time every year right after the NEA convention. ... Every year there's another straw, and it's too much for many camels' backs out there, and they start looking." As for this year, he said, "of course, it was because of Bob Chanin's speech. ... There have been a lot of comments about the Chanin speech this year." In his speech, Chanin opined that the NEA was "effective" "not because of our creative ideas, it is not because of the merit of our positions, it is not because we care about children, and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power." What, then, makes the AAE effective? "Just the opposite of what [Chanin] said," Beckner told LSN. "Because we do care most about kids. Because every decision we make is in the best interest of children first. "There are some times when we make decisions that, maybe, would keep us from growing quicker than we would," he noted. If a given policy or legislation on the state or local level is not in the best interest of children, "then we just don't take a position for it," he said. "Sometimes that inhibits our growth, but at the same time, it attracts the kind of teachers that really care about children first," said Beckner. "And that's the difference between this association and the NEA." http://lifesitenews.com/
Lawmakers Rip White House for "Orwellian" Blog Post on Health CareBy Kathleen Gilbert WASHINGTON, D.C., August 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A White House blog post calling on readers to report "fishy" information about health care reform to the administration has sparked outrage among lawmakers, who question Obama's definition of illegitimate information, as well as the retaliatory tactics they say are dangerously Orwellian.
"Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to 'uncover' the truth about the President's health insurance reform positions," said the White House post. "There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there," it continued. "Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ." Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) issued a letter to President Obama yesterday strongly condemning the directive, which he says "raises the specter of a data collection program." "I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed 'fishy' or otherwise inimical to the White House's political interests," wrote Cornyn. He called on the president to cease the program, or at least detail the measures taken by the White House to protect individual citizens' privacy. The Republican Senator also raised questions about the Obama administration's definition of "disinformation" - a problem illustrated by the video that originally sparked the controversial White House blog post. The post retaliated primarily against a video popularized by the Drudge Report that shows President Obama and other Democrat leaders admitting support for a single-payer health insurance plan. In its own video response, The White House featured Linda Douglass - who said her job was to keep "track of all the disinformation that's out there about health-insurance reform" - pointing to the Drudge link as a "deceiving headline." "You know, the people who always try to scare people whenever you try to bring them health-insurance reform are at it again," said Douglass. "And they're taking sentences and phrases out of context, and they're cobbling them together to leave a very false impression." But the Drudge Report quickly linked to an uncut version of President Obama's remarks, which confirmed the accuracy of the original video's message. The White House blog has not responded to the second video. Touching ironically on the videos, Sen. Cornyn asked Obama: "Do your own past statements qualify as 'disinformation'? For example, is it 'disinformation' to note that in 2003 you said: 'I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan'?" (Read Cornyn's full letter here.) Sen. John Barasso (R-WY) said the White House's message was bound to strike the wrong chord with Americans. "If you get an e-mail from your neighbor and it doesn't sound right, send it to the White House?" said Barasso. "People, I think all across America, are going to say: 'Is this 1984'? What is happening here? Is big brother watching?" Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) said the administration should "clarify" what it meant by the blog directive. Meanwhile, recent polling data and town hall videos paint a grim picture for the abortion-promoting bill's acceptance among the public. As the Internet this week swelled with videos of citizens angry with the bill confronting their representatives, Democrat leaders scoffed at the protests, charging them with being pre-arranged by right-wing groups. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Democrat lawmakers would continue pushing the bill "in spite of the loud, shrill voices trying to interrupt town hall meetings." "All of this is a diversion by the people who want to, frankly, hurt President Obama," said Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer in an appearance on MSNBC's "Hardball." "This is all planned. It's to hurt our president and change the Congress." 52 percent of voters disapprove of Obama's handling of healthcare, while 39 percent approve, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday. http://lifesitenews.com/ Big Brother is Watching Britain: Government Announces 24-Hour CCTV Surveillance for Bad ParentsBy Hilary White LONDON, August 5, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The British government will force thousands of the "worst" families in the country to live with 24-hour CCTV surveillance in a bid to cut back on child abuse and neglect, the Children's Ministry has said. In the next two years the government plans to expand an existing family monitoring program from 2000 families to 20,000 at a total estimated cost of £400million.
The new rules will begin by focusing on truancy, alcohol abuse or reports of malnutrition. Parents will be monitored to make sure children go to bed on time, eat proper meals and attend school. "This is pretty tough and non-negotiable support for families to get to the root of the problem. There should be Family Intervention Projects in every local authority area because every area has families that need support," said Children's Secretary Ed Balls in announcing the massive expansion of the surveillance program. The Family Intervention Projects already exist in half the councils in the country. These so-called government "sin bins" are the latest addition to what is being called the "most watched" culture on earth. Last month, Teaching unions in London expressed their concerns about the installation of dozens of CCTV cameras in Stockwell Park High School in south London. While the school's headmaster, Mike Rush, insisted that the move had the support of most parents and teachers, Association of Teachers and Lecturers general secretary Mary Bousted said, "This all sounds very Big Brother-ish." Bousted said, "We have major reservations about using CCTV to monitor staff. It would be hard to see how teachers would act naturally if they knew they might be being watched all the time on camera." The cameras are found in even the smallest rural villages, and it is estimated that there is one camera for every 14 people in the country. It has been noted that within 200 yards of the former home of George Orwell, the anti-authoritarian author of the iconic novel 1984, the city of London has installed 32 CCTV cameras, in addition to the hundreds of privately-owned cameras in the neighborhood. In 2007, the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) issued a report warning that "Big Brother tactics" could eventually put lives at risk. Security systems are "vulnerable to abuse, including bribery of staff and computer hackers gaining access to it," they said. The RAE report followed a warning by the Government's Information Commissioner Richard Thomas that excessive use of CCTV and other information-gathering was "creating a climate of suspicion." http://lifesitenews.com/
Catholics United, NARAL Blast Family Research Council for Exposing Abortion Mandate in Health BillCatholics United hails pro-abortion amendment as "common ground"By Kathleen Gilbert WASHINGTON, D.C., August 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Family Research Council (FRC), which has taken a leading role in the Stop the Abortion Mandate pro-life coalition, is drawing ire from pro-abortion and Democrat groups who continue to deny the existence of the taxpayer-funded abortion mandate in President Obama's health care legislation. Catholics United claimed FRC "is seriously misinformed" or "intentionally distorting the truth" by decrying the bill's taxpayer-funded abortion mandate, and welcomed a "common ground" amendment by Rep. Lois Capps that pro-lifers say will actually expand abortion. In addition, NARAL has accused FRC president Tony Perkins of using the abortion mandate campaign as a ruse while secretly attempting to ban all private health insurance from funding abortions.Catholics United took aim at a recent television advertisement campaign by the FRC, which illustrates the plan's potential to fund abortions while rationing health care to the detriment of needier patients. (View the FRC video here.)
