Bad theology against a false pope – not going to work!

Over a Dozen ‘Prominent Catholics’ Warn Francis:
Resign or Be Deposed!

On May 2, 2024, the feast of Saint Athanasius, the semi-traditionalist blog Rorate Caeli published a ‘major statement’ against Jorge Bergoglio (aka ‘Pope Francis’). It is entitled “Call for the Resignation of Pope Francis” and bears the signatures of 16 people Life Site describes as “prominent Catholics”.

Just how prominent the signatories are, is another question, but it doesn’t really matter. Their names, along with their respective credentials, are listed by Rorate Caeli as follows:

Editors’ Note: This week, we are running a four-part series on the necessity of beauty across contexts: art, homemaking, architecture, and education. This series critically examines the role of beauty in renewing culture. This is the third essay, in which Mark Dooley explains how beauty in architecture is a call to transcendence, permanence, and belonging. 

What does the way we build tell us about the type of people we are? Many assume that architecture is simply a functional enterprise with no philosophical or theological significance. The truth is, however, that no aesthetic discipline matters more than architecture, and that is because, unlike the other arts which can be ignored at no personal cost, the way we build directly impacts everyone. Moreover, in the built environment, we see our values captured in material form. In civic buildings and homes, we tangibly perceive the self-image of society, community, and family life. They testify to our deepest longings, our eternal aspirations, and the extent to which we are committed to future generations. Of course, we build, first, to put down roots, to settle and to make a home. However, the way we do so signifies much about how we perceive the meaning of home, its place in our lives, and the sacrifices, if any, we are prepared to make for its preservation. To put it simply, the built environment mirrors or reflects the consciousness of those who designed it and those who dwell in it. This means, in turn, that it stands as the most reliable guide to what Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel called “the Spirit of the age”. 

This being the case, what does contemporary architecture say about our self-image? When I was growing up in Ireland in the 1970s and 80s, the capital city of Dublin comprised a blend of architectural styles: Palladian, Regency, Victorian, and Edwardian. All these were, to a greater or lesser extent, founded on classical architectural principles, incorporating columns, moldings, and ornament. Even in cases of novelty, there was never a radical break from the styles and principles of previous generations. There was a seamless harmony in design that was rooted in the sacred architecture of the churches, whose steeples dominated the skyline of every town and city in Ireland. Built in the Gothic and classical styles, those churches reminded the inhabitants that they belonged to what Edmund Burke called the “eternal society” that is founded on a “primeval contract” between the living, the dead, and the unborn. The church was the cornerstone of the community, a symbol of its determination to dwell in that place and to consecrate its days to the preservation and sanctification of present, past, and future. 

Standing in its shadow were buildings and homes that also spoke of permanence, each one distinct by virtue of its individual character or personality. From the grandest classical constructs to the most modest dwellings, all smiled on the world beyond their windows. There was no attempt to shock or strike awe simply because everything was built to harmonize with the surrounding streetscape. Their purpose was to fit in rather than to stand out, and, in so doing, they permitted a form of neighborliness that consolidated community. Even in those places where poverty and deprivation prevailed, there still existed a sense of home and settlement, one in which people had the support of their neighbors. Their terraced homes faced one another as though offering mutual solidarity. There was a deep sense of civic pride in such places, exemplified in the way their inhabitants sought to beautify their brick-built abodes. Cleanliness, order, and beauty were their hallmarks, signifying their profound respect for themselves and their neighbors. From a single glance at their dwellings, you could tell that these people valued virtue, integrity, and a desire to endure despite the hardships of their lives.

New Experiments in Living

Amid all this, there were, however, what we could call “new experiments in living.” Taking their cue from the Modernist revolution of the 1960s that swept across Western Europe, and chiefly inspired by the collectivism of the communists, architects sought to replan the urban space according to pseudo-socialist ideology. The first strategy was to resettle the inhabitants of the inner city in high-rise monstrosities and sprawling estates located on the very edge of suburbia. Ignoring age-old building conventions and constraints, the modernist architects opted for pure functionality at the expense of harmony and beauty. Such things were considered “bourgeois” accretions that had no place in the modern world. Drab uniformity was the order of the day, the result of which was a soulless, ugly dystopia that soon descended into social chaos.

Alienated from each other, and finding nothing redeeming in their living spaces, the people forced to live in such places suffered the natural estrangement that comes from the tyranny of disenchantment. That is because, when our world is stripped of beauty, culture, and time-honored elegance, people become strangers to the world, to others, and to themselves. It is in that moment that the world becomes faceless, and thus something to be defaced. And so it was that these places soon fell victim to chronic anti-social behavior and lawlessness. Eventually, the high-rise towers were subject to a predictable fate: they were torn down and their inhabitants were resettled in an environment eminently more conducive to human harmony and dignity.

It is a simple truth that people will only respect what they value and cherish, and they will only value those things with which they can identify. No art form more profoundly symbolizes the identity of a people than its architecture. That is because it is founded on their desire to dwell in a place, to shape it in accordance with their needs and interests, and to ensure that it harmonizes with the natural environment so that our buildings enhance rather than defy the world that surrounds them. That explains why, up to quite recently, the ancient cities of Europe had unique characteristics that distinguished them from one another. The way they were built expressed their history, identity, and political and religious values. However, in changing the way we build, we not only change the way we live, but completely alter the identity of the common home. 

For example, to insert a building of steel and glass into a classically planned street is not only to defy prevailing architectural norms, but also, to use a symbol of homelessness to undermine a traditional settlement. You cannot identify with a sheet of glass devoid of a proper doorway, its primary purpose being to disorient rather than to welcome. Having no defining characteristics or personality, it stands faceless and unresponsive before us. It does not testify to the history or the culture of the place in which it is set, but speaks to us of nowhere when what we desire is to belong somewhere. It is a monument to alienation and estrangement totally disconnected from the natural, social, and cultural fabric of the world that is obscured by its formless shadow.

If our cities have been ravaged by functional and experimental buildings that snub the surrounding streetscape, it is not only because the architectural establishment has, to quote the late English philosopher Roger Scruton, “declared war on beauty,” but also, because it is the product of a culture of immediacy and egoism. Indeed, warring against beauty is one of the primary features of this culture of immediacy that is the pervasive feature of our contemporary predicament. By a “culture of immediacy,” I mean one that thinks only in terms of the present at the expense of past and future, and one that caters solely to the needs of the current generation. This goes hand in hand with what I call the “culture of amnesia,” where, because of our preoccupation with ourselves, we forget that we belong to something much greater than ourselves. Scruton would describe it as a “culture of repudiation” insofar as it repudiates our social, moral, cultural, political, and religious inheritance. Absent generations are written out of the equation because only this generation, with its specific tastes and preferences, counts. In our own minds, we are neither trustees nor stewards: we are consumers of whatever it is that we presently desire. This signals the triumph of the “I” over the “we,” selfishness over responsibility, and the living over the dead and unborn. 

