Brazilian Anencephalic Baby Shatters Pro-Abortion Myths

After a year and a half of life, smiles, cries when mother is away, responds to sounds

Commentary by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

MORRO AGUDO, BRAZIL, June 5, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In announcing that the Brazilian Supreme Court may soon rule on whether to permit abortions for anencephalic babies - infants born without a complete brain - Folha de Sao Paulo columnist Josias de Souza claimed that such children normally die within days of birth.

But tell that to Cacilda Galante Ferreira, whose daughter Marcela was born with anancephaly a year and a half ago in Morro Agudo, Sao Paulo State, Brazil. The baby is very much alive, quite healthy, and responds to family members.

"One week I had to go out and I left Marcela sleeping with my other daughter. When I returned she was agitated and crying. I can't stay away from her for one minute," her mother told the newspaper A Cidade in February.

Although she was born without most of her brain, Marcela Ferreira has lived for a year and a half with little extraordinary care. She receives oxygen supplementation and eats through a feeding tube inserted through her nose, but otherwise lives normally. She interacts with family members and shows signs of consciousness. Her presence is a joy for all.

"My little dear, the little infant so small and fragile, is today strong and very much loved by everyone," her mother reportedly wrote in a diary entry. "Little Marcela came into the world to touch our hearts and to show us the true meaning of life."

When Marcela was diagnosed with anencephaly, still in the womb, her mother was given the option to abort the child. Her doctor, she says, "gave me a week to decide if I was going to continue with the pregnancy. I responded that it is not right to be so cruel as to kill that small and innocent child."

Myths about anencephaly abound, and if Brazil's recent decision on embryonic stem cell research is any indication, factual scientific errors about the condition could lead the justices of Brazil's Supreme Court to condemn thousands of unborn children to an untimely death.

In the stem cell case, concluded last week, approving justices based their ruling on the claim that frozen embryos cannot survive after three years (see LifeSite coverage at http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08053005.html). However, frozen embryos have been successfully implanted well after three years in storage, and scientists say that there is no known limit to the viability of frozen embryos.

Abortion advocates promote several fallacies about anencephaly. The first and most obvious error, similar to the previous one, is that anencephalic infants are not viable outside of the womb. However they can, and do, survive for weeks, months, even years after birth. What may be the longest-living anencephalic baby, "Baby K", lived two and a half years in the United States, dying in 1995.

In fact, an ethics report issued by the American Medical Association in 1994 (CEJA Report 5 - I-94) which endorsed the brutal practice of removing the organs of anencephalic babies while still alive, nevertheless admitted that ten percent of such babies survive for more than a week after birth (see full text at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/369/ceja_5i94.pdf).

The report went on to confess that, "however, because these neonates often do not receive aggressive treatment, their potential lifespan is probably longer than their actual lifespan."

The report made a second admission that contradicts the conventional wisdom about anencephalic babies. While abortion advocates claim that tests for anencephaly are absolutely reliable, the American Medical Association acknowledges that "misdiagnoses of infants as anencephalic have been documented in the medical literature and detected by surveillance programs".

The AMA admits that the "possibility of misdiagnoses cannot be entirely eliminated", but assures the reader that "the diagnosis of anencephaly is highly reliable".

What the AMA is acknowledging is that a certain percentage of babies discarded in the waste disposal of the abortion clinic as "anencephalic" will not be sufferers of the disease at all. However, the report calls the risk "insignificant".

Risks of misdiagnosis may seem "insignificant" to a doctor, but parents tend to have a different perspective. A case in point is that of Brandon Kramer, who was diagnosed with a brain defect while still developing in the womb. His parents, Becky Weatherall and her boyfriend Kriss Kramer were told that their son's brain was malformed and enlarged, and that fluid had collected in his skull (see recent LifeSite coverage at http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022603.html).

Doctors told the couple that their son would be deaf and blind, and was unlikely to survive long after birth. Although the pregnancy was at a late stage, they recommended an abortion, an idea that Weatherall and Kramer rejected.

Contrary to the doctors' claims, the couple's child was born completely healthy, and normal.

"I feel incredibly guilty thinking that I could have killed him," said Weatherall, "and then I find myself wondering how many other babies are killed who would have turned out to be completely healthy."

It is difficult to know how many false diagnoses of anencephaly and other birth defects occur annually because a high percentage of such children are aborted, resulting in a mutilated corpse that is not examined after the procedure.

Approximately 95% of anencephalic babies are aborted before birth, according to the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University. This rate is similar for other birth defects. In northern California, for example, 95% of unborn children diagnosed with cystic fibrosis are aborted, according to the insurer Kaiser Permanente.

What may be the most devastating error regarding anencephaly is the notion that sufferers cannot possibly have consciousness because the parts of the brain in which thinking occurs are absent. In reality, medical science has shown that a process known as neuroplasticity can "rewire" brain cells to change their function and compensate for the loss of other cells.

The Italian National Bioethics Committee has admitted that this effect could actually allow a degree of consciousness to develop in anencephalic babies, whose brain stem is intact. Although the brain stem normally acts to maintain the functioning of the body's organs, its cells could theoretically change function to compensate for the missing upper brain.

"The neuroplasticity of the brain stem could be sufficient to guarantee to the anencephalic infant, at least in the least serious cases, a certain primitive possibility of conscience," the Committee wrote in its 1996 report, "The Anencephalic Neonate and Organ Donation".

The possibility of neuroplasticity provides a scientific explanation for the fact that little Marcela Ferreira exhibits many signs of consciousness. According to Luiz Carlos Lodi da Cruz, a Catholic priest and pro-life activist, "Marcela reacts to the touch of her mother. With her hand, she grabs the fingers of Mrs. Cacilda."

She reacts to light and sound, makes facial expressions, and cries. "When she doesn't want a particular food, she spits it out. She recognizes the voice of her mother," writes Lodi da Cruz on his website (http://www.providaanapolis.org.br/risomarc.htm).

"Doctors will tell you that an anencephalic child can neither see nor hear, nor feel pain, that he or she is a vegetable," says Anencephaly-info, a website maintained by parents of anencephalic children (http://www.anencephalie-info.org/e/faq.php#14). "However, that does not match up with the experience of many families who have had an anencephalic child."

"The brain is affected to varying degrees, according to the child; the brain tissue can reach different stages of development. Some children are able to swallow, eat, cry, hear, feel vibrations (loud sounds), react to touch and even to light. But most of all, they respond to our love: you don't need a complete brain to give and receive love - all you need is a heart!" the site's authors write.

However, given the severe nature of anencephaly, the disorder is likely to be used by pro-abortion groups as a "wedge issue" to create a precedent for the legalization of abortion in Brazil. Advocates of abortion for anencephalic babies, such as columnist Josias de Souza, are already disseminating scientific errors, distortions, and exaggerations regarding the issue.

For example, de Souza claims in his recent blog entry (http://josiasdesouza.folha.blog.uol.com.br/index.html) that anencephalic pregnancies present a "high risk" of harm to the mother. Although it is true that there is an increased risk of certain complications during such pregnancies, the overall risk to the mother's health is low.

"The diagnosis of anencephaly in the fetus poses a slightly increased medical risk to the mother," says the Children's Hospital of Wisconsin on its website (http://www.chw.org/display/PPF/DocID/34371/Nav/1/router.asp). The authors of Anencephaly-info acknowledge that there may be an excess of amniotic fluid and other minor complications, but that otherwise the pregnancy is "normal" and is not dangerous for the mother.