Catholics United goes on to argue that, because the health care bill does not contain "any reference to abortion, let alone a mandate for public funding of abortion," the threat described by the FRC is fabricated. "Either the Family Research Council is seriously misinformed, or it is intentionally distorting the truth in order to derail health care reform," said Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United. Korzen called the campaign against the abortion mandate "unhelpful, untruthful, and not at all pro-life." Similarly, NARAL attacked FRC president Tony Perkins for a Politico column decrying the bill's hidden abortion mandate, and accused Perkins of a hidden agenda of abolishing abortion coverage for all private insurance plans. "Tony Perkins took 729 words to obscure a simple fact: What he and his allies are demanding is a new nationwide abortion ban in the private health insurance market," Nancy Keenan wrote in a letter to Politico July 29. "If Perkins succeeds, women who purchase private insurance that now covers abortion services will lose that coverage." Because the current health bills do not reference abortion, claimed Keenan, "it's obvious that Perkins is injecting this issue unnecessarily into the health reform debate in hopes that it will bring down the whole endeavor. That's outrageous." However, as experts at the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and pro-life legal groups have stated repeatedly, the danger lies in the bill's exclusion of any mention of abortion. The groups point to legal precedent concerning Medicaid, which shows that broad terms such as "inpatient services," "outpatient services" and "physician's services" are liable to be interpreted to include abortion. To those who question the scope of such legislation under the Hyde amendment, which prevents Health and Human Services (HHS) monies from funding abortion, NRLC's Douglas Johnson notes that the bill appropriates subsidies independent of the HHS appropriations legislation, and is thus outside the scope of the Hyde amendment. While both President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have prevaricated in recent weeks on their position regarding abortion funding in the bill, abortion groups have not made a secret of their close communications with the White House on the bill as an opportunity to expand abortion. Last month, White House Public Engagement director Tina Tchen attended the Planned Parenthood 2009 Organizing and Policy Summit to update the group on progress on Obama's health care reform, and to re-emphasize Obama's commitment to "women's health." Perhaps the clearest indication that the bill will secure the interests of the abortion lobby, however, came with an amendment by Rep. Lois Capps that the House Energy and Commerce Committee incorporated into the bill Friday. While the initial language of the amendment bars the "essential benefits package" of the public plan from including abortion, it goes on to state that, "The public health insurance option shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B) ['Abortions for which public funding is allowed']." In addition, it states that "nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing or prohibiting coverage of" abortions for which public funding is prohibited through the Hyde amendment. The amendment goes on to require taxpayer subsidies to flow to plans that include abortion, and mandate that every U.S. region have at least one private insurance plan that covers abortion. Though pro-life leaders are united against the amendment by Capps - who has a 100% approval rating from NARAL - Catholics United praised the language as "positive step toward health care reform that preserves existing policies prohibiting federal funding for abortion services and ensuring conscience protections for health care providers."
Amnesty International Calls Protection of Unborn in Nicaragua a "Great Horror"Claims pro-life legislation is harming women's health, despite falling maternal mortality ratesBy Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent MANAGUA, August 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Amnesty International (AI) has launched an international campaign against the government of Nicaragua, claiming that its law protecting the unborn from abortion is "cruel," and "cynical." "There is only one way to describe what we have seen in Nicaragua: a great horror," said Kate Gilmore, Deputy Secretary General of AI, in a press conference held recently in Mexico."The prohibition of therapeutic of abortion in Nicaragua is a shame. It is a human rights scandal that ridicules medical science and distorts the law, being a weapon against the provision of essential medical services for pregnant girls and women," added Gilmore. Nicaragua has provoked the ire of the international abortion lobby since 2006, when it voted to criminally penalize all abortions, although the law is not interpreted as applying to procedures to save a woman's life. Despite heavy campaigning by internationally-funded groups in Nicaragua to overturn the law, it has continued to enjoy the support of the political establishment and the Nicaraguan people. Amnesty has issued a new report to accompany its campaign, entitled "The Total Abortion Ban in Nicaragua," which claims that the new law prohibits all abortions, even those procedures necessary to save a woman's life. However, those claims are contradicted by repeated public statements by the President of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega and Nicaragua's Minister of Health Guillermo Gonzalez, who have stated that abortions performed to save a woman's life are not penalized by the law. The report also claims that twelve women who died from pregnancy complications could have been saved by abortions, although the source it cites, a report by the pro-abortion group Ipas, offers no proof of the claim, and only speculates that "at least 12 [maternal deaths] could be related to previous pathologies aggravated by the pregnancy, which having had the option of a therapeutic abortion, their possibility of improving and/or recovering their health and life would have increased in great measure" (p.8, in Spanish). AI's report claims that maternal mortality is up since the law was implemented, claiming that it only came into effect in late 2008. However, the criminal penalties actually began in 2006, and pregnancy-related maternal mortality actually fell after the passage of the law, both of which are admitted by the same Ipas study cited by AI (also on page 8). In a telephone interview with LifeSiteNews, Gilmore stood by the claims in her report, and affirmed that she regards the Nicaraguan law a form of "torture" against women. Asked if it is torture to pull an infant's head off of its body, and its arms and legs out of its sockets, which happens during a standard aspiration abortion, Gilmore refused to answer the question. Although Amnesty International was once neutral on the topic of abortion, in 2007 it announced it would change its position and begin to treat the killing of the unborn as a "human right," despite the fact that International human rights agreements do not generally recognize such a "right." http://lifesitenews.com/
Britain's Law Lords Rule in Favor of Assisted Suicide SeekerBy Hilary White LONDON, July 31, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a case that is being hailed as a victory for proponents of assisted suicide, Britain's Law Lords have ruled that the public prosecutors must "clarify" current law on the issue. The House of Lords judicial committee ruled yesterday that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for England and Wales must issue "guidance" on when and in what circumstances the law making it a criminal offense to assist suicide will be prosecuted.
The case against the DPP was brought by Debbie Purdy, a woman with multiple sclerosis who wants the courts to guarantee that her husband would not be prosecuted were he to help her commit suicide overseas. Despite the law making assisting suicide a criminal offense liable to 14 years in prison, the DPP's office had repeatedly asserted that relatives accompanying their loved ones to the Swiss suicide facility Dignitas would not be prosecuted. In June this year, Sir Ken Macdonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales, had confirmed his office did not intend to prosecute in such cases, but warned against making assisted suicide legal. Macdonald reaffirmed his position that there is "no public interest" in such prosecutions. Purdy responded to yesterday's ruling, telling media that she is "ecstatic." Purdy's campaign has been supported by Dignity in Dying, the euthanasia and assisted suicide lobby organization, which called the decision "historic." But pro-life and disability groups have responded that the decision is a threat to vulnerable people and the disabled, sending a signal that their lives are of less value and are less protected under the law. Pam Macfarlane, Chief Executive of the MS Trust pointed out that MS is not a terminal condition. Simon Gillespie, Chief Executive of the Multiple Sclerosis Society, said that although Purdy's legal victory has "pushed MS into the spotlight," "there is far more to living with MS - even in its more severe forms - than planning how to die." "There are 100,000 people with MS across the UK and most will live about as long as any of us. The key to living well with MS is access to the right care and support, including palliative care when it's needed."
"Much as we sympathise with Ms. Purdy, we are extremely concerned about the manner in which this will leave the vulnerable - that is the disabled, the sick, and the aged," Bowman added. Paul Tully, general secretary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), said that despite the judges' assertion to the contrary, the case was a clear attempt to change the law. Tully warned that the judges had indicated a favorable attitude toward assisted suicide, with one saying that some who kill themselves "should be commended." Tully said, "None of the five judges suggests that it is wrong in general to help suicidal people with disabilities or degenerative conditions to kill themselves - and one suggests that bankruptcy or the grief of bereavement can be equally good reasons to commit suicide." "Most people with long-term disabilities, degenerative diseases or terminal illness do not seek to commit suicide, yet their lives could be undermined by this judgment. They may feel under pressure to kill themselves because they think they are a burden on others," Tully said. In January 2003, Reginald Crew, a 74 year-old man with motor neurone disease, became the first Briton to publicly travel to Switzerland to kill himself. Merseyside police announced that his wife would not be prosecuted for helping him. Since then it has been revealed that more than one hundred British people have travelled to Switzerland to kill themselves at the Dignitas facility. Earlier this month, debate over assisted suicide flared again in Britain as one of the country's most respected conductors, Sir Edward Downes, and his wife Joan, who was suffering from terminal cancer, committed suicide at Dignitas. Both suicides were legal in Switzerland despite the fact that Downes was not suffering from any terminal illness.
