Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Cardinal Gerhard Müller has said the Roman Catholic Church needs to stand up to the “gay lobby” as part of taking a stronger position “on doctrine” that resists ideologically driven pressures.

The comments from the German cardinal, who is viewed as a influential traditionalist and was one of the strongest critics of Pope Francis during his papacy, came shortly before it was announced that the conclave to elect the next pope will occur on 7 May, reports the Daily Telegraph.

Cardinal Müller told Italian media La Stampa in a 28 April article that the next pope needs to be “strong on doctrine” and “determined to stand up to ideological lobbies, including the gay lobby”.

He said the next pontiff should also have “a solid theological and doctrinal formation”, and called for a return to “orthodoxy, doctrine founded on Scripture and apostolic tradition, and against heresy”.

Focusing on the issue of marriage and the “gay lobby”, he pointed to the words of Jesus as providing clarity on this controversial and polarised issue that increasingly roils the Church.

“Doctrine is not the property of the pope, the bishops or the faithful,” the German cardinal said. “It must conform to the word of Jesus, no one can modify it.

“If Jesus says that marriage is between a man and a woman, no one can change this doctrine. The homosexual lobby wants to equate marriage with unions between people of the same sex, but this totally contradicts the doctrine of the Bible.”

The late pope’s 2023 decision to allow the blessing of same-sex couples sparked enormous controversy, with bishops in Africa and Asia refusing to permit the blessings. It was one of a number of decisions by Pope Francis with which Müller vehemently disagreed and as a result spoke out on.

Despite their apparent differences, though, Pope Francis himself also criticised the issue of homosexuality when it came to its influence in the Church.

Perhaps one of the least covered but most significant of Pope Francis’s controversies was his use of a crude slang term in referring to homosexuals during a session with Italian bishops in May 2024.

Francis was in the Vatican’s synod hall on 20 May to address the spring plenary assembly of the Italian Episcopal Conference (known by the acronym CEI), with roughly 230 bishops present, along with other clergy and supporting staff.

One of the topics that arose was the question of the admission of homosexual men to Catholic seminaries. Soon afterwards, rumours began to circulate that Francis had used an off-colour term in the context of the discussion, saying there’s already too much frociaggine in seminaries, which translates roughly to “faggotry”.

Some argued that since Italian was not the Pope’s mother tongue, he may not have understood that the term in question was offensive, especially given his reputation as the Pope of “Who am I to judge?”

Francis built a reputation for being friendly toward the LGBTQ+ community and its related issues, so media at the time took the position that he must have used the term almost accidentally, without intending to shock or offend.

The flurry of immediate backlash from the comment prompted a Vatican spokesman to put out a statement apologising, saying the Pope “never intended to offend or express himself in homophobic terms, and he apologises to those who felt offended by the use of a term, as reported by others”.

In a May 28 statement, Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni reiterated previous statements from Francis that “in the Church there is space for everyone, for everyone! No one is useless, no one is superfluous, there is space for all. Just as we are, everyone”.

But Pope Francis used the term again a month later, in a June 2024 meeting with priests in the Pontifical Salesian University in Rome. The Italian news service ANSA reported that on that occasion, Francis said: “In Vaticano c’è aria di frociaggine” – meaning: “In the Vatican, there is an air of faggotry.”

That comment contradicted the initial narrative that the Pope did not know what he was saying when he used the term frociaggine. Instead, it indicated that Francis knew full well what the term signified and chose to employ a second time in public as he had a point to make.

What Francis demonstrated in the frocaggine fiasco, writes Crux Vatican correspondent Elise Ann Allen, was that despite his insistence on the need to be more welcoming toward members of the LBGTQ+ community, he clearly believed that there was an unhealthy gay element to clerical culture, and thought it was important enough to speak out about it.

On 7 May, Müller and his fellow cardinals – the so-called “Princes of the Church” – will gather inside the Sistine Chapel to pick a successor to Pope Francis, who died on Easter Monday at the age of 88 years old.

The date of the conclave was decided at a meeting of cardinals behind closed doors on Monday, two days after Pope Francis’s spectacular funeral in St Peter’s Square, reports the Telegraph.

The term “conclave” is derived from the Latin that means “with key”, and refers to cardinals being locked inside the chapel. Coming in the wake of a successful movie depiction of a conclave, the forthcoming gathering of cardinals to decide who will lead the world’s roughly 1.4 billion Catholics is being portrayed by much of the media as a battle between, in the words of the Telegraph, “progressives who want to continue the inclusive legacy of the late pope and traditionalists who want to roll back his reforms”.

In total, there are 252 cardinals in the Catholic church, but only 135 – those aged under 80 – are eligible to vote. Two have dropped out for medical reasons, another due to controversy, reducing the number of cardinal electors to 132.

Pope Francis appointed 108 of the cardinals – about 80 per cent – which it is argued gives the College of Cardinals a more “liberal” character, thereby making it more likely, it is reasoned, that they will choose someone with a liberal and reformist attitude similar to the late pontiff.

At the same time, however, conclaves have a track record of defying expectations and producing a pope that few saw coming.

The length of this coming conclave could well be impacted by the historically high number of cardinal electors and the sharply divergent views they hold.

The Telegraph reports the former head of the Italian Bishops Conference, 83-year-old Gualtiero Bassetti, explaining that it is hard to predict how long the conclave will last, though he suspects it won’t be long.

“There could be some difficulties because there have never been so many cardinal electors and many of them don’t know each other,” Cardinal Bassetti said.

“I have the feeling that this will not be a long conclave. Even among cardinals that I don’t know, and among those who come from the far reaches of the world, I see a great love for the Church and the desire for it to have a new leader as soon as possible.”

The longest conclave in history, which took place in the 13th century, lasted two years and nine months, while the longest during the 20th century lasted for five days.

The last two conclaves – those that elected Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 and Pope Francis in 2013 – lasted two days.

The cardinal electors come from 71 countries, with 53 from Europe, 23 from Asia, 21 from Latin America, 18 from Africa and 16 from North Africa.

Cardinal Müller has also warned, speaking out recently on a separate and earlier occasion, that the Catholic Church risks a schism if it does not choose an “orthodox” leader.

