Same-Sex marriage is "Anthropological Regression"... the Military struggling to accommodate its political correctness!!! ...Closing in on Abortion...finally!

Pope Francis Affirms Same-Sex Marriage Is 'Anthropological Regression'

by Dr. Susan Berry 4 Jan 2014 

A Maltese bishop said that in a private conversation with Pope Francis about same-sex marriage and adoption of children, the pontiff affirmed to him that same-sex marriage is “an anthropological regression.”

According to the National Catholic Register, Auxiliary Bishop Charles J. Scicluna of Malta said in an interview in Avvenire, the Italian bishops’ newspaper, that he had expressed to the pope his concern about proposed legislation in his country to permit same-sex couples the right to adopt children.
“The Pope showed his sadness at this development, especially on the question of adoption,” said Scicluna.

I told him that the promoters [of the bill] quote his words: “If a person is gay and seek the Lord and have good will, who am I to judge?” but they don’t quote his words from 2010 when he was still Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires. The Pope repeated the phrase of his letter of 2010: “It's an anthropological regression."

In 2010, when Pope Francis was archbishop of Buenos Aires, then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio referred to same-sex marriage as an “anti-value and an anthropological regression.”

Similarly, in a conversation with Rabbi Abraham Skorka published in the book On Heaven and Earth, Francis said same-sex marriage is a weakening of the institution of marriage – that has existed for thousands of years – and is “forged according to nature and anthropology.”

Scicluna, who acted as a justice at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the new Maltese socialist government, elected last March, vowed to advance the causes of gay activists, including same-sex unions.

The bishops of Malta have responded to the proposed legislation by affirming Catholic doctrine which states that while homosexual activity itself is sinful, “pastoral closeness to everyone, including homosexual people,” is required.

Similar to the report given by Scicluna regarding use of Pope Francis’ words to support the same-sex lobby in his country, the Chicago Tribune reported in November that two Catholic Illinois state representatives, House Speaker Michael Madigan and Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia, cited the pontiff’s words to justify their decision to vote in support of same-sex marriage in their state.

Despite Pope Francis’ continued affirmation of Catholic doctrine regarding same-sex marriage as “anti-value and an anthropological regression,” in December, gay magazine The Advocate named Pope Francis its “Person of the Year.”

As Breitbart News reported, The Advocate cited the pope’s same words, “If someone is gay and seeks the Lord with good will, who am I to judge?” to justify its decision to depict Pope Francis in sharp contrast to his predecessors, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
The Advocate referred to Pope Francis’ words as a “stark change in rhetoric” that are a sign that “LGBT Catholics who remain in the church now have more reason to hope that change is coming.”

Women Can't Do Pull-Ups, Soldiers Don't Fit into Uniforms, and Other Unspoken Truths About Unfit America

by Daniel J. Flynn 4 Jan 2014 

The Marine Corps has delayed implementation of its new fitness plan requiring women do three pull-ups because a majority of female recruits failed to pass the standard. Why not delay the roll out of women in combat instead?

“I don’t think it’s a very high bar,” Marine Capt. Ann G. Fox told the New York Times upon the February announcement of closing the gap between male and female physical fitness tests. “I think the test should be the same as the men 20 pull-ups. People train to what they’re tested on.”

The fact that 55 percent of female recruits failed the pull-up portion of the fitness test failed by just one percent of male recruits suggests that the disparity involves something beyond training to the test. Decreeing the integration of combat units is an easier task than decreeing upper-body-strength equality. The Marines could vanquish the Barbary Pirates and the guardians of Chapultepec Castle. They can’t defeat biology.
The delusional egalitarianism behind the new fitness standard obscures a much greater problem facing military readiness: recruits of both sexes increasingly falter at basic fitness tests at which their predecessors once excelled. “What we were finding was that the soldiers we’re getting in today’s Army are not in as good shape as they used to be,” Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling told the New York Times in 2010. “This is not just an Army issue. This is a national issue.”

Indeed, it is. Children, whether because of a thinning of their ranks or the specter of neighborhood molesters, rarely engage in unsupervised outdoor play any more. Hordes of kids riding bikes, playing stickball, or shooting hoops is as much of an anachronism as listening to eight-tracks. Kids seemingly play sports on the computer more than they play sports with their friends. Gym class and recess feel the squeeze from other schoolhouse priorities. The virtual world of the internet steals time from the actual world in backyards and playgrounds. Rougher sports, particularly football, have been strangely crusaded against at a time when the bellies rather than the brains of young people remain the paramount public health concern. A society paranoid of bodily injury fails to grasp that the most dangerous activity is inactivity.

Paradoxically, America watches more sports than at any point in history as children participate in sports, at least on a spontaneous, neighborhood level, in fewer numbers than at any point in memory. This, combined with dietary habits that imagine Mountain Dew and Red Bull as a new food group, has had terrible consequences for the armed forces—and America. Whereas the federal government judged about one in twenty teens obese four decades ago, they dub almost one in five teens obese today. Fatty Arbuckle and Fats Domino would surely need new nicknames had they risen to fame in the 21st century.

But like the pull-up test that failed, the military have flunked their fitness tests rather than their fitness test-takers.

• The Army unveiled a new program in 2010 featuring fewer sit-ups and distance running and more stretching and balancing in order to curb injuries and accustom increasingly weak and flabby recruits to exercise. “We know kids today are less fit,” one of the new fitness regimen’s designers told the New York Times. “We have to adjust.”