De Souza also highlights the short lifespan of anencephalic infants, and claims that "the possibility of diagnostic error" of anencephaly before birth "is close to zero". "Close," however, will not be enough to protect the children whose lives will be lost in the false diagnoses that will inevitably occur.

More significantly, De Souza ignores the fundamental moral argument against abortion: that human beings have a fundamental right to live, regardless of their handicap or lack of development. Pro-lifers contend that no one has the right to kill an innocent human being, because people are not objects to be manipulated and destroyed for the sake of convenience.

Instead of addressing the issue directly, de Souza makes an emotional appeal, disregarding such moral considerations and claiming that the baby is incapable of consciousness and will die shortly anyway. In other words, it doesn't matter...much.

The difference between the rationale for abortion in this case and in other cases, such as the "psychological and social well-being of the mother" or even her "freedom to control her body" is merely one of degree. A Supreme Court decision in favor of abortion for anencephalic babies is likely to act as a "wedge", allowing an increasing loosening of restrictions on abortion until it is effectively legal on demand.

The first "wedge" was the Supreme Court's approval of deadly embryonic stem cell research, which destroys human life at its earliest stage. It remains to be seen if Brazilian proponents of abortion will be able to insert a second wedge into place.

Related Links:

The Possibilty of Consciousness in Anencephalic Babies Acknowledged by Italian National Bioethics Committee (Portuguese Translation of Italian Original):
The Anencephalic Neonate and Organ Donation, June 21, 1996 (Il neonato anencefalico e la donazione di organi. 21 giugno 1996, p. 11).
http://www.providaanapolis.org.br/cnbital.pdf (Portuguese Translation of Italian Original)

The Smiles of Marcela (Portuguese)
http://www.providaanapolis.org.br/risomarc.htm

In perfect health, the baby doctors said would be born deaf and blind ...and live only a few hours
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-517827/In-perfect-...

Anencephaly Information (maintained by parents of anencephalic children)
http://www.anencephalie-info.org

American Medical Association's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs,
The Use of Anencephalic Neonates as Organ Donors (Report 5 - 1-94)
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/369/ceja_5i94.pdf

Federal Supreme Tribunal Hill Judge the Interruption of Pregnancy in Cases of Anancephaly (Portuguese)
http://josiasdesouza.folha.blog.uol.com.br/arch2008-05-25_20...

Related LifeSiteNews.com Coverage:

Brazilian Supreme Court to Consider Constitutionality of Abortion
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060211.html

Brazilian Supreme Court Upholds Deadly Embryonic Stem Cell Research in Close Vote
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08053005.html

Brazilian Supreme Court May Approve Constitutionality of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08052704.html

Baby Born Healthy Defies Doctor's Abortion Advice
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022603.html

Source: LifeSiteNews

Brazilian Supreme Court to Consider Constitutionality of Abortion

Pro-Abortion Justice Says Time is Ripe in Wake of Embryonic Stem Cell Decision

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BRASILIA, June 2, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision to approve a law authorizing deadly embryonic stem cell research, pro-abortion Justice Marco Aurelio says that the Court will next proceed to rule on abortions for anencephalic babies.

According to columnist Josias de Souza of the daily Folha de Sao Paulo, Aurelo says that now is the "hour to judge" the case, which was originally submitted to the Court four years ago by the National Confederation of Health Workers (CNTS).

Aurelio reportedly told De Souza, "Now, I believe that the Court is ready to judge the case. The verdict on embryonic stem cells has cleared the way."

"We now have the climate for judging and, I believe, authorizing the interruption of pregnancy of anencephalic babies," he added.

Aurelio's comments refer to the Court's recent decision to approve embryonic stem cell research, which destroys human life in its earliest stages. He was one of the justices who voted to approve the deadly research in a narrow 6-5 decision, and he has already stated his approval for abortion as well. Aurelio is the case's "relator", that is, the justice who is charged with overseeing the case for the Court.

Pro-life activists in Brazil have long predicted that a decision in favor of stem cell research would create a precedent for declaring abortion "constitutional", despite the Brazilian Constitution's explicit recognition of the "inviolability of the right to life".

See Previous LifeSiteNews.com Coverage:

Brazilian Supreme Court Upholds Deadly Embryonic Stem Cell Research in Close Vote
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08053005.html

Brazilian Supreme Court May Approve Constitutionality of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08052704.html

Source: LifeSiteNews

Brazilian Supreme Court Upholds Deadly Embryonic Stem Cell Research in Close Vote

Pro-Lifers Fear that Precedent will be Used to Legalize Abortion

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BRASILIA, May 30, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- In a razor-close vote of 6-5, Brazil's Supreme Court yesterday upheld the constitutionality of embryonic stem cell research which destroys human life at its earliest stages.

The decision was made in response to a motion filed against article 5 of the nation's "Biosecurity" Law, which permits the controversial research. Opponents contended that destroying a human embryo was in violation of the Constitution's acknowledgement of the "inviolability of the right to life".

Although they were repeatedly informed that frozen embryos are viable indefinitely, several justices who voted in favor of the law reportedly based their decision on the claim that frozen embryos are not viable after several years.

"Embryos, once frozen, may have unlimited potential for viability, as long as they remain at the extremely low temperatures of liquid nitrogen storage," notes the Pacific Fertility Center on its website (http://www.infertilitydoctor.com/fertilityflash/vol2_issue3....).

Although President Luiz Lula's then Attorney General, Cláudio Fonteles, filed the motion against the law in 2005, the Lula administration has since expressed support for the law through the nation's pro-abortion Health Minister José Gomes Temporão, who openly favors embryonic stem cell research.

The decision, made by justices who had been largely appointed by Lula and his liberal predecessor, was not unexpected. However the closeness of the decision, which split the court almost evenly, was reflective of a growing pro-life sentiment in the nation. Although some dissenting justices were willing to allow the research with restrictions, others were only willing to allow it to the extent that it did not kill the embryo.

According to a recent poll, opposition to decriminalizing abortion in Brazil has increased over the last year, surging from 62% to 68%. In recent weeks the Social Security and Family Committee in the National Congress voted unanimously to reject an abortion decriminalization bill that was favored by the Lula regime and had been in process for 17 years.

In the days preceding the decision, pro-lifers in Brazil issued an international call requesting that emails be sent to the eleven justices of the Supreme Court, urging them to strike down the law. Protests were also held outside of the Court building.

"As it is a human life, which embryology and biology assures us is true, the human embryo has the right to the protection of the government," said the National Conference of Brazilian Bishops in response to the ruling.

"Whether it is in vitro or in the maternal womb does not diminish or increase that right. It is lamentable that the Supreme Court has not confirmed that right, allowing the harvesting of embryonic human lives."

The decision was also denounced by Magaly Llaguno and Adolfo Castañeda of Human Life International, who echoed formed abortionist Bernard Nathanson in calling embryonic stem cell research, "scientific cannibalism" and who said the ruling was "a death sentence on countless innocent human beings".

Embryonic stem cell research is touted as a potential cure for diseases, although it has never yielded a single approved treatment in the United States. Conversely, adult stem cell therapies, which do not destroy human life, have yielded over 70 treatments to date.

Source: LifeSiteNews

Divulgation: http://lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

Brazilian Supreme Court May Approve Constitutionality of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Pro-Lifers Asked to Email Justices to Urge them to Vote to Protect the Rights of the Unborn

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BRASILIA, May 27, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Brazilian Supreme Court is scheduled to begin voting again on the constitutionality of a law allowing embryonic stem cell research.

