‘Big Bang Theory’ Acknowledges Life in the Womb: ‘There’s a Baby in There!’

Screen shot of CBS's Big Bang Theory episode
titled "The Fetal Kick Catalyst"

Well, sometimes even Hollywood can get it right in a pro-abortion world. Thursday night’s episode of The Big Bang Theory acknowledges what should be obvious: being pregnant equals a baby.

“The Fetal Kick Catalyst,” opens with Howard (Simon Helberg) and Bernadette (Melissa Rauch) sleeping together. Howard rests his hand on Bernadette’s pregnant stomach and wakes up with great joy as he feels their baby’s kick. “There’s a baby in there,” he finally realizes.


After all, it was only a few months ago when NARAL objected to a Doritos ad that featured an ultrasound because it was “humanizing fetuses.” I can only imagine what they think of one of the biggest comedies in America “humanizing” a fetus by calling it a baby and showing it kick, especially when they’ve spent so much time defending late-term abortion after the last presidential debate. Pro-aborts have been so effective at dehumanizing human fetuses that it’s easy to forget we’re talking about living human beings.

So, hats off to CBS for showing that it’s not simply a fetus, but a person.

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

Pure, Selfless Love Saves Baby from Abortion on New CBS Drama ‘Pure Genius’

Screen shot of CBS’s new medical drama, Pure Genius

CBS’s new medical drama, Pure Genius, opened its series on Thursday with a pro-life message that was quite powerful.

Bunker Hill is opened as the most innovative hospital in the world, headed up by billionaire James Bell (Augustus Prew). Mr. Bell aims to partner futuristic technology with medicine to create an experience no other facility can provide.

Dr. Walter Wallace (Dermot Mulroney) is invited to visit Bunker Hill by Mr. Bell in hopes of getting him to join their staff. Dr. Wallace isn’t too sure of the hospital’s methods as they seem much different from what he’s used to.

Many patients are brought in and treated for various procedures. One such patient is Margot Beyer and her husband, Paul. Margot has a tumor that needs to be removed, but refuses radiation or chemotherapy because she is pregnant. The Beyers argue they will not consider abortion as an alternative, as Dr. Zoe Brockett (Odette Annable) suggests.

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

Grey’s Anatomy’ Uses Bad Medicine to Push Abortion on Dying Cancer Patient

Screen shot of ABC’s Grey’s Anatomy, episode titled “Roar"

In Thursday’s episode of ABC’s Grey’s Anatomy, titled “Roar,” a brave, determined pregnant cancer patient took a pro-life stance rather than be bullied into an abortion by the doctors at Grey-Sloan Memorial Hospital.

During a random, casual conversation in a courthouse security line between a pregnant woman in her sixteenth week named Veronica and Dr. Alex Karev (Justin Chambers), Karev noticed a rash on the pregnant woman’s hands and encouraged her to seek medical attention.

At the clinic later, test results showed Veronica had stage 4 pancreatic cancer – a terminal diagnosis – with less than a year to live, even with treatment. Unfortunately, the pressure began immediately for her to have an abortion so that her chemo and radiation could begin. Dr. Miranda Bailey (Chandra Wilson), Chief of Surgery, was not receptive to an alternative procedure that would try to keep the baby alive long enough to be born. She only saw one patient, when she should have seen two.

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

Dear Samantha Bee: Unfortunately, skull-stabbing is ‘a thing’

If there’s one thing you can count on from the media, it’s that when a pseudo-celebrity says something stupid that celebrates abortion, it will be lauded from the deserts of the Huffington Post to the wastelands of Salon.com as one of the most brilliant, prescient, and also hilarious monologues ever uttered by a kind-of-famous alleged comedian. Just lately, it’s been Bill Nye the Science Guy, Trevor Noah—he’s the guy at the Daily Show in charge of creating waves of nostalgia for Jon Stewart—and now, Samantha Bee, who hosts a charming show called “Full Frontal.”

Bee took umbrage at Donald Trump’s rather blunt description of partial-birth abortion as “ripping a baby out of the womb of its mother.” Bee and the rest of the media hive immediately went in to full damage control, lest anyone realize the gruesome truth about the procedure Hillary has spent her life promoting. Bee’s resulting monologue immediately garnered quite the buzz, as her friends in the media cackled with relief over her apparent “takedown” of Trump’s abortion comments.

