A Child's Right to Mom and Dad: Why Kids of Gays Oppose Gay Adoption

by Susan Fox

When I was living in the Alps in Grenoble, France, in 1974, a group of school children – following their adult teacher -- skied off a cliff and died.

So go the lemmings behind the American Psychological Association and similar organizations around the world, which say that same-sex couples can raise mentally healthy children equally as well as opposite-sex attracted married couples.

“The research shows that same-sex couples are similar to heterosexual couples in essential ways and that they are as likely as opposite-sex couples to raise mentally healthy, well-adjusted children,” the APA said in a brief challenging the California Marriage Protection Act, Proposition 8, which was overturned in the U.S. Supreme Court June 26, 2013.  

The Supreme Court overturned the marriage act  -- passed by a majority of California voters to uphold marriage between one man and one woman -- but it did not impose gay marriage on the entire U.S. population. Nevertheless, the court hinted that they might do so in the future – just as they did with abortion in 1973 -- if the right case was brought before them. Wink. Wink. It's coming soon Nationwide. Cases are winding their way up to the Supreme Court and 19 states have legal same-sex marriage.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? 

Gay “marriage” -- right or wrong -- is a critical issue for our time because marriage always comes with the right to “have”

children. I say “have” and not “bear” because for obviously reasons, gay couples cannot “bear” children.  Nature has not given them this ability.

So should they be allowed to marry and “obtain” children through in-vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, sperm donors, adoption or inherit them as often happens when a divorcee moves in with a same-sex partner?

Increasingly, it is becoming more difficult to hold the opinion that gays should not be allowed to raise children. Witness what happened to Barilla Pasta when Chairman Guido Barilla said that children should be raised by a mother and a father. Now he is busy apologizing to the gay community while his pasta is boycotted.

Yet the people who are most outspoken against gay marriage and gays raising children are the very children the gays raised.  “I have heard of the supposed ‘consensus’ on the soundness of same-sex parenting from pediatricians and psychologists, but that consensus is frankly bogus” bi-sexual Robert O. Lopez told Life Site News.

SAME SEX PARENTING IS CHILD ABUSE

Lopez – raised by two lesbians – says same-sex parenting is child abuse, nothing more, nothing less. “I don’t have a silver bullet for suddenly making low-information Americans aware that all the same-sex parenting propaganda is really a cover for systematic abuse (of children). My hunch, however, is that it might be time simply to drop all the masks, and just state the uncensored truth. If you think child abuse is wrong, then say so.”

“I am not saying that same-sex parents are automatically guilty of any kind of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse to the children they raise,” he clarified, but “even the most heroic mother in the world can’t father. So to intentionally deprive any child of her mother or father, except in cases like divorce or the death of a parent, is itself a form of abuse.”

Even gay parents are beginning to question the value of same-sex families. Stay-at-home gay father Frank Ligtvoet wrote a very courageous piece June 22, 2013 in the New York Times admitting that his seven-year-old daughter experiences both love and alienation when she calls him “mother,” using her pretend voice. “She can role-play the mother-daughter relationship, but she cannot use her real voice, nor have the real thing,” he said, explaining that he can fill their home “with nannies, sisters, grandmothers and female friends, but no mothers.”

OUT FROM UNDER

Dawn Stefanowicz certainly has done all she can to raise awareness of the danger of same sex marriage and adoption. Her website, http://www.dawnstefanowicz.org , is a haven for children of same-sex families, a place where they can get recovery information and tell their tragic stories.

Dawn Stefanowicz's book "Out from Under" is available at Amazon.com as well as www.dawnstefanowicz.org

Stefanowicz was raised by a gay father, his succession of lovers (all dead from AIDs or suicide) and a diabetic and passive mother. In Dawn’s book,  “Out From Under,” she outlines her abuse at home, how her father dressed her immodestly and used her as bait for other gays, how she was afraid to bring boyfriends home because her father would hit on them, and the confusion she suffered about her own feminine identity because her father did not value the women in his life.