Florida Quarterback Tebow Leaves Reporters Speechless: "Yes I am" Saving Myself for MarriageAlso says he is grateful that his mother's story has helped women choose not to have an abortionBy John Jalsevac July 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Last week Florida Gators Quarterback Tim Tebow's photo may have graced the cover of Sports Illustrated, the same magazine that is best known for its annual "swimsuit issue," but the contrast between the two cover stories couldn't have been more glaring. At 21 years of age and graced with boyish good looks, Tebow is one of the most talked about rising stars of the NCAA; but the football superstar literally left reporters speechless last week when he answered a question during a press conference about whether or not he is "saving himself" for marriage.
"I think y'all were stunned by that," he says. "Y'all can't even ask a question. Wow. I mean, I was ready for that question. I don't think y'all were." It wasn't the only controversial remark that Tebow made that day. In response to another question about whether or not people may be tired of the volume of coverage devoted to the young football star, Tebow, a devout Christian, said that the level of exposure he receives is a mixed blessing. However, he said, he looks at the positive side that, thanks to his fame, he has been able to share his Christian faith with so many people. In addition, the football star told the reporters that he believes that the publicity given to his mother's story has helped other women choose not to abort their unborn children. Tebow's mother, who serves as a Christian missionary together with her husband, was pressured to abort Tebow following a life-threatening infection she suffered while pregnant with him. Doctors pressured her to abort her son to save her own life, but she ultimately resisted the pressure and both mother and child survived the birth. "There has been a lot of people that have been encouraged not to have an abortion because they heard the story of my mom, or they have been encouraged because they have heard me give my faith on TV or in a report or something," said Tebow. "You know what, although there has been a backlash, oh, well. You know what, I'll deal with it if I have to. It's not a big deal to me because of the kids and people that have been encouraged by the stories we have tried to tell and by the life that I've tried to live." Growing up Tebow would often help his parents with their Christian mission work in the Philippines. He was homeschooled by his mother, who instilled in her children strong Christian values. Tebow was the first home-schooled athlete to be nominated for the Heisman Trophy. "That's really cool," he said at the time. "A lot of times people have this stereotype of homeschoolers as not very athletic - it's like, go win a spelling bee or something like that - it's an honor for me to be the first one to do that." http://lifesitenews.com/
House Follows Obama's Plan to Replace Abstinence Grant with Contraceptive FundingBy Kathleen Gilbert WASHINGTON, D.C., July 27, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The U.S. House of Representatives Friday voted to eliminate $99 million in grant funds that would have bolstered abstinence education in the U.S. The House's decision to cut the funds and to approve a new grant towards contraceptive-promoting sex education had been sought by President Obama in his budget recommendations earlier this year.House lawmakers voted 264-153 to approve the annual health and education spending bill that cut funding for Community-Based Abstinence Education. Also according to the Obama recommendations, Congress in late June chose not to renew the smaller abstinence-education funding initiative known as Title V. Instead, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education and Labor money will be directed to a new $114 million initiative to promote contraceptives and explicit sex education. Democrat Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) dismissed the abstinence program as "discredited and ineffective," and called the change a "huge, huge step in the right direction to ensure the health of our young teenage girls and boys," according to a Bloomberg report. The move met with anger from House Republicans, who point to studies showing that the method has positive results. Democrats reportedly argued that abstinence programs could still apply for federal help under a provision in the bill that allots a total of $25 million for programs that "may not yet have rigorous evaluation demonstrating effectiveness" but "use promising or innovative approaches" to prevent teen pregnancy. Several commentary outlets have pointed to a report by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) released July 16 as proof that President Bush's abstinence programs were ineffective at reducing teen pregnancy. The report describes a rise in pregnancy rates among teens in 2006-2007 after a steady decline from 1991-2005. It also tells of a rise in AIDS cases among males 15-24 years during 1997-2006, and a rise in syphilis infections in the same age group. However, the researchers did not include a critique of any sex education methods as part of the study, nor did they mention abstinence education or otherwise attempt to draw conclusions about the cause of the findings. The CDC merely reported the findings as a "slowing" of "improvements in sexual and reproductive health of teens." "It is ridiculous to say that a program we nominally invest in has failed when it fails to overcome the most sexualized culture in world history," Kristi Hamrick, a spokeswoman for the conservative group American Values, told the U.K.'s Guardian newspaper. "Education that emphasizes abstinence as the best option for teens makes up a minuscule part of overall sex education in the United States." "In every other area of public policy - food, drugs, alcohol - we tell children what is the best choice," she continued. "It seems very bizarre that the sex education establishment rejects the idea that we should talk to kids about what is best for them. We don't take vodka to drivers education because children will drink and drive."
Canada Court Rules Marriage Commissioners Must "Marry" Homosexuals"In that capacity [as marriage commissioner], his personal religious beliefs do not matter," said the judge.By Patrick B. Craine REGINA, SK, July 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The appeal of a Saskatchewan marriage commissioner against a human rights tribunal decision was denied by the Court of Queen's Bench last Friday. Orville Nichols, 71, was fined by the tribunal last year for refusing to "marry" two men based on his Christian religious beliefs. Nichols, who served as a marriage commissioner from 1983 after retiring from a 25-year career in the police force, was approached by the complainant, only identified as M.J., in April 2005 to conduct the ceremony. Nichols informed M.J. that he was available, but when he realized that M.J.'s partner, B.R., was a man, he told them that he could not "marry" them based on his religious beliefs.