He has also criticised the use of labels “liberal” and “conservative” within the Catholic Church, pointing out the divide in the Church is deeper. The new pope, he said, “must be orthodox – neither a liberal nor a conservative”.

He said that “the question is not between conservatives and liberals but between orthodoxy and heresy”, adding: “I am praying that the Holy Spirit will illuminate the cardinals, because a heretic pope who changes every day depending on what the mass media is saying would be catastrophic.”

RELATED: Cardinal Müller warns Church risks split if ‘orthodox’ pope not chosen

Photo: German Cardinal Cardinal Gerhard Müller attends the swearing in ceremony for new members of the Vatican’s Swiss Guard at the Cortile di San Damaso, Vatican City, 6 May 2015. The ceremony is held on May 6 every year to commemorate the 147 halberdiers who died defending the Pope in 1527. (Photo by Franco Origlia/Getty Images.)

The post Cardinal Müller says next pope must stand up to ‘gay lobby’ first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post Cardinal Müller says next pope must stand up to ‘gay lobby’ appeared first on Catholic Herald.

Not long ago, Marxists and feminists called conservativism “patriarchy” as a slander. Now many conservatives embrace the label.

The author of Rules for Retrogrades proposes returning to “familial patriarchy” to save civilization. His wife, in her book Ask Your Husband, defends the thesis that “the husband is the boss of his wife.” “God bless the patriarchy” (“i.e., Christianity”), she says, “the foundation of Western culture for two thousand years.”

How neo-patriarchalists understand “patriarchy” is more complex than a few quotations can capture. But that they describe their project in such terms is already a serious mistake. Reintroducing patriarchy will not revitalize Western civilization or Christianity, but undermine them.

Exalting Masculinity—And Letting Men Off Easy

“Patriarchy” (meaning “rule by fathers”) is a model of family that emphasizes the father as the family’s first principle—that from which the family arises and that which holds it together. Therefore, as Christopher Dawson points out, it “accentuate[s] the masculine element” throughout family life and society. Patriarchal cultures are often disciplined and warlike, such as that of the ancient Greeks portrayed in the Iliad, the ancient Romans and their institution of the paterfamilias, or the ancient Israelites, born of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In times like ours when moral softness abounds, the discipline of patriarchal culture might appeal to many. 

But patriarchy also tends to let men off easy. It praises the chaste woman who gives her body only to her husband, but it often permits or encourages the husband to take several wives and concubines. Patriarchies at times forgive men their infidelities: in the Odyssey, Odysseus gets almost no censure for fornicating for years with other women, even as his wife Penelope is praised for remaining faithful in his long absence. Patriarchy teaches children to obey their father reverently, but its piety can justify a father’s brutality: Roman law let the paterfamilias execute anyone in his household, even his wife and children.

By their strong deference to the will of the man and his sexual preferences, patriarchal societies tend to enable men—especially wealthy and strong “alpha” males—to rule a sprawling brood of wives, concubines, children, and grandchildren. If he is the oldest of several sons, his power grows still greater, especially if he marries his children to those of his brothers (a common occurrence in patriarchies).

Hence the natural political form of patriarchy is kingship, in which the king claims to be—with good reason, if his harem is large enough—the father of his people. Below him are the fathers of clans; subordinated to the clan are its constituent nuclear families (a husband with one of his wives and their common children). What gives meaning to the individual’s life is his place within this highly collective society, ruled by men who control the lives of their subordinates.

Equality in the Spirit

Many neo-patriarchalists shy away from these aspects of patriarchy. The authors mentioned above affirm monogamy and American democracy, not polygamy and monarchy. For instance, the author of Ask Your Husband insists that a woman should obey her husband “not based on blindness but on reason and truth”; she suggests the husband’s judgment is not unquestionable, because all human beings have the same fundamental capacity to know truth. But respect for the universal dignity of the person and his conscience, whether in marriage or political life, cannot last in a patriarchal society, because it runs against patriarchy’s nature. Such respect does, however, flourish in a genuinely Christian culture, which the West has been for much of history. And such a culture, contrary to what neo-patriarchalists say, is not patriarchal.

Christianity sees itself to be in continuity with Judaism, and it accepts that the history of the Jewish people was divinely guided. That history includes the lives of the patriarchs from whom the people of Israel sprang. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Christians acknowledge, had remarkable virtues, above all fidelity to the one true God. But they also practiced vices typical of patriarchy, including polygamy—which the patriarchs undertook not at God’s command, but on their own initiative, and with dubious results. Not surprisingly, Jewish authorities eventually banned polygamy.

Christianity acknowledged only strict monogamy from its start. Jesus of Nazareth, Christianity’s founder, pointed out that, as the Bible taught, God intended marriage to be a two-in-one-flesh union from the beginning; the logic of that calling entailed monogamy and the indissolubility of marriage. It also entailed a fundamental equality between the spouses. Both are bound to keep the marriage intact: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Jesus’s follower Paul explained that obligation’s logical extension to intimacy within marriage: 

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.

Spouses are to “be subject to one another.” They give themselves in different ways according to their sex, but the final value of each person’s gift is measured by a single standard—the purity of the person’s love for God and the other spouse.

God permitted divorce and remarriage after sin entered the world because of men’s “hardness of heart” (just as he tolerated the polygamy of the patriarchs) until the day when, by divine intervention, mankind could once again fulfill its original vocation. As any committed married person knows, marriage’s joys are accompanied by trials that require God’s help. After man was separated from God by sin, he could not abide by the natural law of marriage, since his individual nature was turned away from its internal law. Inevitably, the transcendent law of justice was overridden by the law of physical power: might made right. And since men are, on average, physically more powerful than women, over time the sinful, fallen world became dominated by men, as God warned the first woman, Eve, after she and her husband Adam had sinned.

But for those who received salvation from sin through Jesus, physical power once again became subordinated to justice and charity. The spirit once again ruled over the flesh and its desires, and the original law of marriage was restored. The focus of kinship became the nuclear family, not the clan, and polygamy was ruled out entirely. Christianity made it difficult for clans to develop, forbidding intermarriage between close relatives.

