Amy Coney Barrett Signed Letter Confirming the “Value of Life From Conception to Natural Death”

Amy Coney Barrett Signed Letter Confirming the “Value of Life From Conception to Natural Death”

Judge Amy Coney Barrett might perhaps be the most pro-life Supreme Court nominee to ever be considered for a spot on the nation’s highest court. Most nominees never produce the kind of pro-life and the kind of involvement in the pro-life movement that Barrett brings to the table.

She signed a letter in 2006 that described abortion as “barbaric” and called for an end to Roe v. Wade. She also was a member of the Notre Dame University Faculty for Life Group from 2010 to 2016, and she received an award from the Thomas More Society, a pro-life Catholic legal group, in 2018.

Barrett also added her name to a 2012 letter that criticized the Obama administration for trying to force religious groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for contraception, including types that may cause abortions, in their employee health plans.

And she has made several statements about the value of babies in the womb. According to Law and Crime, Barrett signed a public letter in 2015 that emphasized “the value of human life from conception to natural death.” She also said she believes that life begins at conception.

The a 2015 letter Barrett signed was from a group of prominent Catholic women to Catholic bishops. The women wrote that they gave “witness that the Church’s teachings” — including on the “dignity of the human person and the value of human life from conception to natural death” — “provide a sure guide to the Christian life.”

SIGN THE PETITION: Vote to Confirm Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett

The letter was meant to stress “our fidelity to and gratitude for the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and our confidence in the Synod of Bishops as it strives to strengthen the Church’s evangelizing mission.

“We see the teachings of the Church as truth—a source of authentic freedom, equality, and happiness for women,” it added.

Judge Barrett’s pro-life views and her originalist approach to evaluating law and the Constitution have earned her double-digit support from the American people.

A new Morning Consult poll shows Americans support Barrett on a 48-31% margin and that 17% margin of support is an increase from the polling firm’s last national survey last week showing a 15% margin in her favor.

During her confirmation hearings, Judge Amy Coney Barrett indicated that the infamous Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which ushered in an era of virtually unlimited abortions claiming 62 million lives, is not a “super-precedent” that can’t be overturned.

During a discussion with Senator Lindsey Graham, Judge Barrett acknowledged that Roe “is not super precedent” and referred to an article that has been brought up during her confirmation hearings about how there are only a handful of Supreme Court decisions that are considered so sacrosanct they will never be reversed.

Graham followed on the article and explained that one of the reasons a Supreme Court decision is not super precedent is because there continues to be contention about the issue. He explained that abortion is still contentious and that Congress and state legislatures continue passing laws to protect unborn babies from abortion.

Previously, Judge Barrett said Roe is not in same category as the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling, which declared segregated public schools unconstitutional because there is still a massive debate about whether Roe is legitimate.

Barrett says no one talks about overturning the Brown decision but explained that significant disagreement over it “indicates Roe doesn’t fall in that category.” She says it’s “not a case that’s universally accepted.”

“Well people use super precedent differently. The way that it’s used in the scholarship and the way that I was using it in the article the that you’re reading from was to define cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling and I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category,” Barrett said.

“Scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean Roe should be overruled, but descriptively, it does mean it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling,” she continued.

“But that does not mean that Roe should be overturned,” Barrett told Senator Amy Klobuchar. “It just means that it doesn’t fall on the small handful of cases like Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. [The Board of Education] that no one questions anymore.”

In comments during her confirmation process, Judge Amy Coney Barrett also confirmed she is committed to the rule of law.

“I’m committed to the rule of law and the rule of the court,” she said. “If I give off-the-cuff answers then I would be basically a legal pundit and I do not think we want judges to be legal pundit. I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind.”

Judge Amy Coney Barrett delivered her opening remarks to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday and she made two major points.

First, she talked about the proper role of the courts, saying they are not supposed to make law and legislate from the bench. She also refused to back down to attacks from Senate Democrats on her faith, saying she strongly believes in prayer and thanked the many Americans who are prayer for her amid those attacks on her Christian faith.

“I believe in the power of prayer and it’s been uplifting that so many people have been praying for me,” Judge Barrett told members of the judicial panel.