The vote, which commenced on March 5th of this year, was delayed when Justice Carlos Alberto Menezes Direito made a motion for a "vista", which allows a review of the facts before a vote is cast. Menezes Direito is believed to be pro-life.

Despite the deadly nature of embryonic stem cell research, which destroys human life at its earliest stage, most of the justices are believed to be inclined to allow it. On March 5th the vote stood at 2-0 in favor of the law.

However, the Constitution of Brazil states that "All are equal before the law, without any distinction whatsoever, guaranteeing Brazilians and alien residents in the country the inviolable right to life, liberty, equality, security and priority."

Despite seemingly difficult odds, Brazilian pro-life organizations are making a serious effort to persuade the justices to strike down the law and protect the unborn. It is feared that if the law is upheld, abortion may ultimately be ruled "constitutional" based on the precedent.

The Catholic news agency ACI Prensa reports that 200 federal deputies (representatives) and 20 senators have signed a petition to the court contending that the basis for the vote given by one of the justices is false. Justice Carlos Ayres Britto justified his vote based on the notion that embryos frozen for more than three years are not viable. However, there is no known limit to the viability of frozen embryos.

Brazilian and Hispanic pro-life organizations have issued a call to pro-lifers to contact the justices and urge them to vote in favor of human life. Emails may be written in English or Portuguese (knowledge of English is common among educated Latin Americans).

Email Addresses of the Justices of the Brazilian Supreme Court (can be copied and pasted into email "To" box:

presidencia@stf.gov.br, vicepresidencia@stf.gov.br,
mgilmar@stf.gov.br, audienciacarmen@stf.gov.br,
ananeves@stf.gov.br, mcelso@stf.gov.br,
patriciaml@stf.gov.br, gabcarlosbritto@stf.gov.br,
gaberosgrau@stf.gov.br, mluciam@stf.gov.br,
gabminjoaquim@stf.gov.br, marcoaurelio@stf.gov.br,
ellengracie@stf.gov.br, gabinete-lewandowski@stf.gov.br

Individual Email Addresses:

MINISTER GILMAR MENDES
presidencia@stf.gov.br

MINISTER CEZAR PELUSO
vicepresidencia@stf.gov.br

MINISTER MARCO AURÉLIO
marcoaurelio@stf.gov.br

MINISTER JOAQUIM BARBOSA
gabminjoaquim@stf.gov.br

MINISTER EROS GRAU
gaberosgrau@stf.gov.br

MINISTER CARLOS BRITTO
gabcarlosbritto@stf.gov.br

MINISTER RICARDO LEWANDOWSKI
gabinete-lewandowski@stf.gov.br

MINISTER CELSO DE MELLO
mcelso@stf.gov.br

MINISTER MENEZES DIREITO
ananeves@stf.gov.br
(assistant)

MINISTER CÁRMEN LÚCIA
audienciacarmen@stf.gov.br

MINISTER ELLEN GRACIE
ellengracie@stf.gov.br

Source: LifeSiteNews

Brazilian Homosexual Leader Posts Home Addresses of Pro-Family Activists

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BRAZIL, May 20, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The most eminent leader of Brazil's militant homosexual movement, Luiz Mott, is lashing out at pro-family activists by posting their home addresses and filing charges against them for "defamation".

Among those targeted are "Jael Savelli", the pseudonym of a Brazilian woman who authors the blog "Pedophilia No!" Last year, Savelli exposed Luiz Mott's advocacy of pedophilia and pederasty in a famous entry entitled "Luiz Mott: Pedophilia Now!"

Pro-Family activist and author Julio Severo is also targeted in Mott's screed, although the address posted for Severo is not correct. In numerous blog posts and a book entitled, “The Homosexual Movement”, Severo has incurred Mott's ire by denouncing homosexual behavior as immoral in accordance with the Bible. He has recently appeared on national television blasting the regime of President Luiz Lula da Silva for its promotion of the homosexual agenda worldwide.

"Bahia State prosecutors required the site 'Media without a Mask', which published my article...to divulge information about my identity and my address," Savelli told LifeSiteNews.com.

Mott has now posted her address after it somehow fell into his hands, and Savelli is concerned for her safety. “The homosexual movement is extremely well-coordinated and strong in my city and it wouldn’t be prudent for me to ignore the real possibility of some sort of attack against me or against my family,” she said.

Savelli's blog entry on Mott cited an article written by Mott, "My Ideal Boy", which implies a preference for pederasty. In the article, Mott states openly that, “in my case, to tell the truth, if I could choose freely, what I would like for myself would not be a man but a boy, an 'adolescent' of the type that the nobles of ancient Greece said was the thing most handsome and pleasurable to be loved and [expletive]."

In addition, in an essay posted on his website, Mott writes that "in my opinion, the taboo and repression of sexual relations between adults and youth is supported by two prejudices, that sex has a particular legal age to begin and that every relationship between someone older and younger always implies violence and oppression. Studies prove that even in the uterus a baby already has an erection..." (see previous LifeSiteNews.com coverage at http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jul/07073011.html).

Mott’s new attack, which appears on his website at http://br.geocities.com/luizmottbr/cronica6.html, essentially claims that because he hasn’t actually been convicted of the crime of pedophilia, it is defamation to observe that his writings blatantly defend the practice.

In addition to Saveli and Severo, several other prominent pro-family activists are targeted in the post, including Eliezer de Mello Silveira, a lawyer for the Christian Apologetics Research Center, Rosangela Justino, a psychologist who does reparative therapy for homosexuals who wish to change their orientation, and Olavo de Carvalho, a Brazilian philosopher now living in the United States who edits the internet magazine Midia Sem Mascara (Media without a Mask), and who republished Saveli’s exposé of Mott. In addition to Jael Savelli’s address, Mello Silveira’s was posted as well.

Severo, like Savelli, is apparently being investigated by Brazilian police in response to Mott’s criminal complaints, which Mott says he filed in late 2007 and in January 2008. According to the IP log for visitors to his blog, they have accessed his site almost 50 times in recent days.

Mott’s post and the investigations by Brazilian authorities are the latest episode in a series of legal and personal attacks that have been made against pro-family activists in Brazil by the country’s powerful homosexual movement, which enjoys open government support and financing.

Mott, who is known in Brazil as the "Dean" of the nation's homosexual movement, participated in the creation of the Brazilian government's "Brazil without Homophobia" program, which seeks to promote social approval of homosexuality and “non-discrimination”. Socialist President Luiz Lula’s administration has also awarded Mott with the Medal of the “Order of Cultural Merit”.

Mott has made thinly veiled threats against pro-family activist Julio Severo in the past, speaking of condemning him to "perpetual imprisonment in Sodom and Gomorrah". Other homosexuals have posted more explicit and obscene threats against Severo. He remains in hiding from homosexual groups as well as their government allies, which he says operate with impunity in Brazil and prosecute Christians for objecting to homosexuality, even though the government has failed to pass its proposed “homophobia law”.

“Lula and his socialist allies have been involved in serious scandals and they are under serious charges, but he has been virtually untouchable by the Brazilian courts. Even with appropriate laws against what he has done, he has managed to get off all charges,” Severo told LifeSiteNews.com.

“There is no anti-homophobia law against our right to defend Bible principles on homosexuality, but the same justice system that has let corrupt politicians escape undeservedly can condemn me cowardly.”