No longer could the haze of sin let men rationalize dominating women because of their greater physical strength. Now it was clear that the spirit was the highest principle in humanity, and that women were just as capable of spiritual excellence as men—as witnessed by the holiness of Mary, the Mother of God; of Catherine of Siena, who brought powerful men to heel; or of Teresa of Avila, who founded a spiritual movement that transformed much of Christianity. The measure of a person’s merit became not his power but his love of God and neighbor; the equal standing of men and women as persons was indisputable.

In part to seal these social transformations, Christianity made a new institution to complement marriage: celibacy, the lifelong renunciation of marriage to give one’s heart, mind, and body wholly to God. The very existence of celibate men and women showed visibly that the spirit was superior to the flesh—that even the desire for conjugal love could be satisfied by spiritual love for God, if God gave one such a calling. The same God who alone could make marriage possible was the one thing necessary for the human heart.

Rolling Back the Progress of Grace

When Christianity entered the world, it did not affirm patriarchy; rather, it tried to help us grow out of it. Christianity taught humanity to love God above all things and to judge reality from his eternal, spiritual perspective. Man’s body is God’s creation, but it is less like God than man’s soul is. Christians who affirm patriarchy today, like all patriarchalists, judge men and women by their bodies more than their spirits. They thus risk rolling back the progress that grace has made in transforming the West: they point us not to a more Christian future but back to ancient paganism.

One can understand why conservatives might be tempted this way, after the twentieth century’s experience with radical feminism. Radical feminists absurdly denied that women’s bodies gave them what Edith Stein called a “natural vocation” “to be wife and mother.” They did so in part because they lacked the strong sense of humanity’s spiritual life—which Christian feminists like Stein had—that relativized the physical without denying it. Often being Marxists, or materialists of other kinds, radical feminists believed the only way women could be equal with men was by gaining material power. Christian feminists could recognize that women who embraced motherly roles in the family—which appeared materially inferior—could be more excellent human beings than men.

On the other hand, one can understand why radical feminists might have been drawn to their opinions. For one thing, the growth of prosperity under the market economy has made us less tolerant of any material differences. But more importantly, as Dawson points out, although the market economy is not patriarchal by nature, it was linked with patriarchy, as Dawson says, “by a curious freak of historical development”: the economic changes that created modern prosperity arose from early modern English culture, which happened to be quite patriarchal. 

In the seventeenth century, the English royalist Robert Filmer, an Anglican Christian, defended absolute monarchy and patriarchal society in his Patriarcha (which provoked John Locke’s famous reply). His Puritan compatriots rarely spoke of patriarchy: according to David Hackett Fischer, they “sometimes actually condemned” it. Nevertheless, English Puritans “rejected the ideal of celibacy,” just as Anglicans did. Both groups also severely reduced or eliminated devotion to Mary, the Mother of God. Thus, these dominant elements of English society tended toward patriarchy, whether in principle or in fact: they regressed toward more material and masculine views of family and religion, and therefore away from original Christian spirituality. And as English culture was transplanted to America, then spread through the industrial revolution, its materialistic notions of family spread as well, calling forth the opposition of feminists.

Sounder Spirituality, Not Sexual Materialism

Hence our current confused and paradoxical impasse. Both radical feminists and neo-patriarchalists emphasize the physical in humanity to the detriment of the spiritual; but the former camp hates physical differences between the sexes, while the latter embraces them excessively. Both radical feminists and neo-patriarchalists rightly identify a patriarchal element in Western history; but they are both wrong for blaming—or crediting—Christianity for patriarchy’s rise. Christianity caused modern patriarchy more by declining than by growing. Attacking Christianity will only make patriarchy worse, and defending patriarchy will undermine the spread of Christian culture; either way, the world may end up with bizarre new forms of polygamy.

Instead we should promote an authentic humanism, like that of Edith Stein, by which we can recognize the complementary physical differences between men and women in light of their common spiritual vocation. This approach offers a sounder anthropology, and it directs our attention toward union with God. He alone can give knowledge of the mystery of the human person he created, and so help us navigate between the twin errors of sexism and false egalitarianism.

Christians especially should not adopt patriarchal ideas that have little to do with the Gospel; they should attend to their own conversion so they can see human sexuality from God’s perspective. They might also think of how to foster celibate vocations in their church, starting with their own children, as a way to counter our age’s sexual materialism. If Christians are young enough, they should ask God whether he is calling them to give themselves entirely, body and spirit, to him: to bear living witness to the power of the One who created human beings “male and female” in His image, destining them for a new creation in which they will be as though “neither male nor female,” “like angels.”

Image by Yeti Studio and licensed via Adobe Stock.

The College of Cardinals will gather for a conclave to choose our next pope on May 7, 2025.

This is a crucial time for Catholics to come together and pray for the cardinals who will make this important decision.

Below are eight ways Catholics can pray for the upcoming conclave:

1) Pray the Novena to Saint Michael the Archangel

The novena to Saint Michael the Archangel begins on April 29 and ends on May 7, just before the May 8 feast of Saint Michael’s apparitions at Gargando.

Providentially, this novena ends on the day the conclave begins. Let us entrust the conclave to Saint Michael the Archangel, that the cardinals will listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit and be guarded against any demonic influence or attacks.

2) Adopt Cardinals to Pray for

In this Instagram post, EWTN published all 135 cardinals participating in the conclave. The challenge? Adopt three cardinals to pray for.

Here’s the post below:

3) Pray Father Chad Ripperger’s Prayer for the Conclave

Exorcist Father Chad Ripperger released a prayer entrusting the conclave to the Blessed Mother.

Here is the prayer:

4) Pray Cardinal Raymond Burke’s Novena to Our Lady of Guadalupe for the Conclave

Cardinal Burke published a novena prayer entrusting the conclave to Our Lady of Guadalupe. Even though the novena began on April 26, it’s never too late to join in.

Here’s the prayer below:

5) Pray the Rosary

Offer your intentions on the Rosary for the conclave and their decision regarding the future pope. 

Our Lady of Fatima emphasized the importance of her intercession for the Holy Father, especially on the Holy Rosary. Fatima visionary Jacina Marto offered many prayers and sacrifices for the Pope, encouraging others to do the same.

She said, “Poor Holy Father, I feel a lot of pity for him. We must pray a lot for him.”

Our Lady also promises, "By the recitation of the Rosary, you shall obtain all that you ask of me."

