As I spelled out yesterday, the “important principles of judicial restraint and stare decisis” that Chief Justice Roberts set forth in his concurring opinion in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) ought to lead him to vote in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In this post, I will explain two respects in which the Chief’s jurisprudential principles make the case for him to overrule Roe and Casey vastly stronger than his case for overruling Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce in Citizens United.
1. In Citizens United, the Chief concluded only that the “text and purpose of the First Amendment point in the same direction” (emphasis added): that, contrary to Austin, “Congress may not prohibit political speech, even if the speaker is a corporation or union.” By contrast, under the Chief’s jurisprudential principles, Roe and Casey are egregiously and screamingly wrong.
These (and other) passages from the Chief’s introduction to his powerful dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) operate equally as a damning condemnation of Roe:
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned with the wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id. (Harlan, J., dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” I have no choice but to dissent.
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
The very fact that the majority in Casey refused to acknowledge that Roe was egregiously wrong means that its stare decisis analysis was fundamentally unsound. Further, the Chief’s arguments in Citizens United that stare decisis does not support retaining a precedent by reconceiving the grounds for that precedent and that the Court “cannot keep [a] precedent alive [by] jury-rigging new and different justifications to shore up the original mistake” apply even more strongly to Casey.
2. Citizens United differs from Dobbs in one major respect that should matter a lot to the Chief—in particular, to his deep commitment to (as he puts it in Obergefell) “a restrained conception of the judicial role.” By reversing Austin, the Court in Citizens United forbade the democratic processes from enacting certain types of laws (laws that allow political speech to be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity). By reversing Roe and Casey, the Court in Dobbs would restore abortion policy to the democratic processes.
Judicial restraint, as I use the term and as I believe the Chief understands it, emphasizes the limits on the role of the federal courts in our system of separated powers and federalism. Its opposite judicial activism succinctly conveys the charge that the courts have wrongfully invaded the realm of representative government by, for example, inventing supposed constitutional rights that trump democratic enactments.
Proponents of judicial restraint typically call for judges to defer to democratic enactments unless those enactments have been clearly shown to be unconstitutional. There is of course plenty of room among proponents of judicial restraint to debate which interpretive principles should govern, what the proper standard of clarity is, and thus where the line between proper judicial restraint and improper judicial passivism (excessive deference to the democratic processes) lies.
Considerations of stare decisis are often confused (frequently deliberately, it would seem) with judicial restraint. But stare decisis is generally an intrajudicial doctrine, not a doctrine about the role of the courts in a democratic republic. When the Supreme Court addresses a question that it has addressed before, it accords a degree of respect, or deference, to its previous treatment of the question, partly from the presumption that the Court carefully addressed the question the first time, partly from the impracticability of addressing every question anew in every case.
For the Chief and other proponents of judicial restraint, stare decisis considerations should be especially weak when—as with Roe and Casey—the precedent under examination has usurped the democratic processes.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THE “IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL RESTRAINT AND STARE DECISIS” SHOULD LEAD Chief Justice ROBERTS TO VOTE IN “Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization” to OVERRULE “Roe V. Wade” and “Planned Parenthood v. Casey”
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on NO ONE HAS TO LOVE A PRESIDENT OF THESE United States OF AMERICA, BUT FOR THE GOOD OF THE NATION IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS TO HAVE AT LEAST MINIMAL RESPECT FOR THE MAN WHO OCCUPIES THE White House. IT IS A SIGN OF THE DANGEROUS MOMENT OF TODAY THAT PROBABLY A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DO NOT EITHER LOVE OR RESPECT Joe Biden.
An unpleasant fact of book publishing today is that Big Authors can suck the oxygen out of a market. They get the lion’s share of public attention. And this, in turn, obscures smaller but important books by equally gifted but lesser-known names. My life has been filled with women I admire; foremost among them my bride of 50 years. But I count several women writers among my treasured friends. And new books by two of them deserve generous praise and a wide popular audience – which I’m happy to encourage here.
Women of Hope: Doctors of the Church, published by Our Sunday Visitor, is a portrait of four remarkable women from Catholic history, offered by a talented current writer – Terry Polakovic. I first met Terry as a colleague on staff at the Archdiocese of Denver in the mid-1990s. In the wake of World Youth Day 1993 and a subsequent capital campaign, the archdiocese had launched a creature called “Seeds of Hope” (SOH). Seeds of Hope was an autonomous educational trust. It had the seemingly hopeless task of raising private sector money in a thoroughly secular environment to support Catholic schools serving inner-city and disadvantaged students. Terry ran the SOH show with patience and skill. And results.
Seeds of Hope became the gateway to a later and even more fruitful apostolate. In 2003, with friends Marilyn Coors and Betsy Considine, Terry founded Educating on the Nature and Dignity of Women (ENDOW), the Catholic women’s organization grounded in the teachings of St. John Paul II. She led it for 15 years, growing it from a local women’s ministry to a national presence. What she learned about her faith, her Church, and the unique genius of Catholic women in those years, animates every page of Women of Hope.
Terry Polakovic
The book’s opening lines capture the purpose of the entire text: “I have often thought that hope is strengthened by remembering. In other words, when things seem desperate, it is good to remember how God has answered our prayers in the past.”Memory is a sacred task, especially in challenging times, because it anchors us to reality. Remembering teaches us two great lessons: humility, because of the many mistakes we make; and hope, because despite our mistakes, our sins, and our failures, God has never abandoned us – and he never will.