“Nothing is more important to me, and I am so proud to have them behind me,” she added.

Before that, Judge Barrett discussed the proper role of the Supreme Court.

“Courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our life,” she explained. “The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.”

“When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against,” she went on to say. “Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law? That is the standard I set for myself in every case, and it is the standard I will follow as long as I am a judge on any court.”

The liberal American Bar Association has given President Donald Trump’s latest Supreme Court nominee its highest rating, issuing the rating on the opening day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings in the Senate.

Last week, a new national poll showed Americans support the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett by double-digit margins.

A new Morning Consult poll shows Americans support Barrett on a 46-31% margin and that 15% margin of support is an increase from the polling firms last national survey in September following her nomination. That poll had Americans backing Barrett 37-34%, a resulting 12% increase from the 3% margin previously.

“Democrats are losing the Supreme Court messaging war, new polling indicates, with support for Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation trending in the GOP’s direction,” the polling firm indicated. “Nearly half (46 percent) of voters in an Oct. 2-4 Morning Consult/Politico poll said the Senate should confirm Barrett — up 9 percentage points since President Donald Trump announced her nomination on Sept. 26 — as more voters say the chamber should consider her elevation to the high court as soon as possible, regardless of who wins next month’s election.”

Seventy-seven percent of GOP voters back Barrett’s confirmation, up 6 points from late last month. Among independents, the share who said she should be confirmed increased 8 points, to 36 percent, while the share of Democratic voters who said she should be confirmed increased 10 points, to 24 percent.

Even Democratic voters have softened their opposition to Barrett’s confirmation: The latest survey found 59 percent said the Senate should wait to see who wins the election, compared with 79 percent who said in the wake of Ginsburg’s death that the election winner should pick the next justice.

It’s not as if Barrett’s nomination is flying completely under the radar. Though 1 in 5 voters initially heard “a lot” about it, that share had doubled just a few days later following the first presidential debate.

Barrett, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, believes life begins at conception and has noted how both pro-life and pro-abortion legal experts have criticized Roe v. Wade as a bad decision. Barrett criticized the ruling for “ignit[ing] a national controversy” through judicial fiat.

Though her judicial rulings on abortion are few, she did rule in support of two Indiana pro-life laws during her time on the Seventh Circuit. She also has made several statements about the value of babies in the womb. According to the Law and Crime blog, Barrett signed a public letter in 2015 that emphasized “the value of human life from conception to natural death.”

Judge Amy Barrett was number one on the Supreme Court wish list for most pro-life voters and she was also the first potential high court nominee to get an in-person meeting with President Donald Trump. That’s not a surprising considering the president previous said he was “saving her” for an appointment to the Supreme Court should Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retire or pass away.

Barrett, a mother of seven, was a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. Like Scalia, Barrett describes herself as an “originalist” judge.

When it comes to abortion cases, Barrett has been on the pro-life side. She voted in 2016 to allow a hearing on a pro-life law from the state of Indiana that requires abortion centers to offer a proper burial or cremation for babies they kill in abortions. And in 2019, she voted to allow a hearing on another Indiana pro-life law allowing parents to be notified when their teenage daughter is considering an abortion so they can help her make a better decision for her and her baby.

This is a Lifenews.com opinion piece

Ref: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/10/15/amy-coney-barrett-signed-letter-confirming-the-value-of-life-from-conception-to-natural-death/

Dr Deo Debattista – Pro-Life Practical Suggestions in Parliament

As an NGO committed to upholding and promoting life and human dignity, we welcome wholeheartedly the proposal made in Parliament for a pro-life clinic by the back bencher Dr. Deo Debattista on the 24th of February.

Anyone who loves peace and the common good cannot tolerate attacks and crimes against life. We, therefore endorse and support any programmes that safeguard life, especially when it is at its most vulnerable.

For his practical suggestion of providing assistance to expectant mothers in distress who consider abortion, Dr. Debattista deserves unreserved admiration and gets our full backing.