,Click here to learn how to pray the Rosary.

6) Go to Eucharistic Adoration & Make a Holy Hour

Eucharistic adoration is a powerful way to present your petitions to God. Many saints and holy people of God stressed the importance of making a holy hour, preferably daily.

Saint John Paul II, who made a daily Eucharistic Holy Hour said, 

Archbishop Fulton Sheen also stressed the importance of a daily Eucharistic Holy Hour “because we live in a demonic age.” He called it “the secret” of his power behind his ministry.

7) Offer Your Communion at Mass

Offering your communion for a specific intention is a very powerful way to present our requests to God, specifically for the future pope. Why? Because the Eucharist is the “source and summit of Christian life.” The priest offers his intention at the Mass, but you can too.

When you receive the Holy Eucharist, you are the closest to Jesus you can be while on Earth. What better way to present your intentions to Him?

8) Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet

The Divine Mercy Chaplet is another powerful way to pray for the cardinals during this important time. Jesus even asks that we pray for the “souls of priests and religious” on the second day of the Divine Mercy novena.

He also tells us that he will grant all that is asked of him if it is in accordance with His will.

“I will refuse nothing to the soul that makes a request of Me in virtue of My Passion.”

Would you add anything to the list?

Another East Texas city has passed an ordinance outlawing abortion. The City of Avinger (pop. 371) passed their ordinance on Monday, becoming the 74th city in the nation to pass such a measure. The measure, which was presented by Right to Life Across Texas, was placed on the city council agenda by Mayor Jeff Patterson and passed in a 3-1 vote.

Alderwoman Kelli Spencer, Alderman Adam Young, and Alderman Marvin Parvino voted for and Alderwoman Lois Montgomery voted against. Alderwoman Margaret Ford did not attend the meeting.

The vote came after a new report was released which found that about 11% of women experience “sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or another adverse event within 45 days following a mifepristone abortion.”

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

In a written statement to the Avinger City Council, Avinger resident Kori Peterson wrote, “Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion forces have continued the dishonest narrative that abortion isn’t a big deal, is liberating to women, and is a right. This is grossly false. Abortion is deadly to a child, harms and causes trauma for women, and no one has a right to end human life.”

The Avinger Sanctuary City for the Unborn Ordinance states, in the second declaration, “abortion at all times and at all stages of pregnancy is an unlawful act, unless the abortion is performed to save the life of the pregnant woman in a medical emergency.” The term “Medical emergency” is defined in the ordinance to mean “a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.”

The ordinance is clear that it does not prohibit “abortions performed or induced in response to a medical emergency, or any conduct that aids or abets or attempts to aid or abet such abortions” and is also clear that it does not prohibit “conduct taken by a licensed medical professional that is necessary to perform, induce, or facilitate an abortion in response to a medical emergency, or to ensure that the licensed medical professional is prepared to perform, induce, or facilitate an abortion in response to a medical emergency, so long as that conduct is not in any way intended to facilitate an elective abortion.”

The ordinance extends the private right of action found in the Texas Heartbeat Act from the point of a detectable heartbeat to the point of conception – allowing a lawsuit to be filed against anyone in violation of the ordinance. The ordinance is clear that no action may be brought against the mother of the unborn child upon whom the abortion was performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of the ordinance. The ordinance also prohibits the mailing of abortion-inducing drugs into Avinger, prohibits abortion trafficking through Avinger, and prohibits waste management companies from trafficking aborted babies through Avinger or disposing of dead babies anywhere within Avinger.

Upon the passage of the measure, Avinger resident and former State Representative David Simpson said, “Avinger is blessed to join cities and counties across Texas who are going as far as they can to address the tragedy of abortion, specifically abortion trafficking and the mailing of abortion-inducing drugs.” The ordinance is part of a cultural shift which views abortion trafficking as no different as sex trafficking or drug trafficking.

Texas Right to Life estimates that there are 30,000 Texas babies aborted each year due to the mailing of abortion-inducing drugs into the state and the abortion trafficking of pregnant mothers and their unborn children outside the state of Texas. The Sanctuary City for the Unborn ordinances, which have now been passed in 57 cities and 7 counties across the state, help to reduce these numbers to the best of their ability.

Part of what several cities and counties have accomplished at the local level is being attempted at the state level through bills like the Woman and Child Protection Act (TX HB 5510 / TX SB 2880) and the Stop Tax-Funded Abortion Travel Act (TX SB 33 / TX HB 1806). Those who wish to encourage the Texas legislature to prioritize the passage of such bills can do so by sending the legislature a message through contacting Texas Right to Life.

Citizens who are interested in seeing their city or county pass an ordinance going as far as their city or county can to prohibit abortion are encouraged to sign the online petition on the Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn website.

LifeNews Note: Mark Lee Dickson lives in Texas and is the founder of the Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn Initiative.

The post 74th City in America Passes Law to Ban Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.

2 Timothy 4:3

For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires.

Bergoglio's disciples stubbornly continue to rely on him to defy the laws of God and the Church.

Bergoglio's apostate "Bishop" Stowe Affirms Support for ‘Blessings’ of Same-Sex ‘Couples’

Apostate Stowe received New Ways Ministry Award  for his homosexual activism.  

Apostate Stowe’s Diocese Promotes Homosexual Pride Month

Heretic Bishop John Stowe Participates Catholic Dissenters’ Pride Month Event

Episode 77: The Jew And His Bank
April 29 2025

___________________________________
More Vids!
+BN Vids Archive! HERE!
___________________________________
Support The Brother Nathanael Foundation!
Br Nathanael Fnd Is Tax Exempt/EIN 27-2983459

Or Send Your Contribution To:
The Brother Nathanael Foundation, POB 547, Priest River, ID 83856
E-mail: brothernathanaelfoundation([at])yahoo[dot]com
Scroll Down For Comments

Steve Witkoff met the Russian president last week in the latest round of diplomacy on the Ukraine conflict

US special envoy Steve Witkoff sought to persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a ceasefire last week that would halt fighting in the Ukraine conflict along the current frontlines, Bloomberg has reported, citing sources. Putin maintained a firm stance during the lengthy meeting, the sources said.