The saints that Women of Hope highlights range across the centuries. Each embodies a particular and compelling quality: Teresa of Avila, the woman of prayer; Catherine of Siena, the woman of wisdom; Thérèse of Lisieux, the woman of love; and Hildegard of Bingen, the woman of consequence. Each profile includes the saint’s biography, her historical circumstances, her special contributions to Church life, and her enduring legacy. I admit to a special affection for Catherine’s courage (matched by few men of her time) for relentlessly pressing the Avignon papacy to return to Rome; and for Hildegard’s astonishing creativity: nearly 900 years later, the beauty of her music remains miraculous. Terry Polakovic captures all of these “women of character” with the grace and clarity that mark her own character as a writer. Women of Hope is a wonderful and rewarding read that really shouldn’t be missed.
Which brings me to my second “must-read” recommendation. The Love of Learning: Seven Dialogues on the Liberal Arts, released by Cluny Media, is the work of another gifted friend, Margarita Mooney. An associate professor of practical theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, Dr. Mooney is founder and executive director of the Scala Foundation. Scala focuses on revitalizing the role of classical liberal arts in education, because in Mooney’s own words, “A mind open to God, to mystery, to wonder, is not the opposite of scientific reason, but is integral to comprehending the full significance of reality and recovering the love of learning.”
Mooney argues persuasively that the traditional “humanizing” role of a well-rounded education has, in recent decades, declined into spiritually starved forms of instruction, instrumentalized toward specific political or economic ends. In response, she notes:
Any purposeful human life must consider and respond to the fundamental question of who we are as humans and ask how we are meant to develop our talent through education. . . .In particular, the liberal arts tradition [acknowledges] that experiences of beauty shape our capacity for attention to all of reality. . . .[Thus] liberal education is key to social order, not just because of the inclusion of great texts that have shaped civilization, although that is important, but because liberal arts education treats the person holistically.
Margarita A. Mooney
The Love of Learning organizes itself around seven rich and engaging conversations with leading educators like Princeton’s Robert P. George and George Harne of the University of St. Thomas in Houston, on themes like “Does Human Nature Matter for Education?” and “Liberal Education and Beauty.” Each individual discussion is absorbing. But every reader will have his or her favorites.
As do I: Baylor’s Elizabeth Corey on “Learning in Love: Authentic Friendships and Liberal Learning” is especially good. She’s exactly right that the best educators are people who love their subject and come into the classroom to communicate that love. And the best education “arises not from some kind of professionalism but out of love for students and love for other people.” City University of New York’s Carlo Lancellotti, translator of Augusto Del Noce’s important works on the crisis of modernity, is likewise excellent on “St. Benedict and Education: Bringing Order Out of Chaos.”
In partnership with the Pepperdine School of Public Policy, Mooney is developing a short course on the humanistic foundations of education that compares four key thinkers (good and otherwise) who come up repeatedly in TheLove of Learning‘s chapters: John Dewey, Jacques Maritain, Paulo Freire, and Luigi Giussani. Preliminary video clips from that course can be seen here. In the meantime, get the book. Margarita Mooney has written a lively and thoroughly refreshing book that champions liberal arts education. It’s worth every moment you’ll spend on it.
Francis X. Maier is a senior fellow in Catholic studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a senior research associate in Constitutional Studies at the University of Notre Dame.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on IT IS A MAN’S WORLD, OR IS IT? TO THE CRIMINALS CAUSING MUCH OF THE VIOLENCE AND CRIME ON THE STREETS OF OUR MAJOR CITIES THESE DAYS THERE IS NO QUESTION BUT THAT THEY WOULD SAY THAT IT IS! BUT TO THE LITERATE PERSON WHO KNOWS HISTORY IT IS NOT!!!
When the Biden administration messed up the withdrawal from Afghanistan, tons of US military equipment was left behind. And thanks to that mistake, the Taliban essentially has its own air force made up of abandoned US aircraft.
In fact, recent estimates claim that the Taliban now has the 26th largest air force in the world. The Biden administration’s poorly executed retreat from Kabul left a treasure trove of advanced military gear for a group that hates America with a passion.
No doubt the Taliban will use the guns, vehicles, and aircraft against their own people. And, with the help of Russia and China, they’ll learn to use our military gear against us and our allies.
Of course, Biden still refuses to admit that the Afghanistan exit was a mess. During a recent press conference, he even turned his back to reporters and declined to answer any questions on the subject.
When the Biden administration messed up the withdrawal from Afghanistan, tons of US military equipment was left behind. And thanks to that mistake, the Taliban essentially has its own air force made up of abandoned US aircraft.
In fact, recent estimates claim that the Taliban now has the 26th largest air force in the world. The Biden administration’s poorly executed retreat from Kabul left a treasure trove of advanced military gear for a group that hates America with a passion.
No doubt the Taliban will use the guns, vehicles, and aircraft against their own people. And, with the help of Russia and China, they’ll learn to use our military gear against us and our allies.