Related Links:

Julio Severo’s Blog (Portuguese) http://juliosevero.blogspot.com/

See Savell Blog entry on Mott
http://jaelsavelli.blogspot.com/2007/06/luiz-mott-pedofilia-...).

Jael Savelli’s Blog (Portuguese)
http://jaelsavelli.blogspot.com/

Media Without a Mask (Portuguese)
http://www.midiasemmascara.org/

Dr. Rozangela Justino’s Blog (Portuguese)
http://rozangelajustino.blogspot.com/

Previous LifeSiteNews.com Coverage:

Brazilian Homosexuals File "Hate" Charges Against Brazilian Christians
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07112805.html

Brazilian Gay Groups Launch Multiple Lawsuits to Silence Christian Opposition
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07083007.html

Leader of Brazil Homosexual Movement Under Investigation for Pedophilia
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jul/07073011.html

Source: LifeSiteNews

Divulgation: Last Days Watchman

On the Pro-Life Victory in Brazil: “I Have Never Seen This Happen in the National Congress!”

Editor's note: The following are Professor Hermes Rodrigues Nery's observations of a pivotal moment in the international struggle to protect the right to life. On May 7, an abortion decriminalization bill that had been in process in the Brazilian National Congress for almost 17 years and was supported by the socialist regime of Luiz Lula was rejected in committee in a unanimous vote of 33-0.

By Professor Hermes Rodrigues Nery

Translated, Adapted, and Redacted by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BRAZILIA, May, 15, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - "It was a victory and more. I have never seen this happen in the National Congress", exclaimed Professor Humberto Viera, President of the National Pro-Life and Pro-Family Association, after Deputy Jofran Frejat announced the result of the historic session of the Social Security and Family Committee of the National Congress, which brought to a vote Bill 1135/91. This bill, which seeks to decriminalize abortion in Brazil has been in process for almost 17 years in the Brazilian congress.

Bill 1135/91 was rejected by the overwhelming majority of the deputies present in the committee, with the result of 33-0, due to the fact that the small contingent of abortionists, lead by Deputy Cida Diogo, withdrew ranting and raving, and shouting insults.

The feminists were yelling at the top of their lungs, "The government is secular, the government is secular!", to which Deputy Nazareno Fonteles responded that the government is secular but not atheist, and that the Brazilian people have a sense of God.

The feminists were driven to hysterics by deputies Henrique Afonso and Luiz Bassuma, who together with deputies Miguel Martini, Leandro Sampaio, Dr. Talmir Rodrigues, José Linhares, and João Campos, lead the pro-life contingent that assembled in the meeting room of the committee, in which the rest of the deputies were one by one positioning themselves in favor of life.

One José Genoíno, infuriated, sullen, and arrogant, was thundering in his defense of the feminists, affirming that, "the legislator is not elected for moral groups, but for liberty and democracy". The abortionist shock troops did everything to buy time, insisting on the extension of the session, making use of every protocol to undermine the pro-life deputies. This irritated the rest of the deputies, some of which were still undecided and who ended up voting for Deputy Jorge Tadeu Mudallen's report in reaction the excesses of Cida Diogo.

"This isn't worth it, that woman is going too far, I'm going to vote against her," bellowed one of them at two o'clock in the afternoon, when the abortionist deputy decided to pull a, "congratulations to you" for Deputy Íris de Araújo, whose anniversary was that day.

After the beginning of the session, at 9:30, Jamie Ferreira Lopes affirmed, "we have 16 votes guaranteed." But little by little, as the abortionists continued their performances, the undecided deputies were being convinced to distinguish the wheat from the weeds.

The deputies spoke to one another, exchanged glances, gesticulated, nodded, and came to an agreement. The 33 votes were consolidated during the long, seemingly interminable hours.

Cornered, the abortionists portrayed themselves as victims of a coup, and complained that the pro-life deputies were being tough on them, mainly after Deputy Rolando Caiado took his turn speaking, and pulverized them mercilessly.

Cida Diogo was increasingly disturbed, especially with the balanced and firm way the proceedings were conducted by the committee president, who explained the rules several times to the recalcitrant deputy, showing that he was well prepared and in good spirits for a difficult session. The president simply maintained the rules of the institution, so as not to lose control of the situation in the midst of the rhetoric of the abortionists, who wanted to catch him with a slip of protocol with which they could later use to request that the session be annulled. But Frejat was tireless in affirming, "I have to follow the rules."

Unable to defeat him, since he had the rules at hand, the abortionist comandante Cida Diogo began to use demagoguery, saying that the pro-abortion deputies were being restricted in their freedom of speech, comparing the situation to Brazil's former dictatorship.

President Jofran Frejat explained to them, with the calmness of someone telling a story to a child, that he couldn’t go back, having placed an issue in discussion and before that to a vote, and being approved unanimously by the committee, since the committee has sovereignty in accordance with the rules.

Deputy Dr. Rosinha, who had written a long discourse by hand and was unable to speak because the request for a vote had been approved, began to pout and pace, while the feminists whispered in his ear. The anger of the abortionists increased when support among the deputies grew for Mudallen's report, never leaving their chairs during the entire session, and increased when the alternates began to arrive, enthusiastic about voting in favor of life.

It was then that Dr. Rosinha, in fit that skirted the edges of decorum, stated to the President of the Session that he would be leaving because he was the victim of a strange conspiracy and although he would want to know exactly what was happening, he would not agree to participate in the voting.

At that point his fellow deputies Darcíso Pierondi -- Dr. Pinotti and Genoíno had already left -- and Cida Diogo, decided to accompany Dr. Rosinha, accusing everyone of being "pedophiles and rapists" at which Jorge Tadeu Mudallen's eyes widened in horror, seeing to what depths of gratuitous offense they were capable of, rejecting the rules of democracy that they constantly defended.

When the feminists had left like restless souls, the atmosphere in the room gradually became calm. . . Finally at 2:13 pm the historic vote began. One by one they were giving their "yes" to life. All of them, absolutely all of them, were voting in favor of the approval of the Mudallen Report, until, at the end, President Jofran Frejat, in a chorus with the rest of the deputies who were saying "I vote yes for life," gave his vote for life, which, after so many years, brought an end to Bill 1135/91, archiving it in the Committee.

The session having ended, there were congratulations and tears from many of the pro-life leaders in a climate of the "embrace of peace", as in the Eucharistic celebration. Jaime Ferreira Lopes, Coordinator of Brazil Without Abortion, began to sing, while many began to make calls on their cell phones to spread the news: "33 - the age of Christ!" I called Bishop Carmo João Rhoden of the Diocese of Taubaté, who received the news like a present during this month of festivals for the 100th anniversary of our diocese...It was a unique moment: 33 to zero, without precedent in history, and which the press the next day, would simply ignore, registering the fact in footnotes or remaining entirely silent about the matter...

Professor Hermes Rodrigues Nery is the Coordinator of the Diocesan Commission in Defense of Life and the Movement for Legislation and Life of the Diocese of Tabuaté, Brazil.

See Related Coverage:
Smashing Defeat for Pro-Abortion Forces in Brazil
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050809.html

Source: LifeSiteNews

Divulgation: Last Days Watchman

Smashing Defeat for Pro-Abortion Forces in Brazil

Legislative committee defeats abortion decriminalization in unanimous vote

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BRASILIA, May 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a stunning victory for the pro-life movement in Latin America, the Social Security and Family Committee of Brazil's Chamber of Deputies (the lower legislative house) unanimously rejected an abortion decriminalization law that pro-abortion forces have fought for since 1991.