• Air Force fitness standards implemented in 2013 no longer assign automatic failures to Buddha bellies (men with 39-inch waists or women with 35-inch waists).

• Plastic surgeons report an uptick in military personnel seeking liposuction to pass branch body-size mandates.

• The number of soldiers discharged by the Army for fatness increased tenfold in the last five years.

• “Too Fat to Fight,” a report issued by 100 retired admirals and generals, noted that more than a quarter of 17- to 24-year-olds—the recruiting demographic for the armed forces—are too fat to serve.

The military can’t remake women as men. America can reorient its fitness priorities for its children and transcend collective neuroses regarding the outdoors and body contact. Our phobias about sending our kids outside have resulted in greater threats than even the neighborhood boogeyman. One such realized threat, hardly the most ominous, is a decline in military readiness.

The Marine Corps deserves blame that their female recruits can’t do pull-ups as much as it deserves blame for the failure of its male recruits to have babies. But they’ll continue to make the mistake of correcting this mistake. Marines adapt and overcome. But there’s no overcoming Mother Nature. There’s only adapting to her.
Unfortunately, in a world of digital distractions and super-sized meals, adapting to Mother Nature has never been so universally regarded as maladaptive.

More pro-life laws passed in last two years than in the previous decade, pro-abortion study finds

by Kirsten Andersen Fri Jan 03, 2014 15:00 EST

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 3, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – According to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion think tank with connections to Planned Parenthood, 2013 was a banner year for pro-life legislation, capping a three-year trend that saw more laws passed limiting abortion than in the previous 10 years combined.
According to the group's year-end report, 205 new abortion restrictions became law in the last three years, 70 in 2013 alone, making last year second only to 2011 as the most pro-life year across the state legislatures since Roe v. Wade.

In the decade 2001-2010, only 189 similar restrictions were enacted.  “This legislative onslaught has dramatically changed the landscape for women needing abortion,” the report’s authors stated. “The overwhelming preponderance of legislation concerning abortion was aimed at restricting access to the procedure.”

The report went on to attack four types of pro-life laws that the authors said “dominated the legislative scene during 2013: abortion bans, restrictions on abortion providers, limitations on the provision of medication abortion, and restrictions on coverage of abortion in private health plans.”

In particular, the group objected to two early abortion bans passed by Arkansas and North Dakota, states that they accused of “overtly flouting the standard established by Roe v. Wade.” In Arkansas, the state legislature overrode the governor’s veto to enact a ban on all abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy. In North Dakota, a “fetal heartbeat” law banned all abortion after a baby’s heartbeat can be detected, something Guttmacher’s researchers admitted “generally occurs at about six weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period.” Both laws are currently being challenged in court.

Additionally, the group lamented the introduction of 11 separate pain-capable unborn child protection bills, three of which passed during 2013 (in Arkansas, North Dakota and Texas). Nine states now have such laws, which ban abortions after 20 weeks based on mounting scientific evidence that babies at that stage of development have nervous systems developed enough to recognize and feel pain – an assertion the report’s authors dismissed as a “spurious belief.”

Guttmacher’s researchers also complained about increasingly tough safety regulations around the country aimed at holding abortion facilities to the same standards as other outpatient surgical facilities. The report’s authors call the improved safety standards “TRAP laws” (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers), and say the new regulations are “onerous and irrelevant” and “designed to discourage medical professionals from providing abortion and make it impossible for clinics to remain open.”

A total of eight states tightened restrictions on abortion centers last year, many in the wake of a string of shocking court cases, clinic closures, and undercover videos showing the lax or nonexistent safety standards that appear to be the rule at such facilities – including West Philadelphia’s “House of Horrors,” where abortionist Kermit Gosnell both killed and maimed patients, as well as murdering babies born alive after botched procedures, a crime for which he is now serving three consecutive lifetime sentences.
Another target of Guttmacher’s ire was a trend toward limiting or banning so-called “telemed” abortions, in which abortionists prescribe dangerous abortion drugs by video conference or phone, without a physical exam and with no in-person follow-up.

“Despite the fact that telemedicine is rapidly gaining acceptance as a way to expand access to [abortion],” the group’s authors wrote, “over the course of the year, seven states (Alabama, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, and Texas) enacted laws effectively banning the use of telemedicine for medication abortion. In addition, the Iowa Board of Medicine adopted regulations prohibiting the use of telemedicine for medication abortion.”

The group also blasted states for moving to require abortionists to follow FDA guidelines when prescribing abortion-inducing drugs, which limit the prescription of abortifacients to the first 49 days of pregnancy and require a physical examination by a doctor. The reporters called the FDA protocol “outdated” and complained that it was inconvenient for abortion-minded women, both reducing the window of time for them to obtain chemical abortions as well as forcing them to make “an extra trip to the clinic” to ensure their safety.

Other pro-life laws objected to by Guttmacher’s researchers included bans on insurance coverage and public funding for abortion, parental consent laws, waiting periods, ultrasound, and counseling requirements, and even a conscience clause passed in North Carolina allowing health care facilities and medical professionals to refuse to participate in abortions. The group even complained about laws aimed at stopping sex-selection abortions, calling such laws a “problem-and-solution mismatch.”