If beauty is rejected, it is because it thwarts immediate gratification and imposes on us a burden of responsibility for the preservation of the past. Beautiful things do not constitute the mute objectivity of the world, but the sanctification of time and place, a place where others labored so that we can rest. Consider, for example, the Capitol building in Washington, DC, and the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris. First, both buildings, although magnificent, do not draw attention to themselves simply for their own sake. If anything, their beauty enhances and enriches the surrounding environment. They are majestic without being pompous, beautiful without any vestige of vulgarity. Moreover, the reason why there was such a shocked response to the fire that destroyed the cathedral in 2019, and the assault on the Capitol in 2021, was that both are symbols of home and settlement, of identity and belonging. They are loved because they speak to us of the sacrifices offered on our behalf by absent generations. In both buildings, we encounter what Hegel called the “Spirit (Geist)” of our forebears. In and through their beauty, we have a revelation of who we are at our best and where we have come from. That is why, when they are consumed by fire or attacked by a mob, we perceive the destruction as something of a personal catastrophe. It is an attack on us, what we stand for, and what we value.

Without beauty, neither the Capitol nor Notre Dame could command the love and respect that they do. Hegel rightly perceived that recognition is a precondition of love. That is, we must be able to identify with the other for love to be possible. When I stand before the Capitol or Notre Dame, I do not feel a sense of intimidation or alienation despite their grandeur. To the contrary, their beauty reveals a face of love in which I recognize myself. That is why buildings can be loved, and, indeed, why they must be if our longing for home is to be satisfied. If I cannot recognize myself in the built environment, if all I perceive are lifeless, functional entities, I am condemned to a life of loveless estrangement. In such places, the dead have no place to dwell among the living, and thus we become strangers to the world and to people alike. 

Beauty is the face of love because it attracts and invites our attention and affection. If, as I say, it imposes a burden of responsibility, it is because, unlike the functional entity that merely serves my present and passing purposes, the beautiful entity speaks of something greater than me. It is a symbol of homecoming, of what attaches us to a place, and of our will to survive come what may. It is, therefore, something that serves the entire community, not only by linking it to absent generations, but as that which offers a sanctuary in which I can be reconciled to what I would otherwise be estranged from. It is there neither to be used nor consumed, but to be cherished and loved. 

If the functional or experimental entity is without a face, the beautiful entity smiles gracefully upon the world that surrounds it. It invites us not simply to behold its external beauty, but to look beyond its façade to what it enshrines and embodies. That is why beauty requires investment, time, and effort to maintain. Being not solely for my pleasure but for all who dwell and will dwell here, the preservation of beautiful things is not without its cost. The same, of course, applies to personal beauty, as when a person goes to great effort in beautifying their appearance and clothes. Once again, however, they generally do so, not solely for themselves, but for those they encounter.

The Worthy Cost of Beauty

If, therefore, beauty comes at a cost, it is one worth paying. This is especially true in the case of architecture, as a recent lesson from history reminds us all too vividly. When the Soviets conquered and ruled Eastern Europe after 1945, they declared war on religion and culture. For them, both typified the “false consciousness” of the bourgeoisie: a false consciousness that served only to alienate its victims from their true nature as purely natural beings. Historical materialism would eliminate this false consciousness for the sake of the authentic identity of what many called the “new socialist man.” Consequently, economics, rather than culture or religion, was now perceived as the true driving force of history and social transformation. People were, first and foremost, workers whose self-satisfaction was realized through total engagement with the material world. This meant that beauty was neglected, or, indeed, actively suppressed, in favor of utility. The result was a world in which, as Scruton put it, there were no “intimations of infinity,” the voice of absent generations having been silenced in a soulless void. 

The socialist world was one without beauty and the result was that its inhabitants were alienated from each other and their common home. The old buildings of Europe still stood amid the grim factories, warehouses, and faceless apartment blocks, but, through wilful neglect, they lost their charm and stood as symbols of a paradise lost.  In being denied access to their traditional culture, and their world having been totally reshaped in the image and likeness of this new socialist man, the people were not only hopeless but made to feel like exiles in a place they once called home. 

If Marxism had sought to surmount alienation by denying the redeeming power of art, religion, and philosophy, Hegel had forewarned what would happen if materialism formed the fundamental basis of identity and self-consciousness. The only way we could be redeemed from isolation, alienation, and estrangement, was, Hegel argued, through what Marx had dismissed as “false consciousness.” In other words, we cannot authentically live in a world without beauty, harmony, or the sanctifying rituals of the religious way of life. We need the world to appear familiar, a refuge from ever-gathering storms. If, therefore, the built environment appears formless, lifeless, and devoid of a human face, it will merely reinforce isolation. However, through art and culture, we find our way back home, and that is because they connect us to our history, our past, and to the homeland of the heart. They reconcile us to the world, our forebears, and the ancient wisdom enshrined in what Matthew Arnold described as “the best that has been thought and said.” 

Nineteenth-century English writer and philosopher John Ruskin put it well when he said that, while we might be able to exist in the absence of traditional or classical architecture, “we cannot remember without her.” Hence, it is “in becoming memorial or monumental that a true perfection is attained in civil and domestic buildings.” That is why he condemns as an “evil sign” the construction of homes and civic structures “to last for one generation only.” For him, a house is nothing less than a temple, one in which “it would make us holy to be permitted to live.” If we grieve at the prospect of such a home’s being swept away, of a time when no respect will be “shown to it, no affection felt for it,” and no good to be drawn from it by our children, it is because all that we have treasured will then be “dragged down to the dust.” 

Domestic homes and buildings that embody the enduring values of our common homestead are, however, not meant to satisfy, as Ruskin says, the “little revolution of one’s own life, not meant for ‘present delight, nor for present use alone.” They are not meant to alienate but to bind and reconcile us to an inheritance ingrained in stone. As Ruskin beautifully concludes: the greatest glory of a building is “in its Age, and in that deep sense of voicefulness, of stern watching, of mysterious sympathy, nay, even of approval or condemnation, which we feel in walls that have long been washed by the passing waves of humanity.”

Unlike the new “environmentally friendly” and purely functional box homes that appear like Lego constructions, the old Georgian terraced homes that line the streets of London and Dublin were not built to satisfy the little revolutions of one’s present life. They have endured not only because they are beautiful but because they have answered the needs of multiple generations. Today, most of them serve as offices, diplomatic embassies, or museums. However, should the need arise, they could easily revert to their original purpose.

The same cannot be said of those modernist or postmodernist structures that now dominate the skylines of all Western cities. Built to awe and impress, to disorient and depart from conventional form and style; they are designed more to emphasize the genius of the architect or to advance an ideological agenda than to sit seamlessly and comfortably within the urban fabric. Hence, when architectural fashions change, they appear outdated, anachronistic, and unfit for any other purpose than that which was originally intended. By contrast, the classically built commercial office or home stands the test of time because it adapts to changing circumstances and it is built to fit in rather than to stand out. The shock and awe of the postmodern building only lasts for a limited time before it begins to appear gaudy, dated, and worthy of demolition. 