Of course, Biden still refuses to admit that the Afghanistan exit was a mess. During a recent press conference, he even turned his back to reporters and declined to answer any questions on the subject.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on HERE IS ANOTHER VIEW OF THE TALIBAN Air Force GIVEN TO THE TALIBAN BY JOSEPH BIDEN BY HIS HASTY WITHDRAWAL OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES FROM AFGHANISTAN
When the Biden administration messed up the withdrawal from Afghanistan, tons of US military equipment was left behind. And thanks to that mistake, the Taliban essentially has its own air force made up of abandoned US aircraft.
In fact, recent estimates claim that the Taliban now has the 26th largest air force in the world. The Biden administration’s poorly executed retreat from Kabul left a treasure trove of advanced military gear for a group that hates America with a passion.
No doubt the Taliban will use the guns, vehicles, and aircraft against their own people. And, with the help of Russia and China, they’ll learn to use our military gear against us and our allies.
Of course, Biden still refuses to admit that the Afghanistan exit was a mess. During a recent press conference, he even turned his back to reporters and declined to answer any questions on the subject.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on IN ALL PROBABILITY AMERICAN SERVICEMEN COULD FIND THEMSELVES UNDER FIRE FROM THESE AMERICAN HELICOPTERS LEFT BEHIND AT THE BAGRAM AIR BASE IN AFGHANISTAN BY THE HASTY BIDEN WITHDRAWAL OF OUR FORCES FROM AFGHANISTAN
Before he was himself accused New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a window in the civil statute of limitations spawning claims against a Catholic bishop.
Back in 2010, I closely followed a story that appeared in most national news media outlets. It was about Bishop Eddie Long, a well-known preacher, TV evangelist, and pastor of a Baptist mega church in Georgia. He was accused of sexual assault in multiple lawsuits brought by three young adult males.
Unlike in nearly all similar claims against Catholic clergy, all three of the men, barely out of their teens, opted to allow their names to appear in media coverage. The story unfolded in stark contrast with similar claims against Catholic priests in other ways as well. Lawyers and victim advocates have explained away the sometimes decades-long gaps that have comprised 70-percent of the claims against priests. It is routinely claimed that accusers of Catholic clergy — the vast majority of whom were teens at the time of an alleged offense — may require decades to come forward due to the trauma inflicted on them. In contrast, the three young men accusing Bishop Eddie Long filed lawsuits within two years.
Bishop Long denied that the claims were true. Criminal charges were never filed so the claims were not investigated. The story came down to his word against theirs. When The Wall Street Journal published a 2010 account of Bishop Long’s vow to fight these claims, it was among the five most-read stories of that week at WSJ.com. Clearly, many in the news media presumed at first reading of the headlines that he was a Catholic bishop. The decision to fight the claims rather than simply settle thus stood out as a news story of its own.
In the end, however, Bishop Long and his parish decided to settle the claims for an undisclosed sum in 2010. No one questioned their assertion that settlement of such claims is common and in no way should be seen as an admission of guilt or culpability. Beyond Bishop Long’s parish, there were no deeper pockets to pursue. He simply resumed his ministry as though nothing had ever happened.
This could never happen when the accused is a Catholic priest. It was once explained to me by another bishop, Most Rev. John B. McCormack, formerly Bishop of Manchester, NH, that one of the hard lessons of the Catholic clergy abuse narrative is the fact that once a priest is accused, his legal interests and those of his bishop and diocese diverge. When I maintained my innocence against lawsuits that I knew were fraudulent, I was dropped as a defendant so I no longer had standing to challenge settlements.
The New Hampshire statute of limitations for lawsuits was six years then. (In 2020 the civil limitation statute was removed entirely.) The allegations against me were from twelve years earlier. My defense against the claims was that they never took place. The sole argument of my diocese was that the statute had expired so the lawsuits should be time barred. Judge Carol Ann Conboy ruled in Merrimack County Superior Court that the six-year statute begins to toll “only when a victim becomes aware” of a connection between a claim of abuse and a current injury.
My diocese opted to settle rather than appeal that dubious lower court precedent which has since evolved into a pattern of unquestioned mediated settlements in other claims against priests going all the way back to 1950. In many cases no lawsuit was even filed. In his once published resume, former Msgr. Edward J. Arsenault (now Edward J. Bolognini) claimed that he personally negotiated 250 settlements in allegations against NH priests.
Of interest, one NH lawyer told the news media that he personally obtained 250 settlements in claims against NH priests. In a 2002 media report he added,
“During settlement negotiations, diocesan officials did not press for details such as dates and allegations for every claim. ‘I’ve never seen anything like it,’ [Attorney Peter] Hutchins said.”
Misuse of the word, “credible” has been a source of injustice in the U.S. Church since 2002. Prior to the events described above, Bishop John McCormack told a lawyer and a media producer that he believed I was falsely accused and wrongly imprisoned. His statements were documented in a pair of independently sworn affidavits in 2001.
In 2002, after the USCCB adopted the Dallas Charter and “zero tolerance,” claims against me entered a category used by all bishops since. Once money changed hands, they became “credible.” I wrote of the fallout in “Our Tabloid Frenzy About Fallen Priests.”
What the bishops collectively mean by “credible” is not a standard of justice used in any other circumstance. It means no more than “possible.” If a priest and an accuser lived in the same parish or community 30, 40, 50 years ago, then a sexual abuse claim against the priest is “credible.” It is deeply unjust that bishops continue to use that term while knowing that the public and the news media wrongly interpret it as “substantiated.”