She and her two brothers were subjected to incredible neglect and degradation from birth. She remembers the time that her father toyed with the idea of killing her or one of her brothers to cash in on his new insurance policy, having to clean up feces and sperm on the family room couch, never having a coat to wear in the winter, but the worse suffering for her seems to have been the emotional isolation she felt from her father, who was in her life, but unable to emotionally connect.

“What makes it so hard for a girl to grow up with a gay father is that she never gets to see him loving or honoring or protecting the women in his life.” Dawn said in her book’s conclusion. “Before therapy, being a woman was like acting out a role for me, like being a person who just happened to live in a female body.”

“Now I understand … that being a woman is part of who I am.” But the story of how she reached that point is one of the worst I’ve ever read. It’s not for weak stomachs, but I highly recommend the book.

SO WHAT HAPPENED TO THE APA?

So what happened? How did we get to this impasse? The American Psychological Association used to identify homosexuality as a mental illness, and certainly never advocated gay adoption. But gays were declared no longer sick in the late ‘70s under the leadership of APA president Dr. Nicholas Cummings. “I made the resolution that being gay

was not a mental illness, that it was characterological,” he said, that is, it is related to personality and character.  But it is “absurd” to say homosexuals cannot change, he added. He has helped no less that 2,400 homosexuals reorient during his 20-year practice in San Francisco.

At the time he removed the designation of mental illness from the APA he had hoped that the group would approve a resolution to continue unbiased open research on homosexuality that would demonstrate whatever the research would demonstrate.

But that never happened. Cummings says, instead, that the APA was hijacked by the gay movement, and no scientific research was done to understand the lifestyle and its implications for families. So now all that the APA has is the simple belief that homosexual relationships are normal with nothing to back it up. No science, nothing.

Yet the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco declared, “Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful, and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.”

Not so quick! The academic studies on same-sex parenting purporting to show "no differences" are “subject to severe constraints arising from limited data" and a lack of "replicable experiments," according to two political scientists, Leon Kass and Harvey Mansfield, who also filed a brief with the Supreme Court in the Prop 8 case. Numerous other sources confirmed this. It has been very difficult getting a statistically valid study because there are few gay-led families, and these generally are highly unstable.

REGNERUS: Finally, a study with a statistically significant population of gays

A new study conducted by sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas, Austin, is getting very positive attention in this discussion because it directly compares married opposite-sex families with same-sex couples raising children, and it uses a statistically significant study population, unlike previous studies, which supposedly settled the matter.

But the results of the new study are alarming. Children of gay unions are 10 times more likely to have been “touched” by a parent or adult caregiver, and 4 times more likely to have been raped.  They are also more likely to have attachment disorders related to the ability to depend on others. This is what Dawn was talking about in her relationship with her father. It was very hard for her to trust men. 

Imagine a young girl so insecure about her father’s responsibility that she hesitated to go to the end of a weak pier with him to take a picture.

And indeed, after he had the camera shot of his "make-me-look-good" daughter -- even though he knew his 9-year-old daughter was afraid in that location -- he turned around suddenly and abandoned her at the end of the pier.

Regnerus’ study found that children of homosexual parents

1)    are much more likely to have received welfare

2)   have lower educational attainment

3)   report less safety and security in their family of origin

4)   report more ongoing “negative impact” from their family of origin

5)   are more likely to suffer from depression

6)   have been arrested more often

7)   if they are female, have had more sexual partners – both male and female.

It has been claimed that children of homosexual parents are no more likely to be gay than children of heterosexual parents, but the Regnerus study proves that is not true. Children of homosexual fathers are nearly 3 times as likely, and children of lesbian mothers are 4 times as likely to identify themselves as something other than heterosexual.

CHILDREN IN GAY FAMILIES ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE SEXUALLY ABUSED

 

That makes sense because a number of researchers have pointed out that homosexual adults are more likely to report having been victims of child sexual abuse. And this study shows that being raised in a gay home means you are more likely to be sexually abused.

Unfortunately, these statistics were replicated in Dawn’s life. Her father told her his father had sodomized him at least 100 times before he ran away at age 15. His father and older brothers also repeatedly raped his sister, who was handicapped because of the chronic abuse. One of Dawn’s brothers experimented briefly with a gay relationship in high school (the boyfriend she brought home) and then the brother brought a 14-year-old girl home, and proceeded to have noisy relations with her for several days as a way of telling his father he wouldn’t be gay.