Click here for more from LifeSiteNews

Hillary’s wrong again—Harvard poll shows strong Majority of Americans oppose using Medicaid funds for abortion

Pro-abortion Hillary Clinton

The list goes on and on and on. The public doesn’t agree with abortion maven Hillary Clinton on her support for partial-birth abortions and late term abortions, and her opposition to a ban on partial-birth abortion and parental involvement—to name just four items.

An a poll conducted for POLITICO Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health released today shows that she is on the wrong side of still another abortion-related issue. Americans overwhelmingly do not want their tax dollars syphoned off to pay for abortions. The margin among likely voters was a whopping 22 points—58% to only 36%.

Why is this significant? Because the question is really asking about the Hyde Amendment, a provision that is attached to the annual appropriations bill that covers many federal health programs (including Medicaid), which has stood the test of time and which Clinton and the Democrat Party is dead-set on eliminating. To quote the Democrat Party platform, “We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.”

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

What does it mean to be pro-life?

Every human being matters, and we ought to act accordingly

By Paul Stark via National Right to Life

The media often use the label “anti-abortion” to describe pro-life advocates. It’s true that we oppose abortion—and infanticide, euthanasia and embryo-destructive research. But we are only against those things because we are for something else.

What we are for

What are we for? We are for the proposition that human life is good, that it is worth living, that it deserves respect and protection. We are for the proposition that every human being has an equal worth and dignity—that every human being has a right to live.

The pro-life position rejects all attempts to divide humanity into those who have rights and those who don’t. Our society now recognizes that past discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity and social status was deeply unjust. We recognize that the worth of a human being does not depend on such characteristics.

Nor, however, does the worth of a human being depend on age, size, ability, dependency, stage of development or the desires and decisions of others. The big are not more valuable than the small. The strong do not have more rights than the weak. The independent do not matter more than the vulnerable and needy.

No, we have value and a right to life simply because we are human—not because of what we can do, but because of what (the kind of being) we are. That’s why everyone matters. Everyone counts.

What we are against

It is because we support equal human dignity that we oppose the intentional killing of innocent human beings. And that means we oppose abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and embryo-destructive research.

Pro-lifers oppose abortion because it takes the life of a human being before he or she is born. The scientific facts of embryology and developmental biology make clear that the unborn (the human embryo or fetus) is a distinct and living human organism, a full-fledged (though immature) member of the species Homo sapiens. Each of us was once an embryo and a fetus, just as we were once infants, toddlers and adolescents.

And all human beings, at all stages, have a right to life, whether or not they are “wanted” or “convenient.”

We oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide because killing is never the answer to the difficulties of life. All human beings should receive our compassion and care, irrespective of disease, disability or perceived “quality of life.”

We oppose embryonic stem cell research (but not adult or non-embryonic stem cell research) and human cloning because they require the destruction of human embryos. Human embryos are human beings in the embryonic phase of life. And all human beings, regardless of appearance or location (e.g., a petri dish), ought to be treated with respect and not as mere raw material to use for the hypothetical benefit of others.

Living our conviction

But being pro-life is about more than just holding an ethical position. To be truly pro-life means to live and act accordingly.

It means treating other people with dignity and respect—even those with whom we disagree. It means helping pregnant women in need and those who suffer from illness or disability.

It means recognizing the moral gravity and scale of abortion—the premier injustice and leading cause of death in American society today—and taking action to save lives. Educating ourselves, talking to others, persuading them. Supporting pro-life educational and legislative efforts through organizations.

Being pro-life, ultimately, is about loving others, especially the most vulnerable. It is about loving our neighbors as we love ourselves. And love isn’t just a feeling. It is a commitment.

United Nations: Promotion of Access to Abortion for Refugees and Migrants

The United Nations General Assembly during the first ever Summit for Refugees and Migrants adopted the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants which “expresses the political will of world leaders to save lives, protect rights and share responsibility on a global scale.” The Declaration includes commitments “to address current issues and to prepare the world for future challenges, including, among other things, to start negotiations leading to an international conference and the adoption of a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration in 2018.”

