Tag: COVID-19

CIA

CIA promoted LGBT & abortion to Muslims

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

Redacted reports show how CIA analysts recommended “discrete” promotion of LGBT rights in the Middle East, increased funding for “sexual and reproductive health services” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. 

CIA Director John Ratcliffe has ordered the intelligence agency to retract and revise nineteen “intelligence products” because they were determined to be highly politicized and contained substandard work. Three of the reports were published by Ratcliffe in a redacted format.

The published reports show how CIA analysts recommended “discrete” promotion of LGBT rights in the Middle East, increased funding for “sexual and reproductive health services” during the COVID-19 pandemic relying primarily on reports from abortion industry groups that stood to receive those funds, and meddling in German politics through “tailored gender-conscious approaches” to prevent the recruitment of women with traditional views of motherhood by “white extremists.”

The three products released until now may be the tip of the iceberg. They are likely the least controversial of the nineteen, the ones deemed least dangerous to national security. This raises the question of how bad the other sixteen CIA intelligence products are that have not been published.

The reports were produced while Obama, Trump, and Biden were in the White House. A CIA press release that accompanied the reports said they show how the intelligence agency failed to remain “independent from a particular audience, agenda, or policy viewpoint.”

“The intelligence products we released to the American people today — produced before my tenure as DCIA — fall short of the high standards of impartiality that CIA must uphold and do not reflect the expertise for which our analysts are renowned,” said Director Ratcliffe. “There is absolutely no room for bias in our work, and when we identify instances where analytic rigor has been compromised, we have a responsibility to correct the record.”

The reports were reviewed by the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB) alongside hundreds of other reports containing intelligence assessments and analyses produced in recent decades.

Notably, a CIA “Wire” report titled “Middle East-North Africa: LGBT Activists Under Pressure” produced in 2015 shows the inherent dangers of attempts at cultural engineering abroad, something C-Fam, publisher of the Friday Fax, has reported for many years.

This report should be understood in the context of the Obama White House designating LGBT issues a U.S. Foreign Policy Priority beginning in 2011 and expanding that commitment with several subsequent executive actions by Obama and Biden. The Trump administration revoked all those actions.

The report warns that the governments of majority-Muslim countries in the region would “almost certainly” portray U.S. efforts to advance LGBT rights as “foreign meddling” and that this in turn would undermine the U.S. goal of protecting LGBT rights abroad. It cites the reactions of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, calling this “cultural imperialism” in the context of United Nations debates, as an example of the resistance to be expected.

The report specifically warns of backlash against the very individuals intended for protection.

“Discreet international support could help avoid drawing undue attention and possibly counterproductive backlash against activists,” the report reads.

It warns that “Egyptian civil society organizations –already vulnerable to government scrutiny—have warned US officials that overt engagement puts them at risk” and that “a Lebanese activist in May 2014 stated that public outreach by the US would be counterproductive.”

Nevertheless, it calls for “community engagement with local police forces and the Ministry of Interior to limit the targeting of LGBT individuals” and “supporting gender studies in academic institutions in the Middle East and North Africa.”

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. . C-FAM: The Centre for Family & Human Rights was founded in the summer of 1997 in order to monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions. C-Fam is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.

doctors' conscience rights

The ramifications of denial of doctors’ conscience rights

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

Dr. Mark Hobart is an Australian GP in the state of Victoria, who was unjustly targeted for his stance against government overreach during the COVID pandemic. When it became known that he was writing exemptions from the mandatory, experimental mRNA vaccines, Dr. Hobart’s clinic, located in the Melbourne western suburb of Sunshine, was raided by the authorities and he subsequently was suspended from practising medicine. In this article, Dr. Hobart looks at three areas of Victorian health law which violate the conscience rights of medical doctors and other health professionals.

By Dr. Mark Hobart

In Victoria first we had denial of conscience with regards to abortion in 2008. Then we had the denial of conscience with regards to the Covid gene therapy in 2021 . And now it is legislated that we have denial of conscience with regards to the promotion of euthanasia. These three government directives lead to the inability of the doctor to give his or her independent opinion regarding abortion, covid injections and euthanasia.