And in the accounts I read, children of gays were very confused about how to act like a “woman” or act like a “man.”  Lopez complained that in high school his mannerisms were female, and he didn’t know how to change them.

Another child of a homosexual father, Suzanne Cook, says that after she and her brother moved in with her gay Dad after a divorce, her father's partner molested her brother for the next several years. "I had to deal with keeping my brother safe," Cook says. "I had to put on the role of a parent as a little kid. I felt the whole world on my shoulders."

But she herself was victimized because she was confused about her sexuality and thought the only way to avoid being “gay” was to offer sex to men. As a result her life included adultery, group sex and an abortion. She now strongly supports a ban on gay adoptions.

WHY DO SO FEW CHILDREN SPEAK OUT? 

Cook feels that children of gays often avoid criticizing their parents in research projects. It is  taboo for a child in this situation to tell what is actually going on in the home, so research results tend to be abnormally rosy.

Dawn Stefanowicz added, “You’re terrified. Absolutely terrified. Children who open up these family secrets are dependent on parents for everything. You carry the burden that you have to keep secrets. You learn to put on an image publicly of the happy family that is not reality. With same-sex legislation, children are further silenced. They believe there is no safe adult they can go to.”

Lopez, who also does not support gay adoptions, said, “The richest and most successful same-sex couple still cannot provide a child something that the poorest and most struggling spouses can provide: a mom and a dad.”   

But that reality seems unjust to gay couples that want to have children. “Having spent forty years immersed in the gay community, I have seen how that reality triggers anger and vicious recrimination from same-sex couples, who are often tempted to bad-mouth so-called “dysfunctional” or “trashy” straight couples in order to say, “We deserve to have kids more than they do!” Lopez said.

MY FATHER IS A DONOR; MY MOTHER AN INCUBATOR

If my Father is a "donor" or my Mother is an "incubator," what does that make me?

“It’s disturbingly classist and elitist for gay men to think they can love their children unreservedly after treating their surrogate mother like an incubator, or for lesbians to think they can love their children unconditionally after treating their sperm-donor father like a tube of toothpaste,” he wrote in a comment in LifeSite News  on June 3, 2013.

Yes, from a Christian perspective that is the whole problem with this debate. Human beings are made in the image and likeness of God. They have dignity and rights even from conception. But when you deliberately make a baby using a father “donor” or an incubator (surrogate) mother, you do not see the opposite sex parent as having dignity and worth as a human being. The child of that unnatural union becomes not a person, but a commodity. In the case of Dawn’s father, he kept a wife and children as a means of hiding his addiction to gay sex. In many lesbian relationships the child becomes a “trophy,” demonstrating “Hey, we’re just like everybody else.”

And that brings me to a heterosexual woman I met in San Francisco many years ago. She was a financial planner and I was a news reporter sitting together at lunch. She told me that she shared a home with a woman named “Mary.” She said they were true roommates not lovers, and chose to buy a house together because the cost of housing was too high for one person’s income.

She said she’d never found a man she wanted to marry, but she wanted children, so she had gone to a sperm bank and had her daughter 10 years before. Unfortunately, her daughter was not happy with that arrangement and desperately wanted to know who was her father? This woman told her daughter that she went to a store and got some “stuff” and conceived her, but the little girl would not accept that. So when the little girl went to school she told everyone there, “Other people have Moms and Dads, but I have a Mom and a Mary.”

"OTHER PEOPLE HAVE MOMS AND DADS, BUT I HAVE A MOM AND A MARY!"

My father died when I was four, and I was raised in a loving home by a chaste mother, who tried to be both father and mother to me. Because she modeled the feminine virtues and she was opposite-sex oriented, I had no confusion about how to be a woman. But the lack of father in the home did harm me because for much of my life I was afraid of men. I was  afraid of their voices. I have an elderly cousin who is very ill right now, and he was like a surrogate father to me. His children and I were raised as brothers and sisters. But he had a deep male voice and as a young girl I was always a little afraid of him.