A close examination of the noble sounding declaration, however, reveals that one group will not have their lives saved or their rights protected-unborn children.

In a long list of commitments, the Declaration regrettably includes in point #31 a commitment to “provide access to sexual and reproductive health-care services”. Abortion is considered by most to be a “reproductive health-care service”.

The following day, the insidious promotion of abortion was confirmed as a draft companion set of principles was released by Kate Gilmore, UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights and a former director of Amnesty International. Gilmore explained that the Principles and Guidelines, supported by practical guidance, on the human rights protection of migrants in vulnerable situations within large and/or mixed movements is meant to provide “brave principled leadership” to put the ideals expressed in the Declaration into practice.

One section is especially troubling for its inclusion of abortion. Principle 12: “Right to health” states in Guideline #4:

“Provide access to rights-based, comprehensive and integrated sexual and reproductive health information and services, including, inter alia, safe and effective methods of modern contraception; emergency contraception; maternal health care including emergency obstetric services, pre- and post-natal care; safe abortion care; prevention, treatment, care and support for sexually transmitted infections including HIV, and specialized care for survivors of sexual violence. Provide, as a priority, a minimum initial service package for reproductive health.”

The 20 draft principles are being developed by Global Migration Group’s Working Group on Human Rights and Gender which is co-chaired by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and UN Women, two UN entities known for pro-abortion activism.

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

Famous rapper rejects abortion, celebrates infant daughter’s brief life

 Puerto Rican rapper
Wisin
(Juan Luis Morera Luna)

Late last month, Puerto Rican rapper Wisin (Juan Luis Morera Luna) took to social media to announce the passing of his one-month-old daughter, Victoria. Victoria was diagnosed in utero with Trisomy 13, a terminal chromosomal abnormality. Many parents who receive trisomy diagnoses are pressured to abort their children, and Wisin and his wife, Yomaira, were no exception.

In a statement shared by Puerto Rican media, Yomaira explained that aborting their daughter was never an option:

“Victoria has fulfilled every single one of her purposes since the day that we found out about her,” Yomaira said. “We give thanks to God for our decision to have her without caring what would happen, because we know that God knows what is best.”

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

Hillary supports abortion ‘at 9 months’: Trump doubles down in new interview

In a new interview, Donald Trump doubled down on his criticism of Hillary Clinton for supporting late-term abortion.

“If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby,” Donald Trump said. “Now, you can say that that’s okay, and Hillary can say that that’s okay, but it’s not okay with me because based on what she’s saying and based on where she's going and where she's been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day, and that’s not acceptable.” 

Click here for more from LifeSiteNews.com

O’Reilly is right: We have no moral authority if we don’t protect the preborn

Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly of The O’Reilly Factor addressed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s stance in favor of late-term abortion from Wednesday night’s debate.

In his Talking Points Memo to open the program, he mentioned:

Now, it’s somewhat shocking and I mean that, shocking, that Hillary Clinton would support late-term, partial-birth abortion citing the health of the mother. As we saw in Kansas and in Pennsylvania, the health of the mother could be anything. There are corrupt doctors who will abort for money on the most flimsy of physical excuses. In a humane country, the unborn must be protected to some extent by the government. Otherwise, we don’t have any moral authority on anything.



Click here for more from LifeSiteNews.com

Baby LynLee Hope, born twice, survives risky in utero surgery and is now thriving

The Boemer Family

Imagine, if you can, what was going through Margaret Boemer’s mind. The Lewisville, Texas mom had already lost one of her unborn twins before the second trimester when doctors recommended she abort the second twin.

Why? Because the baby girl, who was by then 16-weeks old, had a tumor on her spine, according to Elizabeth Koh of the News Tribune:

The tumor, they told her, was a sacrococcygeal teratoma, a rare tumor affecting one of up to 70,000 births. It was drawing blood away from her baby and could cause heart failure before she was born.

But Boemer and her husband flatly refused.

Often such surgery is postponed until after the baby is born, but that was not an option. “At 23 weeks, the tumour was shutting her heart down and causing her to go into cardiac failure, so it was a choice of allowing the tumour to take over her body or giving her a chance at life,” she told the BBC. (A sacrococcygeal teratoma is a tumor that grows from an unborn baby’s tailbone.)