The discussions on Friday marked the latest in a series of contacts between Moscow and Washington in recent months. Witkoff, seen as a key figure in kickstarting negotiations on the Ukraine conflict, has held multiple rounds of talks with senior Russian officials, including at least three meetings with Putin.

People familiar with the process told Bloomberg on Tuesday that Putin insisted any viable peace deal must include formal recognition of the four former Ukrainian regions that joined Russia after referendums in 2022.

Moscow has long said it is open to negotiations but maintains that the status of Crimea – which joined Russia in 2014 – and the four other regions is not up for discussion.  Moscow insists that recognition of the “reality on the ground” is vital for a lasting peace.

Last week, Axios reported that Washington had presented Kiev with what US President Donald Trump described as a “final offer” to end the conflict. Under the proposal, the US is said to be prepared to grant “de jure” recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, and unofficially acknowledge Moscow’s “de facto” control over the Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics, as well as the regions of Kherson and Zaporozhye.

Vladimir Zelensky’s subsequent declaration that Kiev would never recognize Crimea as Russian prompted a warning from Trump that he risked losing his whole country if he continued stalling talks with Moscow.

Trump, who met with the Ukrainian leader on the sidelines of Pope Francis’ funeral at the Vatican on Saturday, was later asked by journalists if Zelensky was now prepared to “give up” the peninsula. “Oh, I think so, yeah,” he replied.

One source told Bloomberg that negotiations have stalled for now and that progress would likely require direct contact between Putin and Trump.

The two leaders held a two-hour phone call in March, during which they reaffirmed their commitment to achieving a “lasting peace” rather than a temporary solution to the Ukraine conflict.  Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said earlier this month that a Putin-Trump meeting “will take place” but only “at the appropriate time.”

The upcoming Australian election will be an illustration of how most Western elections will play out in the near future

Australian voters go to the polls next Saturday – voting in this country is compulsory, unlike in most Western democracies – but this is not a task that the electorate is looking forward to with any degree of enthusiasm, let alone optimism.

The choice that confronts the electorate is a bleak one – one commentator has fittingly described this election as “the most dismal in decades.”

Serious policy debate has been non-existent, with both leaders happy to offer meagre handouts to voters – an electricity price reduction from Prime Minister Albanese and a petrol price reduction from Conservative opposition leader Peter Dutton.    

The first term Albanese Labor government has, from any rational viewpoint, proved to be a rank failure and does not deserve to be re-elected – and any competent opposition leader should have been able to win this election easily and dispatch Labor to the opposition benches.

Cost-of-living pressures have increased exponentially over the past three years – energy and food prices have skyrocketed, and house prices and rents in the major cities are now far beyond what ordinary wage earners in this country can afford to pay.

This, according to every poll, is the major issue troubling voters – and the Albanese government has done absolutely nothing to alleviate it.

Australian voters intuitively know, even if they are reluctant to admit it, that both the incumbent Labor government and the Conservative Liberal/National party opposition are incapable of alleviating the cost-of-living crisis. In fact, during the election campaign, both leaders have been reduced to telling outright lies (for example, that heavily subsidized renewable energy projects lead to lower energy prices) about how they will solve the crisis. The electorate’s escalating disenchantment with both major parties should come as no surprise to either Albanese or Dutton.

As yet, however, no political alternative has emerged that offers voters a way out (no matter how illusory) of this seemingly intractable impasse. Australia, in this respect, appears to be a decade or so behind Donald Trump’s America, Nigel Farage’s UK and Marine Le Pen’s France.   

Both major parties in Australia are firmly committed to policies that favor the ruling global elites – with the result that the gap between the economic ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ will only grow wider in the future as the cost-of-living crisis intensifies.

This is hardly surprising, given that Australia has always been a colonial political and economic satrap state of both the UK and the US.

So dependent still is Australia on these waning and decrepit colonial empires – they differ only in the way they enforce their respective colonial hegemonies – that our current head of state is King Charles III, and our economic overlords remain, in the apt words of Woody Guthrie, the “money grubbing racket boys” of Wall Street.

What then are we to make of next week’s election?

If almost all recent polls are to be believed, the inept Albanese Labor government appears to be on track to be re-elected with an increased majority.

How is this altogether surprising state of affairs to be explained?

It cannot be explained by the “achievements” of the Albanese government because, as intelligent Labor supporters know, there have been no achievements. Nor can it be explained by Albanese’s political skills or charisma – he is completely lacking in both – although perhaps his dogged blandness and non-threatening demeanor appeal to some voters.

Nor can it be explained by opposition leader Peter Dutton’s gross political incompetence, his brief flirtation with Trump that backfired disastrously when tariffs were imposed and the stock market crashed (Canada’s Liberal leader did not make this mistake), or the fact that he has run probably the worst election campaign in Australian political history.

The answer lies rather in the inability of the conservative opposition to formulate an effective alternative political agenda to that of the Labor party – and this failure arises not from Dutton’s manifold personal shortcomings, but from the fundamental ideological division at the heart of all mainstream conservative parties in the West.

A deep-seated ideological division has emerged over the past few decades within these parties: between those adhering to traditional middle-class values (individual autonomy, individual rights, the rule of law, a traditional definition of the family, etc.) and those that have embraced the newer woke ideologies of the emerging global elites  (catastrophic climate change, identity politics, DEI, transgender rights, etc).  This division has both economic and cultural aspects, and in the UK it was intensified by the Brexit referendum.

This ideological division has caused serious ongoing instability within all mainstream conservative parties in the West – in Australia and the UK, for example, these parties have been characterized by endless leadership coups that eventually led voters to throw them out of office in recent years.

One important consequence of this ideological division is that mainstream conservative parties cannot wholeheartedly and openly attack woke global ideologies with any degree of vigor  – because many of their politicians and supporters firmly subscribe to such views.

It is this issue that has crippled Dutton’s election campaign.

The Murdoch press and other conservative commentators have constantly urged Dutton to come out and explicitly attack dominant woke ideologies – that is, to adopt a fully-fledged Trump-like populist political agenda.

Dutton, however, has refused to do so – because it is simply impossible for him to do so within the framework of the mainstream conservative political party that he so tenuously leads.

