Cardinal Grech says ‘Fiducia Supplicans’ release won’t affect future synod session

Donald Trump is an anomalous political figure, a force of nature who is truly one of one.

He doesn’t, to put it mildly, march in lockstep with establishment positions of either the left or the right. In a time of increased political despair, it makes sense that so many Americans gravitate towards him.

As with so many other issues, Trump has the finger on the pulse of everyday Americans when it comes to abortion, more so than the political left or right.

In a recent statement, Trump said that abortion extremists “support abortions up to and even beyond the ninth month. The concept of having an abortion in later months and even execution after birth . . . is unacceptable and almost everyone agrees with that.”

He’s correct!

A new national McLaughlin/Priests for Life poll proves exactly that.

A clear majority of respondents — 61% — would vote for a political candidate who is pro-life but favors certain exceptions.

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

On the other hand, only 24% of respondents would cast their vote for a candidate who supports abortion with no restrictions whatsoever up to the moment of birth, as well as taxpayer funded abortion.

According to the survey, nearly half of voters (46%) would support a candidate who wants to protect babies as soon as their heartbeat is detected.

Only 27% would support a candidate who is in favor of unrestricted abortions up to the moment of birth.

About three-quarters of voters say they favor abortion — but only with restrictions.

Even a plurality of anti-abortion voters wants to see time limits in place (31% versus 21% who support abortion at any time).

Of Democrats, 40% believe abortion should be banned no later than the first trimester.

Abortion will be a highly significant and charged issue in the upcoming general election. It is the first Presidential election since the historic 2022 Dobbs decision, (Dobbs vs. Jackson Womens Health Organizaton, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), which marked a pivotal turn from the era of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

Dobbs returned the issue of abortion back to where it belongs: We the People, rather than an unelected judiciary.

Trump’s recent statement was consonant with the ruling, “My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both. And whatever they decide must be the law of the land — in this case, the law of the state.”

Though there remains a federal role for abortion policy, most people in our poll prefer it be dealt with at the local level.

The survey demonstrates that there is widespread antipathy not only toward late term abortions, but taxpayer funded abortions, lack of parental notification, abortion on demand, and forcing medical professionals who oppose abortion for moral and religious reasons to support or perform abortions, as well.

That is because, as the survey also makes evident, there is a prodigious culture of life in the United States. There is a deeply rooted, bedrock desire for policies that are life-affirming in the widest sense: ones that are pro-parent, pro-woman, pro-baby, pro-child, pro-family, and pro-community.

This is where Trump gets it right and where others get it wrong.

The majority of survey respondents said it is good when a woman with an unplanned pregnancy decides to keep her baby; 85% support financial, medical, and

emotional assistance for women with unplanned pregnancies and young mothers; 82% support reduced legal and financial barriers to adoption and foster care; and 77% support faith-based organizations providing social services to pregnant women and young mothers.

This widespread support of a culture of life — in the broadest sense — is paired with profound dejection about our country’s current political landscape.

The polling found that voters across the political spectrum are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the direction of the United States and its leadership.

A whopping 71% of American voters believe the country is on the wrong track.

Predictably, during a Democratic administration, Republican and pro-life voters feel this way, to the tune of 90% and 80%, respectively.

But what may be surprising is that even 52% of Democrats and 66% of pro-abortion voters feel similarly.

More than three-quarters (77%) of independent, pro-abortion women believe the country is heading in the wrong direction.

Tapping into a culture of life would go a long way to addressing the existential angst and aimless ennui that too many Americans are experiencing.

The abortion debate is a clash of absolutes and is nowhere close to being resolved.

But a good start may be to realize that nearly two-thirds of Americans are more anti-abortion than the mainstream position of the Democratic Party’s leadership.

It has come to embrace abortion on demand.

Donald Trump, who is in tune with everyday Americans, understands this reality.

He is not only perceptive; he is correct.

Americans want less abortion, not more.

And this election will bring one or the other.

LifeNews.com Note:  Frank Pavone is the national director for Priests for Life.

The post Americans Want Less Abortions Not More appeared first on LifeNews.com.

In an exclusive interview with ChurchPOP, actor and comedian Rob Schneider announced a project he's been working on for the past five years: a movie about the Shroud of Turin.

"Hopefully, this movie about the Shroud will happen because I think it's about faith," Schneider told ChurchPOP editor Jacqueline Burkepile in an interview published on April 16.

"I think we need that and to bring more people to it and not necessarily to preach to them, but to just show the actual sacrifice and to talk about what the core of Christianity is - loving others," he continues.

Schneider then explains that the premise of the movie, which he hopes to begin filming in 2024, is about shroud expert Joe Marino and his wife, "who basically proved scientists tested the cloth in the wrong place."

"They didn't put into their equation in the carbon dating that the French nuns had repaired this cloth with newer cloth and it is what the French called an 'invisible weave.'

"If you can imagine the dedication of these French nuns in preparing the actual burial cloth of their Lord, that they would dedicate absolute perfection in their work and they did. And that was where it was tested.