He was fined $2,500 by the tribunal in June 2008, which decided that as an official of the government, Nichols was not entitled to have his religious beliefs accommodated. Nichols appealed that decision to the Court of Queen's Bench, contending that his right to religious freedom should have been protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But Justice Janet McMurtry upheld the tribunal's decision. Nichols' religious views are not relevant in how he conducts his job, according to the judge in her 36-page decision. "In that capacity [as marriage commissioner], his personal religious beliefs do not matter," she wrote. As a public official, she said, Nichols is obliged to perform civil marriages according to the statutes in the Marriage Act, which allows same-sex "marriages." "I am sympathetic to the argument that a public official acting as government is at the same time an individual whose religious views demand respect," she wrote. "However, a public official has a far greater duty to ensure that s/he respects the law and the rule of law. A marriage commissioner is, to the public, a representative of the state. She or he is expected by the public to enforce, observe and honour the laws binding his or her actions. If a marriage commissioner cannot do that, she or he cannot hold that position." The judge did not tell marriage commissioners who object to performing same-sex "marriages" that they must resign, however. According to McMurtry, based on The Marriage Act, commissioners are able to choose to take a more limited purview by offering their services only to those of a particular nationality or creed. For instance, if Nichols were only to offer his services to fellow Baptists, he would likely avoid the circumstance of having to refuse to perform a same-sex "marriage." But the ability to choose a more limited commission does not apply to the choice only to marry heterosexuals, according to McMurty. However, Saskatchewan Justice Minister Don Morgan announced recently that the provincial government intends to bring in legislation that would allow marriage commissioners to refuse same-sex "marriages" for religious reasons. Two other commissioners besides Nichols have brought cases against the government for not protecting their religious freedom. Nichols will have 30 days to appeal the decision, but according to CJME News Talk Radio 980 he has said in the past that he has difficulty covering legal costs, living merely on his pension. A message left for Nichols was not returned by press time. http://lifesitenews.com/
NARAL Officially Backs SotomayorBy Kathleen Gilbert WASHINGTON, D.C., July 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - After several weeks of uncertainty about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's commitment to abortion, NARAL announced today it was convinced from Sotomayor's statements during the confirmation process that the judge is adequately in favor of abortion. "President Obama made a sound choice in nominating Judge Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court," reads the joint statement from two NARAL leaders. The group says that the nomination "reflects the president's commitment to ensuring that justices have strong legal credentials and understand how the law affects everyday people's lives, including the need to keep politicians from interfering in our personal, private medical decisions." "In addition," say the leaders, "we took into consideration the significant and strong support her nomination has garnered from some of our most committed pro-choice allies in the Senate as well as President Obama's consistent record of support for Roe v. Wade and his established record of nominating to key posts individuals who share his principles." While some abortion groups were wary of the candidate due to her lack of any abortion-related decisions, Planned Parenthood expressed confidence early on that Sotomayor would uphold the interests of the abortion lobby and President Obama. "This historic nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court sends a strong signal that President Obama understands the importance of ensuring that our Supreme Court justices respect precedent while also protecting our civil liberties," stated Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards in May. In confirmation hearings this month, Sotomayor repeatedly assured Judiciary Committee senators that she would uphold Roe v. Wade, a point she also made clear in private meetings with senators. But while she repeatedly referred to Roe v. Wade as the Supreme Court's "settled law," she admitted that she did not perceive the court's decision to uphold the partial-birth abortion ban as equally sacred precedent. "The health and welfare of a woman must be a compelling consideration," Sotomayor admitted, indicating that she would not necessarily uphold the unequivocal nature of the ban. Another pro-choice group, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, also expressed support for Sotomayor today. "NLIRH stands in solidarity with Judge Sotomayor as she moves one step closer to becoming the first Hispanic judge on the Supreme Court," said executive director Silvia Henriquez in a statement.
Senate Approves Amendment Adding "Hate Crimes" to Defense Spending BillBy Peter J. Smith WASHINGTON, D.C., July 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The United States Senate approved an amendment yesterday adding "hate crimes" legislation to the annual Defense Authorization bill, which would add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the list of federally-protected classes. The Senate voted 63 - 28 to attach S.909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (MSHCPA), to the $680 billion defense bill meant to support US troops fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada favored attaching the hotly-debated bill as an amendment, instead of putting it forward as a stand-alone bill, in hopes of easing its passage, but his tactic drew outcry from Senate Republicans. "Those of us who oppose this legislation - and it is important legislation - will be faced with a dilemma of choosing between a bill which can harm, in my view, the United States of America and its judicial system and a bill defending the nation," protested Sen. John McCain, who denounced Reid's tactic as an "abuse of power." Critics have warned that the bill has a chilling effect on religious free speech against homosexuality, pointing out that similar laws in other nations have facilitated the prosecution of Christians who speak against homosexuality, particularly in Canada and the United Kingdom. More importantly, they charge, "hate crimes" laws violate the guarantees of equal protection under the law by creating preferential classes for justice. "'Hate crimes' laws contradict the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and create unequal justice by elevating some groups of victims at the expense of others," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. Wright pointed out that under the proposed law, "Victims who engage in homosexual, transgender, or other sexual behavior get special treatment over victims who are military officers, police officers or veterans," such as the military recruiter who was slain in June by a Muslim convert at a shopping mall in Little Rock, Arkansas. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), however, submitted an amendment to the "hate crimes" measure in an effort to temper any effect the bill may have on free speech and the exercise of religion. Brownback's Senate colleagues adopted the measure by a vote of 78-13, which states that the "hate crimes" law will not be applied in a way that infringes upon freedom of speech or that "substantially burdens any exercise of religion speech, expression, [or] association, if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to plan or prepare for an act of physical violence; or incite an imminent act of physical violence against another." However the Senate version of the "hate crimes" bill does not yet reconcile with the House version, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act, which alarmed conservative lawmakers as the bill fails to define or restrict the term "sexual orientation." One Democratic representative heaped praises on the bill for granting heightened federal protection for all 547 "paraphilias" or sexual aberrations documented by the American Psychological Association. Should the Senate approve the defense bill, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (S. 1390), the two "hate crimes" versions would have to be reconciled before it became law. Although a great deal of concern has been expressed over protections regarding the freedom of speech and free exercise religion guaranteed under the First Amendment, the Federal Civil Rights Commission last month objected to the extension of "hate-crimes" laws, because it creates a situation in which a citizen can be prosecuted twice for the same crime: once by his state government, and again by the federal government. "We believe that MSHCPA will do little good and a great deal of harm," stated the commissioners in a letter to Senate leaders warning, "Its most important effect will be to allow federal authorities to re-prosecute a broad category of defendants who have already been acquitted by state juries - as in the Rodney King and Crown Heights cases more than a decade ago." "DOJ [Department of Justice] officials have argued that MSHCPA is needed because state procedures sometimes make it difficult to obtain convictions," continued the letter. "Such an argument should send up red flags. It is just an end-run around state procedures designed to ensure a fair trial." Curiously, President Barack Obama may end up being the one who vetoes the "hate crimes" legislation if the Senate passes the Defense Authorization bill. The bill, just like the House version, includes funding for F-22 jets, which Obama has vigorously opposed. Obama has threatened to veto the defense bill, if it includes funding for the F-22.
Mexican State of Yucatan Becomes 14th to Pass Pro-Life Constitutional AmendmentLegislators also add text defending marriageBy Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent MERIDA, YUCATAN, July 16, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Mexican state of Yucatan became the fourteenth to pass a pro-life amendment to its constitution yesterday, adding to a wave of opposition to Mexico City's policy of permitting and funding abortion on demand. The amendment reads, "The state of Yucatan recognizes, protects, and guarantees the right to life of every human being, expressly affirming that, from the moment of fertilization, he comes under the protection of the law, and is to be treated like a human being that has been born for all corresponding legal effects, until his natural death, with exceptions already foreseen in ordinary laws." The state's legislators also passed an amendment to defend the institution of marriage, defining it as "an institution by means of which a juridical union is established between a man and a woman, with equality of rights, and duties, and obligations, with the possibility of bringing about human reproduction in a free, responsible, and informed manner. The State recognizes that it is of vital interest for society that, in the union of man and woman for procreation, limits should be established regarding age, and psychological and physical health." The amendments were passed in response to a popular initiative by a group of organizations under the banner of the Pro-Yucatan Network. Although the group also advocated the definition of the family based on the traditional definition of marriage, legislators opted for a broader definition that includes ties based on "affinity." Legislators also left intact the existing exceptions in the state's criminal code for abortion, which depenalize the procedure in cases of "economic hardship" in which a woman already has at least three children, as well as rape, fetal deformity, and danger to the mother's life. The proliferation of pro-life and pro-family amendments at the state level in Mexico comes in response to the depenalization of abortion on demand during the first trimester of pregnancy in Mexico City in 2007, which was followed by the legalization of homosexual "civil unions."