“It was an easy decision for us: We wanted to give her life.” She added, ““We knew that if we didn’t choose the option of emergency surgery that night, that within a day or so she would pass.”

Still, doctors gave the baby, Lynlee Hope, only a 50-50% chance.

And the surgery, performed at Texas Children’s Fetal Center, proved to be extremely complicated. Lynlee Hope almost died.

According to Koh,

The complicated and risky surgery nearly went awry as doctors tried to remove the tumor with a “huge” incision, said doctor Darrell Cass, who was part of the operation. The baby, weighing just 1 pound and 3 ounces during the surgery, was “hanging out in the air” as they cut away the mass and her heart nearly stopped — though a cardiologist kept her alive.

LynLee Hope Boemer

Doctors then placed Lynlee Hope (who weighed 1lb 3oz at the time of the surgery) back in her mother’s womb, and sewed up the opening. Twelve weeks later–on June 5–she was delivered again, this time by Caesarean section, weighing 5 pounds and 5 ounces.

Lynlee subsequently underwent a second surgery to remove the remaining tumor on her spine. Now four months old, “Baby Boemer is still an infant but is doing beautiful,” Darrell Cass, the co-director of the Texas Children’s Fetal Centre told the BBC.

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

Life-Saving Center, Mobile Ultrasound Unit Awaiting Free Speech Ruling in Illinois

From left to right, Liz Feehan (administration),
Amanda O’Neil (Mobile Unit Director),
Tiffany Staman (Executive Director),
Wymetta Crull (Nurse),
Aimee Orem (Director of Education)
and Karyn McDonald (Center Director).
Missing is Simone Locklund, Nurse Manager.
Photo Courtesy: Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford

A lawsuit was nowhere on Tiffany Staman’s radar when she joined Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford (Illinois] as executive director back in 2014.

But, two years later, that’s exactly where Staman and her center find themselves, as named plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner challenging his ratification of a law this summer that attempts to force pro-life pregnancy centers like Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford to refer for abortions.

Rewriting the state’s Healthcare Right of Conscience Act to compel as many as 150 pregnancy help locations (the law’s broad language leaves its scope undefined) to keep an updated list of local abortion providers available to clients upon request, Democrats passed the bill on a party-line vote before Gov. Rauner—a Republican—signed it into law at the end of July.

Just days after the law—set to go into effect Jan. 1, 2017—was signed, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a lawsuit in state court, representing Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford, as well as another pregnancy help organization, Aid for Women, and a life-affirming ob-gyn.

While Staman and her center, along with their fellow plaintiffs, await the next steps in the lawsuit, ADF also filed suit in a federal court, representing National Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), along with three more Illinois pregnancy help centers and an ob-gyn.

Amid the challenge in the courts to what ADF argues is a “classic example of compelled speech in violation of… Free Speech rights as protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,” Heartbeat International—a network of over 2,000 pregnancy help organizations to which Pregnancy Care Center belongs—has urged its Illinois affiliates to refuse to comply with the law.

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

Clinton's radical abortion 'wall' alienates Latinos

With a little more than two weeks until the election, presidential candidates are making their final pitches to voters across the U.S. – and pro-lifers are still talking about the stark differences between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on the abortion issue. Trump articulated his pro-life beliefs clearly; Clinton was just as clear on her support for abortion:

Clinton: "I strongly support Roe v. Wade. In this case, it's not only about Roe v. Wade. So many states are putting very stringent regulations on women that block them from exercising that choice. I will defend Planned Parenthood. I will defend Roe v. Wade."

"She constructed an impermeable wall that alienates her from the Latino electorate and from the Christian electorate with her unbridled support of abortion, including late-term abortions," Rev. Samuel Rodriguez of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference explains.



Click here for more from OneNewsNow.

The Sanger Hillary doesn't want voters to know

Margaret Sanger

Even though many pro-life advocates and African Americans called Clinton to reject and denounce the Margaret Sanger Award she received in the not-so-distant past, the former first lady ignored such pleas in order to press forward with her extremist pro-abortion agenda and champion the so-called “women’s reproductive rights” movement.