Abortion

According to the Victorian 2008 Abortion Law Reform Act,1 a request for abortion to a doctor who has a conscientious objection to abortion must be referred to a doctor who does not have a conscientious objection to abortion:

ABORTION LAW REFORM ACT 2008 – SECTION 8

  1. Obligations of registered health practitioner who has conscientious objection
  2.     (1)     If a woman requests a registered health practitioner to advise on a proposed abortion, or to perform, direct, authorise or supervise an abortion for that woman, and the practitioner has a conscientious objection to abortion, the practitioner must—
  3.         (a)     inform the woman that the practitioner has a conscientious objection to abortion; and
  4.         (b)     refer the woman to another registered health practitioner in the same regulated health profession who the practitioner knows does not have a conscientious objection to abortion.

It is the case now that if the doctor advises against abortion and then refuses to refer, he will be breaking the 2008 ALR Act. This is especially worrying if the woman is being coerced.

I was cautioned for this in January 20142 by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) when I refused to refer a woman for an abortion at 19 1/2 weeks for gender selection because the unborn baby was female and they wanted a boy. So, in fact, if a woman says she wants an abortion, she must be referred for an abortion.

Covid injections

In March of 2021, AHPRA issued a position statement3 for registered health practitioners and students regarding the COVID-19 vaccination.

If you opposed the position statement, you would have been suspended, as happened to me and to four other Victorian doctors. From the position statement (emphasis added):

Conscientious objection
In the case of a conscientious objection about receiving, authorising, prescribing or administering COVID-19 vaccination, practitioners must inform their employer and/or other relevant colleagues (where necessary) of their objection as soon as reasonably practical. For example, a practitioner’s personal beliefs may form the basis of a conscientious objection to particular treatments. In addition to the above, it is important that practitioners inform their patient or client of their conscientious objection where relevant to the patient or client’s treatment or care. In informing their patient or client of a conscientious objection to COVID-19 vaccination, practitioners must be careful not to discourage their patient or client from seeking vaccination. Practitioners authorised to prescribe and/or administer the vaccine but who have a conscientious objection must ensure appropriate referral options are provided for vaccination.

While some health practitioners may have a conscientious objection to COVID-19 vaccination, all practitioners, including students on placement, must comply with local employer, health service or health department policies, procedures and guidelines relating to COVID-19 vaccination. Any queries about these should be directed towards the individual employer, health service, state or territory health department and/or education provider for registered students. National Boards regulate individual practitioners and not health services or state and territory health departments. Queries about COVID-19 vaccination programs should be directed to the Commonwealth, state and territory governments which are responsible for these programs.

COVID-19 vaccination information sharing and social media
National Boards expect all health practitioners to use their professional judgement and the best available evidence in practice. This includes when providing information to the public about public health issues such as COVID-19 and vaccination. When advocating for community and population health, health practitioners must also use their expertise and influence to protect and advance the health and wellbeing of individuals as well as communities and broader populations.

Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.
….
Health practitioners are reminded that it is an offence under the National Law to advertise a regulated health service4 (including via social media) in a way that is false, misleading or deceptive. Advertising that includes false, misleading or deceptive claims about COVID-19, including anti-vaccination material, may result in prosecution by AHPRA.

In November 2021 I was suspended by AHPRA because I gave temporary medical certificates, usually three months duration, to my patients who were being forced to have the Covid injection. Had they refused, they would have lost their jobs and/or had an injection which was dangerous to their health and/or also conflicted with their religious beliefs because the injections are made using aborted human foetal parts.

When I had the opportunity to ask them, about 50% of these patients had suicidal ideation about this, so I had no hesitation in giving them a three months certificate saying that they should not have the injection.

I am still suspended now four years later. I will finally have a trial in April 2026 in which AHPRA/the medical board will attempt to prove that I am guilty of professional misconduct and a danger to the Australian public.