Governor Approves Sweeping Overhaul of Abortion Regulation in ArizonaBy Peter J. Smith PHOENIX, July 15, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - For the first time in years, pro-life legislation in Arizona has taken three major steps forward as Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on Monday signed into law a comprehensive reform of state statutes regulating abortion. Amongst other things, the regulations will guarantee new conscience protections for hospitals and medical professionals opposed to abortion and abortifacient contraception. The overhaul of abortion law also replaces the term "fetus" with "unborn child" and stipulates that only a licensed physician may perform a surgical abortion. Gov. Jan Brewer signed the Abortion Consent Act (HB 2564) along with two other pro-life bills on Monday, her last day to affix her signature as Governor before the bills passed by both houses of the state legislature automatically become law. The Arizona legislature had crafted HB 2564 to address the principle concerns that the law needed to better guarantee the rights of women to make a fully-informed decision free of coercion before consenting to abortion. The new Arizona reforms establish a minimum 24-hour waiting period between a woman's consultation for abortion and the actual abortion of her unborn child. Under the law, either the referring physician or the physician performing the abortion must inform the patient "orally and in person" the name of the operating abortionist, the immediate and long-term medical risks associated with abortion, helpful alternatives to abortion, the estimated "gestational age and anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child" at the time of an abortion, and also any medical risks posed by carrying the child to term. A licensed medical professional must also discuss with a woman orally, one-on-one, and in a private room, that medical assistance, as well as public and private services, may be available to help her throughout pregnancy and even after childbirth, even should she choose to give up her child for adoption. A woman must be told that the law protects her against psychological or physical coercion to abort a child she would otherwise keep. A medical professional must also tell a woman that the father must pay child support "even if he has offered to pay for the abortion," that any person pressuring her to have an abortion has violated the law, and that withdrawing her consent to have an abortion at any time will not compromise her right to future care or benefits to which she is entitled. Once the consultation process is complete, the patient must sign a form that declares she was fully informed of her rights provided by law. Providing for the case of a medical emergency, the law states that a physician must inform a woman of the reasons for why he believes an abortion must be performed in order to avert death or serious bodily impairment. Under the law, physicians who violate the informed consent requirements face a potential suspension or revocation of their license. The physician may also become liable to a civil action from the woman on whom the abortion was performed, as well as from the father of an unborn child married to the mother and from the mother's parents if the mother was a minor at the time of the abortion, provided they were not parties to a crime involved in the pregnancy. The law also prohibits the parents or guardians of a minor from pressuring her into having an abortion. If they deny a minor financial support for refusing abortion, under the revised statutes the state will recognize the minor as emancipated for the purposes of being eligible to receive public benefits. It also allows a pregnant minor to appeal to the court to obtain an abortion without the consent of her lawful guardians, but requires her to prove to a superior court judge through "clear and convincing evidence that she is sufficiently mature and capable of giving informed consent to an abortion without consulting her parent or guardian, based on her experience, perspective, and judgment." However a judge may also determine other such factors, such as whether the minor is aware of alternatives to abortion and is intellectually competent to make an informed decision on her own. The law also provides for powerful conscience protections for hospitals, pharmacies, health care professionals, and their employees, saying they have the right not to perform, facilitate, or provide abortions, abortion medication, or abortifacient "emergency contraception" so long as they state their objections on moral and religious grounds in writing. Gov. Brewer also signed HB 2400, a measure revising the state ban on partial birth abortion that makes more specific the definition of partial-birth abortion and also stipulates any physician violating the ban faces a fine and/or maximum prison sentence of two years. The law allows an abortionist to appeal to the Arizona Medical Board or the Arizona Board of Osteopathic Examiners to determine whether his conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother. The last bill signed by Gov. Brewer, S1175 states simply, "An individual who is not a physician shall not perform a surgical abortion." Gov. Brewer's signing of the legislation overhaul marks a departure from the policies of former Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, who had vigorously opposed any attempts at significant reform of abortion legislation throughout her six years as governor. Earlier in January, Gov. Brewer, then-Arizona Secretary of State, succeeded Napolitano to the governorship after Napolitano left to become director of the federal Department of Homeland Security. http://lifesitenews.com/The Silent FOCA: Vast Abortion Expansion Slowly Coming to Light in Healthcare PackageBy Kathleen Gilbert WASHINGTON, D.C., July 14, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-life groups and lawmakers are continuing to raise the alarm over the healthcare reform package President Obama is aggressively pushing through both the House and the Senate. The groups are urging Americans to oppose the healthcare overhaul, as pro-abortion lawmakers are insisting that abortion must be included in the basic healthcare package that all public and private insurers will eventually be required to cover.Leading pro-life Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) at a Washington press conference today questioned: "Why the rush to enact Mr. Obama's exceedingly expensive, complex and potentially ruinous health care restructuring plan without the benefit of comprehensive hearings on and through a vetting of the actual bill text? Smith noted that a study by the Planned Parenthood's Guttmacher Institute showed that the widened availability of abortion through government funding increases the number of unborn children killed by 20%-35%. "Obamacare opens the spigot of public funding and does more to facilitate abortion than any action since Roe. This is the big one!" said Smith. Another "egregious flaw" in the bill, said the congressman, is its requirement that all insurance providers contract with "essential community providers" - a mantle eagerly taken up by Planned Parenthood in a media campaign last month. "In other words, all health insurance companies will be compelled by the Obamacare to contract with abortion clinics or simply not be certified to do business," said Smith. Further evidence of the hidden abortion expansion in the bill came during a meeting of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee last week, when Sen. Orrin Hatch asked for confirmation from Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) as to whether the funds would cover abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood. Following the meeting, Planned Parenthood immediately launched a petition to tell Sen. Hatch "to stop lying about health care legislation," and claimed that the senator was "falsely claiming that the amendment mandates abortion coverage." However, it was Mikulski who admitted in the exchange that Planned Parenthood clinics and their abortion services would be subsidized by the healthcare plan, though she appeared reluctant to answer the question. HATCH: "...Would this include abortion providers? I mean, it looks to me like you're expanding it to... for instance, Planned Parenthood. Would that put them into this system?" MIKULSKI: "It would include women's health clinics that provide comprehensive services and under the definition of a woman's health clinic, it would include, uh, it would include, uh, Planned, uh, Parenthood clinics. It would, um, it does not expand in any way expand a service. In other words, it does not expand, um, uh, or mandate abortion service." HATCH: "No, but it would provide for them." MIKULSKI: "It would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate." HATCH: "Well, I would have a rough time supporting it on that basis. I just wanted to get that clarified. Thank you." Later, Hatch asked, "Madam Chairman, would you be willing to put some language in [about] not including abortion services? Then I think you would have more support." Mikulski answered, "No, I would not, uh, be willing to do that at this time." Accordingly, the committee yesterday rejected amendments offered by the National Right to Life Committee that would have explicitly excluded abortion from the bill. On Friday, an amendment introduced by Mikulski known as the Women's Health Amendment passed by a 12-11 margin. Capitol Hill pro-lifers expect that the broad language of the amendment will provide the gateway to abortion coverage in the federal plan. http://lifesitenews.com/
Homosexual Ex-Altar Server Demands Bishop Apologize, Publicly Chastise Parishioners in Human Rights ComplaintBy Patrick B. Craine July 13, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In what some critics of the embattled Canadian human rights commissions say could be the most intrusive human rights case in Canada thus far, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) has accepted the complaint of a homosexual man who was dismissed by the Bishop of Peterborough as an altar server. While the bishop has refused to publicly comment on the matter, the complainant in the case says that the bishop asked him and his same-sex partner not to serve on the altar so as to avoid public scandal.