With the 2016 election also coinciding with Planned Parenthood’s 100th anniversary, more attention is being drawn to Sanger’s 1947 video that resurfaced in 2014, where the notorious eugenicist made the demand for “no more babies” to be born in developing nations for 10 years.

During the last election year, Sanger was named (postmortem) one of TIME magazine’s 2012 “20 Most Influential Americans of All Time” – the same year President Barack Obama, who pro-life leader Dr. James Dobson dubbed “the abortion president,” won his second straight election bid.

Click here for more from OneNewsNow.

Trump hit a very sensitive nerve when accurately describing Clinton’s abortion extremism

In talking straightforwardly about Clinton’s extremist times two position on abortion, Donald Trump had struck a very sensitive nerve.

The story line is that Trump implied there is a torrent of late-term abortions–and by “late,” critics mean the last week.

He said nothing of the sort. Trump talked about what Hillary Clinton has said–and how she had voted as a United Senator. There weren’t hypotheticals, these were indisputable facts and logical conclusions Trump rightly drew from Clinton’s behavior.

For example, questioned by Fox News moderator Chris Wallace, Clinton didn’t deny she’d voted [multiple times, in fact] against a ban on partial-birth abortions. Instead, as pro-abortionists always do, she skipped acknowledging that and immediately went to the most extreme cases, even though–as NRLC pointed years ago– Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, told the New York Times in 1997: “In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along.”

How about her backup escape clause–the need for a “health exception”? Even abortion advocates, when pressed, on occasion will grudgingly acknowledge that this “exception” is infinitely elastic: there is no abortion for which an “exception” cannot be found.

What about Trump’s comment after Clinton responded, which pro-abortion critics jumped on?

Well I think it is terrible. If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month you can take [the] baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, you can say that that is okay and Hillary can say that that is okay, but it’s not okay with me. Because based on what she is saying and based on where she’s going and where she’s been, you can take [the] baby and rip the baby out of the womb. In the ninth month. On the final day. And that’s not acceptable.

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

Several state-level measures may have national consequences for physician-assisted suicide

Jennifer Popik

By Jennifer Popik, JD, Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics

Over the past few years, battles have raged in nearly every state legislature over the controversial topic of physician-assisted suicide. Currently, bills are imminent in New Jersey and the District of Columbia. On the ballot this November in Colorado, voters will decide Initiative 145, known as the “Medical Aid in Dying Proposal.”

While these bills will pose an immediate danger to vulnerable groups within those states, there is a real threat that these laws will spread to more states quickly, or even produce a new Supreme Court challenge.

Nearly every state in the U.S. prohibits assisting in another’s suicide. However, as part of an initial effort to expand euthanasia, assisted suicide advocates, principally Compassion and Choices, have focused on pushing a carve-out that allows doctors to prescribe a lethal prescription to a supposedly terminally ill and competent patient who overdoses on the drugs. These laws frequently bear some sort of misleading moniker such as “death with dignity” or “aid in dying.”

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

How can you be pro-life but not vote pro-life?

By Jean Garton via National Right to Life.

Columnists and late-night comedians are having a field day with the way political candidates bob and weave on issues. A popular cartoon strip even featured one candidate in the shape of a waffle.

Yet many Americans themselves are inconsistent and “waffle” on issues. Some of them, for instance, who hold a pro-life view, repeatedly vote against that conviction.

When asked why the dichotomy between who they say they are and how they vote, they give a variety of reasons. “Out of party loyalty,” say some or because they agree with a pro-choice candidate on other issues. “I don’t believe in being a single-issue voter,” state many.

Sorry, but that won’t pass the “smell” test, and it’s no excuse for having misplaced priorities. Certainly abortion is just one issue, but it is a fundamental issue, an essential issue, a life and death issue.

Would we vote for someone who is “good” on issues like crime but who also condones child abuse? Isn’t that what abortion is – the first and worst abuse any child can suffer at the hands of an adult.

Would we vote for someone who is “good” on issues like job creation but who also affirms the “job” of being an abortionist? How pro-life is that?