 

Dr. Miriam SCIBERRAS

Chairman Life Network

http://staging-lifenetwork.stagingcloud.co/

www.facebook.com/lifenetworkeu?fref=ts

BBC.co.uk reports: Calls for law to stop anti-abortion protests outside clinics

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) is calling for new laws to move anti-abortion protesters from the doorstep of its clinics.

BPAS, one of the UK’s main abortion providers, has told Newsbeat some patients are being confronted by graphic content.

These include large posters and leaflets with pictures showing dismembered foetuses.

But anti-abortion groups, like Abort67, say they are “educating” the public.

Department of Health figures for 2013 suggest there were 185,331 terminations in England and Wales.

“We’ve really asked protesters to think a lot harder about the kind of activity that they’re undertaking outside clinics,” says BPAS spokeswoman Clare Murphy.

“We completely respect people’s right to protest, but we simply feel that approaching women, causing them harassment and distress at what’s already quite a difficult time in their life, really isn’t right.”

 

BPAS is now campaigning for the Government to create “access zones” outside British abortion clinics to help women access them without be confronted by pro-life protesters.

Read more…. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/30126873)

“Ta’ 12-il sena ghandhom ikunu jafu dwar l-abort” – Newsbook.com.mt

Aisling Hubert tfajla Ingliza ta’ 21 sena ilha ghal dawn l-ahhar 7 snin tahdem biex tbiddel il-mod kif in-nies iharsu lejn l-abort.

Aisling bhalissa tinsab Malta ghal-laqgha organizzata mill-ghaqda Life Network bhala parti minn progett ta’ edukazzjoni pubblika dwar l-abort.

Ma’ Newsbook.com.mt, Aisling qalet li hemm bzonn li l-adoloxxenti jkunu jafu x’inhu abort.

Dwar ta’ liema età z-zghazagh ghandhom jibdew isiru jafu dwar l-abort u l-konsegwenzi li jgib mieghu, Aisling qalet li kif il-genituri jhallu t-tfal taghhom jaraw films u loghob vjolenti, bl-istess mod m’ghandhomx izommuhom lura milli jaraw ritratti grafiċi.

Kompliet tghid li fl-Ingilterra tifla ta’ 12-il sena ghandha d-dritt taghmel abort minghajr il-kunsens tal-genituri, allura, fi kliem iz-zaghzugha, ta’ dik l-età ghandhom jibdew jitghallmu dwar il-hajja li tibda fil-guf.

Qalet li “xi darba l-guf kien il-post li joffri kenn u sigurtà ghat-tarbija, izda issa dan sar l-aktar post perikoluz”.

Dwar jekk tahsibx li l-abort xi darba ghad jidhol f’Malta, it-tfajla Ingliza qalet li normalment, irid ikun hemm generazzjoni, madwar 20 sena, biex jibdew jittiehdu passi, u milli rat, dan digà qieghed isehh.

Sostniet li jekk mhemmx l-edukazzjoni xierqa, kaz wiehed ta’ abort jista’ jkun il-bieb ghal-legalizazzjoni tal-abort.

Skont l-Uffiċċju Nazzjonali ghall-Istatistika u d-Dipartiment ghas-Sahha fir-Renju Unit, mill-1990 sal-2012 kien hemm 1,275 kaz ta’ nisa Maltin li ghamlu abort fl-Ingilterra jew Wales. Dan ifisser li fuq medda ta’ 22 sena, kull sena, 58 mara Maltija ghamlu abort.

Aisling tahdem ma’ Abort67, parti minn progett tal-Bioetika fl-Ingilterra, li jqajjem kuxjenza dwar kif persuna thares lejn l-abort.

Dr Miriam Sciberras minn Life Network, qalet li l-edukazzjoni ssir billi persuna tara l-verità, anke jekk ghas-soċjetà dan huwa tabù.

Sostniet li f’Malta hafna min-nies huma favur il-hajja, izda l-lingwagg qed jinbidel biex jahbi x’inhu l-abort, u ghalhekk hemm bzonn ta’ kampanja edukattiva.

Dr Sciberras fakkret li ghal kull ghazla hemm konsegwenza.

 

See source article, taken from Newsbook.com Julia Callus “Ta’ 12-il sena ghandhom ikunu jafu dwar l-abort”.