The two pro-abortion deputies on the committee left in protest without voting, leaving the remaining deputies to reject the legislation 33-0.

The committee members embraced each other in tears while pro-abortion forces in the audience yelled epithets at them and against the Catholic Church, which this year initiated an intense campaign to protect the right to life.

The campaign, along with major efforts by Evangelical Protestants, has resulted in a dramatic increase in pro-life sentiment in Brazil. A recent poll found that 68% of Brazilians now oppose further decriminalization of abortion, up from 63% last year.

The legislation, which is known as Bill 1135/91, will next be considered by the Chamber of Deputies' Constitution and Justice Committee, which is also expected to reject it. The text eliminates criminal penalties for abortion. Other bills to decriminalize abortion are also making their way through the National Congress.

The vote represented a smashing defeat for pro-abortion forces in Brazil, and in particular for President Luiz Lula's Minister of Health, José Gomes Temporão. Temporão has sought to divert attention from the issue of the human rights of the fetus by recasting the debate as an issue of "public health" due to the dangers he alleges are associated with illegal abortions.

Apparently sensing his inevitable defeat, Temporão did not testify before the committee and instead sent representatives. He used diplomatic language to denounce the ruling, claiming that the current legal approach to abortion was unrealistic and would result in "failure".

Related LifeSiteNews.com Coverage:

Brazilian Judge Rules Abortion Law Unconstitutional
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08042307.html

Catholic Diocese Shows Horrors of Abortions to Faithful, Displays Fetal Models in Parishes
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08031208.html

The Pro-Life Pentecost in Brazil, and what it Means for the Rest of the World
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08032010.html

Brazilian Bishops Launch Major National Campaign Against Abortion, Euthanasia, and Embryonic Stem Cell Research
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08020810.html

The War Continues: Brazil Catholic Bishops Take Pro-Life Battle to the United Nations, and International Foundations
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021313.html

Brazil Bishop: Excommunication for those who Use or Distribute Morning After Pill
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/08012805.html

Source: LifeSiteNews

Divulgation: Last Days Watchman

GCM Watch interviews Julio Severo

GCM Watch Note: Julio Severo is a Brazilian Christian leader who has endured persecution from the homosexual movement there (both christian and political) for speaking out against the aggression and suppression tactics in his native country. After exchanging emails with Julio, we felt it important to make you aware of this situation in Brazil. In case you didnt know, Brazil is one of the top vacation destinations for homosexuals worldwide. The government, seduced by the money homosexuals bring in for the lewd carnivals (think Mardi Gras on steriods) have begun to side with activists against anyone like Julio for speaking out. We ask that you do a couple of things: (1)please pray for our brother and his family and (2) please list his blog Last Days Watchman on your blogroll to show soladarity and (3) drop him a line or two of encouragement [juliosevero@gmail.com]. He is on the front lines there as many of us are here, proclaiming the Word of the Lord despite opposition.

Gay Christian Movement Watch: What’s going on in Brazil that alarms you regarding the homosexual movement?

Julio Severo: I am concerned because the federal government has given extensive, official financial support to the homosexual movement. The First National Conference of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transvestites and Transsexuals, to take place May 8-11, 2008, received its official convocation by the socialist president of Brazil, Lula. He has also established a federal program called “Brazil Without Homophobia” to destroy all opposition to homosexuality in the Brazilian society. These initiatives are groundbreaking in Brazil. Besides, the Lula administration was the first country in the world to introduce in the UN Human Rights Commission a resolution establishing homosexuality as an inalienable human right. Again, this was a groundbreaking move by Lula.

GCMW: Is this a real threat to the Christian church or are you just overreacting?

JS: I think that some sins are a special threat to all people, and homosexuality, especially when promoted by an aggressive agenda, is very harmful to the society and to the homosexual themselves. Overreaction? Before a strident and militant advance of the gay politics, in Brazil we are under increasingly wicked pressures to shut up because of the Christian underreaction. There are anti-homophobia bills in the Brazilian Congress that, if approved, will effectively gag Christian views on homosexuality.

GCMW: What happened to you specifically?

JS: Some gay activists wanted to get me before the approval of the anti-homophobia bills. They were able to shut down my blog for some days in July 2007, but after many Christians contacted Google, this American company explained that it had closed my blog because of complaints by homosexuals saying I preach violence and hate. Christian lawyers who are readers of my articles explained that they have never found any hate in my texts.

GCMW: Have you heard anything from other Christian ministers?

JS: I have received messages from ministers worried about what happened to me.

GCMW: What would you say to Christians in America who may think this would never occur here?

JS: They should be worried, because what militant homosexuals are doing in Brazil they learnt from their American counterparts. Brazilian gay leaders got and get their training in America. For a long time America funded the homosexual movement in Brazil, which is successfully now getting federal, state and city financial support for their events and activities. If they are successful in Brazil, their American ideological sponsors will be encouraged by such victories.

GCMW: Are you still under a threat?

JS: In November 2007, the biggest gay group in Brazil, ABGLT (Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgender People), lodged a criminal complaint against me before federal prosecutors, for the same reasons they wanted my blog closed down.

GCMW: Is the gay political movement partnered with the gay christian movement in Brazil as far as you know?

JS: Yes, they work together!

GCMW: As a Christian leader, why do you think homosexuals find true Christian witness a threat?

JS: Well, I think the answer is spiritual, because true Christians have the true Gospel to share, and this Gospel has a door of hope for all sinners, including homosexuals. If every homosexual welcomes the true Gospel, Jesus will enter their lives and homosexuality will end, by the power of Christ’s blood. When Christ lives, homosexuality is unnecessary. Christ’s joy surpasses all momentary gay pleasure. Just ask former gays who know Jesus today… That is why militant gays, under demonic oppression, fight the Christian witness: they want to see no one freed from homosexuality.

Source: GCM Watch

American expert warns about gay agenda

PETER LABARBERA’s Interview

By OZIEL ALVES

To ENFOQUE GOSPEL Magazine

EG: How long have you been involved in pro-life and pro-family work? How did you get started?

PL: I have been active in pro-life and pro-family work for over 18 years. Prior to that, I was active in the conservative movement, opposing the Left’s pro-Marxist agenda in Central America and working as a reporter for The Washington Times, which is one of the best conservative news sources in the United States.

I got involved with the pro-family movement when I went to work for Concerned Women for America (even though I am a man). CWA is a wonderful Christian organization led by Beverly LaHaye that is based in Washington, D.C. It was there that I began researching the homosexual activist movement, and learned that there was a vast, highly organized network of “gay” organizations dedicated to overthrowing sexual and gender norms in this country (and actually, the world, as this is an international agenda). At CWA, in 1993, I launched my publication “Lambda Report,” which sought to expose the homosexual agenda using “gay” sources, because many people are naïve about this nefarious movement. Then I formed Americans For Truth (www.americansfortruth.org). Since then I have been researching and writing about the homosexual movement from a critical and Christian perspective, attending numerous “gay” events, reading homosexual literature extensively, etc., to gain a firsthand perspective on this agenda. Sadly, I have found that homosexual activists are often more committed to spreading their ungodly agenda than Christian are in standing up against it.

EG: How do you classify the gay agenda in the world? Are they getting stronger than the church, worldwide?

PL: The “gay agenda” – actually the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender) agenda -- is basically anything that promotes the acceptance of homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality (gender confusion) in society and the law. That includes: promoting homosexual so-called “marriage” or “civil unions” (which is merely “same-sex marriage” by another name); homosexual adoption of children (which creates homes that are not in the best interest of children because they are motherless or fatherless by design); promoting homosexual, bisexual, and “transgender” identities in school programs and through “GLBT-friendly” curricula; pro-gay “hate crimes” laws that ultimately will be used to restrict the speech and freedom of Christians who oppose homosexuality; “sexual orientation” nondiscrimination laws that wrongly create “civil rights” and “human rights” based on immoral, changeable, and destructive homosexual behavior; “transgender” rights laws and corporate policies that build acceptance for the radical idea that men can change their God-given “gender” and become a woman, and vice versa; allowing open homosexuality in the military; corporate policies that force Christians and other moral dissenters to listen to pro-“gay” lectures at work; attempts by pro-homosexual theologians to re-write the Bible so that it does not say that homosexuality is sinful; efforts to deny the truth that God can help homosexuals change and that homosexuals are not “born that way” -- i.e., that they are destined to practice immoral behavior because this is “who they are.”

EG: Do you think, we (The Christian People) will win the fight against the legalization of gay marriage, adoption and other homosexual rights since the gay activists are subsidized by billionaire foundations? I just ask it, because it seems that they are getting so strong, conquering their dreams, etc., and at the same time the bible says that we are not of this world and that the world will be dominated by the devil. Don’t you think that sometimes our fight is for nothing and that we should not waste our time and just try to preach the gospel?

PL: I don’t know if we will win or not (in this particular era). We lost the struggle over legal abortion in the USA but now the pro-life side has all the momentum, so thing can change. The Bible indicates that there are dark days ahead as the world as we know it comes to a close. But it also tells us not to try to predict when Jesus is coming back. Some Christians opt to abandon the “Culture Wars” because they presume that these are the end times (in the immediate future). But imagine how the Christians must have felt in Germany when Hitler was taking over and when the Nazis began their awful genocide against the Jews and other peoples! It was wrong then for Christians to become disengaged from politics and culture – and it had devastating consequences -- and it is wrong today. Christians who live in democratic societies have a Christian duty to be excellent and involved citizens. This is a stewardship issue. And it breaks my heart to see Christians abandon public policy (politics) in free societies while left-wing activists work overtime to enact their destructive agendas. Are we to believe that democracies are for social leftists only? Of course not. Healthy democracies requires a good and informed citizenship; they reward people who get involved in the system. The main problem in the USA is that the Left is super-involved in politics, while tens of millions of evangelical, Bible-believing Christians are not involved at all.

I do not think that a Christian needs to make a choice between engaging in public policy and witnessing the Gospel. You can do both. Certainly, we need spiritual revival to happen for serious change to occur in Brazil, the USA, or any nation – and we are seeing in America the deep moral crisis that results when a people leave God behind. But regarding public policy: if faithful Christians don’t speak out against oppressive homosexual legislation that helps build acceptance for immoral behavior, who will?

EG: Soon the world will know the next United States President. We know that the decisions taken by this nation (USA) have a huge impact on many other nations’ decisions – Brazil, for example. So, my question is “On the politics of human life and human sexuality what is coming to affect the world in the following year?”

PL: If the Democrats win in November, we will see a seismic shift in this country, as the Democrats have gone very pro-homosexual in the last decade. (They have been pro-abortion-on-demand even longer.) Recently, Democrat Al Gore – who barely lost in his bid for the presidency in 2004 – came out for “same-sex marriage.” Many other leading Democrats will do the same, and some in the (more conservative) Republican Party are also pushing the pro-“gay” line. If a Democrat is elected in November, we will almost certainly see passage of federal pro-homosexual “Employment Nondiscrimination” and “Hate Crimes” legislation – which could have far-reaching effects for American Christians and anyone who opposes homosexuality. Also, it is likely that federal “domestic partner” legislation could be signed into law, as well as a law allowing open homosexuals in the military (as is already allowed in Great Britain). The “criminalization of Christianity” (as it relates to our freedom to act on our faith and oppose homosexuality) will be advanced in the USA. This will help propel the same agenda throughout the world. If a Republican (John McCain) is elected, things will probably continue much as they are today under Bush – but we cannot tell if McCain will be more open than Bush to pro-homosexual legislation. In the final days of the Bush Administration, it seems the White House is softening a bit on “gay rights,” e.g., casting pro-homosexual votes in the United Nations.

Regarding abortion and abstinence education, a Democratic administration would likely step up abortion advocacy and funding in U.S. foreign aid, as well as push so-called “comprehensive sex education” – which is a liberal euphemism for pro-condom “sex ed” (so-called “safe sex”) that would end the Bush policy of strongly favoring abstinence policies in U.S. education. There are stark differences between the Democrats and Republicans, even if McCain is not as conservative as many pro-family advocates would like.

EG: Slowly the gay agenda is getting what they want. Nowadays some of them as NAMBLA for instance, are fighting to have the right of having free sexual relationship with boys less than 18 years old. Do you think that someday they will be successful in their battle – that free sex between adults and children will be the future of the gay agenda, or is that something which will never happen?

PL: NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) is a tiny group here. NAMBLA used to march in some American “gay pride” parades but is now denounced by all major homosexual activist groups. (They knew it was bad public relations to join with open pedophiles.) However, homosexual activists are working to lower the “age of consent” for homosexual sex, which accomplishes one of NAMBLA’s goals: making it legal for teenagers to engage in homosexual sodomy – which often occurs with adults. The reality today is that young men are dying of AIDS – after being infected by older homosexual men with the disease. How sad that the tremendous health hazards of male homosexuality are not taught to impressionable youngsters. It is not a coincidence that many “gay” men die young – it is directly tied to the unnatural behaviors (e.g., sodomy) that they practice. For excellent (secular) research on the homosexuality and gender confusion (transgenderism), I recommend NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) at www.narth.com.

EG: Recently, many gay sexual scandals involving very recognized preachers in the USA churches come up. One of them is Tag Haggard a pastor which was a great leader and also counselor of President Bush. Another case was pastor Jeff Devore, who was put in jail after he was discovered distributing children pornography. Which effects these constant scandals are causing in the pro-family fight against the gay agenda in the USA?

PL: The sex scandals have of course diminished respect for the Christian Church in the USA. There is nothing that the liberal media and the American Left love more than signs of gross hypocrisy in the Church. However, I consider the three greatest threats in America today regarding homosexuality and the Church to be: 1) the continued opposition of so many pastors and churches to getting involved in public policy and cultural issues – that is, to take public stands in defense of Biblical morality; 2) the rise of an avowedly anti-Christian (atheist) political/cultural movement in the USA; and 3) the growth of left-wing evangelicalism in the U.S. – e.g., leaders like Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis who advocate FOR pro-homosexual laws in the name of Christian “justice.”

EG: In some regions of the United States, homosexual “marriage” and adoption are already legal. How has the gospel church been leading in areas where these “gay rights” are in place?

PL: I do not think that most Bible-believing churches have been particularly effective on this issue – with some key exceptions. For example, many evangelical churches have helped to pass pro-defense-of marriage amendments (to keep marriage as one-man, one-woman) in many states, and many churches have reached out in love to homosexual strugglers with the hope of the Gospel. However, in areas of the United States where “gay rights” is entrenched, generally the Church has been a weak voice in the culture and has not had much influence in public policy debates. That’s too bad. Christian men should be leaders in the battle of good versus evil! When Christians retreat from public policy or when the true Gospel is replaced by liberal theology, bad things happen in society. Just look at Britain, which has fallen from being a much more Christian nation to one now that celebrates and honors homosexuality in the law. This is why I am saying: get involved now in your church and community on this issue before it’s too late! If people opposed to God’s will on this issue can use the political system to organize and advocate for their viewpoint, then why shouldn’t people who AGREE WITH GOD do the same?

EG: Do you know some gospel church which has been already obliged to celebrate a gay “marriage”?

PL: No, this has not happened yet in the USA, but certainly in the future we will certainly see homosexual lawsuits against churches that refuse to perform (counterfeit) “gay marriages.” After all, liberals falsely equate opposition to homosexuality with “hate” and racism – and racism is opposed in our legal system. More serious pro-gay harassing lawsuits will probably not happen in America until more states and cities enact “civil unions” or “domestic partners” laws. (“Civil unions” are just homosexual “marriage” under a different name.) The homosexual agenda always advances incrementally, but now in the United States, because the media and academia are so strongly assisting the homosexual side, their agenda is moving ahead faster than in the past. Also, we should remember that sometimes just the THREAT of a lawsuit has the effect of silencing pastors and others who should be speaking out against the normalization of homosexuality. Jesus said we would be persecuted for his name’s sake, and this is where the rubber meets the road!

EG: What’s the role and importance of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality in the United States?

PL: Americans For Truth (www.americansfortruth.org) is one of a tiny number of groups worldwide dedicated solely to fighting the homosexual and transsexual activist agendas. The homosexual activists spend far more promoting homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality than the entire, collective pro-family movement in the USA. It’s not even close. They have the money and the power; we have God’s truth. AFTAH’s most important roles are to: 1) tell the hard truths about the destructive homosexual agenda; and 2) inspire people across the world to defend God’s truth on this issue and not be intimidated by the powerful Homosexual Lobby; and 3) defend the Christian Church and the Word of God against the insidious campaign by the Left to say that somehow historic Christianity is wrong in its opposition to homosexuality. This includes defending Christians’ (and other religious citizens’ – and even non-religious peoples’) “right to be moral” by opposing all laws that would use the government’s authority to promote the acceptance of homosexuality. Our website gets hits from all over the world, and I encourage your readers to sign up for our free e-mail updates on the website.

EG: Do you think that in the future the homosexual agenda can put an end in the freedom of religion worldwide?

PL: I certainly hope not. In fact, in Canada we are seeing a backlash. There, the government’s pro-homosexual “human rights tribunals” have gone so far overboard in persecuting Christians (who do not “hate” homosexuals but merely oppose the homosexual lifestyle) that now some leading media commentators are advocating that the tribunals be closed down. The fact is, homosexual “rights” and Christians’ freedom to believe what the Word of God teaches about homosexual sin are incompatible. Pro-homosexual “nondiscrimination” laws will always be at war against the rights of religious people NOT to celebrate and accept destructive homosexual behavior. The homosexual agenda will triumph only if Christians abandon the political and cultural arenas to the enemy.

EG: What results would you hope to see come from this pro-family activists meeting organized by VINACC here in Brazil?

PL: Although I unfortunately was forced to miss the VINACC meeting due to a travel visa snafu, I trust that Brazilian pro-family advocate Julio Severo was able to motivate the conference. Julio is a real hero – he even has a following here in the United States! -- who is bravely living out the Bible’s teachings about being “persecuted for Jesus’ namesake.” We must fear God, not man. My hope would be that VINACC attendees would be emboldened to “speak the truth in love” and not let the Left or the government enshrine homosexuality as a “human right” in Brazil. (After all, true human and civil rights are not based on sexual perversion and sinful behaviors that can be changed.) I will pray that VINACC will succeed in helping to build up Christian “ex-gay” ministries across Brazil (perhaps operating out of churches), so that people struggling with homosexuality in your country would know that “nobody has to be gay,” and that there is hope for change through Jesus Christ. (For an example, see the website of American ex-“gay” Stephen Bennett at www.sbministries.org.) And I would also hope that through this exciting VINACC conference, believers would be encouraged to “take the offensive for truth” in this important cultural battle, and not let the aggressive homosexual movement pass legislation that will help “criminalize Christianity” in Brazil. If Christians in Brazil do not act now to defend their freedoms, their right to stand for historic Biblical morality on this issue may be taken away.

EG: There are some pastors here in Brazil that say that the battle of the Christian people against the gay agenda will not put an end in that practice. So, that we should not waste our time in these battles with the government but instead preach the gospel to everybody as the bible asks us to do. In your opinion what will be consequences to the church if we don’t get united in this fight against the pro-homosexual movement?

PL: As I said earlier, I think it would be disastrous. When Christians or conservatives abandon politics, another agenda will fill that void – and it will be the pro-homosexual and pro-abortion Left’s agenda! Again, this does NOT mean we should stop preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ to homosexuals and to ALL sinners. That is a Christian’s highest calling. But political organization and mobilization carries the day in a democracy and in determining what kind of society we live in -- so we cannot leave that arena to pro-abortion and pro-homosexual forces that are at war with God’s moral law.

EG: Are there some political consequences to the church if we consider the Brazilian gay agenda and the American gay agenda?

PL: Yes, the homosexual lobby hates the Christian Church, because they hate what the Bible teaches about homosexuality as an egregious sin (abomination) that CAN be overcome through the power of Jesus Christ. This is why revisionist homosexual theologians are working so hard to re-write the Bible to accommodate their sinful behavior. They make up lies, such as that David and Jonathan in the Old Testament were homosexual lovers -- which is ridiculous. (Here is a terrific Christian website to refute homosexual theology: www.robgagnon.net.) This is why faithful Christians need to contend for the faith! We must not allow the homosexual activists to undermine the Word of God on this issue.

EG: One of the political campaign policy items that Americans for Truth has adopted is to not participate in any political campaign favoring or opposing to any candidate for public office. What about the next president of the United States. Does the Americans for Truth support somebody?

PL: As a tax-exempt non-profit organization, Americans For Truth is forbidden by the U.S. Government from getting involved in presidential elections – e.g., endorsing a candidates. I formed the website “Republicans For Family Values” (www.rffv.org) so I could speak out on the presidential contest. At www.rffv.org, we will be exposing the Democrats’ (Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton) radical pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality records. Most Americans simply are unaware of how radical the Democrats are, because the liberal media does not report this information.

EG: In case the Brazilian homosexual agenda gets the approval of their gay protection laws, what would be your counsel to the pastor of our nation?

PL: First of all, I would urge that pastors get involved now to PREVENT onerous pro-homosexual bills from becoming law. That is the key. Once these bills become laws, they are very hard to overturn. (“Rights” – even bogus ones based on homosexuality – are hard to take away.) Pastors and churches need to help educate Christians on the dangerous impact of pro-gay laws – which “criminalize” our right to stand for God’s truth on the issue of same-sex behavior. Look at what has happened in Britain, Canada, Sweden (where a pastor was arrested for preaching a Biblical sermon against homosexuality), and the USA. It should never be illegal in any civilized society to preach God’s Word – with regard to homosexuality or any sin. These pro-homosexual laws would also be a stepping stone for homosexual “marriage” (“civil unions”) and would effectively force Christian business owners and others who oppose homosexuality to subsidize and support the immoral homosexual relationships of their employees. As for stopping violent or hateful crimes against homosexuals, this can be done by effective police work. The government does not need to create special pro-homosexual laws and policies -- and pro-gay, anti-“homophobia” propaganda -- to protect ALL of its citizens equally. In the same way, schools can protect each and every one of their students without creating “sexual orientation” policies that end up being used to promote homosexuality as normal and good to all the students.

EG: In the countries where the homosexual agenda has reached their objectives, as in Spain for instance, can you already point to serious consequences to the church?

PL: Absolutely. In Britain, a Christian pastor was arrested simply for passing out Christian pamphlets at a homosexual event. This is the Gospel in action – but he was targeted for arrest under Britain’s “anti-homophobia” policies. (“Homophobia” is a relatively new word in the English language, and is used to stigmatize and intimidate those who oppose homosexuality; I do not “fear” homosexuals but I do oppose homosexual behavior as being outside of God’s plan for their lives.) In Canada, too, we have seen Christians being forced to spend enormous sums of money to defend themselves because they were charged with “anti-gay discrimination” under the “human rights” tribunals. The persecution is growing in the United States as well. In a famous case in Philadelphia, several Christians were arrested and threatened with long jail sentences under a “hate crime” law because they preached the Gospel at a homosexual festival. My good friend Matt Barber – who is now a pro-family analyst for Concerned Women for America (www.cwfa.org) – was fired from his high-level job at Allstate Insurance Corporation because he wrote an article on the Web (on his own time) critical of homosexual “marriage.” Religious-based liberties and morality and pro-homosexual laws simply cannot co-exist; one must take precedence – and the homosexual activists believe affirming their lifestyle is more important than preserving traditional religious freedom.

EG: Before God, there is no excuse. Same-sex “marriage” is a sin with very hard consequences. But out this evangelical context, we know that the institutionalization of the homosexual marriage could be also considered bad for the marriage, bad for children and bad for the society. Could you point some negative social aspects which will be bad for the society in future even for those who are not Christian (for example, lower marriage rates, instability in the marriages, more fatherless children, domestic violence and so on)?

PL: From a public policy and cultural standpoint, homosexual “marriage” and “civil unions” laws are a disaster. We have seen that in the Scandinavian countries where homosexual “unions” laws giving marital-type rights and benefits to same-sex couples have been around a while, there is less respect generally among the citizenry for the institution of marriage. In other words, when you open up marriage to everybody – and completely change its meaning -- you degrade this critical institution that is the foundation for healthy societies and strong families. Homosexual “civil union” and “marriage” laws (in the USA, “gay marriage” is fully legal only in Massachusetts) also lead to expanded homosexual adoption of children – which intentionally denies innocent children either a mother or a father. (Also, homosexual adults are not appropriate role models for children, and it is wrong for kids to be exposed to acts of homosexual behavior/affection in their own home.) Pro-gay “marriage” laws are also used to justify expanded pro-homosexual indoctrination in the schools.

Study after study has shown that the healthiest and most stable environment for raising children is a two-parent married household with a mother and father. Also, we know that homosexual male “monogamous relationships” are notoriously unstable and promiscuous – that is, they usually are not really “monogamous” but allow “outside sex” in the relationship. “Gay parenting” is a social experiment whose repercussions we do not know. One study by pro-homosexual researchers found that children raised by homosexuals were more likely than children of non-gay parents to experiment with homosexual behaviors themselves. What strikes me in this rush for the government to promote homosexual relationships and “gay parenting” is that it is NOT motivated by what’s best for the children – but rather the desires of “gay” adults. All public policy should be motivated by the need to create healthy environments for raising children – which is why we favor laws that preserve and reward traditional marriage.

EG: What about the schools? Are you supporter of the opinion that the school is the future prostitution zone? Are you also a defender of the home schooling?

PL: We are now home-schooling one of our five children, and already I see the biggest advantage of home schooling: you as parents get to determine what your child studies and learns. In America, God, the Bible and prayer have been stripped from the public schools – even though the United States of America began as a largely Christian nation, and despite the fact that our earliest public schools studied the Bible! How far we as a nation have fallen! A large part of the reason for that is the debasement of the public schools and the way that liberals are using them to promote leftist social ideologies – sexual immorality, evolution, radical environmentalism, etc.

I hope and pray that Brazil’s public schools do not follow in the pattern of American schools. Here we have seen the growth of an extensive pro-homosexual network in the schools. It started in colleges, then moved to high schools, and now it is expanding in middle schools – and even elementary schools, where young children are taught to value homosexual-led “families”! The Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN) is a well-funded group that promotes homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality in the U.S. schools using a variety of tactics: one-sided pro-homosexual curricula; homosexual student “clubs” called “gay-straight alliances”; and pro-gay teacher training. The result is that many students are being brainwashed because they are hearing just ONE SIDE of the homosexual issue. Also, our children are inundated with pop-culture messages that glamorize homosexuality and gender confusion – e.g., through MTV and Hollywood. So the younger generations are far more pro-homosexual than people over 40. They often don’t see homosexuality as a big deal, and lecture their parents – even in Christian homes – for their “homophobia.” The bottom line is that propaganda works.

Another tragedy is that boys and girls are “coming out” as “gay” at far younger ages than in decades past. How can a 13-year-old boy know he is a homosexual (“gay”), or a 12-year-old girl know she is a lesbian? We need to expose these kids to FORMER homosexuals like Charlene Cothran, who overcame years of living as a lesbian activist after she came to know Jesus Christ (see the story about Cothran by plugging her name in AFTAH’s web “Search” engine: www.americansfortruth.org). They need to see that homosexuality is about CHANGEABLE BEHAVIOR, not some identity that you are born with and which defines a person. And they need to be taught the truth of the Bible: that homosexual behavior is always wrong and offensive to our holy and loving Creater.

EG: Here I want to leave an open space for you to say something for the Brazilian church from the extreme north and extreme south:

PL: You must not capitulate to this anti-God agenda which is in the vanguard of restricting Christian’s rights and undermining time-tested, Judeo-Christian morality. The Lord is the same “yesterday, today, and forever”; He has not changed and His views on sexual immorality remain the same: homosexual acts are as wrong today as they were 4,000 years ago. Just as in early New Testament times, Jesus can redeem people from this sin, so as Christians we must reach out with the love of Christ to men and women who struggle with this sin problem. We must spread the word that just as there were “former homosexuals” in Bible times, there are “ex-gays” today – living testimonies to the awesome, transforming power of our living Lord! Society may be becoming more and more decadent, but we as believers are charged with being “salt and light” by telling the Truth and witnessing to a lost and perishing generation. We must always fear God and not man when it comes to our truth-telling efforts. I pray that Brazil does not follow down the same pro-homosexuality path as the United States. And to all Brazilian believers I would ask: please pray for Christians here in the United States, that we will be bold and effective in our witness and that through His grace we might succeed in slowing down – and then reversing – the Homosexual Juggernaut. Thank you!

Peter LaBarbera does not speak Portuguese (yet!) but he can be reached at Americans For Truth through the website (www.americansfortruth.org) or by e-mail (americansfortruth@comcast.net) or by phone: 630-717-7631.

Interview originally given to Brazilian evangelical magazine Enfoque Gospel and now published in Last Days Watchman