Now Bishop Libasci has himself been “credibly accused.” On July 22, 2021, the New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper, in an article by Mark Hayward, reported, “NH Bishop accused of sexual abuse by an altar boy decades ago.” Whatever differences I have had with Bishop Peter Libasci and his published list, I was and am deeply saddened by this development. The accusation stems from 1983, the same year as the accusations against me. The lawsuit, filed in Suffolk County, New York, alleges that then Father Peter Libasci sexually assaulted a boy aged 12 to 13 “on numerous occasions” at a parish and Catholic school in Deer Park in the Diocese of Rockville Center, New York.
Bishop Libasci maintains through counsel that he is entirely innocent of these claims. I believe that he is in fact innocent. I do not find the claims to be credible at all, but I do not use that term in the same manner the bishops use it against priests. I will get back to this.
One of the claims from the now unnamed 50-year-old accuser is that he was assaulted in the sacristy while setting up for a Mass. That has all the earmarks of a “copycat” claim that is almost verbatim a claim in a different but much more notorious New York case, that of former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. No one who knows Bishop Libasci could or should conclude that these claims are at all credible. It would be a grave injustice if such claims prevail without clear evidence.
However, that also leaves the matter in a conundrum. If that accuser lived in Deer Park, New York and attended that parish or school at the time Bishop Libasci was there, then this is more than enough for his fellow bishops to conclude — as they would in the case of any similarly accused priest — that the claims are “credible.” Bishop Libasci has not, at this writing, been removed from ministry by the Vatican. As unjust as that would be, any priest in the same circumstance would have been removed immediately.
Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo
This is happening to Bishop Libasci and others with roots in the State of New York because in 2019, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo promoted and ultimately signed a bill that opened a window to allow civil claims to be filed even if they had been time barred by the statute of limitations. The window in which these claims could be filed expired on August 14, 2021. The Catholic bishops of the state of New York knew well what the result would be so they opposed the unjust bill.
Before signing it into law, Governor Cuomo accused the bishops and other Church officials of threatening politicians who did not support their opposition to the bill. In response to similar bills that were not passed in previous efforts, Cuomo said, “I believe it was the conservatives in the Senate who were threatened by the Catholic Church, and this went on for years.” Catholic League President Bill Donohue pointed out in “Cuomo Had A Different Standard for Priests,” Catalyst, April 2021,
“When teachers’ unions oppose a bill, it is called lobbying. When bishops oppose a bill, it is called a threat. Cuomo’s double standard, and his animus against the Catholic Church, could not be more plain.”
— Dr. Bill Donohue
Governor Cuomo also promoted and signed a June 2020 bill that set a very low bar as a standard of evidence in claims of sexual abuse or harassment in the workplace. The New York Times reported that the legislation eliminates the state’s “severe or pervasive” standard. When signing the bill into law, Governor Cuomo said,
“The ongoing culture of sexual harassment in the workplace is unacceptable and has held employees back for far too long. This critical measure finally ends the absurd legal standard for victims to prove sexual harassment in the workplace and makes it easier for those who have been subjected to this disgusting behavior to bring claims forward.”
— Governor Andrew Cuomo, June 2020
I once wrote a post entitled, “Be Wary of Crusaders! The Devil Sigmund Freud Knew Only Too Well.” It documented multiple stories of crusaders against sexual abuse who turned out to be guilty of the same sorts of offenses they were crusading against. It was the result of a combination of forces within the psyche in the form of two classic defense mechanisms described by the Father of Psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud. From recent news accounts of his resignation to avoid a pending impeachment, Governor Cuomo seems to have been a textbook case for this.
As accusation after accusation emerged against Cuomo, he insisted on a presumption of innocence and his due process rights. He responded to the allegations with, “You can allege something. It might be true or it might not be true. You may have misperceived. There may be other facts.” All true, but when it came to allegations against priests — whether in the present or in the distant past — innocence was never a possible conclusion. As Catholic League President Bill Donohue observed in the link above,
“Cuomo showed no respect for the due process rights [of priests]. He was happy to sign legislation that gave rapacious lawyers out to sue the Church all the leeway they wanted.”
— Dr. Bill Donohue, Catalyst, April 2021
This is the Pandora’s Box our bishops opened with their use of the term, “credible” as a standard of evidence for removing priests. The current claims against Bishop Peter Libasci arose only because Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law in New York a bill that takes advantage of the lowest possible standard of evidence to score lucrative windfall settlements from the Catholic Church.
According to the standard our bishops have adopted, however, those claims are as “credible” as many of the claims against the priests on Bishop Libasci’s published list. I would like to believe that Bishop Libasci may now, in hindsight and humility, rethink his decision to publish that list. Injustice, however, is often a bell that cannot be unrung.
Nonetheless, absent compelling evidence — and so far there is none — I firmly believe Bishop Peter Libasci is entirely innocent. I hope and pray that his good name is restored and he is delivered from this injustice.
+ + +
Note from Father Gordon MacRae: Please share this post. Please also pray for a just outcome for Bishop Peter Libasci, for Catholic priests falsely accused, and for legitimate victims of sexual abuse and exploitation. Let us remember as we walk through this minefield that we are a Church.