One day one of us kids tracked mud in the house, and he demanded we all show our shoes. His children were all shocked and so was I when he wanted to see the bottom of my shoes because I always was the well-behaved one. I remember my fear of the male father figure was quite intense in that moment, but luckily I didn’t have any mud so my reputation remained intact!

Recently, as my dear cousin lies in the nursing home, I told him he was like a father to me when I was growing up, and his wife, my cousin, said I made him very happy. But it took – what? – 50 years for me to tell him! Just because I was raised without a father?

After hearing about Dawn Stefanowicz, Blog Writer Wintery Knight raised these questions:  “Have you ever considered what effect it has on a child that they have to grow up without

their mother or their father? Is that something that we should be promoting so that there is more of it? It’s a sad thing to tell adults that they cannot do whatever they want, but it’s a sadder thing to harm children just so that adults can do whatever they want. We need to choose to be careful not to harm children by making poor decisions.”

Amen to that.


Since this post was published, two books came out outlining the same facts as this piece. One is "Jephthah's Daughters: Innocent Casualties in the War for Family Equality" edited by Robert Lopez and Rivka Edelman and "Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything" by Robert R. Reilly

You can read about these books here:

"Gay Parenting" Children Raised by Unchaste Adults Lead Difficult Lives" 

Same Sex "Marriage," Natural Law and the New Apocalypse

OTHER RESOURCES ON THE ISSUE OF SAME-SEX ATTRACTION:

THE NEW EVANGELISTS: Bringing Christ, A Light to All People Who Experience Same Sex Attraction

Christian Bakery, closed by Oregon (In)Equality Law, Resists the Mark of the Beast

MEANWHILE IN RUSSIA by a Blogger who Experiences Same Sex Attraction

SEX and The Mystery of Gravy


My Sources on this topic:

Gay Parenting on Trial

Gay parents are more likely to raise gay kids

Growing Up with Two Moms: The Untold Children's View

New Study on Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous 
Research

Court Shouldn't Rewrite Law on Gay Marriage

Former APA President Says Homosexuals Can Change

State Weeding Out Christian Beliefs

Same-sex parenting: child abuse?

Do social scientists get to have a "consensus" on our right to free speech? Why do they get to tell us whether we have a right to a mom and a dad?

The Misnomer of "Motherless" Parenting

Are gay relationships typically stable and monogamous?

The American Psychological Association on lesbian and gay parenting

A secular case against same-sex marriage

Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples

The Commodification of Children and the Insensitivity of the Culture

Understand the Big-Hearted Pope -- Francis

by Susan Fox

“I am a sinner.”

photo by telegraph.co.uk

So begins a fascinating interview with Pope Francis published on Sept. 19. The interview rocked the world, with some claiming the pope is a “flaming liberal” and will take the Church to the left, while orthodox Catholics feel betrayed.

Both sides are wrong. The interview has to be taken in the context of the relativistic world we inhabit. He was trying to give us a strategy for converting the world. He was not pulling back from our positions against abortion, birth control and gay marriage.

“I see the Church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds. ... And you have to start from the ground up,” the Pope said in the interview.

He is right! In the context of evangelization, one has to focus on the person and the basic message of Catholicism, not on the hot button issues of the day. I have 30 years of door-to-door evangelization under my belt, and I quickly learned that arguing the issues of abortion, contraception and gay marriage – even defending the church in the priestly sexual abuse scandal – would never win any converts.

Early in my volunteer labor, I visited an elderly single woman who was lapsed from the Catholic faith. She was lonely and wanted attention. Did I give her that? No, I was eager to change her mind (this was 30 years ago). So when I asked her why she left the Church, and she answered because of its position on contraception, alarm bells should have gone off in my head. She was not living with anyone. She was too old to have children. That couldn’t possibly be the reason she was away from the Church. But instead -- in my enthusiasm -- I began to tell her the wonders of Natural Family Planning. Wrong choice! She naturally ended the interview there.

As the years passed, I learned NOT to explain the Church’s position on any of these hot button issues unless somebody

"I got to know the people,
 where they hurt and why
they hurt. And this method
proved the most effective
in bringing people
 into the church."

asked me to! Instead I got to know the people, where they hurt and why they hurt. And this method proved the most effective in bringing people into the church. I learned to look for the good things they were already doing, and emphasize this.