I am one of only four doctors who have been suspended for this because we all stood up for this violation of one of the most basic of human rights: the right to be fully informed of your medical treatment and the right to refuse this treatment if you don’t want it.

Voluntary Assisted Dying

The Victorian government has amended4 the Voluntary Assisted Dying law to make it a requirement that doctors give information about VAD to their patients.

Possibly, from as early as December this year, doctors must advise that another practitioner may assist and give the person the information. You are also required to give information approved by the “secretary.”

From the amended legislation:5

“(2) If a registered medical practitioner or nurse practitioner who has a conscientious objection to voluntary assisted dying refuses to provide information about voluntary assisted dying to a person requesting information about or access to voluntary assisted dying, the practitioner must—

(a) advise the person that another registered medical practitioner or nurse practitioner may be able to assist the person in relation to information about or access to voluntary assisted dying; and
(b) give the person the following information—
(i) contact details for the prescribed voluntary assisted dying care navigator service;
(ii) the address of an Internet site of the Department of Health that provides information about voluntary assisted dying.”.

Now we have Voluntary Assisted Dying. This should be called voluntary assisted suicide, but because assisted suicide is a crime listed in the Crimes Act with a penalty of five years in jail, it can’t be called that.

It can’t be called voluntary assisted death either, because it’s up to the patient to take the medication at their discretion. The doctor doesn’t need to wait around to make sure that the patient is dead, as the drug is supposed to kill them; this is usually phenobarbitone, which may or may not work. [See this article on why assisted suicide is neither dignified nor painless.]

Also the doctor writing the death certificate must not write that the patient has died from the ingestion of the lethal dose of medication, but record the terminal condition which led to the patient feeling that life is not worth living any more; for example, cancer, heart failure, multiple sclerosis or Neil Daniher’s motor neurone disease.

Now we come to the crunch. In past years, if you felt there was a genuine possibility that a patient would commit suicide, you would call the CATT team6 or the police surgeon to prevent it. In the more distant past, you could certify the patient yourself.

Yet according to this new legislation, if patients comes to you, as a doctor, requesting “assisted dying” and the information needed to access it, (i.e. they want to know how to commit suicide), instead of asking them why they want to commit suicide, you must give the advice on how to kill themselves, including information approved by the government secretary. I hope she’s a good secretary.

Implications for Catholic doctors

All the formerly Catholic hospitals are now influenced by the government to a large extent, for example St. Vincent’s and the Mercy Hospital in Melbourne. There are obviously others as well, and we have the example of the fate of the Calvary hospital in Canberra.

Obviously, these laws are insane. We are Catholic doctors. We cannot advise patients to kill themselves. We cannot stand by and not give a good counter argument to a woman who wants to abort her child. We cannot stand by and agree with a medical treatment that we think is dangerous and has been recommended to the patient because the government says it is justified.

On the other hand, if we act on our consciences, we will not be able to practise medicine in our society. It is not only doctors but nurses who are at risk. They certainly won’t be able to do general practice or obstetrics and gynaecology. Endocrinology and psychology will be a big problem, as will plastic surgery and other forms of surgery be problematic. These include paediatrics and paediatric surgery. The implications are endless.

I believe Catholics were excluded from the professions in England following the Elizabethan persecutions and that this continued until 1871. Such restrictions on faithful health professionals are being imposed in C21st Australia and must be opposed at every stage.

  1. https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/abortion-law-reform-act-2008/005 ↩︎
  2. https://www.ncregister.com/news/australian-doctor-could-lose-license-for-refusing-sex-
    based-abortion ↩︎
  3. https://www.ahpra.gov.au/News/2021-03-09-vaccination-statement.aspx ↩︎
  4. https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/compassion-and-dignity-terminally-ill-victorians ↩︎
  5. https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-11/601294bs1.pdf ↩︎
  6. Crisis Assessment and Treatment Team ↩︎