Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓Less ↑
Allowing Catholic schools to teach the faith’s beliefs on abortion would be “misogyny” and cannot be allowed, according to a government official in Canada.
“We do not allow and we’re very clear with the passage of Bill 13 that Catholic teachings cannot be taught in our schools that violates human rights and which brings a lack of acceptance to participation in schools,” Education Minister Laurel Broten said at a recent press conference.
She was objecting to a previous news conference by three conservative lawmakers over abortion.
She said the apparent effort to “reopen the debate in Ontario about a woman’s right to choose” was “frankly disheartening.”
“I have always been clear that I support a woman’s right to choose,” the transcript reported she said. “I think it is critically important for Ontario women to understand that our government, our premier, premier [Dalton] McGuinty, that we support a woman’s right to choose. That debate is over, it has ended and it should stay that way.”
Responding to a question about whether conservative members of parliament have the right to their opinion on the subject, she said discussing the issue no longer is an option.
“We have a right to say what we wish. It’s absolute. But what I want to say is that in our province, the debate of the right of women to choose if they want an abortion or not, it’s their choice. It’s not the choice of a member who sits here and it’s [not] the choice of a leader who said he would not reopen the debate, to reopen it…”
Then a reporter asked a question about the nation’s Catholic school system, which “is teaching the kind of intolerant thought that we saw coming out of that press conference. They let kids out of school to go to anti-abortion rallies. Is that appropriate?”
Broten said, “As we have said on a number of times, in Ontario we support Catholic education, support the teaching of love and tolerance in our Catholic schools and at the same time support a woman’s right to choose.”
She was pressed by the reporter who asked, “Should schools be encouraging kids to go to anti-abortion rallies?”
“The Catholic teachings are one aspect that we teach in our schools, but we do not allow and we’re very clear with the passage of Bill 13 that Catholic teachings cannot be taught in our schools that violates human rights and which brings a lack of acceptance to participation in schools,” Broten was quoted saying.
“We must ensure that women, young girls in our schools, especially highlighted during the week … that young girls can make the choices that they make. This is not about being pro-abortion, it is about being pro-choice. And allowing young women to make the decisions that they need to make for themselves in concert with their doctor…”
She noted the same law – and standards – apply to the issue of teaching homosexuality.
“Bill 13 has in it a clear indication of ensuring that our schools are safe, accepting places for all our students. That includes LGBTQ students. … Bill 13 is about tackling misogyny, taking away a woman’s right to choose could arguably be one of the most misogynistic actions that one could take.”
Dr. Margaret Somerville, the founding director of McGill University’s Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, told LifeSiteNews it was an “appalling” violation of religious freedom.
She told the news agency, “If Bill 13 were interpreted in the way the minister suggests, in my opinion, it would be unconstitutional as offending freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and free speech, as well as contrary to parents’ obligations and rights with respect to their children, and so on.”
Steve Phelan, who is with Human Life International, said it was the “radical, secular leftists” trying to eliminate the rights of those with whom they disagree.
In the United States, pro-abortion and pro-homosexual activists have not yet reached Broten’s perspective. However, in California, which has probably the most pro-homosexual and pro-abortion agenda around, a law has been adopted that would prevent what therapists can tell their patients.
Specifically, it would ban counseling that would urge a change in a sexual orientation.
“Of all the freedom-killing bills we have seen in our legislature the last several years, this is among the worst,” said Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute.
“This outrageous bill makes no exceptions for young victims of sexual abuse who are plagued with unwanted same-sex attraction, nor does it respect the consciences of mental health professionals who work in a church.
“We are filing suit to defend families, children, and religious freedom,” he said. “This unprecedented bill is outrageously unconstitutional.”
California lawmakers have built a long reputation for promoting a free-sex atmosphere in public schools. Majority Democrats on a California state legislative committee at one point killed a plan that would have cracked down on intimate relationships between school teachers and their students.
The unsuccessful Assembly Bill 1861 would have made it a felony if any teacher or employee of a public or private school “engages in a sexual relationship or inappropriate communications with a pupil.”
“This is yet another reason for conscientious parents to flee the dysfunctional, immoral, and imploding government school system for church schools and home schools, which are much safer physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually,” Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, said at the time.
Thomasson’s group promotes the Rescue Your Child website, which encourages parents to seek out church schools or homeschooling options for their children.
His group explains that already in California’s public schools children as young as 5th and 7th grades are told they have the “individual” and “personal” right to engage in “respectful” sexual activity with anyone as long as it is consensual and males wear a condom.
California has adopted numerous sexual indoctrination bills, including SB48, which requires positive portrayals of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in public school social studies and history classes.
Others cited by Thomasson’s group:
SB 543, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2010, “allows school staff to remove children ages 12 and up from government schools and taken off-campus for counseling sessions, without parental permission or involvement. The purpose is to permit pro-homosexuality teachers and administrators to remove sexually confused children in 6th grade and up from campus and take them to pro-homosexuality counselors who will encourage them to embrace the homosexual lifestyle.”
ACR 82, approved by the California Legislature in 2010, “creates de facto ‘morality-free zones’ at participating schools (pre-kindergarten through public universities). Schools that become official ‘Discrimination-Free Zones’ will ‘enact procedures’ (including mandatory counseling) against students from pre-kindergarten on up who are accused of ‘hate,’ ‘intolerance,’ or ‘discrimination’.” What is the hate? Peacefully speaking or writing against the unnatural lifestyles choices of homosexuality and bisexuality.
SB 572, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2009, establishes “Harvey Milk Day” in K-12 California public schools and community colleges. In classrooms, schools and school districts that participate, children will now be taught to admire the life and values of late homosexual activist and teen predator Harvey Milk of San Francisco the month of May.
SB 777, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2007, prohibits all public school instruction and every school activity from “promoting a discriminatory bias” against (effectively requiring positive depictions of) transsexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality to schoolchildren as young as five years old. SB 777 means children will be taught their “gender” is a matter of choice.
AB 394, signed by Schwarzenegger in 2007, effectively promotes transsexual, bisexual and homosexual indoctrination of students, parents and teachers via “anti-harassment” and “anti-discrimination” materials, to be publicized in classrooms and assemblies, posted on walls, incorporated into curricula on school websites, and distributed in handouts to take home.
SB 71, signed by Gov. Gray Davis in 2003 and implemented in 2008 through the new “sexual health” standards approved by appointees of Schwarzenegger and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, teaches children as young as 5th grade that any consensual sexual behavior is “safe” as long as you “protect” yourself with a condom, and teaches children that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality is “normal.”
AB 1785, signed by Davis in 2000, required the California State Board of Education to alter the state curriculum frameworks to include and require “human relations education” for children in K-12 public schools, with the aim of “fostering an appreciation of the diversity of California’s population and discouraging the development of discriminatory attitudes and practices,” according to the state legislative counsel’s digest.
AB 537, signed by Davis in 1999, permits teachers and students to openly proclaim and display their homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality, even permitting cross-dressing teachers, school employees and student on campus, in classrooms, and in restrooms.
In honoring Milk, schools are advocating for the acceptance of what Milk sought: the entire homosexual, bisexual and cross-dressing agenda; a refusal to acknowledge sexually transmitted diseases spread by the behavior; his behavior as “a sexual predator of teenage boys, most of them runaways with drug problems”; advocacy for multiple sexual relationships at one time; and “lying to get ahead”; according to SaveCalifornia.com.
A 1982 biography of Milk tells of a 16-year-old named McKinley, who “was looking for some kind of father figure.”
“At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him,” the book says.
It also states, “It would be to boyish-looking men in their late teens and early 20s that Milk would be attracted for the rest of his life.”