St. Peter Claver is an excellent model for this type of evangelization. During his 40 years of meeting and greeting the Negro slaves that poured into Columbia through the port of Cartagena during the 1600s, he baptized and instructed 300,000 slaves!

St. Peter Claver ministering
to the slaves

He didn’t waste time arguing the issue of slavery. He marched onto the slave ships, ministered to the naked and ill-treated passengers, brought them food, clothing, tobacco and brandy, and by gentle words and gestures he calmed their fears and after these needs were met, he proclaimed the gospel. After they were baptized, they were still slaves, but they had received the greatest treasure on earth – an intimate relationship with God Himself.

Peter Faber, one of the first companions to St. Ignatius of Loyola, particularly impressed Pope Francis, according to his interview with Father Antonio Spadaro, S.J., because of “(his) dialogue with all -- even the most remote and even with his opponents.” Sometimes we find our pastors hiding in the rectory when the neediest (not in a material sense) in their parish live right across the street. Lay Catholics too sometimes know how to hide in the Church, taking up jobs there, but never reaching out to strangers.

The pope also said he admired Faber’s being available and fully present to others immediately. So the pope admires evangelists that are available and fully present to everyone -- even their enemies. I admire this also.

The secular media was also fascinated by the fact that Pope Francis said he was a sinner. They felt this was the first time a pope admitted such. Apparently, they were asleep during their childhood Sunday Bible classes when St. Peter, the first pope, told Jesus, “Depart from me. I am a sinful man.”

The pope – as a sinful man – identified with St. Matthew, the tax collector sitting in the Custom House holding onto his money when Jesus came by, and said “Follow me.”  Going to the Church of St. Louis of France in Rome, the pope often contemplated the painting of “The Calling of St. Matthew,” by Caravaggio.

“That finger of Jesus, pointing at Matthew. That’s me. I feel like him. Like Matthew.” the pope said. “It is the gesture of

St. Matthew wonders,
"Who me?"

Matthew that strikes me: he holds on to his money as if to say, ‘No, not me! No, this money is mine.’ Here, this is me, a sinner on whom the Lord has turned his gaze. And this is what I said when they asked me if I would accept my election as pontiff: ‘I am a sinner, but I trust in the infinite mercy and patience of our Lord Jesus Christ, and I accept in a spirit of penance.’”

Ironically, Jesus went to the apostle Matthew’s home after they met and had dinner. The Pharisees saw this and asked why Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners. Jesus responded, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

That was the whole purpose and theme of the pope’s interview with Fr. Spadaro. The pope’s words about the “Church as a field hospital” eerily echo Jesus’ own words in the Gospel of Matthew. "For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Yet this so poorly catechized world has chosen to interpret the pope’s remarks about loving sinners as if we also must love their sins -- an illogical conclusion.

One liberal writer reading Pope Francis’ remarks about papal infallibility concludes that the pope  believes the people who support gay marriage and contraception are infallible. The pope said, “All the faithful, considered as a whole, are infallible in matters of belief, and the people display this infallibility in believing, through a supernatural sense of the faith of all the people walking together. This is what I understand today as the ‘thinking with the church’ of which St. Ignatius speaks. When the dialogue among the people and the bishops and the pope goes down this road and is genuine, then it is assisted by the Holy Spirit. We should not even think, therefore, that ‘thinking with the church’ means only thinking with the hierarchy of the church.”

What the pope is saying is nothing new. The smallest person in the Catholic Church uniting his mind and heart with the deposit of faith handed down to us from the apostles (the mind of the church) is infallible. But the smallest person uniting his mind and heart with the thinking of the world (pro-abortion, contraception and gay marriage) is just a plain old fool.

So then Pope Francis says, “We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. The teaching of the church is clear, and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

That is exactly what I am talking about – that our evangelization need not fixate on our differences with others, but rather on the gospel. But the liberal writer I am looking at sees these remarks as a grudging acceptance of the Church’s official positions on abortion, contraception and gay marriage. And he bases it on the pope’s use of the term, “son of the church.” He thinks that is not a defense of doctrine, simply acquiescence.

People with such infantile knowledge of the Catholic Church should not under any circumstances write about it. The term “Son of the Church” means docile, absolute, childlike obedience. To the best of my knowledge St. Teresa of Avila coined it, or at least she used it to describe herself in her later life. She said, “I am the Child of the Church.”

Imagine this. The elderly and sick Saint Teresa wants to go start one last convent in a big city and then rest. Her confessor, whom she has vowed to obey as if his is the Voice of the Church, orders her instead to start numerous small convents all over Spain. If you ever watched the movie, it is really something. She is being carried around from convent to convent in a bed because she is so very ill. And she obeys even this onerous order from a priest who is hanging around Paris getting adored because he is her spiritual director. (Near the end of her life, he gives his orders by letter and never sees her in person.) She – an elderly and sick nun  – starts several small convents. She obeys at great personal cost. She is obedient unto death.

Today, St. Teresa of Avila is one of the incorruptibles. That is, her body doesn’t decay. But she is unique among this class of saints, because her body is not only incorrupt; you can arrange it in any position you want including standing up. Now this is a message from God: St. Teresa of Avila is and was a daughter of the Church. She is still wholly obedient – even in her dead body.

 

Now we have a pope describing himself as a “Son of the Church.” What do you think? Is he only giving grudging obedience? Or is he onboard the speeding train with his whole heart, thinking with the "mind of the Church," thinking with the Catholic people, priests and bishops, who have faithfully followed the Good Shepherd for the last 2,000 years?

The original and complete interview with Pope Francis can be found at A Big Heart, Open to God

California Legislature -- like the Nazis -- to force People of Conscience from the Medical Profession

by Lawrence Fox

California recently passed a bill that allows nurses, midwives and clinicians to perform early term vacuum aspiration and medicine induced abortions. This is in part due to the shortage of doctors willing to participate in the filthy procedure. 

The bill – if signed into law – will make having an abortion much more dangerous than it already is. Vacuum aspiration abortion is inherently dangerous to the mother, as the physician must blindly probe for the baby, according to the founder of National Abortion Rights Action League, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who is now pro-life.

The bill has additional diabolical purposes. California could not force the janitor, dietician, desk clerk, and intern to perform the filthy procedure since it was restricted by law to imbibing medical professionals. New York City also had a shortage of trained and willing abortionists. To remedy the situation, the poly amore Mayor Bloomberg attempted to force city medical institutions and students to participate in abortion training in order to receive accreditation. Ah, the dictators of choice.

Before long, there will be cases filed in which persons of conscience are forced out of the medical profession for not being willing to participate in the filthy procedure, which the drug addicted California legislature identifies as health care.

This legislative impetus is closely aligned with the imminent death panels written into the HHS regulations associated with the Affordable “Care” Act or Obama “Care.” Once the Government owns the medical purse strings, people of conscience will be faced with the dilemma: protect human life and moral dignity or seek employment somewhere else. There will be no middle option.

Pharmacists across the country were put in this position time and time again especially as it related to the distribution of the Prostitute Morning After Pill. Many were sued and or fired for not being willing to distribute the pill, especially to minors. This onslaught gave urgency to the development of the medical conscience clause. In due course, the chief socialist gang-banger Barack Obama moved to strike down the meaningful conscience clause put forth by the Bush Administration to protect ordinary people opposed to plain-old murder.

2006 HopNews.com

“A person of conscience (a Catholic) not willing to perform abortion, sterilization, etc. should seek employment somewhere else,” complained miscreant Democrat Martha Coakley, the opponent to Republican Scott Brown in the Massachusetts 2009/2010 Senate Race. She lost the election only by mistake, 52 to 47 percent.

As Solomon said, “There is nothing new under the sun. What was done now was done before.” In recent history, the German National Socialist Workers Party (NAZI) was booting people-of-conscience out of the medical profession so they could establish abortion and eugenic clinics, and then ultimately kill people in concentration camps.

We were asleep then, and we are asleep now. It is the same end game, same lies, and same culture of death under similar double-speak: social justice, equality, worker’s rights, freedom of choice, increased productivity, cost savings, re-distribution of wealth, and sustainability and managed care for the planet.