Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. While the liberal left in Europe is in a never-ending state of moral panic over the US Administration’s decision to reinstate the Mexico City Policy, or over Russia’s and Hungary‘s respective decisions to exercise a somewhat tighter control over foreign-funded NGOs (which more often than not are George Soros’s or the European Commission’s sock-puppets), Sweden has now announced its own anti-NGO gag rule, pledging to stop giving aid to any organisations that “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations”. Continue reading “Sweden to fund NGOs only if they murder unborn children”
Published today in the journal Environmental Research Letters, a study from Lund University finds that the four actions that most substantially decrease an individual’s “carbon footprint” are: eating a plant-based diet, avoiding air travel, living car-free, and having smaller families. Continue reading “Save the climate, have no children. Or, even better, eradicate mankind.”
In the third and final televised debate for the US Presidency (full transcript here), the subject of abortion was on the table. Republican candidate Donald Trump claimed to be pro-life, while Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton stuck by her long-standing support for one of the most evil organisations on the planet, industrial-scale abortion provider Planned Parenthood. Clinton went further by seeking to cover up the forced abortion regime of communist China. Continue reading “Clinton covers up Chinese crimes against humanity”
The “Club of Rome”, a think-tank notorious for its doomsday scenarios, has today released a new report in which it recommends that every woman should be given a reward of US$ 80.000,– on her fiftieth birthday if until then she has given birth to no, or only one, child. The proposal seeks to encourage the use of abortion, contraception, and sterilization in order to drastically reduce fertility rates throughout the world. The 80.000-Dollar-incentive would of course be much more effective in impoverished developing countries than in the saturated societies of the West, where infertile couples can afford to lay out similar sums to buy children from so-called “reproduction clinics”. Continue reading “Green think-tank: abolish mankind, and the environment will be fine”
It is one of the biggest, most systematic, and most pernicious human rights abuses in recorded history: the One-Child-Policy through which from 1979 onwards the Chinese Government has sought to reduce the country’s population growth. According to that policy, which was enforced not only through financial incentives, but often through means such as forced abortions and state-imposed use of contraceptive devices, each couple was allowed to have no more than one child. Children conceived in excess of that quota were often forcibly aborted (i.e. against the will of their mothers) or, if they were born, systematically discriminated against by the State. Parents who had more children than the State allowed faced hefty financial sanctions, often including the loss of their jobs and livelihoods. Continue reading “China abolishes “One-Child-Policy” … but continues intrusive birth control”
In the on-going lawsuit of ONE OF US v. the European Commission, the General Court of the EU has received an application by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) to be granted permission to intervene as a third party in support of the Commission. This application has been filed by the law firm White & Case, which already has submitted a similar request from Marie Stopes International (MSI) on which we have already reported in previous posts (see here and here).
So, “big abortion” stands united with the Commission against ONE OF US, defending the European Commission’s self-given right to use taxpayers’ money for the funding of abortions in developing countries without being disturbed by unwelcome manifestations of citizens’ dissent. Continue reading “International baby-slaughterers’ syndicate is eager to appear in court”
A new papal encyclical on sustainable development, allegedly with the incipit “Laudato sii”, is expected to be published in the coming days. But while the content of the document is yet unknown, there are increasingly vocal concerns about who may have helped in drafting it. In particular, the fact that UN General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon and his “special adviser” Jeffrey Sachs, arguably two of the most powerful proponents of abortion and population control in the world, were offered a platform at the Vatican during a conference on climate change, has caused some astonishment among Catholic faithful. Is the Church going to sign up to the UN bureaucracy’s creed that reducing population growth in poor country is the best method to reduce poverty and stall climate change?
Stefano Gennarini of Turtle Bay and Beyond has asked some critical questions to the Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS), Monsignor Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo. The replies he got do not seem to have satisfied him, and he has commented on them in an article written for First Things. Both the interview and the article are worth reading.