"And so they had new cloth and new strands of cloth that were weaved into this 2000-year-old Egyptian linen. And so that threw off the carbon dating. So each of the pieces that were cut, and the deeper that it went in, the further it went back in time.

Schneider then said "the best description" he's ever heard about the Shroud of Turin is that "it's the receipt" for Christians.

"It's such a great story," he said. "Hopefully, it will bring more people into the faith, or at least an openness to what this really is: the burial cloth of Jesus Christ...it's actual tangible proof."

The actor also explains that the process of making and researching for the film impacted his decision to become Catholic. He began working on the film "as an entertainment piece," but it turned into a "broadening" of his faith.

"It became the broadening of my faith and it became a powerful thing that kind of – I don't know how else to say it – but it was breathed into me, and then it from there, it was really the beginning."

Watch the video below:

Click here if you cannot see the video above.

The PLA has strong capabilities but the Americans have experience, an official has said

If a conflict between Washington and Beijing broke out today, the more experienced American force would prevail but with significant casualties, a US military intelligence official has told reporters.

The unnamed official gave a background briefing on Monday about threats facing the US military. He downplayed the Chinese H-20 stealth bomber, currently in development, as “probably nowhere near as good” as the American B-2 or the upcoming B-21 – while praising the Chinese J-20 fighter as “highly capable.”

“The biggest… challenge for the Chinese side is actually not so much capability of actual systems, it’s more capability of personnel to effectively employ those systems at speed and at scale,” the official was quoted as saying by Defense One and Breaking Defense.

While the US military has “a lot of experience fighting wars,” the Chinese “don’t really have anybody right now at all, in the [People’s Liberation Army] PLA, who’s actually been in a war.” 

This relative inexperience would translate into the US winning a hypothetical war with China – although with large-scale losses – should one break out today, said the Defense One source.

The Pentagon is proceeding with plans to modernize the US military because Chinese President Xi Jinping “almost certainly” believes a war with Washington is inevitable, noted the official.

“I don’t want to rely on the Chinese not being good. Because we’re not going to know they’re not good until they’re shooting at us, and I don’t want to be in a position where I find out, ‘Oh, they actually are that good’. That’s a problem.” the official concluded.

Discussions about Chinese capabilities in Washington have been taking place against the backdrop of a debate about the B-21 bomber program. In February, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall urged the government to commit to the program, arguing that for at least 20 years, China has been building a military “purpose-built to deter and defeat” the US.

Earlier this month, however, Air Force chief of staff General David Allvin told the Senate that new developing technologies might complement the B-21, so the service might not end up getting 100 of the bombers as originally planned. The plane, intended to become operational by 2030, is still under development at Northrop Grumman.

Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States, two consolidated cases questioning whether the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) supersedes Idaho’s near-total abortion ban and can force physicians to perform abortions in emergency situations.

Idaho’s “Defense of Life Act” was enacted in 2020 and took effect when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022. The law makes it a felony for doctors to perform an abortion unless it’s necessary to save the life of the mother. Soon after Roe’s overturning, the Biden administration sued the State of Idaho arguing EMTALA trumps the state’s abortion law and requires doctors to perform abortions under a broader set of exceptions than just to preserve the life of the mother. U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill agreed and prevented Idaho from enforcing the law where it conflicted with EMTALA. A three-judge panel at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals briefly overturned that decision stating even if EMTALA does preempt Idaho’s law, its exemption for the life of the mother was sufficient to keep the laws out of conflict. However, the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and quickly reversed that ruling forcing the State and Idaho Speaker of the House Mike Moyle to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Get the latest pro-life news and information on X (Twitter). Follow @LifeNewsHQ//

In January 2024, the High Court agreed to hear the case and granted Idaho’s emergency request to enforce the ban in hospital emergency rooms while it decides the issue, which temporarily denies a Biden administration effort to force hospitals to perform abortions in the state.

Under EMTALA, Medicare-funded hospitals are required to provide necessary emergency care to pregnant women without discrimination, including if they cannot pay for the treatment. Even though the scope of EMTALA only deals with discrimination and does not even mention abortion, Secretary Xavier Becerra of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has interpreted the law differently. He issued policy guidance in July 2022 to hospitals stating that EMTALA preempts state abortion laws and requires hospitals receiving Medicare funding to perform emergency abortions.

The guidance set forth an interpretation that state abortion laws with more narrow exceptions than EMTALA are “preempted,” and that physicians “must” perform an abortion if they feel abortion is “the stabilizing treatment necessary” to resolve an emergency medical condition. Under the guidance, hospitals could lose federal funding for failing to comply.

While the Biden administration argues that the HHS “guidance” is just clarifying existing federal law, the Idaho legislature and state officials called the disputed HHS guidance an “unauthorized power grab” and stated it would have been “odd” for Congress to negate “state abortion laws” in a provision that “does not even mention abortion.”

Now that SCOTUS has allowed Idaho’s protections for unborn babies to remain in effect for the time being, doctors who perform abortions are subject to penalties ranging from two to five years in jail, fines, and suspension or revocation of their medical licenses.