Of course, there are structures, like St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome and the Empire State Building in New York, that inspire awe due to their grandeur and majesty. However, the reason they never appear outdated, anachronistic, or obtrusive is simply because they were not built in defiance of the city or as monuments to those who designed them. Rather, they were built, in the case of St. Peter’s, to offer glory to God, and, in that of the Empire State, to demonstrate the vast reach of American industry. Built respectively in the Baroque and Art Deco styles, both buildings do not sit like uninvited guests at a family gathering but are very much at home among the neighboring structures. Moreover, the fact that they have been admired and cherished by generations of pilgrims and tourists proves once again that, in architecture, beauty and harmony are not optional extras, but are the keys to enduring appeal and timeless love.

Consider now the architecture of the postmodern city, where monstrous glass towers each vie for supremacy of the sky and where flickering billboards dominate the streetscape. Such a city leaves few traces of absent generations. It is a city of mirrors in which the living see only reflections of themselves. By reconfiguring the city so that it retains no element of tradition, we evict the dead from their home among us. This is a city built solely for present purposes, for the needs of a generation that never sleeps, never reflects, never mourns. As described by the late postmodern philosopher Jacques Derrida, “this architecture called deconstructive . . . begins precisely by putting into question everything to which architecture has been subjugated, namely the values of habitation, utility, technical ends, religious investments, sacralisation, all of those values which are not in themselves architectural.”

Put simply, postmodern structures are indicative of detachment, rootlessness, and a refusal to commit to anything beyond the moment.  In seeking to “disfigure” architecture, postmodernism is making much more than an aesthetic statement. In building with glass and steel rather than stone, and in rejecting customary patterns, postmodern architects insist they are pushing conventional boundaries in the name of what is different or other. That is why they define architecture as something that must always be open to the novel and unexpected. From their perspective, traditional architecture is merely a “construction” that endeavors to contain or subdue what is “radically other,” thus rendering it subservient to the same.

The fundamental message of postmodern architects is this: instead of trying to domesticate the dead, instead of trying to memorialize them in stone, we should simply surrender our ghosts. Thus, the way we build should reflect surprise and disorientation rather than stability and certainty. It should reflect absence rather than presence. It should, moreover, extinguish what Ruskin called “the lamp of memory” in favor of what Derrida termed “the catastrophe of memory.” Consequently, postmodern architecture seeks to redesign the civic, commercial, and living spaces in such a way that they be rendered entirely novel, porous, permeable, and open to the future. We must live, not in the light of eternity, but in the opaque silhouette of the unexpected, the strange, and the monstrous, defined by Derrida as what “frightens precisely because no anticipation had prepared one to identify this figure.” 

To plan a city or a house according to such logic is to disregard the established norms of settlement, belonging, and the very idea of home itself. It is one thing to apply it to the relatively abstract sphere of academic discourse, or even to painting and literature, but quite another to impose it on the actual human world where people must labor and live. That is because, as Hegel understood, people cannot flourish when their lives are threatened by such uncertainty. Without experiencing acute alienation, as a result of which they become detached from the ties that bind, people cannot live with both eyes on a future that heralds the incoming of the unfamiliar and the monstrous. To do so is to build solely to shock, as indeed so many civic and cultural buildings now do.

The Voice of Comfort, the Voice of Home

Humans are natural homebuilders. We desire a solid sense of identity that can only be realized by shaping the world in our own image. In so doing, we domesticate what is different and identify with it until it becomes known and recognizable. Once again, this is what Hegel called “identity amid difference” or a sense of identity that recognizes that we are not self-sufficient but mutually reliant beings. Hence, it is simply illusory to believe that we can live without a home, or without being able to make familiar what appears, initially at least, as alien. It is an illusion to think that we could happily live in a society or adapt to structures that aimed at “the destruction of memory itself,” that rejected monuments, memorials, and holy abodes in favor of what Derrida termed “an absolutely radical forgetting.” This, indeed, would be to deny the essential motivation for all building. To paraphrase Martin Heidegger, we build to establish a permanent dwelling here on earth. By erasing from our common dwelling all memorials to the dead, postmodernism, like communism and its fellow travelers, prioritizes rupture over continuity. However, following Ruskin, we can say that while we might be able to exist in the absence of traditional or classical architecture, “we cannot remember without her.” That, once again, is why he insists that “it is in becoming memorial or monumental that a true perfection is attained by civil or domestic buildings.” 

This element of the culture of amnesia severs its inhabitants from the true source of their identity. The primary purpose of building is to establish a home that will survive, and that exemplifies the values of its past and present occupants. 

All of this explains why Roger Scruton spent the last years of his life endeavoring to turn the tide against ugliness in architecture in favor of beauty. From 2014 to 2020, he took a leading role in various British government initiatives to “build better, build beautiful.” Scruton understood that “classical buildings endure because they are loved, admired, and accepted, and enjoy an innate adaptation to human needs and purposes that fits them into every normal social and political change.” 

That, however, is precisely why war has been declared on all things classical and beautiful. If traditional architecture reconciled us to our past, our world, and to absent generations, the “flight from beauty” that we see, not only in architecture but in all the arts, is an attempt to sever us from the past, the world, and the “passing waves of humanity.” The assault on family, tradition, history, and religion—all of which form part of the culture of repudiation and that of amnesia—is part of what Scruton called “oikophobia” or “the repudiation of inheritance and home.” That stands in sharp contrast to “oikophilia,” which translates as “love of home.” If, as Scruton put it, beauty “calls us to renounce our narcissism and look with reverence on the world,” oikophobia demands that we renounce that reverence by remaking the world “as though love were no longer a part of it.” Thus, we are now subject to a “loveless culture, which is afraid of beauty because it is disturbed by love.”

All these thinkers, from Hegel and Burke to Ruskin and Scruton, who consider beauty as fundamental to our fulfillment, do so because they follow the sacred scriptures in identifying the human journey as being one from alienation to reconciliation. If, in our fallenness, we are alienated from our sacred source, our family, community, and history, our purpose is not to remain there. If anything, the primary goal of life is to reconcile with each of those things so that each becomes an integral moment of self-consciousness. This we do by making recognizable what was once alien or strange, unfamiliar, and threatening. The child builds, not simply to play, but to consolidate his identity in what lies beyond himself in the objective world. Building is, in other words, an objective representation of the person or people who build. The conclusion of this process ought to be, as Hegel instructs, the “union of subject and object,” by which he means that what was once alien is now familiar because it smiles back at us with a human face. 

If, however, the world has been wantonly disfigured or uglified, the reconciliation promised through the beauty, imprinted on the soul of the world by our forebears, can never be realized. We will, as Scruton laments, “wander through this world, alienated, resentful, full of suspicion and distrust.” We will remain fallen, and thus rootless, unsettled, and estranged from all that can offer refuge from the ubiquitous hedonism and oikophobia of the contemporary situation. But that, again, is precisely the point of all those modern movements that have turned their backs on beauty. Their primary purpose is to detach us from those things which serve to perpetuate the traditional, spiritual, moral, and political values of Western civilization. 