President of Malta Promises Not To Legalize Abortion – Hilary White

Malta’s recently-elected president, Marie Louise Coleiro Preca, told a delegation of pro-life advocates last week that her government would never legalize abortion.[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]During a “courtesy meeting” with Malta Unborn Child Movement (MUCM) an umbrella group representing 45 local organizations, the president said she is “personally dead set against” abortion and that as president, she would never sign such a legislation, MUCM said.

After the legalization of “limited” abortion in the Republic of Ireland, Malta became the last European nation, and one of the last in the world, to totally outlaw all abortion. The tiny Mediterranean country has been the target of decades of relentless pressure to legalize abortion at the international level.

A member of the group, and the co-founder of Life Network, the country’s newest pro-life activist organization, told LifeSiteNews.com that the president “realised that over the issue of abortion, although Malta does not enjoy a universal consensus, it was imperative that we all worked together in promoting the protection of the unborn child and against abortion.”

President Feels Encouraged Of Malta’s Life Shield

Dr. Miriam Sciberras told LifeSiteNews.com, “The President of Malta said she wanted the widest possible backing to combat the pro-abortion culture.” She added that the president’s words were “an encouraging pro-life shield against the anti-life movement that is being forcefully promoted both locally and abroad.”

“It’s very encouraging to have her say these things publicly. She could have chosen not to say anything, to stay silent or not invite us. If we had more people who are not ashamed to speak about these things I’m sure the situation would be much better.”

Malta Has Always Spoken Against Abortion, And So Has Labour

The president’s promise backs up another made by Leo Brincat, the Labour Party’s representative at the Council of Europe, who said in 2008 that there is “one unifying factor among the parties represented in our country’s parliament,” that “Malta has always spoken with one voice in its stand against abortion.”

“As for my party…there are no ifs or buts on this issue. The Malta Labour Party always was, is and will remain against abortion. The issue does not feature on our agenda.”

But the abortion mentality is growing in large segments of Maltese society, as the population, with little opposition from the clergy, slides slowly away from its historic Catholic roots. Despite an officially 98 percent Catholic population, Mass attendance has fallen dramatically in the last ten years, while during the period between 2002 and 2011, records from the UK’s Department of Health showed that 591 women travelled to Britain for abortions, a significant number in a country with a total population just over 420,000. No records are available on how many travel to nearby Italy for the same reason, though it is widely known that the practice is common.

Dr. Sciberras said the Life Network was founded this summer in response to the growth of this “anti-life mentality” that includes the contraceptive mentality and wider acceptance of the homosexualist “gender” ideology.

RU-486 (Morning After Pill) Discussed

Artificial contraceptives are nearly universally accepted, including hormonal contraceptives, despite the fact that their abortifacient nature is well known. Although the country still outlaws both the abortion drug RU-486 and the so-called morning-after pill, a 2012 article in the Malta Medical Journal showed that contraceptive use, including “barrier method, hormonal manipulation, and sterilisation” is common.

The effects of this new cultural paradigm can be seen in Malta’s falling total fertility rate, which stands at 1.45 children born per woman, far below the 2.1 required for maintaining a stable population.

Dr. Sciberras said, “We look at the growth of the anti-life mentality, which is pervasive. It’s everywhere. We know that we’re up against a change in lifestyle that is promoting the Culture of Death instead of the culture of life.”

First Priority Is Educational

“Our first priority is educational, showing people the meaning of being pro-life, that it is not just a statement, it’s a way of life,” she added.

Their first educational campaign will be to reach out to schools and parishes, and the group has already identified a core of students at the University of Malta to launch a project there. UofM already has active organizations on campus making posters and pamphlets available to students promoting homosexuality and the feminist ideologies.

She said her group wanted to take up the defense of all life, at all its stages and conditions, “be it with disability, with dementia… embracing the full spectrum of life.”

The Life Network

Life Network is also not restricting itself to issues related to abortion and euthanasia, but Dr. Sciberras says their dedication to the “full spectrum” includes the moral defense of the natural family based on marriage between one man and one woman. She acknowledges also that the government has embraced a contradiction with its pro-life position in its enthusiasm for the homosexualist agenda’s push towards “gay marriage.”