If he tried to, he would alienate a large segment of his own party as well as a sizable component of conservative voters – thereby causing the coalition parties to split. More importantly, no traditional mainstream political party that is serious about winning an election can at present afford to openly attack dominant global ideologies – a majority of voters adhere to them, and no mainstream party can win office if it alienates a significant segment of these voters.

Dutton, therefore, has found himself in an impossible position.  

This was graphically illustrated in one of the recent televised debates, when a journalist asked Dutton if he believed in climate change. Dutton responded by saying “I will leave that to the scientists” – notwithstanding that the opposition is committed to the Paris accords and net zero.

This non-answer, of course, pleased no one. It alienated those conservative and undecided voters who firmly believe in climate change ideology – but it also alienated those conservative voters who believe that the climate change ideology has had lasting and pernicious economic effects.

In refusing to take a firm stand on this key issue, Dutton appears to stand for nothing. Does he really think that disgruntled voters who cannot afford to pay their electricity bills believe that climate change is just a matter for the scientists? 

It must surely be obvious to Dutton that, in order to win over those disaffected voters who have been left behind by globalization and who are being increasingly marginalized by the cost-of-living crisis, he has to openly attack dominant woke ideologies like catastrophic climate change – because it is precisely these voters who completely reject, for very sound economic and cultural reasons, such elite doctrines.

This, however, is Dutton’s dilemma – in order to differentiate the opposition from Labor and attract the increasing number of disaffected voters, Dutton is obliged to openly attack dominant woke ideologies, but, as the leader of a mainstream conservative party, he simply cannot do so. 

Dutton’s dilemma is also UK opposition leader Kemi Badenoch’s dilemma – and it is a dilemma that right-wing commentators who urge mainstream conservative party leaders to miraculously transform themselves into Trump-like populists utterly fail to understand.

These commentators also fail to appreciate that, apart from the difficulties described above, two further insurmountable problems face conservative leaders seeking to instantly morph into populists – they would have to adopt an isolationist foreign policy stance, and they would have to at least pretend to represent the interests of the displaced working class.

Dutton – just like Badenoch – is, however, a fervent Cold War warrior (fiercely anti-Russian and anti-Chinese) and a supporter of the Zelensky regime in Ukraine, as well as being a strident opponent of moderate trade union demands (he even consistently opposes basic wage increases).

Trump, of course, can readily promise to end the conflict in Ukraine and accept endorsement from the head of the Teamsters Union – policy stances utterly impossible for a conservative leader like Dutton to even contemplate.

If the above analysis is correct, and, as nearly all the polls predict, Dutton loses next week’s election, it follows that the conservative coalition in Australia will have no viable long-term future – in much the same way that the UK Conservative party appears to be doomed to political oblivion in the near future. This week’s local elections in the UK will be an important indicator of that party’s fate.

If the Albanese government is returned to office with a majority, as seems likely, Dutton will no doubt be deposed as leader, but in fairness to Dutton, his shadow cabinet colleagues – who he has wisely kept hidden away during the election campaign – are all far less competent politicians than he is.

There is, of course, an alternative scenario – one that mirrors the recent emergence of populist parties in other Western democracies – namely that the coalition parties will split and the right-wing segments of the Liberal and National parties will coalesce to form a new, genuinely populist party with a radically different political program.

This is a distinct possibility – although it may take some time to eventuate and would involve a significant amount of blood-letting and political disruption.

A new populist party would face a revitalized Labor party – energized by winning an election under an uninspiring leader that it did not deserve to win – but still firmly committed to elite ideologies and programs that can only deepen the cost-of-living crisis that continues to brutally divide Australia.

If the conservative coalition’s dilemma is that it cannot attack elite ideologies and programs, the Labor party’s dilemma (much like that of the Democratic party in America and the UK Labour party) is that it is firmly and irretrievably committed to them.

Whatever the consequences of next Saturday’s election it is safe to predict that the chronic ongoing instability that has characterized Australian politics for the past few decades – and politics in the West more generally – will only intensify.

In that sense nothing much will change – and there is a more fundamental historical continuity in the Australian context at work here.

In 1964, Donald Horne, a prominent Australian intellectual, wrote a book titled “The Lucky Country” in which he described Australia as follows: “Australia is a lucky country ruled mainly by second-rate people… It lives on other people’s ideas, and although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders… lack curiosity about the events that surround them.”

Horne could easily have been writing about Dutton and Albanese and next Saturday’s federal election.

The bloc’s attempts to belittle the Soviet role in the victory over Nazism are a “disgrace,” the filmmaker has told RT

Attempts by EU elites to diminish the significance of the USSR’s contribution to the victory over Nazism are a “perversion of history,” Oscar-winning American movie director Oliver Stone has told RT ahead of World War II Victory Day celebrations in Russia.

The bloc’s “elitist leadership” has distorted the message that World War II provides to humanity, the filmmaker has said. “I’m shocked by it, by [what] is happening,” he stated, calling it “a shame” and “a disgrace that we forgot or pretend to [have forgotten]” about the sacrifices the Soviet Union made during the war. Stone also said he did not believe people in Europe “buy this at all.”

“I think the people don’t agree with the government,” Stone maintained, going on to say that “the futility of this campaign against Russia by the EU” is obvious to “anybody, who reads history [books] and is intelligent.” The director of ‘Platoon’ and ‘JFK’ expressed his doubts that “fascism is popular” nowadays and stated instead that European elites had lost their way because of their “worship of the EU.”

“We are not back to the times of Hitler, but what is happening is a loss of perspective and we need to get back to a sense of reason,” Stone told RT as he called on Western leaders to “listen to the Russians” instead of antagonizing them.

He also expressed his hope that the US and Russia would manage to mend their relationship, opening the way to a better future for humanity. “Russia and the United States are a great partnership, as is China, by the way, and I think we could have a world that is much safer… if we all get together and realize that it’s a multilateral world.”

US President Donald Trump’s administration has been engaged in efforts to restore bilateral ties with Russia and resolve the Ukraine conflict.

On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that America now has a “better” understanding of the Russian position on the crisis. Moscow’s key conditions for ending the conflict are Ukraine’s neutrality, demilitarization, and recognition of the new territorial reality on the ground.

Last week, Trump also said that Russian President Vladimir Putin was easier to deal with than Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky.