People cannot live in a state of perpetual alienation without great social and moral cost, as the example of the sink estates and high-rise ghettoes (now a permanent feature of Western cities) clearly demonstrates. As Hegel clearly saw, when forms of existence no longer satisfy our desire for self-recognition, they inevitably collapse. And that is because, without beauty, we can never be anything but strangers to this world. Indeed, as Scruton remarked: “Once we start to celebrate ugliness, then we become ugly too. Just as art and architecture have uglified themselves, so have our manners, our relationships and our language become crude.”

Beauty, in contrast, is “the voice of comfort, the voice of home.” It is the “voice that settles us, the assurance that we belong among others, in a place of sharing and consolation.” To seek the return of beauty is not, therefore, a refusal to face reality or a wistful yearning for a time long since gone. If anything, it offers hope in place of despair, for its principal purpose is to reattach us to reality, to the world, its people, and its sacred source. If we are to truly feel at home in this world, we must be able to identify with it, to see it animated by the spirit of the living and the dead. As Scruton says, this will only happen when we understand that, in architecture, beauty “is not an optional extra to our mental equipment.” If we are to feel at one with the structures in which we labor and dwell, if they are to endorse our existence here on earth, beauty must take precedence over all other factors. Without it, the battle for the soul of civilization cannot be won.   

Image by evannovostro and licensed via Adobe Stock.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys will be available for media interviews Thursday following federal district court oral arguments in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Clark. In the case, ADF attorneys represent National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and two pregnancy care centers challenging Vermont state officials for unconstitutionally restricting the centers’ speech and provision of services.

Last May, Gov. Phil Scott signed SB 37 into law, impeding the ability of pro-life pregnancy centers to continue providing help and support to Vermont women and families. The law censors the centers’ ability to advertise their services. It also precludes the ability of centers to offer even non-medical services, information, and counseling unless provided by a licensed health care provider. ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of the pro-life pregnancy centers in July.

“Women who become unexpectedly pregnant should know they have life-affirming options available to them, from emotional support to practical resources,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “Vermont’s law, however, robs women of these options—it impedes women’s ability to receive critical services during a difficult time in their lives and suppresses the free-speech rights of faith-based pregnancy centers. Pregnancy centers should be free to serve women and offer the support they need without fear of unjust government punishment. We are urging the court to support the rights of these critical care services.”

Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.

NIFLA is a religious nonprofit that provides pro-life pregnancy center members with legal resources and counsel, with the aim of developing a network of life-affirming ministries in every community across the nation. NIFLA has six member facilities in Vermont, including Aspire Now and Branches Pregnancy Resource Center, two faith-based pregnancy centers that have joined the lawsuit.

The Vermont law specifically targets pro-life pregnancy centers as “limited services” providers because they do not refer or perform abortions. Under the law, the state attorney general has the authority to fine pregnancy centers up to $10,000 if she believes its life-affirming messages are misleading.

The law applies only to pro-life pregnancy centers—an abortion clinic that provides identical information would not be subject to the law. Also, the law does not define “misleading,” so it is left up to the discretion of the attorney general.

Further, Vermont’s law precludes the ability of centers to offer even non-medical services, information, and counseling unless provided by a licensed health care provider. This restriction harms pregnancy centers by preventing their non-medical staff and volunteers from providing clients with any information related to pregnancy and counseling clients about their options. It also prevents non-medical pregnancy centers, like Branches, from providing women with information or counseling about pregnancy without hiring medical staff.

ADF attorneys filed the lawsuit, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Clark, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont.

The post Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers Challenge Vermont Law to Stop Them From Saving Babies appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Ohio laws requiring informed consent and a waiting period before women obtain an abortion have been legally challenged by pro-abortion organizations.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit earlier this spring seeking to remove the mandatory 24-hour waiting period for women pursuing abortion, which is legally required to take place after they receive information about the procedure.

The stipulations include private appointments with physicians who inform pregnant women of various details such as the age of their developing babies, the risks of having an abortion and life-affirming alternatives. Ohio law allows elective abortion up to viability, or roughly 22 weeks gestation.

The legal period for abortion extended in November 2023, when voters approved a constitutional amendment called Issue 1 that upended the previously enacted heartbeat bill that banned abortion around six weeks gestation, becoming the fourth state to enshrine a so-called “right” to abortion in its constitution since the historic overturning of Roe v. Wade in June 2022.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a slew of pro-abortion organizations in the Buckeye State, including the Planned Parenthood facilities of Southwest Ohio and Greater Ohio, Preterm-Cleveland, Women’s Med Group Professional Corporation and Northeast Ohio Women’s Center. The plaintiffs have argued that the laws in question violate the constitutional amendment abortion protections passed last year and requested that the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas declare them unenforceable.

Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.

“The same groups that insisted Issue 1 was about guarding women’s healthcare are using the abortion amendment to remove Ohio’s law on giving women adequate time and information so they can make a voluntary decision,” said Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America Midwestern Regional Director Sue Liebel.

She also noted, per an April 3 press release, that the amendment driving the lawsuit is “like every abortion amendment [and is] a bait-and-switch campaign to legalize second- and third-trimester abortions.”

The lawsuit challenging the informed consent and 24-hour waiting period came followed a separate amended complaint was filed in Hamilton County—also by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood—which challenges the legal requirement to have a written transfer agreement (WTA) provided by every abortion facility to operate and the stipulation that public hospitals are forbidden from entering into such agreements.

According to an August 2023 report from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, 33 states hold similar requirements that mandate informed consent before women obtain abortions. Twenty-nine of those states provide specific information that must be given to pregnant women. Additionally, 28 have another mandate that insists women wait, generally 24 hours, from receiving the required information and obtaining an abortion.

Almost every state with informed consent and waiting period laws require that pre-abortion counseling include details about the process and risks of abortion procedures as well as information about fetal development. A total of 31 states are mandated to tell women how old their unborn child is before committing an abortion.

LifeNews Note: This article was originally published at Pregnancy Help News and is reprinted here with permission. 

The post Planned Parenthood Sues to Block Ohio Law Requiring Informed Consent Before Abortion appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Presidential Persecutions

By:Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness

May 13, 2024

(Emphasis added) 

None of the five civil and criminal cases currently lodged against former President Donald Trump have ever had merit. They were all predicated on using the law to injure his re-election candidacy—given a widespread derangement syndrome among the left and a fear they cannot entrust a Trump/Biden election to the people.

These criminal and civil trials are merely the continuation of extra-legal efforts of the last eight years to destroy a presidential candidate in lieu of opposing him in transparent elections.

As such, the current lawfare joins the Mueller investigation of the Russian-collusion hoax. It is a continuation of the laptop disinformation caper and the “51 intelligence authorities” who lied about its Russian origins. It logically follows from the two impeachments, the Senate trial of Trump as a private citizen, and states’ efforts to remove him from ballots.

The E. Jean Carroll case, the Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, and Fani Willis local and state trials, and the Smith federal indictment share various embarrassments.

Suspension of statutes of limitations: Carroll and Bragg could only go to court through the legal gymnastics of enlisting sympathetic judges and legislators to change or amend the law to suspend the statute of limitations as a veritable bill of attainder to go after Trump.

Violations of the Bill of Rights: In the Bragg case, Judge Merchan’s selective and asymmetrical gag order likely violates the First Amendment (prohibiting “abridging the freedom of speech”). Bragg violated the Sixth Amendment by denying Trump the right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation”. Judge Engoron, in the juryless James case, violated the Eighth Amendment (“nor excessive fines imposed”) in assessing Donald Trump an unheard of $354 million fine for supposedly overstating the value of real estate collateral for loans, while violating the Sixth Amendment as well (“the accused shall enjoy the right … to trial by an impartial jury”). The FBI likely violated the Fourth Amendment (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”) by raiding Trump’s private residence, seizing his papers and effects (many of them private), and then lying about its own shenanigans of rearranging the seized classified files to incriminate Trump.

The invention of crimes: The indictments of Bragg, James, Willis, and Smith had no prior precedents. These cases will likely never be seen again. Bragg bootstrapped a federal campaign violation allegation onto a state crime. Yet still, he has never explained exactly how Trump violated any particular law.

No one had ever been tried in New York for allegedly inflating real estate assets to obtain a loan from banks, whose auditors had reviewed favorably the applicant’s assets. Thus, the lending agencies issued the loans, profited from the interest, were paid back in full and on time, and had no complaint against the borrower, Trump. Nonetheless, James indicted Trump and convicted him of a non-crime without a victim, due the New York combination of a politicized left-wing Manhattan judge, prosecutor, and juror.

No local prosecutor until Willis had ever indicted a presidential candidate for calling up a registrar and complaining about the balloting or alleging that some votes cast were not yet counted, followed up by an additional request to find supposedly missing ballots. If such criminalization was the norm, a local Florida prosecutor in 2000 could have indicted both the Bush and Gore campaigns.

Prior to Smith’s federal indictment, all disagreements with presidents about the classification and removal of their private papers were handled administratively, not criminally, much less inaugurated by a staged, performance-art FBI swat-like raid on an ex-president’s residence.

Equal justice?: These indictments are asymmetrical, hounding Trump when other prominent left-wing politicians have been far greater violators of the same alleged crimes and yet were given exemptions. Special prosecutor Robert Hur found Biden culpable for removing classified files for far longer, in more places, in less secure circumstances, and without the presidential authority to declassify them. Yet Biden was not indicted on the Orwellian excuse that he, as president, was so mentally challenged no jury would convict such an amnesiac and debilitated defendant (who otherwise apparently can exercise the office of President of the United States.)

Tara Reade was as believable or unbelievable as E. Jean Carroll. Far poorer, and without Carroll’s New York elite connections, Reade alleged that Senator Joe Biden sexually assaulted her at about the same time as the Carroll claim. Yet Reade was written off as a nut, ostracized, and felt to have opportunistically piggy-banked on the #MeToo movement.

James and her predecessors were aware of hundreds of New York City developers who submitted loan applications with property assessment at odds with those of initial bank appraisals. She knows the solution is that either the bank’s sophisticated auditors refuse the loan or the disagreement is deemed not sufficient enough to sacrifice profit-making by offering a loan that will likely be timely paid back.

Willis knows that Stacey Abrams, in her own state, claimed herself the winner of the 2018 gubernatorial race (she lost by over 50,000 votes). Abrams then declared that the actual winner, current governor Brian Kemp, was and is an illegitimate governor. She further sued to overturn the election in the manner that Jill Stein had tried to overthrow the 2016 presidential election.

In a similar fashion of election denialism, Democratically-funded ad campaigns and sycophantic celebrities hit the airways in 2016 to flip the electors to become “faithless,” thus renouncing their constitutional duties to reflect their own states’ tallies and instead voting according to the national popular vote.

Bragg knows that Hillary Clinton was fined over $100,000 for 2016 campaign violations after she hid the nature of her illegal payments to foreign national Christopher Steele to collect dirt on her opponent Donald Trump. Barack Obama was fined—five years post facto!—by the same Federal Election Commission a whopping $375,000 for improperly reporting nearly $2 million in 2008 campaign donations. In neither case did a federal prosecutor, much less a local district attorney, seek to criminalize what was customarily considered an administrative or civil violation of federal law.

Bias: Never has an ex-president and leading presidential candidate been targeted with promises of indictment by candidates running for state and local offices. Yet that is precisely what Bragg, James, and Willis have done, fueling their campaigns for offices by promising to find ways to go after Donald Trump and subsequently raising money from such boasts.

Willis’s paramour, fellow prosecutor Nathan Wade, met with the White House counsel’s office. One of Bragg’s prosecutors, Matthew Colangelo, left his prestigious job as a senior federal prosecutor in the Biden DOJ temporarily to work on contract with Bragg’s Manhattan office to go after Trump.

Jack Smith was appointed by the Biden Department of Justice; his left-wing filmmaker spouse helped to produce a puff-piece documentary on Michelle Obama.

The judge in the Bragg case, Juan Merchan, donated to the 2020 Biden campaign. So did one of the lead prosecutors, Susan Hoffinger, who gave generously to Biden in 2020. Merchan’s own daughter, Loren, has made a small fortune as a Democratic campaign consultant, having guided her left-wing clients’ fundraising efforts to the tune of $90 million.

Given these egregious violations of the law, abject political bias, conflicts of interest, asymmetrical application of the law, and manipulations of the statutes of limitations, the public has slowly grown incensed. They rightly conclude that the lawfare is a left-wing coordinated effort to destroy candidate Trump by exhausting him physically and psychologically in five separate cases at the height of the campaign season, bankrupting him with what will likely be $1 billion in legal fees and fines, silencing him with gag orders, defaming him with salacious and sensational but irrelevant court testimonies, and keeping him off the campaign trail.

And now? The sheer preposterousness has resulted in two unexpected developments. One, the more the left tries to subvert the legal system to emasculate Trump, the more the latter wins popularity, especially in traditionally non-Republican constituencies, even as Biden slumps in the polls. And two, the four criminal cases are starting to fall apart because of their sheer ridiculousness and abject bias.

Will and her boyfriend, prosecutor Wade, likely lied under oath about both their covert romantic relationship and the money that fueled their global junketeering. A Georgia state appellate court is reviewing Willis’ suitability to continue the prosecution. One might ask, “How can a prosecutor who lied under oath while trying a case retain any credibility?” Whatever the state court’s findings, a state appellate or federal court will eventually exonerate Trump. No other prosecutor or jurisdiction would likely take over Willis’s tainted indictment.

Smith’s indictment is in limbo, largely because: 

1) in unusual and partisan fashion, he sought to rush the prosecution to coincide with the 2024 campaign; 

2) the Supreme Court is determining to what extent a president either has immunity or can be hauled into court by a special prosecutor appointed by the opposition party; and 3) his office lied to the court about the condition of the Trump files they found at his residence, collected, and then took possession of—in a fashion that was intended to prejudice the case in the government’s favor.

Bragg’s gambit of putting Stormy Daniels on the stand to offer irrelevant but lurid testimony to hurt candidate Trump may have backfired, given she proved unstable, narcissistic, unreliable, hateful, and promised to break the law and refuse a legally ordered payment to Trump after losing a defamation case against him. Convicted felon and liar Michael Cohen, the prosecution’s key witness, has already hit the internet trying to get rich and will have less credibility.

James’s civil conviction of Trump and massive fine (originally $450 million with interest) may also be overturned on appeal, given it violates Eight-Amendment protection from “unusual punishment” (“bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed”), in addition to the selective prosecution of Trump where there is no criminal act and no victim.

So what will be the endgame of all these attacks on the American legal system and the warping of it for blatant political purposes?

One, we have entered new territory. There will soon be hundreds of local and state prosecutors who feel they have now been given license in election years to go after national presidential candidates for political advantage, both local and national.

Two, conservatives are in a dilemma: whether to restore deterrence by boomeranging the left’s extra-legal effort to ruin a candidate and president or to refrain from what would be a descent into third-world, tit-for-tat criminalization of politics.

Three, the persecution of Trump, coupled with the derelict candidacy of Joe Biden, threatens to erode the traditional base of the Democratic Party and redefine politics in terms of class rather than race. Minorities are beginning to empathize with the gagged, railroaded, and victimized Trump while distancing themselves from the victimizers, who are using their “privilege” to warp the law on behalf of a bullying president.

Four, the U.S. has lost a great deal of credibility abroad due to the erosion of what was once seen as the greatest system of jurisprudence in the world. No longer.

Enemies like China and Russia now boast that America’s new political prosecutions are similar to their own systems, or even more egregious, and will welcome us into their own customs of bastardized justice.

Latin-American, African, and Asian dictators are delighted that the U.S. has lost the moral authority to lecture them on the need for a disinterested and independent judiciary and the rule of law.

Our democratic allies in Europe and Asia are increasingly disturbed that the instability and unlawfulness apparent in the current lawfare put into question the reliability of the United States and its adherence to a rules-based order—whether at home or aboard.

Any president who would sic the justice system on his opponent might be equally vindictive and lawless to his allies abroad.

“Courage is contagious.”
– WikiLeaks T- shirt supporting Julian Assange.

Rep. Thomas Massie is that very rare politician who is actually inspiring.

His defiant principled opposition to the recent moves by Congress called out the madness of flooding foreign countries with more money and weapons while our own citizens suffer.

Thomas Massie said no.

So, of course Massie’s brave voice of reason is now under attack by well-funded foreign lobbyists hell-bent on perpetual war.

I was inspired to make a video about Massie’s brave stance. My  script says :

While most of congress was busy waving another country’s flag, passing Biden’s wish list on wars that will raise the prices you pay for groceries and gas, and ignoring America’s crisis at the border, one Republican took a stand against that crowd: Kentucky’s Congressman Thomas Massie. Now Massie’s brave voice of independence is under attack by well-funded foreign lobbyists. It’s time for common sense patriots to stick together and support Thomas Massie

The American people want no part of being foot soldiers for the military-industrial complex or advancing the interests of foreign nations like Ukraine and Israel over our own.

 Meanwhile, people we elect give unconditional support for countries like Ukraine and Israel, neither of which truly believes in anything approaching real democracy.

Both Ukraine and Israel censor dissent and have acted against true democracy and freedom. Israel even supported censoring Americans who criticize its policies, ludicrously conflating that with anti-Semitism. The American people’s antiwar views have been ignored by the uniparty swamp in DC.

It is heartening to see prominent voices on the right, including Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Alex Jones, speaking out against this unconditional support. They recognize the dangers of what many people increasingly see, where Congress seems to ignore the opinions of the American people in favor of foreign interests.

In these challenging times, we must remember the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” We must remain vigilant and support those who stand for the principles that define America, even in the face of overwhelming opposition.

Congressman Thomas Massie embodies the spirit of independence and commitment to the Constitution that we should all aspire to. It is time for us to stand with him and demand that our representatives prioritize the interests of the American people above all else.

Since the pro-life Dobbs decision in 2022, which overturned the 50-year reign of Roe v. Wade, the debate on the life issue has only intensified. A new layer of the onion was revealed in late February, when Alabama lawmakers wrestled with the topic of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and whether frozen embryos were considered unborn children.

The Alabama Supreme Court ultimately ruled “that anyone who destroys a frozen embryo may be held liable under the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act — a law that has historically applied to born and unborn children.” Such a decision was not free from backlash, and months later, both Democrats and Republicans continue to hash out their views on the matter. However, a recent Pew Research poll revealed some interesting insight to where both parties stand.

Released Monday, the poll reported a major takeaway: “A majority of Americans say the decision to have an abortion should belong solely to the pregnant woman; about a third say embryos are people with rights.” When asked if they agree with the statement, “Human life begins at conception, so an embryo is a person with rights,” 53% of both Republicans and those who lean Republican said it either “extremely” or “very much” aligned with their values. Additionally, 21% said it only “somewhat” aligned, and 25% said “not too” or “not at all well.”

Overall, the poll found that roughly 35% of Americans agree that human embryos are human with rights. Only 18% of Democrats and those who lean Democrat agreed with the statement, with 16% who partially agreed, and 66% who said the statement did not align well with their views.

Please follow LifeNews on Rumble for the latest pro-life videos.

On Monday, Breitbart emphasized the connection between the tension that emerged from the IVF debate in Alabama to the results of the poll. They wrote, “Alabama lawmakers faced a massive pressure campaign from Republicans and Democrats following the ruling,” especially “in a highly consequential election year.” They also noted how the Democratic Party has been using the IVF debate “as part of its pro-abortion and reproductive health campaign.” In the wake of the differing Republican responses to the IVF debate, experts say the Pew poll serves as an opportunity to emphasize the weight of acknowledging that life begins at conception.

In comment to The Washington Stand, Mary Szoch, Family Research Council’s director of the Center for Human Dignity, explained why these poll results are important to emphasize. “Killing an unborn child impacts so many people,” she said. “Obviously it ends the child’s life, but it also impacts the mother, the father, the baby’s grandparents, aunts, uncles, and parents’ friends.” As Szoch says, “Basic biology tells us that an unborn baby is a human being,” and yet, “this fact is challenging for people to acknowledge because of the connection with abortion.”

According to Szoch, when facing the reality of the death of an unborn child due to abortion, people are often left wondering “if one should currently be doing more to defend life in the womb, recognizing the need for forgiveness because of the role one played in the destruction of life, or feeling the pain of a child who is missing in the family because their life was ended through abortion.” As Szoch highlighted, abortion ends life, which makes “acknowledging that an unborn child is a human being” far more consequential.

Szoch continued, “Acknowledging an unborn child is a human being has major consequences for IVF as well, where those involved have to commit to treating embryos as human beings with dignity and respect, not as pieces of property.” But then, she added, “This calls into question actions that largely make IVF cheaper — like producing extra embryos and freezing embryos for later use. These are inconvenient truths that are challenging to acknowledge — but we must remain committed to truth no matter how challenging it is.”

In light of these tough realities accentuated by the poll, Szoch concluded, “I look forward to the day when people not only recognize an unborn child is a human but also recognize that unborn children deserve protection and the right to life simply because they are human beings made in the image of God.”

LifeNews Note: Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand, where this originally appeared.

The post Poll Shows Majority of Republicans Say Unborn Babies are Human Beings With Rights appeared first on LifeNews.com.

A pro-life advocate who was sentenced yesterday to 21 months in prison for protesting abortion didn’t go down without a fight in court.

At least a verbal battle making his position clear.

John Hinshaw was given 21 months in prison for protesting outside a late-term abortion center in the nation’s capital that was responsible for killing five babies in potentially illegal late-term abortions were infanticides. While absolutely nothing has been done to hold the abortionist accountable, Hinshaw and his pro-life colleagues have been sentenced to years in federal prison for engaging in Civil Disobedience inside the abortion center.

Before his sentencing hearing yesterday, Hinshaw called out the judge for allowing these gruesome late term abortions without any investigation. He chided the Clinton-appointed judge for refusing to allow more information about why the pro-life advocates were protesting in the first place and shutting down their ability to defend their actions as a First Amendment protected peaceful demonstration against abortion.

“I stand here for Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to accept the punishment rightly hers,’ and condemned the judge’s ‘great guilt of pride, indifference, and intolerance,” he said.

During this unjust imprisonment we were gifted with another baby granddaughter, Charlotte Millie, a fiesty little girl who came early – 32 weeks gestation. I know this court only considers her a “would-be child” at that age. At 32 weeks gestation, she was at the same age as Phoenix, Harriet, Holly, Christopher X, and Angel, the Washington five slain by Santangelo. They are named today in honor of their eternal dignity. What makes my granddaughter a treasure and these five trash?? How is this allowed? HOW IS THIS ALLOWED???? It is allowed by courts covering up the crimes of Santangelo.

LifeNews is on TruthSocial. Please follow us here.

Today, I am told is an opportunity for me to say I’m sorry and so I am sorry. Sorry for having failed in the vocation bestowed upon me the day I became a father. The vocation of protecting children. I have failed this miserably, and so I apologize to this court as I believe my failure contributes to the failure of this court to fulfill its vocation to protect the innocent. And this failure of the court thus contributes to my failure.

So all the years of court-protected slaughter have led us here, where I stand convicted, though guiltless. SENT, as I am, to take upon myself the guilt of this court. I stand here for Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to accept the punishment rightly hers. The Latin term for this is spem in alium. And as I open my arms to plead the mercy of this court on Kollar-Kotelly, I ask the One True Judge, whom she and I will be seeing very soon, to accept my act of love toward her as expiation of her great guilt of pride, indifference, and intolerance.

“My wife knows that she carries our children from their beginning through eternity. But she knows that I cannot share this same bond because I am a man. There’s a special maternal bond between child and mother.”

“My granddaughter was born at 32 weeks gestation.”

“How is it that my granddaughter is a treasure, and the others are trash? There is a reason why today’s gospel reading is to lay down one’s life for his friends. This is not a coincidence.”

“I am sorry that I have failed in my vocation as a father to protect children. I am sorry to this court that it has failed in its vocation to protect its nation’s children. I am sorry to the bereaved mothers who have lost their children to abortion. We are a nation of bereaved mothers. I am sorry to this generation that it has lost a third of its own to abortion. I am sorry that it’s lost its members to pornography. I stand convicted, though guiltless. I take on the guilt of this judge. Accept my love for you, judge, as expiation for your guilt.”

The post Pro-Life Advocate Sentenced to Prison Slams Judge for Ignoring Babies Killed in Abortions: “How Can You Allow This?” appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The Biden administration has thrown yet another pro-life American in prison for protesting abortion.

Thanks to Joe Biden’s politicized Justice Department, pro-life advocate Herb Geraghty has been sentenced to 34 months in prison under the FACE Act just for engaging in a peaceful protest inside an abortion center.

Like fellow pro-life advocate Lauren Handy, Darnel was found guilty on all counts the Biden administration brought against them for allegedly violating the FACE law.

In a previous interview, Darnel called it an “honor” to be arrested for saving babies from abortions.

“FACE is a crime, but it shouldn’t be a crime because abortion shouldn’t be tolerated,” he said in an interview with Catholic News Agency (CNA). “Except for the unjust execution of Christ, abortion is the worst thing that’s ever happened in the history of the world.”

Darnel said he lives in “a nation that murders kids” and attributed his 14-year “quasi-full time” pro-life work to his evangelical Christian faith. “How can I say I love Christ and not respond with extreme zeal, extreme action, and drastic measures to this holocaust?”

Those pro-lifers on trial conducted a rescue at the Washington Surgi-Clinic operated by the notorious late-term abortionist Cesare Santangelo who was busted by a LiveAction undercover investigator for admitting that he would not help a child with life-saving efforts if he or she survived a late-term abortion. He emphatically stated that a nearby hospital’s efforts to save the life of a child he was trying to abort was “the stupidest thing they could have done.”

Lauren Handy, Herb Geraghty, Darnel and others cited those videos as the reason for the rescue and protest at the abortion business because of the concern babies might be left to die. They chained themselves to the entrance of the abortion center in an attempt to stop abortions.

The rescuers were given 115 aborted babies by the driver of a medical waste van outside Santangelo’s late-term abortion facility. The babies were well-developed – second and possibly third trimester. Their remains are still in a vault at the D.C. medical examiner’s office.

In October 2020, about two months after the remains were obtained, the nine pro-lifers blocked the entrance of the abortion facility and protesting abortion. Darnel filmed the protest he participated in alongside Handy and the other convicted activists.

However, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton nominee, would not allow the video to be used as evidence. She also prohibited the defendants from arguing their actions were protected by the First Amendment or were committed in defense of a third person, unborn children.

“This is a clear abuse of power and a sign that the Biden administration is using the Department of Justice to attack political targets—particularly those of us who believe in the right to life for all human beings,” Geraghty, a member of the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, told The Daily Signal late last year.

Yesterday, another pro-life advocate who participated in the protest, John Hinshaw, was sentenced for 21 months and will get credit for 9 months served. And pro-life advocate Will Goodman was sentenced to 27 months in prison for his role in the 2020 protest.

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

If the pro-life advocates were environmental activists or a leftist supporting Hamas, their sit-in at an abortion business would have earned her a misdemeanor charge and maybe a small fine. But because she is a pro-life advocate protesting abortion, the Biden administration used the FACE Act to prosecute her for supposedly blocking access to abortion.

Even though the law, which abrogates the free speech rights of pro-life Americans, has rarely been used, the Biden administration pushed for putting several pro-life advocates in prison for over a decade for protesting abortion. Biden officials misused the law to push for the highest penalties, reserved for violent criminal behavior, to prosecute peaceful pro-life Americans who merely exercised their free speech rights.

Handy, a Catholic, is a well-known pro-life voice on the political left. She was the primary organizer and leader of the peaceful protest sponsored by  Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising that led to the ongoing court cases.

In a statement before the ruling, Handy shed some perspective on being jailed for her pro-life activism.

“It has been close to 9 months since I was abruptly ripped from my community. This has led me to think long and hard on what to say about my sentencing today in federal court. Some drafts were angry and righteous while most were just a tearstained longing for my loved ones back home. Yes, this time has been challenging but I refuse to be jaded. Why? Because life goes on… even in jail. So I might as well continue to love and cry and scream and dance. That is joy. The feeling of being fully alive without shame. Which is something no court can take from me. So today, I am at peace with myself and my future. I will go into court with my head held high and my heart open.”

PAAU condemned the ruling today, telling LifeNews that Handy has been wrongly sentenced to 4 years &  9 months in federal prison for an act of peaceful civil disobedience to prevent federal crimes such as partial birth abortion and infanticide.

The condemnation of the ruling was swift.

“Today’s outrageous 57-month sentence for a progressive pro-life activist is a stark reminder: Biden’s DOJ is fully weaponized against pro-life American citizens, and they are using the FACE Act to do it,” Rep. Chip Roy said in a statement. “House Republicans should defund the DOJ weaponization, repeal the FACE Act, and stand up for the freedoms that we campaign on.”

Caroline Smith, Executive Director of the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising said, “The abortion industry wants to scare, intimidate, fear-monger, and isolate us. But what they don’t know is we have a radical hope that goes beyond the concrete walls of both prisons and abortuaries. I believe the oppression that the DOJ is expressing right now will absolutely backfire on them in the near future. Oppression always backfires, especially when your motivation is blood money. Abortion is murder, and fetuses are people, and nothing will stop Rescue.”

PAAU Founder Terrisa Bukovinac said “Today the Biden Administration and Merrick Garland’s DOJ have reached a new level of tyranny. There is no other social justice movement in our nation who’s activists are subject to years in federal prison for nonviolent resistance. This blatant viewpoint discrimination has incalculable consequences for babies, their parents, those who defend them, and for peaceful activists across movements worldwide. I continue to stand by Lauren and the other 8 defendants who risked their freedoms to stand in defense of the least of us.”

A total of 10 pro-life advocate face the federal criminal charges after they were arrested and indicted for allegedly violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) in 2020 at the Washington Surgi-Clinic in Washington, DC. That’s a late-term abortion facility suspected of breaking federal law by performing partial birth abortions and illegally allowing babies born aluive after failed abortions to die.

The defendants – often called “rescuers” by fellow members of the pro-life movement – partook in a 2020 peaceful protest against a notorious Washington, D.C. abortuary that performed late-term abortions.

Last year, all nine were found guilty of violating the controversial Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. They each face a sentence of up to 11 years in federal prison. The FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) Act prohibits individuals from attempting to injure, intimidate, or interfere (by use of force, threat of force, or physical obstruction) with anyone obtaining or performing an abortion.

The indictment in the case says that on Oct. 22, 2020, 10 individuals “conspired with one another and with others known and unknown to obstruct access” to the Washington Surgi-Clinic in Washington, D.C.

“It was the purpose of the conspiracy to create a blockade to stop the clinic from providing and patients from obtaining reproductive health services,” the indictment alleges. The indictment says the defendants used “deception” to gain access to the clinic, used “force” to enter, and barricaded themselves inside with “ropes and chains.”

A video of the rescue shows the pro-life advocates praying and singing inside the abortion facility and refusing to leave so abortions could end the lives of unborn children.

Stephen Crampton, senior counsel for the nonprofit legal firm Thomas More Society, says the cases are clearly political persecution.

“They waited a year and a half to file this action,” Crampton said. “If indeed this was some sort of dire offense and the defendants ought to be incarcerated, why in the world, does the government wait a year and a half to file the charges?”

“The climate activists were out there [in D.C.] gluing their hands to the streets, shutting down traffic and everything, you think there’s any chance the feds are going to prosecute those people or try to put them in prison for 11 years?” he asked.

He also told Fox News that finding a fair jury was practically impossible considering that D.C. is the “most pro-abortion city in America.”

The pro-lifers on trial conducted a rescue at the Washington Surgi-Clinic operated by the notorious late-term abortionist Cesare Santangelo who was busted by a LiveAction undercover investigator for admitting that he would not help a child with life-saving efforts if he or she survived a late-term abortion. He emphatically stated that a nearby hospital’s efforts to save the life of a child he was trying to abort was “the stupidest thing they could have done.”

Lauren Handy and Herb Geraghty cited those videos as the reason for the rescue and protest at the abortion business because of the concern babies might be left to die. They chained themselves to the entrace of the abortion center in an attempt to stop abortions.

A pro-life advocate says the charges are wrong because the protests were non-violent.

Caroline Taylor Smith, executive director of PAAU told LifeNews, “This overreaching of power and authority by Biden’s DOJ is egregious and must be stopped. Nonviolent prolife actions should not be a federal crime, and peaceful people with a desire to save lives should not be jailed for over a decade. Some of these Rescuers could be facing death by incarceration. We must repeal the FACE Act now!”

Jonathan Darnel, one of the four pro-life Americans Biden is targeting in this second trial, plead not guilty to the charges.

“I am definitely not guilty of the charges leveled against me, which is rather ironic that I should find myself in this position,” Darnel told Fox News Digital in an interview. “Nevertheless, if a jury finds me guilty of FACE even erroneously, it would be an honor because the kids are worthy of protection.”

Senior Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotely a Clinton nominee, is presiding over the hearings, which are slated to take place at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia just a few blocks from the U.S. Supreme Court. The sentencings will continue on Wednesday, May 15, with Herb (born Rosemary) Geraghty at 9:00 a.m., Jonathan Darnel at 11:00 a.m., Jean Marshall at 1:30 p.m., and Joan Andrews Bell at 3:00 p.m. On Friday, May 17, the judge is scheduled to sentence Heather Idoni at 9:30 a.m.

Kollar-Kotely was also originally going to sentence the final defendant, Paulette Harlow, on Friday. However, Harlow’s sentencing was postponed until two weeks later on Friday, May 31, at 1:30 p.m.

Last year, former President Donald Trump promised to support “political prisoners” if he’s elected president. During the Family Research Council’s “Pray, Vote, Stand Summit” in Washington, D.C., Trump vowed to get innocent Americans out of jail for standing up for their beliefs while criminals run rampant. 

“I am announcing that the moment I win the election, I will appoint a special task force to rapidly review the cases of every political prisoner who has been unjustly persecuted by the Biden administration,” Trump said. 

Trump referenced the convictions of pro-life advocates who now face as many as 11 years in prison for rescuing babies from abortions at a late-term abortion business in Washington D.C.

“If we stand together in this fight, we’re going to defeat Crooked Joe Biden; if he runs — will he make it to the starting gate?” Trump said.

The post Pro-Life Advocate Jonathan Darnel Thrown in Prison for 27 Months for Protesting Abortion appeared first on LifeNews.com.