The outcome of this case will likely affect a nearly identical dispute in Texas. In January 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Biden administration cannot use EMTALA to override Texas’ near-total abortion ban and force Texas doctors to perform abortions. In Texas v. Becerra, a three-judge appeals court panel called the guidance “unlawful” and unanimously upheld a lower court ruling that struck down the guidance.

Authoring the ruling, Circuit Judge Kurt Engelhardt determined that EMTALA does not discard the unborn child during a life-threatening medical emergency, and he noted that the law requires hospitals to “stabilize both the pregnant woman and her unborn child.”

“The question before the Court is whether EMTALA, according to HHS’s Guidance, mandates physicians to provide abortions when that is the necessary stabilizing treatment for an emergency medical condition. It does not,” wrote Judge Engelhardt. “EMTALA does not mandate medical treatments, let alone abortion care, nor does it preempt [state] law.”

Dr. William Lile, who is board certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology and who has delivered thousands of babies, told Liberty Counsel that the goal in treating a pregnant woman is always to preserve the lives of both the mother and her unborn baby when possible.

Dr. Lile stated, “It’s the delivery of the baby that cures the mother’s condition, it’s not the stoppage of baby’s heart and the killing of the baby that helps the mother.”

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act does not preempt state abortion laws, nor does it require the killing of an innocent life. Emergency rooms are only required to stabilize patients, which includes the unborn patient. This so-called ‘guidance’ by the Secretary of Health and Human Services is another lawless act of the Biden administration that will be struck down.”

The post Supreme Court Should Shut Down Joe Biden’s Attempt to Force ERs to Do Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Recently, a colleague sent me a new report published in the journal Fertility and Sterility, which is the professional journal of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. The report is a retrospective cohort study on all assisted reproductive technology cycles reported to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology via their Clinic Outcome Reporting Systems. Data was gathered on embryo transfers done to U.S. gestational surrogates from 2014 to 2020 and compared surrogacy between surrogates and commissioning parents in both domestic and international arrangements.

First, it struck me as strange, that the report referred to the patients who were in fact the intended parents. Seems to me the surrogate mother and by extension, the baby(s) she carried would be the patient. But this is just another example of diminishing the mother-child dyad and centering the moneyed interests as the focus of the report.
The actual results were striking too, in reporting not only the rise in international purchasing parents using American women, but also who these people are who are hiring American women.

Of 40,177 embryos transferred during 2014 to 2020, 32% of these arrangements were foreign contracts. In 2014, the figure was 22%. In 2019, it was 39.8%. And then in 2020, the figure decreased to 31.8%, which was probably due, in part, to the Covid travel bans. The profile of the international intended parent(s):

• More likely to be a male (41.3%)
  Largely from China (41.7%) then France (9.2%) and Spain (8.5%)
• U.S. gestational carriers for international arrangements were younger than 30 years (42.8%)
• Cycles for international arrangements more often used donor eggs (67.1%)
• More often used introcytoplasmic sperm injection (67.1%)
• Preimplantation genetic testing used (79.0%)

As many countries prohibit surrogacy, these restrictive (and good) laws only encourage the explosion in Big Fertility here in the U.S. I can see all sorts of ethical and legal risks in the role the U.S. plays in the international reproductive tourism landscape. First, it should be a red flag that many of these arrangements are with single men. My pedophile, baby trafficking radar is on high alert. Second, the high percentage of Chinese nationals hiring women to buy a baby that has the bonus of U.S. citizenship, what is commonly referred to as “anchor babies.” As we fight for the abolition of the baby trade, we would do well, to close our borders to these international nefarious arrangements that exploit women at home. What a big dent we could make in the multi-billion-dollar baby markets if we just closed our borders. Seems like something our State Department should investigate.

The post The Rise of International Gestational Surrogacy in the U.S. appeared first on The Center for Bioethics & Culture Network.

President Raisi has sent a pointed warning to West Jerusalem

Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi has threatened Israel with annihilation if it attempts to attack Iran again.

Raisi arrived in Pakistan on Monday for a three-day visit. He addressed the recent tensions between Tehran and West Jerusalem at an event in Punjab on Tuesday.

“If the Zionist regime once again makes a mistake and attacks the sacred land of Iran, the situation will be different, and it is not clear whether anything will remain of this regime,” the state news agency IRNA quoted Raisi as saying.

Israel never officially acknowledged an April 1 airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria that killed seven senior officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force. Tehran nevertheless retaliated on April 13, firing scores of drones and missiles at several targets in Israel.

Iran has shrugged off a series of reported explosions near the city of Isfahan last Friday, which were rumored to be a response from Israel. West Jerusalem did not acknowledge the reported attack, while criticizing a cabinet minister who spoke about it out of turn. Tehran chose to ignore it rather than deliver the promised swift and severe reprisal.

The Islamic Republic has vowed on multiple occasions to wipe out, destroy or annihilate the “Zionist regime,” as it calls Israel.