Russian officials maintain they have always been ready to engage in peace talks, provided the discussions aim for a permanent solution that addresses the root causes of the conflict. Moscow has rejected any temporary agreement, explaining that it could be used by Kiev and its backers to rearm the Ukrainian military.

As President Donald Trump marks his first 100 days in office, National Right to Life praises the work the president has done on behalf of the right to life.

“We thank President Trump for his steadfast commitment to the right to life,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance have been vital allies of the pro-life movement and the work the movement is doing to protect innocent preborn lives.”

Continued Tobias, “President Trump’s first actions in office include the critical undertaking of reversing the extreme pro-abortion policies of the Biden-Harris administration.”

Pro-life accomplishments of the Trump administration include:

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

• Enforcing the Hyde Amendment – Over the course of nearly five decades, the Hyde Amendment has saved an estimated 250,000 lives. An Executive Order signed by President Trump reversed Biden-era Executive Orders that blatantly violated the Hyde Amendment as well as other similar riders and amendments. The Biden-era Orders reversed were: Executive Order 14076 which mandated a whole-of-government approach of protecting unlimited abortions and imposing draconian measures on violations and Executive Order 14079 which recategorized abortion as “health care.”
• Ended the Federal Funding of Abortion Overseas – President Trump reinstated Mexico City Policy and the United States also reentered the Geneva Consensus Declaration. Co-founded by the United States in 2020 under President Trump, the Declaration is a coalition of more than 30 countries united in affirming the inherent dignity of every human being, the importance of women’s health without endorsing abortion, and the sovereignty of nations to protect life through their own laws.
• Working to Stop the Federal Funding of Abortion – President Trump stopped federal funds from being used to reimburse travel expenses for abortions by the Department of Defense, stopped the Department of Veterans Affairs from allowing VA hospitals to perform abortions and stopped the Department of Health and Human Services from paying for abortions for those who entered the country illegally.
• Strongly Supports H.R. 21, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act – the White House applauded the House of Representatives for its efforts to protect the most vulnerable and prevent infanticide.
• Restored Millions in Title X Funding to Oklahoma and Tennessee – the two states were previously cut off under the Biden administration for refusing to provide abortion referrals.
• Title X Funding on Hold to Planned Parenthood Affiliates – According to an HHS spokesperson, this is “to ensure these entities are in full compliance with Federal law and applicable grant terms, and to ensure responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.”
• President Trump was the first president to attend the March for Life in person during his first administration. Though unable to attend in person in 2025, the president addressed the March via video and Vice President Vance addressed the March in person.

“The Trump administration continues to protect and defend innocent human life,” said Tobias. “We look forward to seeing more great things from President Trump and Vice President Vance.”

The post Here’s 7 Pro-Life Actions President Trump Has Taken During His First 100 Days appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The feast day of the great Saint Catherine of Siena is on April 29.

Known for her holiness, Saint Catherine was a mystic, theologian, philosopher, and spiritual advisor.

Famously, she helped convince Pope Gregory XI to return to Rome (the papacy had resided in Avignon, France, for decades).

Today, she is honored as a Doctor of the Church and is the patron saint of Europe, Rome, and Italy. She is generally revered as one of the greatest saints in Church history.

Despite all of her accomplishments, one of the most inspiring and instructive events of Saint Catherine of Siena's life was her death.

Attached to the end of her most famous work, The Dialogue of Saint Catherine of Siena, is a letter written by Ser Barduccio di Piero Canigiani, where he describes his eyewitness experience of the final moments of Saint Catherine.

Here’s what he says happened to Saint Catherine of Siena:

Just before her 33rd birthday, Saint Catherine became ill such that eating and drinking became difficult for her. After a few weeks of suffering, she had a stroke so terrible that her caregivers thought she had died. However, while they were mourning her apparent passing, she suddenly awoke, stood up, and “did not seem the same person as she who had fallen.”

That’s when things started to get interesting.

Her bodily suffering increased, but so did her devotion to prayer. She would pray 1 to 2 hours in the morning, walk a mile to Saint Peter’s Basilica (she was in Rome), and spend the rest of the day there in prayer, “returning to the house so worn out that she seemed a corpse.”

Finally, her body gave out again, and she was confined to her bed. But her suffering was not only physical, but spiritual:

These sufferings continued for the next eight weeks. Yet as a new wave of pain washed over her,

This continual suffering took a physical toll:

This all continued until the morning of the next Sunday, when she seemed to become aware that her end was drawing near and asked for absolution from a priest for her sins. A priest arrived and offered her both absolution and Extreme Unction (Anointing of the Sick).

Then suddenly, it appeared to those around Saint Catherine of Siena that she was experiencing a demonic attack:

Then Saint Catherine of Siena sat up, fixed her eyes on the crucifix in the room, and prayed aloud:

“It is my fault, oh eternal Trinity, that I have offended You so miserably with my negligence, ignorance, ingratitude, and disobedience, and many other defects. Wretch that I am! For I have not observed Your commandments, either those which are given in general to all, or those which Your goodness laid upon me in particular! Oh, mean creature that I am!

“Saying which, she struck her breast, repeating her confession, and continued: I have not observed Your precept, with which You commanded me to seek always to give You honor, and to spend myself in labors for my neighbor, while I, on the contrary, have fled from labors, especially where they were necessary.

“Did You not command me, oh, my God! to abandon all thought of myself and to consider solely the praise and glory of Your Name in the salvation of souls, and with this food alone, taken from the table of the most holy Cross, to comfort myself? But I have sought my own consolation. You did ever invite me to bind myself to You alone by sweet, loving, and fervent desires, by tears and humble and continuous prayers for the salvation of the whole world and for the reformation of the holy Church, promising me that, on account of them, You would use mercy with the world, and give new beauty to Your Spouse; but I, wretched one, have not corresponded with Your desire, but have remained asleep in the bed of negligence.

“Oh, unhappy that I am! You have placed me in charge of souls, assigning to me so many beloved sons, that I should love them with singular love and direct them to You by the way of Life, but I have been to them nothing but a mirror of human weakness; I have had no care of them; I have not helped them with continuous and humble prayer in Your presence, nor have I given them sufficient examples of the good life or the warnings of salutary doctrine.