Newest First Oldest First Newest First Most Liked Least Liked Preview POST COMMENT…
Fr Stuart MacDonald 6 hours ago · 0 Likes
Bravo Father Gordon!! An outstanding analysis, as usual. Yes, Governor Cuomo is taken down by the very machinations he masterminded. Unfortunately, Bishop Libasci is the victim of episcopal machinations enacted for accused priests. He finds himself in the same position as the priests on his list — an accusation from decades ago that is truly unsubstantiated. Oh, but wait!! He’s now a bishop. A different set of rules applies. He is not immediately placed on so-called administrative leave, sent for residential psychological therapy, and publicly shamed. The hypocrisy boggles the mind. The answer is NOT to make sure the same standard applies to him as to priests, but to change the standard so that there is due process and justice for everyone, accuser (not mere scam artist) and accused ( priest or bishop).
After this experience, one wonders if Bishop Libasci has the humility to re-think the wisdom of publishing his list of accused priests. But, then again, you’re correct: you can’t unring the bell. But one can try to ring a louder bell!
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THE SAD CASE OF THE INJUSTICE DONE TO BISHOP PETER A. LIBASCI IS SOMEHOW BALANCED BY THE POETIC JUSTICE OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO GOVERNOR Andrew Cuomo WHO PUSHED THE PASSAGE OF THE LAW THAT UNJUSTLY PUNISHED Bishop Libasci BUT JUSTLY INDIRECTLY PUNISHED GOVERNOR CUOMO.
27-year-old Zarifa Ghafari was the first-ever female mayor of an Afghan city. She survived three assassination attempts. Last week Zarifa told journalists she was waiting in her home for the Taliban to come kill her.
No help awaited Ghafari and her family. Joe Biden was on vacation at the time.
On Wednesday news broke that Zarifa and her family were able to escape Afghanistan. She hid in the footwell of their car with a bag over her head. This allowed her family to make it through the Taliban checkpoints.
The Taliban came to her house and beat her guards. But she was able to escape. No one came to rescue Zarifa. She had to rescue herself from the terrorists.
Transgender ReportPart II: Physical Damage August 25, 2021 This is the second of our three-part series on this subject. There are no medical criteria to determine if a child needs to undergo transition procedures. According to the Mayo Clinic “Feminizing hormone therapy”(the process of a male taking female hormones) comes with risks and complications including: ______–A blood clot in a deep vein (deep vein thrombosis) or in a lung _______(pulmonary embolism) ______–High triglycerides, a type of fat (lipid) in your blood ______–Weight gain ______–Infertility ______–High potassium (hyperkalemia) ______–High blood pressure (hypertension) ______–Type 2 diabetes ______–Cardiovascular disease ______–Excessive prolactin in your blood (hyperprolactinemia) ______–Nipple discharge ______–Stroke ______–Increased risk of breast cancer Taking female hormones can cause lasting damage in men. The risk of permanent infertility increases with long-term use of hormones, especially when hormone therapy is initiated before puberty. Even after stopping hormone therapy, testicular function might not recover sufficiently to ensure conception. According to the Mayo Clinic “Masculinizing hormone therapy”(the process of a female taking male hormones) comes with risks and complications including: ______–Producing too many red blood cells (polycythemia) ______–Weight gain ______–Acne ______–Developing an abnormal level of cholesterol and other lipids, _______which may increase cardiovascular risk (dyslipidemia) ______–High blood pressure (hypertension) ______–Type 2 diabetes ______–Deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism (venous _______thromboembolism) ______–Infertility ______–A condition where the lining of the vagina becomes drier and _______thinner (atrophic vaginitis) ______–Pelvic pain ______–Clitoral discomfort and vaginal atrophy ______–Endometrial and other forms of cancer Taking male hormones can cause lasting damage in women. The risk of permanent infertility increases with long-term use of hormones, especially when hormone therapy is initiated before puberty. Even after stopping hormone therapy, ovarian and uterine function might not recover well enough to ensure that a woman can become pregnant. Testosterone is a Schedule III controlled substance. It has serious health risks as noted above. However, to treat gender dysphoria, it is used by some as a cosmetic procedure rather than something requiring strict medical oversight. Some gender therapists administer the drug based on what the patient is feeling. In terms of a set dose, the only goal most medical professionals have is to keep the testosterone in the normal limit for a man. According to the British National Health Service (NHS): “Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria. Although the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be. It’s also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children’s bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.” Lupron, a drug once used in chemical castrations, is a popular puberty blocker. Lupron has caused neurological damage resulting in impaired pituitary function. The pituitary is the major endocrine gland in the brain and is important in controlling growth and development and the functioning of other endocrine glands. The effect on the pituitary was not reversible for 62.5% of patients. While the FDA has approved this drug to halt precocious puberty, it is not approved to halt normal puberty nor is it approved for long-term use. Lupron is now prescribed off-label. Puberty blockers are not a neutral intervention. Although some gender therapists present them as a safe alternative to buy time to allow for a child to determine his or her gender identity, halting puberty is unhealthy. Side effects include suppression of normal bone density development, greater risk of osteoporosis, loss of sexual function, interference with brain development and possibly suppressing peak IQ. Additionally, these drugs alienate a child from his or her sex. Further, in some instances after a child stops taking them puberty does not resume even if they wanted it to. One clinical study found that 100% of participants who used puberty blockers ultimately underwent a full transition. Binders, a devise used frequently by teenage girls that constrict their breasts tight