Speaking in Lahore on Tuesday, Raisi vowed to continue “honorably supporting the Palestinian resistance.” He also denounced the US and the collective West as “the greatest violators of human rights,” pointing to their support for the Israeli “genocide” in Gaza.

So far, more than 34,000 Palestinians in the enclave have been killed in Israeli military operations. Israel declared war on Hamas after the October 7 raids by the Gaza-based Palestinian group that claimed the lives of an estimated 1,200 Israelis. 

Raisi has promised to boost Iranian trade with Pakistan to $10 billion annually. Relations between the two neighbors have been rocky since January, when Iran and Pakistan traded air and drone strikes aimed at “terrorist camps” in their respective territory.

A pro-life woman who is running a campaign for the Democrat nomination for president for the express purpose of airing graphic abortion ads is set to launch ads shortly.

Tomorrow, the Terrisa Bukovinac for President Campaign announced it will begin airing explicit anti-abortion ads in the New York City market-the largest media market in the world reaching more than 7 million people. Bukovinac is on the ballot in New Jersey for the Democratic Primary as President Joe Biden’s only challenger.

The advertisement will air during The Today Show on NBC in NYC.

Last year, Bukovinac ran ads in the Boston and New Hampshire markets. The ads ran during Jimmy Fallon’s show on NBC in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, where she was on the ballot for the Democratic primary

The 30-second TV ad shows in gruesome detail the gut-wrenching remains of five babies killed by later abortion, featuring footage captured by Bukovinac when she recovered the remains last year outside an all term abortion business in Washington DC. This effort is part of the campaign’s strategy to engage voters on the atrocity of later abortion during the 2024 presidential election by embracing the power of visual storytelling to expose the brutality of abortion. The ad condemns the Biden administration and the Democratic party’s extreme, out-of-touch abortion platform, which stands at odds with 30% of Democrats.

Here is the commercial. WARNING: CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES.

Although this strategy has generated controversy, the Bukovinac Campaign remains steadfast in exposing the violence of abortion.

Get the latest pro-life news and information on X (Twitter). Follow @LifeNewsHQ//

Bukovinac stated that her aim with this advertisement is to “disrupt the consciences of the American people, particularly leftists who are complicit in abortion by supporting pro-abortion candidates.”

Bukovinac also states: “pretending like millions of pro-life Democrats like myself don’t exist isn’t a winning strategy. The right to life must be protected at every age, everywhere, and that is why I am on the ballot as a presidential candidate—to be a voice for the innocent and oppressed and rekindle the debate inside the Democratic Party. ”

FCC regulations stipulate that news stations “have no power of censorship over the material” in campaign ads. The campaign aims to communicate the gravity and urgency of the abortion issue to American voters through impactful visuals. As the 2023 presidential race intensifies, the Bukovinac Campaign remains dedicated to educating voters about the violence associated with abortion.

The post Pro-Life Candidate Will Run Graphic Ads on Television Exposing Horror of Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The AUKUS deal does not create any new nuclear states, a senior US diplomat has said

The technology-sharing agreement between the US, the UK, and Australia, which will provide the latter with nuclear-propelled submarines, does not pose any threat of a regional arms race, a senior US official has claimed.

Bonnie Jenkins, the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, attempted to dispel concerns about the trilateral AUKUS scheme voiced by some Pacific nations during a briefing on Tuesday. The question about a possible arms race came from a Cambodian journalist, who said his nation, a close ally of China, was not happy about possible destabilization in the region.

Jenkins responded that Washington wanted to assure other nations that the pact, sealed in 2021, was not meant “to create any kind of arms races.”

“Australia is not going to become a nuclear weapons state and they’re not going to be able to use the nuclear-powered submarines to develop a nuclear weapon either, because if they tried to do that, the whole submarine would not work anymore,” she explained.

Concerns about the AUKUS deal expressed by other nations have not been limited to whether Australia could use the technologies to create nuclear weapons.

Critics of the deal, including Russia, have suggested it is a way for the US to project additional military power in the Pacific.

Last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow is “deeply concerned” that the AUKUS arrangement is increasingly acquiring “the traits of a military bloc.”

He accused Western nations of brinkmanship which has led to the world  “balancing at the edge of a direct clash between nuclear states,” in a reference to the Ukraine conflict.

READ MORE: Pacific nation reacts to Biden’s cannibalism quip

Beijing also reiterated its own objections on Monday, with Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin saying that through AUKUS, Washington will violate the “purposes of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and create severe risks of nuclear proliferation.” 

Foreign Minister Wang Yi made a similar claim last week during a visit to Papua New Guinea, saying the region “should not be a playground for major powers.”

Every member of the Idaho Congressional delegation has released a joint statement urging the Supreme Court to stop Joe Biden from forcing Idaho to turn its ERs into abortion centers.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hold a hearing on the case to stop Biden.

As LifeNews.com reported previously, the Supreme Court ruled in January that Joe Biden can’t force Idaho to turn its emergency rooms into abortion centers. The nation’s highest court ruled that Joe Biden can’t exploit a federal law to try to weaken Idaho’s abortion ban by allowing emergency room doctors to do abortions.