A current TV commercial includes pictures with captions that read: “If you say you’re a cook, but don’t cook, you’re not a cook.” “If you say you’re a fire-fighter, but don’t fight fires, you’re not a fire-fighter.” “If you say you’re a coach, but don’t coach, then you’re not a coach.”

What if the next photo featured a line of people holding pro-life signs, but the caption says: “If you say you’re pro-life, but don’t vote pro-life, you’re not pro-life.” Is it even possible to be pro-life in name only?

Candidates who are pro-life have a respect and compassion for the most defenseless in our midst. Whatever other political and social issues they might embrace, they have the reasoning ability to cut through deceptive rhetoric that hides what abortion is and does.

Pro-life candidates at all levels are concerned with the future rather than with a quick fix to difficult problems. They are willing to stand for what is right rather than for what is politically expedient or politically correct.

How can a candidate who condones the violent, painful destruction of helpless unborn children be trusted to protect our rights and interests when it comes to other issues?

“I’m pro-life, but I’m not a single issue voter?” That just doesn’t pass the “smell test.” It doesn’t even pass the “straight-face” test.

Students expose abortion's horrid truth before election

During this election cycle, Students for Life of America is conducting their brand-new Cycle of Corruption tour at 60 campuses nationwide.

Students for Life of America Vice President Tina Whittington says that his organization is targeting millennials – many of whom will be voting for president for the first time.

"We're trying to wake them up to the fact that there is a cycle of corruption that Planned Parenthood is contributing to because they're basically buying political advocates who then ensure that they continue to get over $500 million of our tax dollars every year," Whittington explained.

Contact: Bob Kellogg via OneNewsNow.com

Click here for more from OneNewsNow.

New Online Documentary for Teenage Girls about Abortion Health Risks Creating Problems for Pro-choice Legislators, Malpractice Insurers, and Physicians

A new free online TED talks length (17 minutes) documentary points out that legislators, malpractice insurers, and physicians cannot support abortion because of the procedure's long list of documented serious health risks to women; immediate and delayed, emotional and physical.

The documentary, "Wounded and Abandoned in 17 minutes," in addition to presenting 7 health risks of abortion, explains that legislation legalizing abortion came out of the idea that abortion was safer than childbirth. But there are no reliable statistics in the USA to support that. In countries where there are reliable statistics researchers discover the theory is false: Producer B. Keith Neely with his medical script consultant Brent Rooney, present ten meta-studies ("Study of Studies") that demonstrate beyond argument abortion's serious health risks, while no meta-studies whatsoever have cleared it as the relatively benign procedure proponents say it is. Neely adds that "It is astounding that legislators around the world perpetrate, for the apparent protection of women, a long dispelled theory" and notes that the research has been repeatedly validated as accurate in the courtroom. Neely asks how the so called objective media can portray that research as "myths and lies" while failing to expose the real "myths and lies" that are foundational to the abortion industry.

The documentary confronts physicians with their legal obligation to fully explain the health risks to a patient - even if they don't agree with the risks- or face losing their medical malpractice insurance just when they need it in a courtroom. Medical malpractice insurers are at risk of class action because few women have been informed of the risks.

The documentary, includes detailed, medically accurate, but family friendly (not gruesome) animation of the procedure as it walks the viewer through seven different ways a woman's present and future health can be damaged, along with the health of future children.



Click here for more from Christian Newswire.

Contact: B. Keith Neely, Wounded and Abandoned, 416-464-0445

Catholic university blasts ‘Unborn Lives Matter’ posters as ‘bigotry,’ bans them on campus

College Republicans at DePaul University were prohibited by the university president from displaying posters on campus advertising their group with the pro-life message, “Unborn Lives Matter” by Vincentian Father Dennis Holtschneider who indicated on Friday in a letter that the “Unborn Lives Matter” message constituted “bigotry” occurring “under the cover of free speech,” The Daily Wire reports even though they followed protocol in submitting the design for approval.

However, the request made its way to Father Holtschneider, who responded that the administration would protect the university community from the pro-life message’s bigotry.

Click here for DePaul's Guiding Principles on Speech and Expression literature.

Click here for more from LifeSiteNews.com

Click here for more from The Daily Wire