against the body to give them a more masculine appearance, can cause serious harm. Broken or bruised ribs, punctured or collapsed lungs, shortness of breath, back pain, and deformation of breast tissue can result from wearing these devices. In women, top surgery, or a double mastectomy, leads to a permanent loss of breast function and comes with the risks of complication associated with any surgical procedure. In women, bottom surgery, either phalloplasty or metoidioplasty, are extremely complex procedures that can result in complications. In phalloplasty, doctors take a graph and create a new appendage in the groin area. Blood clots and infections are common. Additionally, the forearms, where most of the graphs are from for this procedure, can also suffer significant damage permanently leaving an individual unable to fully use their arms. Usually, the urethra will be run through the appendage; however, this is not without its own share of hazards, most especially leaks both internally and externally. Metoidioplasty involves the clitoris to be shaped to look like a penis, though it has no functionality other than the urethra can be run through it allowing for urination. For a glossary of terms, click here.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on CHANGING THE NATURAL SEX OF A CHILD/ADOLESCENT SHOULD BE A CRIME SEVERELY PUNISHABLE BY LAW. READ THE FOLLOWING REPORT BASED ON INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE Mayo Clinic. THIS REPORT ONLY COVERS THE POTENTIAL PHYSICAL DAMAGE DONE TO A CHILD/ADOLESCENT, NOT THE MENTAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE
Lawsuits?: The “FDA Ignores the Law” & appears to be “Criminal[ly] Reckless” in possibly Endangering “Hundreds of Millions of People”
Environmental Health News said that “the FDA ignores the law”:
Op-ed: How the FDA ignores the law when approving new chemical additives to food
An investigation finds the federal agency is not accounting for the cumulative health effect of chemicals as required by law. Such neglect leaves consumers at higher risk for chronic diseases…
… We wanted to investigate whether and how food manufacturers and the FDA had implemented the cumulative effect requirement. To do that, we downloaded and reviewed all 877 safety determinationscontained in the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) notifications inventory. These notices were voluntarily submitted by food manufacturers to the FDA between 1997, when GRAS notification program began, and March 24, 2020. We looked at GRAS notices because they are publicly available and FDA rules require that food manufacturers include in the notice an explanation of how they considered the cumulative health effect of a new additive. Unfortunately, our investigation showed that both the FDA and the food manufacturers appeared to have ignored this crucial safety requirement…
… This is an obvious failure by the FDA and food manufacturers that has significant consequences for public health, particularly for communities already facing significant health and socio-economic disparities and for children, who are uniquely susceptible to dietary exposures to multiple chemicals. It is known that fetal and early life exposures have been associated with long-term diseases or disorders that usually manifest later in life. Development of neurological, immune, reproductive, and endocrine systemshave been shown to be particularly susceptible to chemical exposures. For example, several food additives and contaminants in common foods – including nitrates, perchlorate, thiocyanate, BPA, phthalates, potassium bromate, synthetic dyes – all harm the thyroid’s ability to produce a hormone essential to brain development. The common-sense preventative measure to reduce exposures is to treat chemicals in the diet with related health effects as a class – as Congress mandated in 1958.”[https://www.ehn.org/health-issues-associated-with-food-additives-2649620272/we-are-sick]
Moreover, Pediatric rheumatologist expert J. Patrick Whelan, M.D., Ph.D who “specializes in treating children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), which has been associated with coronavirus infections” gave a warning to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA] that the mRNA vaccines could be a dangerous toxin to “hundreds of millions of people.”
Did the FDA show criminal recklessness in ignoring expert Dr. Whelan’s warning about the “terrifying” vaccine dangers to “hundreds of millions of people”?
On December 8, 2020, Lyn Redwood, RN, MSN reported the FDA was warned about the potential toxic dangers of the vaccine which were “not assessed in the safety [clinical] trials” according to Whelan:
Whelan’s training (at Harvard, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine) includes degrees in biochemistry, medicine and rheumatology. For 20 years, he worked as a pediatric rheumatologist. He currently specializes in treating children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), which has been associated with coronavirus infections.
In his public submission, Whelan sought to alert the FDA about the vaccines designed to create immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to instead cause injuries.
Specifically, Whelan was concerned that the new mRNA vaccine technology utilized by Pfizer and Moderna has “the potential to cause microvascular injury (inflammation and small blood clots called microthrombi) to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in the safety trials.”
While Whelan did not dispute the vaccines’ potential to quickly arrest the spread of the virus (assuming that the vaccines prove to actually prevent transmission — also not assessed in the clinical trials), he cautioned that “it would be vastly worse if hundreds of millions of people were to suffer long-lasting or even permanent damage to their brain or heart microvasculature as a result of failing to appreciate in the short-term an unintended effect of full-length spike protein-based vaccines on other organs.”
Yesterday, LifesiteNews reported that Dr. Whelan’s warning that the vaccines could be a dangerous toxin endangering “hundreds of millions of people” was proven correct:
New research shows that the coronavirus spike protein from COVID-19 vaccination unexpectedly enters the bloodstream, which is a plausible explanation for thousands of reported side-effects from blood clots and heart disease to brain damage and reproductive issues, a Canadian cancer vaccine researcher said last week.