But that decision was a temporary victory and Idaho officials are fighting in court to win the entire case, Idaho v United States. This is the first case to be heard by the Supreme Court directly relating to the Dobbs decision which overturned Roe v. Wade.

Below are quotes from Idaho’s congressional delegation asking the nation’s highest court to stop Biden’s radical abortion agenda.

“The Biden Administration’s attempt to preempt Idaho’s pro-life laws with a false interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTLA) would set a precedence that is harmful to America’s women and children. EMTLA was deliberately created to protect women and children in active labor. Every American has the fundamental right to life, including the unborn, and Idaho has strong laws in place to ensure innocent lives are protected. I have faith our justice system will stop this blatant use of federal overreach and put an end to Biden’s harmful abortion agenda.” — Senator Crapo

LifeNews is on GETTR. Please follow us for the latest pro-life news

“Idahoans have passed a strong law to protect the lives of mothers and the unborn, yet the Biden administration is seeking every opportunity to expand abortion. This administration cherry-picked pieces of existing statute and wrongfully reinterpreted it to fit their agenda. Their manipulation of federal law cannot usurp state law, and there is no federal right to an abortion. I submitted an amicus brief that demonstrates how the administration’s substantial federal overreach is aimed at undermining pro-life protections not only in Idaho but around the nation. I hope the Court stands with us in our fight to protect Idaho’s law and life itself.” — Senator Risch

“The Biden administration’s overreaching efforts to expand abortion nationwide is an attempt to take power away from the American people. The Supreme Court rightfully ruled that states have the right to protect life, yet this administration continues to undermine that decision. I strongly support the right of all states to protect the unborn, and I reaffirm this priority by joining this amicus brief.” — Congressman Simpson

“The Biden Administration’s attempt to preempt Idaho’s pro-life laws with a false interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTLA) would set a precedence that is harmful to America’s women and children. EMTLA was deliberately created to protect women and children in active labor. Every American has the fundamental right to life, including the unborn, and Idaho has strong laws in place to ensure innocent lives are protected. I have faith our justice system will stop this blatant use of federal overreach and put an end to Biden’s harmful abortion agenda.” — Congressman Fulcher

Last year, the Justice Department filed suit Aug. 2 against the state of Idaho, hoping to undermine its new law prohibiting most abortions by claiming that the state law conflicts with EMTALA and medical treatment for pregnant women in emergency rooms.

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit that challenges Idaho’s protective law — arguing that it would prevent supposedly medically necessary abortions. Despite false reports that abortion bans would prevent doctors from treating pregnant women for miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, pro-life doctors confirm that is not the case. Some 35 states have laws making it clear that miscarriage is not abortion and every state with an abortion ban allows treatment for both.

U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill found that Idaho’s law conflicts with the federal law because it bans abortions in nearly all circumstances. But the state argued the any emergency abortion is allowed under its abortion ban on elective abortions.

The nation’s highest court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday.

Brandi Swindell, Founder and CEO of Stanton Healthcare, which provides medical care and provides support for pregnant women in need, told LifeNews that the Supreme Court should side with her state.

“It is deeply troubling to see President Biden ignore and disrespect the voices of Idaho’s women as he attempts to advance a radical abortion agenda through federal regulations,” she said. “The Dobbs decision made it clear there is no federal or constitutional right to abortion. Our hope and prayer is the Supreme Court will respect the rights of Idaho’s voters and not allow our emergency rooms to be turned into abortion clinics by the federal government.”

The case involves the Biden administration’s unlawful attempt to use a law that ensures indigent patients receive emergency room care to force doctors to perform abortions that are illegal under Idaho law.

Idaho’s pro-life law imposes penalties on physicians who perform prohibited abortions unless doing so is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman or other exceptions apply. The federal government claims—and the lower court ruled—that EMTALA requires abortions in violation of this law if an emergency room doctor thinks it is appropriate.

“Hospitals—especially emergency rooms—are centers for preserving life. The government has no business transforming them into abortion clinics,” said ADF Senior Counsel Erin Hawley, vice president of the Center for Life and regulatory practice. “Emergency room physicians can, and do, treat ectopic pregnancies and other life-threatening conditions. But elective abortion is not life-saving care—it ends the life of the unborn child—and the government has no authority to override Idaho’s law barring these procedures. We urge the Supreme Court to halt the lower court’s injunction and allow Idaho emergency rooms to fulfill their primary function—saving lives.”

After the Supreme Court returned the issue of abortion to the states in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the federal government sued the state of Idaho, claiming that EMTALA, an ancillary provision of the Medicare statute, preempts Idaho’s pro-life law. But as explained in the emergency application, “EMTALA is silent on abortion and actually requires stabilizing treatment for the unborn children of pregnant women.”