“‘Life issues’ take place within the context of the family,” she said. “You cannot protect a child without protecting his family. He comes from the union of a father and a mother.”

“It is the right of every child to have a father and a mother. This is a basic principle.” She says that there is a growing element in Maltese society that has moved away from these principles, and warned that it would lead to conflicts. “When you start compromising, you always get in trouble. You go against the natural law,” she added.

Responding to the recent passage by President Preca’s Labour government of the same-sex civil unions legislation, she said, “I know that a lot of things have been passed not with the consensus of all the people. Just because a government passes a law doesn’t mean it has the backing of the whole country.”

Maltese Legislation

Since the surprise legalization of divorce through a referendum in 2011, Malta’s laws on the nature of the family have changed with astonishing rapidity. This year saw the civil unions bill pass, and the country’s first same-sex civil unions registered. Last year, Helena Dalli, the Labour government’s Minister for Social Dialogue headed the Maltese delegation to a UN meeting in which she assured delegates that Malta’s “new Government was fully committed to the protection of the rights of LGBTI persons.”

This month saw the passage of the “transgender anti-discrimination” bill, as promised by Dalli at a “transgender” congress in Hungary in May. Dalli told that meeting that while her government’s focus had up until then been mainly on homosexuals, they would shortly be turning their attention to “trans” people.
She boasted that her government “amended the Constitution in such a way as to provide protection on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. I am told that we are the first country in Europe to have included an express reference to gender identity in the Constitution.”

This rapid succession of changes resulted in Malta being named by the EU’s leading homosexualist organization, ILGA Europe, one of the two “fastest climbers” among EU nations with regards to the goals of the organization.

Paulo Côrte-Real, co-chair of ILGA-Europe’s executive board, said in a statement attached to the organization’s Annual Review, “It is very encouraging to see countries like Malta and Montenegro make such huge progress in the space of one year. It shows that so much is possible when there is political leadership, especially when it is coupled with meaningful engagement of civil society.”

See source article, taken from LifeSiteNews.com Blogger Hilary White’s ‘ Malta’s president promises not to legalize abortion’.

You can learn more about Life Site News here and join their Facebook group here.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

‘Do you want us to let you die?’ – by Hilary White

“Do you want us to let you die?” It’s not exactly the sort of question one expects to hear when talking to a health professional when you’re living in a care home.

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]But that’s exactly what happens all the time, according to an article published by the Daily Mail this week, which says that it is becoming routine for nurses to ask elderly patients whether they “would agree” to a Do Not Resuscitate order.

The first thing I thought when I read it was, “Oh yes, they’ve been doing this sort of thing for ages. Why is it only becoming news now?” I still remember the day my dear friend John Muggeridg brought home a form they’d given him in the care facility where his wife, Anne Roche Muggeridge lived.

John and I had sat down to have our tea one day, and visibly upset, he showed me this form. It gave a long list of possible health care crises that Anne might suffer and asked John to mark down in each case what he wanted the facility’s response to be, on a scale of one to five. One of these asked whether he wanted her to receive antibiotic treatment in case of pneumonia, that killer of the elderly and fragile.

The kicker was when John told me that they had done this repeatedly, asking him to come into meeting after meeting to tell them whether he was “ready” to downgrade her care instructions. John, though sick with cancer himself, visited Anne every day, gently feeding her meals and praying the Rosary with her. He shook the form a bit as he said in his cultured Cambridge accent, “I want them to save her life! Every time it’s in danger!”

“It has become a common experience for people requiring medical care to be harassed if they decide they actually want medical care, and to be supported and encouraged if they decide they do not want further medical care.” John and Anne were important and influential figures in the Catholic pro-life scene in Canada through the 1980s, and it might strike a person as ironic that towards the end of her life, Anne, the author of two important books, was briefly threatened by that same Culture of Death she and John had fought so long. It was quite clear that the administration at this care home was trying to wear him down with these repeated requests for confirmation. I was so angry, and couldn’t help thinking, “Don’t these people know who this is?”

