International
Euthanasia advocates use deception to affect public’s perception of assisted suicide
From LifeSiteNews
Politicians claim that moral opposition to assisted suicide (or suicide in general) and euthanasia is religiously motivated and then make the leap to insisting that this means such opposition should be ignored.
Euthanasia activists are currently doing what they do best: the bait and switch.
As the debate heats up in the U.K., all of the familiar tactics are on display. First, of course, there is the relentless lying. Despite the case study of Canada, the Netherlands, and Belgium – and despite disability activists, judges, palliative physicians, and the secretaries of health and justice warning that no “safeguards” will hold – U.K. euthanasia activists are insisting that this time everything will be different.
The response to these critiques has been predictable but infuriating. Euthanasia activists insist that all of this is about religion – that those nasty Christians are, once again, seeking to impose their suffering-based theology on the country. (This despite the fact that even Ann Furedi, who heads up the U.K.’s second largest abortion provider, opposes the proposed assisted suicide law.) One good microcosmic example of this tactic comes from UK writer Julie Street, who posted to X (formerly Twitter):
Just walked out of Mass bloody fuming – our priest used the homily to read a letter from the Catholic bishops telling people to oppose the Assisted Dying Bill then handed out cards with our local MP’s details on to lobby them. Religion has no place in politics or women’s rights.
There is much to say in response, of course. Why is Street so surprised to discover that her Catholic priest and bishops are, in fact, Catholic? Is she ignorant of the religion that she at least appears to practice? How airtight does one’s mind have to be not to see assisted suicide and euthanasia as religious issues? Indeed, “euthanasia” is Greek for “good death” – the theological premises are baked right into the term. Or does Street think that religious people should shut their mouths in the political arena and voluntarily disenfranchise themselves as the fates of the weak are decided?
Is Street also ignorant of the fact that it was largely due to the Catholic Church’s public opposition that Adolf Hitler moved the Nazi’s euthanasia operation underground? (We now know, of course, that the Nazis only claimed to have disbanded the T-4 program.) I thought progressives wanted a Church that stood up for the weak, vulnerable, and dispossessed – and who qualifies more than the sick, elderly, and those with disabilities? Christians are accused of not being loving enough, and then rebuked when they stand up for the victims the political class deems expendable – first the unborn, now those on the other end of life’s spectrum.
But there’s more to this tactic than grating ignorance. Progressives like to play both sides of the fence. Take abortion, for example. Politicians like to claim that it is a religious issue, and that thus they cannot legislate against it due to the fact that we live in pluralistic societies. Many religious leaders are quite happy to follow this logic, claiming that since abortion is a political issue, it cannot be discussed in church. And all the while, the countless corpses of the aborted unborn pile up in the No Man’s Land between.
The assisted suicide debate is unfolding along similar lines. Politicians claim that moral opposition to assisted suicide (or suicide in general) and euthanasia is religiously motivated and then make the leap to insisting that this means such opposition should be ignored. Meanwhile, because politicians are debating the issue, folks like Street can claim that because this is now a political issue, priests and pastors should keep their traps shut. See what they did there? It’s a neat trick, and despite how farcical and illogical it is, it seems to work with maddening regularity.
In fact, the priest Julie Street had the good fortune to hear was standing in the tradition of the clergy who stood up against Adolf Hitler and his eugenicist gang – and fighting the same evil being advanced under many of the same premises, to boot. She should be grateful. If she can’t manage that, she should at least be better educated.
Quick Hit:
Bryan Kohberger will plead guilty to murdering four Idaho college students, avoiding a death sentence but leaving victims’ families without answers. The plea deal means he’ll spend life in prison without ever explaining why he committed the brutal 2022 killings.
Key Details:
- Kohberger will plead guilty at a hearing scheduled for Wednesday at 11 a.m. local time.
- The plea deal removes the possibility of death by firing squad but ensures life in prison without parole.
- Victims’ families say the state “failed” them by agreeing to a deal that denies them an explanation for the murders.
Diving Deeper:
Bryan Kohberger, a former PhD criminology student at Washington State University, is expected to plead guilty to the November 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students, sparing himself the death penalty but also avoiding any explanation for his motive. Idaho defense attorney Edwina Elcox told the New York Post that under the plea, Kohberger will have to admit to the killings but won’t have to provide a reason for his actions. “There is no requirement that he says why for a plea,” Elcox explained.
Prosecutors reached the plea deal just weeks before the scheduled trial, which many believed would have revealed the full details and motives behind the shocking quadruple homicide. Kohberger is accused of murdering Kaylee Goncalves, 21; Madison Mogen, 21; Ethan Chapin, 20; and Xana Kernodle, 20, with a military-style Ka-Bar knife as they slept in their off-campus home in Moscow, Idaho. His DNA was allegedly found on a knife sheath left at the scene.