“Oh, mean creature that I am! With how little reverence have I received Your innumerable gifts, the graces of such sweet torments and labors which it pleased You to accumulate on this fragile body, nor have I endured them with that burning desire and ardent love with which You sent them to me.

“Alas! oh, my Love, through Your excessive goodness You chose me for Your spouse, from the beginning of my childhood, but I was not faithful enough; in fact, I was unfaithful to You, because I did not keep my memory faithful to You alone and to Your most high benefits; nor have I fixed my intelligence on the thought of them only or disposed my will to love You immediately with all its strength.”

Then Saint Catherine of Siena requested a plenary indulgence from the priest, saying the pope granted it to her.

She turned her attention to those present and, among other things, asked them to forgive her for not caring enough about their salvation. She exhorted everyone to love and follow Jesus above all other things.

She turned her attention back to God, and, making the Sign of the Cross, prayed aloud, 

Finally, imitating the example of Christ, she said, “Father, into Your Hands I commend my soul and my spirit,” and died.

Ser Barduccio di Piero Canigiani reports she died “sweetly, with a face all shining and angelical, she bent her head, and gave up the ghost.”

Her body was left unburied for two days, “without any odor being perceptible, her body remaining so pure, intact, and fragrant, that her arms, her neck, and her legs remained as flexible as if she were still alive.”

Saint Catherine of Siena, pray for us!

An explosive new study is revealing that the abortion drug is significantly more dangerous than government health agencies have previously claimed. The Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) published a report Monday detailing the dangers associated with the use of the abortion drug mifepristone. The study found that, although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claims that less than half a percent of women experience serious complications, the actual rate of damage done by the drug is significantly higher.

Touted as the “largest-known study of the abortion pill,” the EPPC report examined data from an insurance database, covering 865,727 prescribed mifepristone abortions committed between 2017 and 2023. Here are some of the study’s most important findings.

More than 1 in 10 Women Experience Complications from Mifepristone

According to the EPPC’s report, 10.93% of women who used the abortion drug mifepristone experienced serious complications within 45 days as a result. Complications included sepsis (0.10% of cases), infection (1.34%), transfusion (0.15%), hemorrhage (3.31%), abortion-related hospitalization (0.66%), abortion-related emergency room visit (4.73%), ectopic pregnancy (0.35%), unspecified other abortion-specific complications (5.68%), and other life-threatening adverse events (0.22%), including cardiac and pulmonary events, thrombosis, anaphylaxis, and the necessity of surgery. In nearly 3% of instances, use of mifepristone to commit abortion was followed by surgical abortion because the drug failed.

EPPC’s report noted, “Simply stated, mifepristone, as used in real-world conditions, is not ‘safe and effective.’”

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

The FDA’s Research on Mifepristone Is Inadequate

The EPPC’s report finds that complications arising from mifepristone are at least 22 times more common than the 0.5% of cases touted by the FDA. The new report is, according to EPPC, “the most comprehensive study of chemical abortion safety ever conducted in the U.S.” It relies on data collected from 28 times more mifepristone abortions than the FDA’s research does and, further, is more recent and more accurate to real-world circumstances. The EPPC noted that the FDA relies “entirely on data from more than a decade ago” from “a prescreened group of generally healthy women recruited into various clinical trials conducted at different times around the world.”

The cases examined by the organization “are broadly representative of the women who obtain mifepristone abortions in the U.S.” and “receive (or fail to receive) pre- and post-abortion healthcare of the real-world quality that prevails in the America today, not the carefully controlled regimen of care that ordinarily prevails in a clinical trial.”

The FDA Needs to Revise Its Standards for Mifepristone Prescription

Given the results of the report, the EPPC made several recommendations for the FDA to revise its policy regarding the prescription and use of mifepristone and “reinstate the original patient safety protocols that were required when mifepristone was first approved” in 2000. At that time, prerequisites for a mifepristone prescription included three in-person physician visits, the drug could only be prescribed by a physician, could only be dispensed in a physician’s office, and had to be taken in a physician’s office. There were also requirements for a follow-up physician visit and for adverse event reporting.

In 2016, under then-President Barack Obama, the safeguards were weakened, allowing for the drug to be prescribed up to 10 weeks instead of seven, removing the requirement for a physician to be the one prescribing the drug and eliminating the mandate that the manufacturer report any adverse events to the FDA other than death. The in-person dispensing requirement in the physician’s office, however, remained intact. In 2021, the Biden administration watered down the safeguards even further by eliminating the in-person visit requirement and the requirement for the drug to be dispensed in the physician’s office.

LifeNews Note: S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

The post Abortion Pills Injure 11% of Women Who Take Them appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Depending on circumstance, habitual optimism can be both an American virtue and an American vice. Currently, there is a pervading atmosphere of misplaced political optimism regarding the Trump administration’s policies among many Catholics. I say misplaced, not only because of the false hope in Liberalism that it assumes and engenders, but because it distracts Catholics from taking advantage of…

Source

Last week Gov. Sanders signed a good law to prohibit certain abortions if Arkansas’ pro-life laws ever change.

Since 2022, abortion in Arkansas has been prohibited except to save the life of the mother. This year the Arkansas Legislature passed a law clarifying and closing possible loopholes in the state’s pro-life laws.

Before the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Arkansas enacted dozens of different laws restricting and prohibiting abortion — including laws protecting unborn children from being aborted because of their sex or because they may be at risk for Down Syndrome. Technically, those good laws are still on the books, and they could be enforced if a federal court ever blocked Arkansas’ laws that generally prohibit abortion.

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

S.B. 591 by Sen. Clint Penzo (R — Springdale) and Rep. Karilyn Brown (R — Sherwood) would prohibit abortions performed due to the unborn baby’s race if Arkansas’ pro-life laws are ever amended or struck down.

This good law passed with overwhelming support in the Arkansas House and Arkansas Senate. On April 22, Gov. Sanders signed it — making it Act 973 of 2025.

Family Council was very pleased to work with our friends in the legislature to secure passage of Act 973. We appreciate lawmakers’ continued dedication to upholding the sanctity and dignity of human life, and we appreciate Gov. Sanders signing this good law.

The post Arkansas Governor Signs Pro-Life Law to Ban Abortions on Babies With Down Syndrome appeared first on LifeNews.com.