Human rights complaints have been brought against members of the Church in the past via Canada's HRCs, but this case is the first to be accepted by a Commission that relates to the internal governance of the Church, with the potential for unprecedented repercussions relating to the Church's freedom in Canada. Corcoran, who was removed on April 20th, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that he is homosexual, and that he is living with another man, but evaded questions about his roommate's sexual orientation. According to Michael Swan of the Catholic Register, however, Corcoran told him that he is living with another gay man. Without denying Swan's statement, Corcoran told LSN, "I didn't say that, Michael said that. I live in a house with my mother…, and I live with another man, who I don't have a sexual relationship with." "I live a chaste lifestyle," said Corcoran, "so I'm not sure why the label is relevant at all." Corcoran said the 12 parishioners who complained to the bishop had misinterpreted passages from his blog as meaning that he was in an open homosexual relationship. "They went on my blog," he said, "and in my blog I talk about my life, my work life, my family life, my thoughts, my aspirations, and apparently they printed out about 70 pages." In Corcoran's complaint to the OHRC, however, which he supplied to LSN, he appears to be more frank about his relationship with his roommate. Corcoran specifically and repeatedly refers to his roommate as "my same sex partner." Further, responding to an allegation that he is "married" to his partner, Corcoran wrote, "I am not married to my same sex partner but I do not hide my sexual preference, or my relationship." Corcoran told LSN that he ascribes to the Catholic teaching on marriage. "I believe that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman," he said. "I'm not one to trample on the rights of others, but … same-sex marriage, isn't something that I ascribe to, or have engaged in." Gerry Lawless, one of the twelve parishioners named by Corcoran as respondents to his complaint, told LSN that the group of 12 did not mention marriage, and contests Corcoran's claim that they slandered him. "He charges us with slander," Lawless said, "but we feel that in order to slander a person, you have to mention their name. His name or his partner's has never been named in any correspondence, not by the twelve that he's after." "There's no evidence at all to suggest that we were trying to be discriminatory or that we have some sort of distaste for people of same-sex orientation, or any of this," Lawless told Swan of the Catholic Register. Lawless told LSN that they had been instructed to welcome homosexuals attending Mass and receiving Communion, but that open homosexuals should not be participating in the liturgy in a public position, as, say, a lector or an altar server. "We have not discriminated. We have simply asked the bishop to act on a situation which we had been informed on very good authority was in violation of church policy," he told the Catholic Register. According to the Catholic Register, the two sides have agreed to mediation, which, if successful will keep the case from reaching a hearing. "At the moment we don't need a lawyer," Lawless said, pointing out that he was happy not to have to pay expensive legal fees for the time being. Corcoran is seeking monetary damages of up to $25,000 from the bishop and $20,000 each from the 12 parishioners. But his primary interest is in restitution of a non-financial nature, he says. He states in his complaint that he wants the $20,000 from each of the parishioners to be allocated "towards a charity of my choosing." And the $25,000 from the diocese will be used to cover his legal expenses; but, he told LSN, he will be returning it through parish contributions. He has also requested six other "remedies." First, he indicates that he "would like the group of 12 parishioners to be held accountable for their un-Christian actions, in front of their peers in a public forum, by the Bishop or the Bishop's superior." Second, he wants the Bishop to preach at his parish "on the consequences of practicing discrimination and the slanderous spreading of rumours, hate and innuendo." Third, he wants to be restored as an altar server, and fourth, for the bishop to apologize for having removed him. Fifth, he wants the bishop to write an article for the diocesan newspaper "on the rights of persons with same sex attractions to practice their faith within the Catholic Church without fear of threats, recrimination or discrimination." And finally, sixth, he wants the diocese to develop policies "that support the human rights of all people within the church." When asked whether he feels his complaint to the OHRC has placed him at odds with the Church, Corcoran told LSN, "I would hope that the bishop would not see it that way. … I'm still going to church, I'm still a very generous supporter of the Catholic Church, and he knows that, and I'm following his directive. "He's asked me not to serve on the altar and I'm not," Corcoran said. "He's asked me to stay close to and support Fr. Hood, and I am. So I would hope that when he sits down with his legal counsel, he'll understand that this is really a struggle between me and the group of fellow parishioners, and Fr. Hood and the group of fellow parishioners." Referring to the bishop's refusal to supply Corcoran with the twelve parishioners' letter, a key piece of evidence against them, Corcoran said, "Unfortunately, he passed on the opportunity to avoid being named as a respondent by not agreeing to cooperate at the outset." According to Reg Ward, another of the 12, who spoke with Swan, the group's main concern in writing to Bishop De Angelis was to express concern about their pastor, Fr. Allan Hood. According to Ward, and confirmed by Corcoran in speaking with LSN, Corcoran and his partner were invited by Fr. Hood to serve on the altar at Masses. The complaint about Corcoran was one in a series of complaints to the bishop against the pastor. "It was just one more way of Fr. Hood saying he's boss and to hell with everybody else, like what the church is saying and everybody else," said Ward. Fr. Hood did not return calls from LSN by press time. LSN also left a message with the OHRC, but did not hear back. LSN spoke with Bishop De Angelis, but he is not yet prepared to comment. In a press release on Friday, the Catholic Civil Rights League came out strongly against the OHRC for accepting this case, saying the case is "not an OHRC matter." "Without commenting on any individual personnel situation or personalities that are involved in this case," the release says, "the relationship between the Church and altar servers, in the League's opinion, has none of the attributes that would make it a subject for a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. No one serves on the altar as a right; it is at the discretion of the pastor, who in turn is at the service of his bishop. Mr. Corcoran's role was not unlike that of other liturgical servers, who are part of the overall presentation of the Mass." "The decision about who can serve on the altar is a matter of Church governance," it continues. "While the Church is subject to human rights law when it employs people in a commercial relationship, the same cannot be said about decisions involving who is a member, or how they can best serve." The Human Rights Tribunal, said the League, "should not place itself as an arbiter of canonical precepts." http://lifesitenews.com/ IRS Demands that Pro-Life Group Swear it Will Not Oppose Planned ParenthoodThomas More attorneys request IRS stop violating coalition's constitutional rights to legal protestsBy Kathleen Gilbert CHICAGO, July 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has told a non-profit coalition of pro-life groups in Iowa to promise that it would not organize protests at Planned Parenthood abortion facilities before it is granted tax exempt status. Pro-life lawyers say the organization has steadily kept within the guidelines for non-profit religious, educational and charitable groups. However, several months after the group applied for tax-exempt status, an IRS agent contacted Coalition for Life Iowa president Sue Martinek to inquire as to whether the group engages in any "picketing" or protesting at Planned Parenthood, and questioned the group's prayer activity outside Planned Parenthood facilities. Lawyers with the Thomas More Society say the agent asked Martinek "to have all Coalition Board members sign a statement that the Coalition will not 'picket' or 'protest' outside Planned Parenthood or similar organizations and will not 'organize' others to do so," and indicated that the IRS "would approve the Coalition's pending form 1023 application once such statement was submitted." The Thomas More Society issued a statement Monday decrying the "prejucidial" questioning and announcing they would take the IRS to court if it fails to grant the group tax-exempt status, apparently solely based upon its religious affiliation and speech. "The IRS' requests come perilously close to violating the First Amendment constitutional rights of the Coalition's supporters," said the Society. "The IRS's delay and questioning of the Coalition's tax-exempt, legitimate activities constitutes unnecessary and prejudicial interference with the Coalition's legal right to a tax-exempt determination. Consequently, the IRS should approve the Coalition's 1023 application without further delay." The lawyers point out that many other organizations regularly advocate on both sides of these issues, and they have not been hindered in obtaining or maintaining tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3). "The IRS not only erroneously forbade the Coalition for Life of Iowa from engaging in 'advocacy' as a section 501(c)(3) non-profit organization; they also never gave any explanation as to why their request was relevant," said Thomas Brejcha, president and chief counsel for the Thomas More Society. "The Coalition has clearly and truthfully stated that all its activities fall in line with IRS guidelines. The IRS is protecting Parenthood and harassing the Coalition for Life of Iowa." Warned Brejcha, "If the IRS can discriminate against one non-profit based on its beliefs and religious affiliation, then the IRS could regulate the speech of any other non-profit organization." Coalition for Life of Iowa president Sue Martinek did not answer LifeSiteNews.com calls for comment as of press time. "This is the way government oppression creeps into a society," commented American Life League president Judie Brown. "It starts when the government targets, and attempts to intimidate and silence the grassroots dissenters who will not dance to the tune of the Obama administration's radically pro-abortion policies." "This is not only political intimidation by the Internal Revenue Service but it is a blatant violation of First Amendment rights," said Brown. "Neither the Coalition for Life of Iowa nor any other educational and advocacy organization should be subjected to such discriminatory scrutiny. This is a clear case of government repression."
Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg: I Thought Roe Would Help Eradicate Unwanted Populations Through AbortionBy Kathleen Gilbert WASHINGTON, D.C., July 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seems to have made a stunning admission in favor of cleansing America of unwanted populations by aborting them. In an interview with the New York Times, the judge said that Medicaid should cover abortions, and that she had originally expected that Roe v. Wade would facilitate such coverage in order to control the population of groups "that we don't want to have too many of."
"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of," Ginsburg told Emily Bazelon of the New York Times. "So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong." Harris v. McRae is a 1980 court decision that upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions. Justice Ginsburg's remarks appear to align her expectations for abortion with those of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and other prominent members of the 20th century's eugenics movement. Sanger and her eugenicist peers advocated the systematic use of contraception, sterilization, and abortion to reduce the numbers of poor, black, immigrant and disabled populations. Ironically, the New York Times interview began as an exploration of Ginsburg's thoughts on Supreme Court hopeful Sonia Sotomayor as she prepares for her confirmation hearings this month. Coverage of Sotomayor frequently emphasizes her success story as an underprivileged minority from the Bronx who rose to prominence at Princeton and Yale Law. Ginsburg also defended a controversial statement repeated by Sotomayor in several speeches, where she stated she "would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." "I thought it was ridiculous for them to make a big deal out of that," said Ginsburg. "Think of how many times you've said something that you didn't get out quite right, and you would edit your statement if you could. I'm sure she meant no more than what I mean when I say: Yes, women bring a different life experience to the table. ... That I'm a woman, that's part of it, that I'm Jewish, that's part of it, that I grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y., and I went to summer camp in the Adirondacks, all these things are part of me." The judge also praised the advent of earlier abortions with the wider distribution of the morning-after pill, saying "I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they're fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change." When the Supreme Court upheld the partial-birth abortion ban in 2007, Ginsburg wrote a scathing dissent, saying the court's reasoning "reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution - ideas that have long since been discredited." http://lifesitenews.com/
Brazilian Supreme Court Rules that Sex With Children Not Necessarily a Crime - Denounced by United NationsBy Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent SAO PAULO, June 7, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Brazilian Supreme Court and a lower appeals court have nullified two sentences against child sex abusers in recent months on the grounds that their behavior did not constitute a crime under Brazilian law, sparking a protest from the United Nations. On June 23, Brazil's Superior Tribunal of Justice (the nation's Supreme Court for cases not involving Constitutional law) upheld the acquittal of several men who had paid two girls, 12 and 13 years of age, to have sexual intercourse with them, on the grounds that prostitution was not covered by child sex abuse statutes. The men, one of whom has been identified as a Brazilian sports celebrity, reportedly took photos of the encounter. Although the fact that the men engaged in sexual intercourse with the girls was apparently not in doubt, the Tribunal of Justice of the state of Mato Grosso do Sul had ruled that it was not a crime, because the girls were engaged in prostitution. Brazil's Superior Tribunal agreed, upholding the lower court ruling. "The prostitutes waited for the client in the street, and are no longer people who enjoy a good image in society," the judge ruled in the original case, adding that "prostitution is such an old profession and is considered to be barely a moral abuse, but never a crime subject to penalty." Ariel de Castro Alves, a member of Brazil's National Council for the Rights of Children and Adolescents, expressed horror at the ruling. "The decision is almost a license for abuse and exploitation to be committed without punishment. Currently, cases like these are difficult to punish," she told the Brazilian newspaper O Globo. "It is a difficult process, that involves impediments, and very often, threats against the victims and their families. When punishment is possible, we have an absurd decision like this." The decision is also being denounced by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). "As incredible as it may seem, the argument used is that the accused did not commit a crime, because the children had been sexually exploited before by other people," the organization commented in a public statement. "Moreover, the decision causes indignation, because of the insensitivity of the judiciary regarding the circumstance of vulnerability to which the girls are subject," the statement continued. "The case also establishes a dangerous precedent: that sexual exploitation is acceptable when it is paid for, as if our children are for sale in the perverse market of adult power." In a second case, reported in Brazil on June 5 by legal commentator Renato Pacca, an appeals court in the state of Rio Grande do Sul overturned the conviction of a 30-year-old man who admitted that he had had anal sex with his 13-year-old brother. According to the prosecutor, the accused, who has not been named in the Brazilian media, "through real and presumed violence, forced his three minor brothers who were 9, 12, and 13 years of age, to practice various libidinous acts of sexual intercourse during the time period in question, consisting in showing them pornographic films, submitting them to various sexual services, and practicing anal coitus." Although the accused confessed to molesting his 13-year-old brother, and although he was sentenced to 12 years in prison, he was absolved on appeal to the Fifth Criminal Chamber of the state's Tribunal of Justice because the child had "requested it." According to the text of the judgment, "sexual promiscuity was the tonic of domestic life, and this reality is sufficiently attested by the natural way the topic was confronted by the supposed victims." The 13 year old "effectively consented to have sexual relations with his brother" the court said, by "sitting on the lap of his brother, arguing that 'I knew that was wrong' and that, in the act, he had the role of the woman and the accused the role of the man." Prosecutors appealed the case to the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, which, in contrast to the other, similar case regarding the two girls, overturned the appeals court ruling and restored the original sentence.
Abortion Has Greater Impact on Parenting than Other Forms of Pregnancy Loss, New Review FindsJuly 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A new review of studies examining various types of prenatal loss and the effects on subsequent parenting has concluded that abortion may be "particularly damaging to the parenting process." The article, published in Current Women's Health Reviews, looks at already published studies on miscarriage, induced abortion and adoption. The author, Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University, focuses on psychological reactions to these various types of loss and discusses how they might affect a mother's relationship with children born after the pregnancy loss.
Abortion has also been linked to higher rates of suicide and to a wide range of mental health disorders. Coleman was also the lead author of a study published in The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, which found that the children of women who had abortions have less supportive home environments and more behavioral problems than children of women without a history of abortion. http://lifesitenews.com/ General Electric to Use Embryonic Stem Cells for Testing, Phase Out Lab RatsBy Alex Bush BOSTON, Mass, July 1, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - General Electric has announc |
However, the Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback and pro-life celebrity went on to say that, "losing sponsors was a small price to pay for the ability to spread his message about family and faith."