The Goncalves family blasted the state for the deal, saying, “They have failed us.” They had hoped a trial would uncover why Kohberger targeted their daughter and her friends. Prosecutors, however, argued that the plea ensures a guaranteed conviction and prevents the years of appeals that typically follow a death sentence, providing a sense of finality and keeping Kohberger out of the community forever.
Sentencing will not take place for several weeks following Wednesday’s hearing, which is expected to last about an hour as the judge confirms the plea agreement is executed properly. While the families may find some closure in knowing Kohberger will never be free again, they are left without the one thing a trial could have provided: answers.
(AP Photo/Matt Rourke, Pool)
CBS will pay Donald Trump more than $30 million to settle a lawsuit over a 2024 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. The deal also includes a new rule requiring unedited transcripts of future candidate interviews.
Key Details:
- Trump will receive $16 million immediately to cover legal costs, with remaining funds earmarked for pro-conservative messaging and future causes, including his presidential library.
- CBS agreed to release full, unedited transcripts of all future presidential candidate interviews—a policy insiders are calling the “Trump Rule.”
- Trump’s lawsuit accused CBS of deceptively editing a 60 Minutes interview with Harris in 2024 to protect her ahead of the election; the FCC later obtained the full transcript after a complaint was filed.
Tonight, on a 60 Minutes election special, Vice President Kamala Harris shares her plan to strengthen the economy by investing in small businesses and the middle class. Bill Whitaker asks how she’ll fund it and get it through Congress. https://t.co/3Kyw3hgBzr pic.twitter.com/HdAmz0Zpxa
— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) October 7, 2024
Diving Deeper:
CBS and Paramount Global have agreed to pay President Donald Trump more than $30 million to settle a lawsuit over a 2024 60 Minutes interview with then–Vice President Kamala Harris, Fox News Digital reported Tuesday. Trump accused the network of election interference, saying CBS selectively edited Harris to shield her from backlash in the final stretch of the campaign.
The settlement includes a $16 million upfront payment to cover legal expenses and other discretionary uses, including funding for Trump’s future presidential library. Additional funds—expected to push the total package well above $30 million—will support conservative-aligned messaging such as advertisements and public service announcements.
As part of the deal, CBS also agreed to a new editorial policy mandating the public release of full, unedited transcripts of any future interviews with presidential candidates. The internal nickname for the new rule is reportedly the “Trump Rule.”
Trump initially sought $20 billion in damages, citing a Face the Nation preview that aired Harris’s rambling response to a question about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That portion of the interview was widely mocked. A more polished answer was aired separately during a primetime 60 Minutes special, prompting allegations that CBS intentionally split Harris’s answer to minimize political fallout.
The FCC later ordered CBS to release the full transcript and raw footage after a complaint was filed. The materials confirmed that both versions came from the same response—cut in half across different broadcasts.
CBS denied wrongdoing but the fallout rocked the network. 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens resigned in April after losing control over editorial decisions. CBS News President Wendy McMahon also stepped down in May, saying the company’s direction no longer aligned with her own.
Several CBS veterans strongly opposed any settlement. “The unanimous view at 60 Minutes is that there should be no settlement, and no money paid, because the lawsuit is complete bulls***,” one producer told Fox News Digital. Correspondent Scott Pelley had warned that settling would be “very damaging” to the network’s reputation.
The final agreement includes no admission of guilt and no direct personal payment to Trump—but it locks in a substantial cash payout and forces a new standard for transparency in how networks handle presidential interviews.
The Quiet Invasion: How Transnational Crime and Chinese State Actors Infiltrated Vancouver and Eroded Canada’s Sovereignty
RFK Jr. says Hep B vaccine is linked to 1,135% higher autism rate
Alberta Independence Seekers Take First Step: Citizen Initiative Application Approved, Notice of Initiative Petition Issued
National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in 324 Defendants Charged in Connection with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud
-
Business1 day ago
RFK Jr. says Hep B vaccine is linked to 1,135% higher autism rate
-
Crime2 days ago
National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in 324 Defendants Charged in Connection with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoGlobal media alliance colluded with foreign nations to crush free speech in America: House report
-
Business12 hours agoWhy it’s time to repeal the oil tanker ban on B.C.’s north coast
-
Health2 days agoRFK Jr. Unloads Disturbing Vaccine Secrets on Tucker—And Surprises Everyone on Trump
-
Alberta6 hours agoAlberta Provincial Police – New chief of Independent Agency Police Service
-
Alberta11 hours agoPierre Poilievre – Per Capita, Hardisty, Alberta Is the Most Important Little Town In Canada
-
Business1 day agoElon Musk slams Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ calls for new political party