“We made a big mistake. We didn’t realize it until now,” said Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist and associate professor at University of Guelph, Ontario, in an interview with Alex Pierson last Thursday, in which he warned listeners that his message was “scary.”
[… ]
“What has been discovered by the scientific community is the spike protein on its own is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation,” Bridle told listeners.
Lab animals injected with purified spike protein into their bloodstream developed cardiovascular problems, and the spike protein was also demonstrated to cross the blood brain barrier and cause damage to the brain.
A grave mistake, according to Bridle, was the belief that the spike protein would not escape into the blood circulation. “Now, we have clear-cut evidence that the vaccines that make the cells in our deltoid muscles manufacture this protein — that the vaccine itself, plus the protein — gets into blood circulation,” he said.
Bridle cited the recent publication of a peer-reviewed study which detected spike protein in the blood plasma of three of 13 young healthcare workers that had received Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. In one of the workers, the spike protein circulated for 29 days…
… “The results of this leaked Pfizer study tracing the biodistribution of the vaccine mRNA are not surprising, but the implications are terrifying,” Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told LifeSiteNews. “It is now clear” that vaccine content is being delivered to the spleen and the glands, including the ovaries and the adrenal glands. “The released spike protein is being shed into the medium and then eventually reaches the bloodstream causing systemic damage. ACE2 receptors are common in the heart and brain, and this is how the spike protein causes cardiovascular and cognitive problems,” Seneff said…
… Pediatric rheumatologist J. Patrick Whelan had warned a vaccine advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration of the potential for the spike protein in COVID vaccines to cause microvascular damage causing damage to the liver, heart, and brain in “ways that were not assessed in the safety trials.”
While Whelan did not dispute the value of a coronavirus vaccine that worked to stop transmission of the disease (which no COVID vaccine in circulation has been demonstrated to do), he said, “it would be vastly worse if hundreds of millions of people were to suffer long-lasting or even permanent damage to their brain or heart microvasculature as a result of failing to appreciate in the short-term an unintended effect of full-length spike protein-based vaccines on other organs.” [https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vaccine-researcher-admits-big-mistake-says-spike-protein-is-dangerous-toxin]
Did the FDA show criminal recklessness in ignoring expert Dr. Whelan’s warning about the “terrifying” vaccine dangers to “hundreds of millions of people”?
Find Law defines criminal recklessness as follows:
Sometimes a person’s conduct is so reckless that it becomes the basis for a lawsuit or criminal prosecution. If a person acts with such utter disregard for the safety of others — and knows (or should know) that his actions may cause harm to someone else — he may be liable for injuries caused by his recklessness.
There are four basic theories of liabilities which, depending on the type of lawsuit, can render a defendant liable for injuries he or she causes.
Intent (also called willfulness) means the person acted with the intent to cause harm.
Recklessness means the person knew (or should have known) that his or her action were likely to cause harm.
Negligence means that the person acted in violation of a duty to someone else, with the breach of that duty causing harm to someone else.
Strict liability is reserved for certain specific situations where someone can be held liable for harms they cause no matter what their mental state was.
Recklessness involves conduct that is short of actual intent to cause harm, but greater than simple negligence. Unlike negligence — which occurs when a person unknowingly takes a risk that they should have been aware of — recklessness means to knowingly take a risk.
State laws prohibit many reckless behaviors and look upon reckless actors as social dangers because they gamble with other people’s safety. A person who has been injured from a civil claim of recklessness of another may recover compensation for any resulting medical expenses, lost wages, rehabilitation, pain, and suffering. In addition, recklessness may also allow recovery from certain people who are typically immune from liability for mere negligence, such as government workers and health care professionals…
… Recklessness differs from negligence – which consists mainly of carelessness or incompetence – in that recklessness requires the conscious choice to take a particular course of action. Also, recklessness requires a further degree of risk on the part of the actor than does negligence.
It’s important to note that reckless misconduct differs from intentional wrongdoing on one point. Under recklessness, the actor intends to commit the act but does not actually intend to cause harm to others. Instead, he may wish that the harm does not happen, but he has a strong reason to believe that it might. [https://www.findlaw.com/injury/accident-injury-law/recklessness.html]
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want you to do next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on DON’T BE A FOOL! DON’T TRUST TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS WHOSE JUDGEMENT CAN BE INFLUENCED BY MONEY OR POWER OR PRESSURE OR FAVORITISM OR POLITICS OR PERSONAL PREJUDICES
If parents thought that teachers’ unions might emerge somewhat chastened by their performance during the nation’s pandemic year, think again.
In a recent interview in The Atlantic, Becky Pringle, the president of the National Education Association—the nation’s largest teachers’ union—denied that many parents of school-age children in the United States blame the recalcitrance of the teachers’ unions for harmful, extended school closures last year.
Reporter Emma Green told Pringle that there is a perception “that teachers’ unions have stood in the way of school reopening during the pandemic, pursuing protracted contract negotiations that were more focused on adults than on the needs of kids.”
Pringle’s response? “It is a perception. It is not a reality.” She added, “The schools that stayed open were school districts that worked directly with educators and with their unions to make decisions that were best in terms of keeping students and all of the people in that population healthy.”