“The United States’ position conflicts with the universal agreement of federal courts of appeal that EMTALA does not dictate a federal standard of care or displace state medical standards. The district court accepted the United States’ revisionist, post-Dobbs reading of EMTALA and enjoined Idaho’s Defense of Life Act in emergency rooms. The district court’s injunction effectively turns EMTALA’s protection for the uninsured into a federal super-statute on the issue of abortion, one that strips Idaho of its sovereign interest in protecting innocent, human life and turns emergency rooms into a federal enclave where state standards of care do not apply,” Hawley notes.

Idaho’s abortion ban permits a physician who does an abortion to raise the affirmative defense that the abortion was necessary to save the mother’s life or that the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest that was reported. In both cases, the physician must choose a procedure that is most likely to save the life of the baby and protect the mother. The law explicitly excludes contraception from the definition of abortion, and women upon whom abortions are performed may not be prosecuted.

The pro-life laws in Idaho and other states include clearly defined exceptions that allow abortions in the cases when a mother’s life is at risk. Because the pro-life movement cares about the lives of both mother and child and there are rare cases in which only the mother’s life can be saved, it supports such exceptions.

But these exceptions mean the Biden administration’s guidance is unnecessary. Undermining Idaho’s life-saving efforts and expanding abortions appear to be the administration’s real goal.

The post Pro-Life Congressmen Ask Supreme Court to Stop Biden Form Turning ERs Into Abortion Centers appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has denounced the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for violating religious freedom and forcing all employers to provide accommodations for employees to have an abortion.

CatholicVote previously reported that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced a new rule on April 15 that requires employers “to provide reasonable accommodations,” such as leave time, to employees if they wish to have an abortion. The rule falls under the implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).

Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee for Religious Liberty, said in a news release that “No employer should be forced to participate in an employee’s decision to end the life of their child.”

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

“The bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, as written, is a pro-life law that protects the security and physical health of pregnant mothers and their preborn children,” he added. “It is indefensible for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to twist the law in a way that violates the consciences of pro-life employers by making them facilitate abortions.”

CatholicVote reported in August 2023 that in addition to being supported by pro-life organizations, the PWFA was approved by pro-abortion groups, as the language left room for facilitating abortion access.

“The original act required employers to reasonably accommodate a worker’s pregnancy, childbirth, and ‘related medical conditions,’ but left the interpretation of those terms to the Biden administration’s EEOC, the federal agency responsible for regulating workplace discrimination laws,”  CatholicVote reported at the time.

LifeNews Note: Hannah Hiester writes for CatholicVote, where this column originally appeared.

The post Catholic Bishops Slam Biden for Trying to Force Christian Employers to Fund Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.

(This paper is the basis of a talk to be given at the 25th Yasin (April) International Academic Event on Economic and Social Development, HSE University, Moscow, April 2024)

In the summer following Israel’s 2006 (unsuccessful) war on Hizbullah, Dick Cheney sat in his office loudly bemoaning Hizbullah’s continuing strength; and worse still, that it seemed to him that Iran had been the primary beneficiary from the US 2003 Iraq war.

Cheney’s guest – the then Saudi Intelligence Chief, Prince Bandar – vigorously concurred (as chronicled by John Hannah, who participated in the meeting) and, to general surprise, Prince Bandar proclaimed that Iran yet could be cut to size: Syria was the “weak” link between Iran and Hizbullah that could be collapsed via an Islamist insurgency, Bandar proposed. Cheney’s initial scepticism turned to elation as Bandar said that US involvement would be unnecessary: He, Prince Bandar, would orchestrate and manage the project. “Leave it to me,” he said.

Bandar separately told John Hannah: “The King knows that other than the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself, nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syria.”

Thus began a new phase of attrition on Iran. The regional balance of power was to be decisively shifted towards Sunni Islam – and the region’s monarchies.

That old balance from the Shah’s time in which Persia enjoyed regional primacy was to be ended: conclusively, the US, Israel and the Saudi King hoped.

Iran – already badly bruised by the “imposed” Iran-Iraq war – resolved never again to be so vulnerable. Iran aimed to find a path to strategic deterrence in the context of a region dominated by the overwhelming air dominance enjoyed by its adversaries.

What occurred this Saturday 14 April – some 18 years later – therefore was of utmost importance.

Despite the bruhaha and distraction following Iran’s attack, Israel and the US know the truth: Iran’s missiles were able to penetrate directly into Israel’s two most sensitive and highly defended air bases and sites. Behind the whooping western rhetoric lies Israeli shock and fear. Their bases are no longer “untouchable.”

Israel also knows – but cannot admit – that the so-called “assault” was no assault but an Iranian message to assert the new strategic equation: That any Israeli attack on Iran or its personnel will result in retribution from Iran into Israel.

This act of setting the new “balance of power equation” unites the diverse Fronts against the US’ “connivance with Israeli actions in the Middle East, that are at the core of Washington’s policy – and in many ways the root-cause of new tragedies” – in the words of Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Ryabkov.

The equation represents a key “Front” – together with Russia’s war against NATO in Ukraine – for persuading the West that its exceptionalist and redemptive myth has proved to be a fatal conceit; that it must be discarded; and that deep cultural change in the West needs to happen.

The roots to this wider cultural conflict are deep – but finally have been made explicit.