But Tebow’s pro-life convictions spring from an unusually personal source: back in 1987, his mother contracted amoebic dysentery while pregnant with him in the Philippines, and doctors recommended abortion. Had Pam Tebow taken that advice, Tebow fans would never have seen the football phenomenon win the Heisman Trophy in 2007 and carry the Gators to victory in two major championships.
At the same time, the Daily Record has done a 
She added, "It was the selfless love for Victoria that kept Cathie going each day. I had tremendous admiration for my sister during this time. I never understood what it felt like to have your heart broken. I understood, the day she died. And now I miss her every day."
officials remain determined--scandal or no scandal, fraud or no fraud--to compromise the future prosperity and security of our country by their CO2 cap-and-tax schemes. 
Trick No. 2: You Cherry Pick Your Data to Show a Recent Rise in Temperatures:
When Briffa’s hand was finally forced a few weeks ago, it turned out that he had used only a tiny, biased fraction of the raw data available. When skeptic Steve McIntyre calculated a revised chronology based on more complete data, the sharp temperature increase at the end of the twentieth century simply vanished. The twentieth century now showed no significant trend. The blade of the Yamal hockey stick was gone.
"Christian marriage is a sacramental rite that has evolved in the church," wrote Shaw, adding that marriage "must be open to all as a means of grace and sustenance to our Christian hope."
The case of Rom Houben is significant given that many bioethicists are attempting to redefine the status of people in PVS as being similar to "brain death," meaning that it is being argued that these people have lost self-awareness and therefore should be treated as non-persons or dead people. Non-persons do not have the right to live and in fact many bio-ethicists suggest that these people should be treated as organ donors.
The bill was proposed by Greens member Mark Parnell. It was expected to pass 11-10, with the support of independent member Ann Bressington, the swing vote. Bressington opted to abstain, however, after amendments she had sought failed. This abstention would have resulted in a tie, meaning that Upper House President Bob Sneath would vote to pass the bill.
However, after being subjected to intense criticism and ridicule following his conversion, Glatze decided to "go inside," "be silent," and "process" for a time, but now says he feels compelled to share his story anew. In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com (LSN), Glatze said that, far from reverting back to his old lifestyle (as many of his critics in the homosexual community said he would) he is "extremely happy, and able to have a very good, normal, healthy life."
"It was because I expressed my belief that homosexuality is wrong. That's the reason that I was fired," Peter Vidala 
He continues: "Section 213 [of the 
Johnson had been affiliated with Bryan's Planned Parenthood facility for eight years, and worked as its director for two. She said she began to feel uncomfortable with Planned Parenthood's business philosophy after the organization, suffering from the economic downturn, told her to try to bring more abortions in the door. "The money wasn't in family planning, the money wasn't in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that," said Johnson. 
Other posters include a variety of offensive images and messages. One image calls President Ronald Reagan a murderer and President George H.W. Bush a serial killer, for their perceived negligence in not using tax dollars to help those with AIDS.
The Alliance has scheduled October 24 in Portland as a day of training in door-to-door activism to urge Maine voters to reject Prop. 1, which would overturn the law legalizing same-sex "marriage" by way of a "people's veto." The event includes five hours of Potter-fans canvassing Maine voters with Maine Equality, a homosexual activist group. The event is called "Wrock 4 Equality" and begins and ends with concerts from the indie rock bands known as "Harry and the Potters" and "Draco and the Malfoys."
He smiled and called his wife's cell phone inside the clinic and told her to come out immediately. She came out within thirty seconds, crying and very upset. She explained that the HMO had called her for fourteen days in a row, pressuring her into the appointment at the Long Beach Abortion mill. After consoling the couple, I called an adoption counselor to help us find a sympathetic social worker, who met the three of us for breakfast to discuss a plan to keep the baby. 
Necie Franklin of Flowood, Mississippi, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that Dr. Kenny Robbins of River Oaks Hospital refused to treat daughter Jessa Mackenzie after she was born suddenly in May, because she was three days shy of 23 weeks gestation - at which point he would have considered treating her at the hospital's Level II neonatal intensive care unit.
The Mental Capacity Act, passed by Tony Blair's Labour government, created "advance directives," or "living wills," which were ostensibly meant to allow terminally ill patients to decline treatment which could prolong their lives. According to that Act, doctors who violate such a document can be charged with criminal assault for treating patients against their wishes. 
The NHS started the HPV vaccination program in April last year and has recorded 2,137 reports of adverse effects following the injection.
Steele told the newspaper that a Republican candidate's view on legal protection for unborn children should reflect the views of their local constituencies. The GOP chair was then asked if there is room in the party for a pro-abortion candidate such as Steve Stivers of Ohio's 15th district, who is favored to win the Republican nomination next year.
Now 27, Virgo told her story in an autobiographical piece in Britain's Daily Mail yesterday, saying that, having come from a devout Christian family, she had never expected to find herself a single mother at 19. In 2001, she had attended a party with co-workers at which she believes her single glass of wine was spiked with a date-rape drug. After the attack and with no memory of that night, Virgo was shocked to find herself pregnant and considered obtaining an abortion. 
Capewell said that her son Jayden cried and lived for two hours before dying in her arms. During that time, his mother took photos of him and pleaded with doctors that he be admitted to the special baby unit at James Paget University Hospital (JPH). Staff at the hospital, in Gorleston, Norfolk, told her that had Jayden been born two days later they would have helped him. 
"Just left the White House meeting on women's health care - they appreciate all the mighty PP supporters speaking up for reform in the states!" wrote Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards on her Facebook and Twitter accounts Wednesday afternoon.
In Michigan, one town-hall had an explosive confrontation between Michigander Mike Sola, who wheeled his 36-year-old son, Scott, who suffers with cerebral palsy, and demanded of Rep. John D. Dingell why his son would not be covered under the health-insurance plan. Sola could be heard making references to statements by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama’s health policy advisor, that real cost-cutting would be made only by rationing health-care treatment away from the elderly and disabled to the more physically fit, and that anything else was "'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change."
In a blog post entitled 
Despite growing complaints that New Labour's new Britain has in the last ten years become the most spied upon nation in the world, ahead of even China, the Labour government announced late last month that 20,000 "problem families" who have run afoul of social services officials will be watched around the clock and subjected to surprise inspections by government agents. 
"The Family Research Council's efforts are part of a broader 'Stop the Abortion Mandate' campaign that is using abortion scare tactics to turn pro-life voters against health reform," stated a Catholics United press release. 
The DPP Keir Starmer has responded that his office will be publishing a new policy by the end of September. Starmer also announced a public consultation to gauge public opinion on the issue. 
Nichols had himself complained to the human rights tribunal in February 2005 after he had been informed in November 2004 by the Saskatchewan Department of Justice that commissioners would be required to conduct same-sex ceremonies after the law changed to allow them. That case was later dismissed, in March 2006.
Jim Corcoran, the owner of one of Canada's most highly-rated spas, filed his complaint to the OHRC on June 17th against Bishop Nicola de Angelis and twelve of Corcoran's fellow parishioners at St. Michael's Parish in Cobourg, Ontario, who had jointly written a letter to Bishop De Angelis about the situation. 
The statement was made in the context of a discussion about the fact that abortions are not covered by Medicaid, and therefore are less available to poor women. "Reproductive choice has to be straightened out," said Ginsburg, lamenting the fact that only women "of means" can easily access abortion.