That is a lie. The reality, one parents should keep in mind as the new school year begins, is that school closures were directly linked to union power. A new study by Joshua Coval at Harvard Business School that examined the pandemic responses of the nation’s 150 largest school districts found a stark similarity among the districts that kept schools closed: “Schools that opted for virtual instruction during the 2020-2021 year were schools with a history of favoring teachers over students and teachers with seniority over teachers that are new and/or high- performing. Online schools also tended to be in urban settings, schools with more minorities, schools with more students from low socioeconomic status households, and schools located in low Covid rate counties.”
The results for students? “Districts that chose virtual instruction exhibited a far greater willingness to prioritize teacher interests over those of students,” and “this prioritization is associated with significant costs in terms of student test results and graduation rates.” This directly contradicts the unions’ claims that all-virtual learning was just as effective as in-person learning. What’s more, it explains unions’ repeated attempts to thwart any measurement of learning loss among students.
It will come as no surprise to parents that the schools that denied children in-person education already employed the least hard-working teachers and had the lowest-performing students: “At the schools that chose to be online, the average teacher works 100 fewer hours per year than the average teacher in the schools that chose to educate their students in person,” the Harvard study found. “For the K-12 student in an online school, this difference in hours cumulates to over a half-year less instruction by the time they graduate relative to their peer at an in-person school.”
In other words, during the pandemic, when teachers got what they wanted (less work and no in-person teaching while still being paid a full-time salary), it was the students who paid the price.
Such facts have not swayed the unions. When asked by the Atlanticabout the fact that school closures had the most detrimental impact on the most vulnerable students, including those from lower-income households and minority students, Pringle again denied this fact. Instead, she claimed that minority parents’ fears about in-person learning were justified by their “lived experiences”—even though the scientific evidence about the safety of in-person learning for students entirely contradicts that “experience.”
Pringle even had the audacity to cite Baltimore as an example of how virtual learning is a reasonable substitute for in-person education: “When I visited schools recently in Baltimore, the educators shared that they had learned so much about the opportunities in virtual learning that they’re bringing those into in-person learning for the fall,” Pringle said.
Those “opportunities” have already produced dismal results. As one report found, “Nearly half, 41%, of all Baltimore high school students enrolled with the public school district earned below a 1.0 GPA during the first three quarters of the 2020-2021 school year.” Baltimore’s educators don’t seem all that concerned about learning loss, particularly among its already-struggling minority students: Baltimore City Public Schools CEO Sonja Santelises told a reporter that the school system would not be applying “punitive” measures for students who failed classes last year and, in particular, have been evaluating grading methods that reflect the “unique circumstances” that “Black people have faced.”
The teachers’ unions are poised to continue their insistence that their perceptions matter more than the realities of the needs of students. As Noah Rothman has argued, teachers’ unions have already started fear-mongering about COVID-related closures for the upcoming school year, claiming that nothing will be “normal” and parents should expect more virtual learning.
The unions are focused on continuing to exercise power and demand more money for the teachers (whose union dues make organizations like the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers some of the most powerful lobbying groups in the nation). Note, for example, how Pringle prioritizes her demands for schools to reopen: “That means the money, the people, and the time to be sure that schools are the safest place in any community. For that to be true, the community has to work with schools to ensure that they follow the science, listen to the infectious-disease experts, and then make decisions that will keep their students safe.”
Although Pringle cloaks her unions’ demands in the responsible language of “safety,” union policies directly undermine children’s health. Despite invoking the advice of “infectious-disease experts,” Pringle still refuses to insist that teachers should be vaccinated against COVID. Pringle told the Atlantic that she “strongly encouraged vaccination” but told the reporter that “regular testing should be available as an alternative to legal mandates.” As Pringle said, “We are calling for districts and employers to work directly with educators and their unions to address the complexities of vaccinations and accommodations that will need to be made for educators.” That’s a lot of muddy rhetoric to avoid stating a simple truth: The nation’s largest teachers’ union opposes mandatory vaccination for teachers.
As well, Pringle acts as if there is a settled scientific consensus about the need for young children to wear masks (when that has not been the policy in many European countries, for example). She invokes the language of safety to justify a policy that would mainly protect the teachers who continue to refuse vaccination: “Most parents want everything done to keep their kids safe. Most parents want their students to be back to in-person learning, and they know that for that to happen, every mitigation strategy has to be put in place: vaccinations, masks, cleaning, ventilation, distancing.” (The CDC no longer recommends deep cleaning as a mitigation measure).
Throughout the interview, like her American Federation of Teachers counterpart Randi Weingarten frequently does, Pringle uses children as human shields. She doesn’t represent the needs or interests of children; their parents do. But she’s clearly discovered the value of using them as cover to advance her union’s agenda. “We know that the best place for students—and educators—to be is in person with one another,” Pringle says. “We’re going to continue to try to ensure that is available for all of our students throughout the country. But we also know that we have to keep our kids safe.” As the Atlantic noted, “Pringle refused to rule out calling for hybrid or remote learning if coronavirus cases continue to rise.”
There’s a reason many parents are treating teachers’ unions like enemy combatants in a protracted war over their children’s education: Unions have repeatedly behaved like their enemies. Pringle’s recent interview suggests the battle continues.
45
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.