Prince Bandar’s post-2006 playing of the Sunni “card” was a flop (in no small part thanks to Russia’s intervention in Syria). AndIran, has come in from the cold and is firmly anchored as a primary regional power. It is the strategic partner to Russia and China. And Gulf States today have switched focus instead to money, “business” and Tech, rather than Salafist jurisprudence.

Syria, then targeted by the West and ostracised, has not only survived all that the West could “throw at it” but has been warmly embraced by the Arab League and rehabilitated. And Syria is now slowly finding its way to being itself again.

Yet even during the Syrian crisis, unforeseen dynamics to Prince Bandar’s playing of Islamist identity versus Arab socialist secular identity were playing out:

I wrote then in 2012:

“Over recent years we have heard the Israelis emphasise their demand for recognition of a specifically Jewish nation-state, rather than for an Israeli State, per se”;

– a state that would enshrine Jewish political, legal, and military exceptional rights.

“[At that time] … Muslim nations [were] seeking the “undoing” of the last remnants of the colonial era. Will we see the struggle increasingly epitomised as a primordial struggle between Jewish and Islamic religious symbols – between al-Aqsa and the Temple Mount?”

To be plain, what was apparent even then – in 2012 – was “that both Israel and its surrounding terrain are marching in step toward language which takes them far away from the underlying, largely secular concepts by which this conflict traditionally has been conceptualised. What [would] be the consequence – as the conflict, by its own logic, becomes a clash of religious poles?”

If, twelve years ago, the protagonists were explicitly moving away from the underlying secular concepts by which the West conceptualised the conflict, we, by contrast, are still trying to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the lens of secular, rationalist concepts – even as Israel quite evidently is seized by an increasingly Apocalyptic frenzy.

And by extension, we are stuck in trying to address the conflict through our habitual utilitarian, rationalist policy tool-set. And we wonder why it is not working. It is not working because all parties have moved beyond mechanical rationalism to a different plane.

The Conflict Becomes Eschatalogical

Last year’s election in Israel saw a revolutionary change: The Mizrahim walked into the Prime Minister’s office. These Jews coming from the Arab and North African sphere – now possibly the majority – and, with their political allies on the right, embraced a radical agenda: To complete the founding of Israel on the Land of Israel (i.e. no Palestinian State); to build the Third Temple (in place of Al-Aqsa); and to institute Halachic Law (in place of secular law).

None of this is what might be termed “secular” or liberal. It was intended as the revolutionary overthrow of the Ashkenazi élite. It was Begin who tied the Mizrahi firstly to the Irgun and then to Likud. The Mizrahim now in power have a vision of themselves as the true representatives of Judaism, with the Old Testament as their blueprint. And condescend to the European Ashkenazi liberals.

If we think we can put Biblical myths and injunctions behind us in our secular age – where much of contemporary western thinking makes a point of ignoring such dimensions, dismissing them as either confused, or irrelevant – we would be mistaken.

As one commentator writes:

At every turn, political figures in Israel now soak their proclamations in Biblical reference and allegory. The foremost of which [is] Netanyahu … You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible, and we do remember – and we are fighting…’Here [Netanyahu] not only invokes the prophecy of Isaiah, but frames the conflict as that of “light” versus “darkness’ and good versus evil, painting the Palestinians as the Children of Darkness to be vanquished by the Chosen Ones: The Lord ordered King Saul to destroy the enemy and all his people: ‘Now go and defeat Amalek and destroy all that he has; and give him no mercy; but put to death both husband and wife; from youth to infant; from ox to sheep; from camel to donkey’ (15:3).

We might term this “hot eschatology” – a mode that is running wild amongst the young Israeli military cadres, to the point that the Israeli high command is losing control on the ground (lacking any mid-layer NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer) class).

On the other hand –

The uprising launched from Gaza is not called Al-Aqsa Flood for nothing. Al-Aqsa is both a symbol of a storied Islamic civlisation, and it is also the bulwark against the building of the Third Temple, for which preparations are underway. The point here is that Al-Aqsa represents Islam in aggregate — neither Shi’i, nor Sunni, nor ideological Islam.

Then, at another level, we have, as it were, “dispassionate eschatology”: When Yahyah Sinwar writes of “Victory or Martyrdom”for his people in Gaza; when Hizbullah speaks of sacrifice; and when the Iranian Supreme Leader speaks of Hussain bin Ali (the grandson of the Prophet) and some 70 companions in 680 CE, standing before inexorable slaughter against an 1,000 strong army, in the name of Justice, these sentiments simply are beyond the reach of western Utilitarian comprehension.

We cannot easily rationalise the latter “way of being” in western modes of thought. However, as Hubert Védrine, France’s former Foreign Minister, observes – though titularly secular – the West nonetheless is “consumed by the spirit of proselytism.” That Saint Paul’s “go and evangelize all nations” has become “go and spread human rights to all the world”… And that this proselytism is extremely deep in [western DNA]: “Even the very least religious, totally atheists, they still have this in mind, [even though] they don’t know where it comes from.”