We called Alex Schadenberg, the head of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and he arranged to attend the next meeting, and together they “explained” that there would be no downgrading, and that Anne’s life was valuable, precious, even if she could no longer recognize anyone or speak, because it was Anne.

John said it was a kindly looking hospital administrator, a social worker and a nurse at the meetings. They would talk in the warmest possible tones, but the message was cold and hard. Let them die because they’re a burden.
The Mail reports now that in the UK mobile district nurses are being sent out from GP offices under instructions from the National Health Service, asking older people to fill out forms indicating whether a DNR is what they want. The NHS is claiming, with wide-eyed innocence, that these questionnaires are merely a means to “improve care of the elderly and keep them out of hospital,” but the Mail noted, “It is not clear why DNR is on the forms.”

They quoted Roy Lilley, a health policy analyst and former NHS trust chairman, whose mother was visited by a nurse with the form,” who “described the policy as callous.”

Lilly said, “Elderly, frail but otherwise healthy people are being asked, by complete strangers, to sign a form agreeing they shouldn’t be resuscitated. It is outrageous. People will be frightened to death thinking the district nurses know something they don’t and will feel obliged to sign the form so as not to be thought a nuisance.”

The Mail says Mr. Lilley is warning patients and their families not to sign the forms, saying that by doing so they are “signing their lives away.” He related the story of a meeting with a nurse at his mother’s care home who asked her “within a few minutes” “Where would you like to die,” and, “If you ever need cardiopulmonary resuscitation do you agree to do not resuscitate.”

The cultural power in Britain of “mustn’t grumble,” particularly among that generation of English people who were raised in the old manner and depended upon it to survive the War, cannot be underestimated. My mother, a war baby, was raised in that way, and raised me with the same attitude. Older people in Britain have it written into their base programming from infancy that “making a fuss” or calling attention to oneself is simply unthinkable. There is certainly a kind of English person who would, literally, rather die that make a fuss.

But this story from the UK is only the tiniest scratch of the great iceberg that passive euthanasia has become in elder care and long-term care facilities. Alex Schadenberg told me that this kind of unsubtle pressure is becoming common around the western world.

It is particularly common in places that have come to depend exclusively upon government-funded public medical care where the goal is to spend as little money as possible. There has been a lot written about the threat of “triaging” of older people whom the strict utilitarian principles of bioethics regard as economically worthless burdens.

“Sadly, the societal attitude towards the elderly and people needing care is worsening while the government is attempting to control medical costs by examining new ways to encourage people to refuse basic care,” Schadenberg told me.

“It has become a common experience for people requiring medical care to be harassed if they decide they actually want medical care, and to be supported and encouraged if they decide they do not want further medical care.”

I have often wondered how many men and women had been sat down in those offices where John Muggridge and Alex Schadenberg sat, and ever so gently pressured to change the instructions and “let them go”. How many were confused and persuaded by this friendly talk of “end of life care” and did not have the years of experience in the pro-life movement, or the rock solid moral principles the Muggeridges had held and defended like a bastion for so long. How many would not know who to call for advice and help?

See source article, taken from LifeSiteNews.com Blogger Hilary White’s: ‘Do you want us to let you die?’: The bleak new reality in care homes for the elderly’.

[/vc_column_text][tmq_hr][/vc_column][/vc_row]

2 Million Pro-Life Petition Vetoed

The largest petition, in the history of the European continent, calling for an end to European funding of research that destroys human embryos, was vetoed by the European Commission.

In its last day in office May 28th, the “Barroso Commission” vetoed the Citizens’ Initiative “Un de Nous / One of Us” which demands that Brussels no longer finances any practice that destroys human life before birth.

The petition, backed by two million people and the largest in the history of the European Institutions, calls on the EU research budget to no longer be used to finance projects that involve or pre-suppose the destruction of human embryos. In order to cease funding, it requests that modifications be made to EU regulations.

Read more on Zenit by clicking here.

We need your support in order to be able to spread the news on the value of life. Your donation will help us to educate people of all ages, organise pro-life seminars and buy books & materials to facilitate educate. Like every life is infinitely priceless, so is every donation. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts.

Life Network