We might term this secular eschatology, as it were. It is certainly consequential.

A Military Revolution: We’re Ready Now

Iran, through all the West’s attrition, has pursued its astute strategy of “strategic patience” – keeping conflicts away from its borders. A strategy that focused heavily on diplomacy and trade; and soft power to engage positively with near and far neighbors alike.

Behind this quietist front of stage, however, lay the evolution to “active deterrence” which required long military preparation and the nurturing of allies.

Our understanding of the world became antiquated

Just occasionally, very occasionally, a military revolution can upend the prevailing strategic paradigm. This was Qasem Suleimani’s key insight. This is what “active deterrence” implies. The switch to a strategy that could upend prevailing paradigms.

Both Israel and the US have armies that are conventionally far more powerful than their adversaries which are mostly composed of small non-state rebels or revolutionaries. The latter are treated more as mutineers within the traditionalist colonial framing, and for whom a whiff of firepower generally is considered sufficient.

The West, however, has not fully assimilated the military revolutions now underway. There has been a radical shift in the balance of power between low-tech improvisation and expensive complex (and less robust) weapons platforms.

The Additional Ingredients

What makes Iran’s new military approach truly transformative have been two additional factors: One was the appearance of an outstanding military strategist (now assassinated); and secondly, his ability to mix and apply these new tools in a wholly novel matrix. The fusion of these two factors – together with low-tech drones and cruise missiles – completed the revolution.

The philosophy driving this military strategy is clear: the West is over-invested in air dominance and in its carpet fire power. It prioritises “shock and awe” thrusts, but quickly exhausts itself early in the encounter. This rarely can be sustained for long. The Resistance aim is to exhaust the enemy.

The second key principle driving this new military approach concerns the careful calibration of the intensity of conflict, upping and lowering the flames as appropriate; and, at the same time, keeping escalatory dominance within the Resistance’s control.

In Lebanon, in 2006, Hizbullah remained deep underground whilst the Israeli air assault swept across overhead. The physical surface damage was huge, yet their forces were unaffected and emerged from deep tunnels – only afterwards. Then came the 33 days of Hizbullah’s missile barrage – until Israel called it quits.

So, is there any strategic point to an Israeli military response to Iran?

Israelis widely believe that without deterrence – without the world fearing them – they cannot survive. October 7 set this existential fear burning through Israeli society. Hezbollah’s very presence only exacerbates it – and now Iran has rained missiles down into Israel directly.

The opening of the Iranian front, in a certain way, initially may have benefited Netanyahu: the IDF defeat in the Gaza war; the hostage release impasse; the continuing displacement of Israelis from the north; and even the murder of the World Kitchen aid workers – all are temporarily forgotten. The West has grouped at Israel’s – and Netanyahu’s – side again. Arab states are again co-operating. And attention has moved from Gaza to Iran.

So far, so good (from Netanyahu’s perspective, no doubt). Netanyahu has been angling to draw the US into war with Israel against Iran for two decades (albeit with successive US Presidents declining the dangerous prospect).

But to cut Iran down to size would require US military assistance.

Netanyahu senses Biden’s weakness and has the tools and knowhow by which he can manipulate US politics: Indeed, worked in this way, Netanyahu might force Biden to continue to arm Israel, and even to embrace his widening of the war to Hizbullah in Lebanon.

Conclusion

Israel’s strategy from past decades will continue with its hope of achieving some Chimeric transformative “de-radicalisation” of Palestinians that will make “Israel safe.”

A former Israeli Ambassador to the US argues that Israel can have no peace without such “transformative de-radicalisation.” “If we do it right,” Ron Dermer insists, “it will make Israel stronger – and the US too.” It is in this context that the War Cabinet’s insistence on retaliation against Iran should be understood.

Rational argument advocating moderation is read as inviting defeat.

All of which is to say that Israelis are psychologically very far from being able to reconsider the content to the Zionist project of Jewish special rights. For now, they are on a completely different path, trusting to a Biblical reading that many Israelis have come to view as mandatory injunctions under Halachic Law.

Hubert Védrine asks us the supplementary question: “Can we imagine a West that manages to preserve the societies it has birthed – and yet “is not proselytizing, not-interventionist? In other words, a West that can accept alterity, that can live with others – and accept them for who they are.”

Védrine says this “is not a problem of the diplomatic machines: it’s a question of profound soul-searching, a deep cultural change that needs to happen in western society.”

A “trial of strength” between Israel and the Resistance Fronts ranged against it likely cannot be avoided.

The die has been deliberately cast this way.

Netanyahu is gambling big with Israel’s – and America’s – future. And he may lose.

If there is a regional war, and Israel suffers defeat, then what?

When exhaustion (and defeat) finally settles in, and the parties “scrabble in the drawer” for new solutions to their strategic distress, the truly transformative solution would be for an Israeli leader to think the “unthinkable” – to think of one state between the River and the Sea.

And, for Israel – tasting the bitter herbs of “things fallen apart” – to talk directly with Iran.

Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation.