In this episode of Life Matters, Brian Johnson explains the importance of elections, each and every election.&nbsp; More importantly, he focuses on the power of your vote the further down the ballot you go.&nbsp; On a statewide level, your vote is a drop in the bucket.&nbsp; But as various jurisdictions get smaller, the number of voters also gets dramatically smaller and this is why local elections are so important.&nbsp; In order to have candidates for the state legislature, or for Congress, you must draw from people with some degree of political experience. Most people who run for these higher offices have had experience at the local level, whether it be school board, city council. or supervisor. Ironically, it is THESE starter positions, where your vote and the vote of your friends, make the greatest impact. By being involved in local elections, you can launch the career of people who share your values and ideals. Many elections for city office and for school board are determined by a relative handful of votes. That handful, five or six votes, may mean nothing on the larger level, but to keep Planned Parenthood out of your school district, that handful of votes can be the key difference.&nbsp; By paying attention to these local races, you are not only effective in protecting your community from organizations like Planned Parenthood and others who seek to control the minds of your children, but you’re helping to elect individuals who wish to see the government make wise decisions. You’re helping out individuals who share your values. You’re making a difference in your state, in your region, in your community.&nbsp;

313: Local Elections Matter

In this episode of Life Matters, Brian Johnston examines the pressure in 2024 to legalize assisted suicide nationwide in the United States. Many nations have now adopted assisted suicide throughout their borders, including Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, France, in many others. The American euthanasia movement had attempted to do this through the courts, but in 1994 the Glucksberg decision by the United States Supreme Court announced there was no national “legal right” to be killed by medicine. In spring of 2024, there are 10 states that have legalized medical killing, plus the District of Columbia. There are another fourteen states that have now introduced measures for this year’s legislative session. But this belies the long-term methods, the actual approach that euthanasia advocates are taking. Initially, they propose safeguards and limits on a measure to help it get through the legislative process and legalized.&nbsp; But then they “adjust” the parameters of the law. One of the most common limits is to initially say it is only for residents of their state.&nbsp; This is in order to prevent what is happening in Switzerland, where tourist suicide allows people to fly in and simply be killed in any of dozens of death centers established in Switzerland. Many states that had put safeguards, like the need for multiple doctors to agree, or the need to be a state resident, or the need to be personally present with the physician (many drugs are now being prescribed via Zoom); all of those “safeguards” are now being removed. And there is concerted effort in the media, and by agent provocateur, to encourage those who are medically and emotionally vulnerable to receive their poison pills across state line via Zoom, or to travel to states where their lies will be brought to a swift and immediate end .&nbsp; What all of this means is that we, as individuals. must be extremely attentive to our elderly and dependent relatives. We must ensure that, if they are in any long-term care facilities,&nbsp;proper emotional and medical attention is paid to them. This can only be done by personal involvement. It can’t be done from afar Just as in older cultures, it is the family, and our immediate involvement with family, that is the greatest safeguard in a confused and dying civilization willing to kill the isolated vulnerable. &nbsp;

314: Nationalization of Euthanasia

In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston examines the February 2024 decision of the Alabama Supreme Court regarding in vitro fertilization. The issue of in vitro fertilization (IVF) is not a new debate, but sadly, media coverage has over simplified and reduced a deeper analysis. The issue of manipulating human beings and playing God by creating, and then destroying human lives, has grave and dramatic implications for all of society, many of which are being ignored. First and foremost is the issue of human ownership. There is no debate that these are human embryos. Yes, they can be preserved by cryogenic&nbsp;freezing, &nbsp;But they are indeed human and as the movie, “Jurassic Park” intimates, via IVF, there are implications to the use of science to both create, and then possibly destroy the life created. In that film, the issue revolved around using science to create dinosaurs, using cryogenic freezing of the embryos. But also shows the implications of the creation and theft of such cryogenic “property”. The issue of creating living property, “playing God,” is only the beginning. The idea of owning another human being is obviously at the heart of IVF issues when it comes to human reproduction. And the issue of owning a human being is clearly at the heart of both slavery and abortion.&nbsp; Western Civilization has recognized that it is unethical to claim ownership of another human being, much less destroy a human being you claim to own.&nbsp; Brian continues the discussion by examining the work of the Swedish Council on Bioethics. In vitro fertilization is being practiced in Sweden, but there are grave implications which are impacting that culture. The Swedish culture is considered liberal and progressive, but the dire implications of owning and creating new human lives are only beginning to be understood. The Swedish Council on Bioethics is asking for a re-examination and some reasonable limitations to be put on this ‘practice of medicine.’

315: In Vitro Fertilization

In this episode of Life Matters, Brian Johnston explores the rapid expansion of medical killing - euthanasia. The pattern for euthanasia advocates is to first establish a right to “assisted suicide” - a form of voluntary euthanasia – and imply that there will be protections from any abuse, and that there will be no expansion of medical killing. California Senate Bill 1169 by Senator Blakespear demonstrates again that once the idea of legalized medical killing is established, it is impossible to monitor or prevent its “It’s okay” expansion.&nbsp; Currently, it is very difficult to monitor the use of assisted suicide in California facilities. The government is dependent on the honesty of those reporting the actions and there is no penalty for failure to fill out a report.&nbsp; That being said, the new bill removes the idea that there be a six month prognosis of death. That language is changed to “a grievous and irremediable medical condition.” In other words, there need not be any terminal condition!&nbsp; Secondly, the new bill allows those with dementia to consent to assisted suicide, even though they have a condition that impairs their capacity to consent! The measure will now allow the use of intravenous administration of poison. &nbsp;Under current law, the person takes an oral dose of the poison at the time and place of their own choosing with or without witnesses.&nbsp; The new bill removes any need for a residency requirement. If you live in a state where your doctor is concerned that your depression and emotions are causing you to desire suicide, you can simply travel to California, where the new doctor will kill you without any further questions being asked. There is no requirement now, nor will there be, of psychological testing of the individuals to be killed. The 48-hour waiting period is removed.&nbsp; If you ask to die today, you will be killed the same day. The original California Assisted Suicide Law was scheduled to sunset by 2031. Most laws have a sunset in order to assess their efficacy. Now, medical killing - euthanasia - will be the law of the land for perpetuity. &nbsp; Don’t believe that euthanasia advocates want to limit euthanasia. They want to be free to dispose of any individuals whom they see fit for disposal. That’s how medical killing works. That’s how it worked under national socialism. That’s how it worked under international socialism. That’s how it works wherever the Hippocratic Oath is removed from society.

316: Euthanasia Expansion

In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston explains the importance of not being religious in our attempts to change the laws to protect innocent human life. Johnston reminds us that America’s founders were themselves deeply religious individuals, but they understood that many of them had disagreements within their own theologies - differences in doctrine. The answer to this difficult challenge was actually found in the formation of other republics throughout history. A republic asserts that there is more than simple voting and majoritarianism in making law. &nbsp; Votes must be according to higher laws. The founders referred to this existence of a higher law, a natural law premise, self-evident and ‘revealed in nature’, when they spoke of creating a more just government and founded on the principals of the laws of nature and nature’s God.&nbsp; It is essential for earnest pro-lifers, now that the various states are free to create new laws regarding abortion, that these pro-life advocates not be merely religious or doctrinaire advocates, but instead realize that they must build our laws on self-evident truth and be able to work within the principles of natural law and the methods of conducting a republic’s business through parliamentary procedure and debate.&nbsp; This necessitates setting aside our personal theology, working towards those higher laws, those common goods, and most importantly, being willing to compromise in order to get as much as we possibly can within the political process. Johnston explains how the current debate regarding appropriate abortion measures requires an understanding of natural law theory and practice, “the laws of nature and nature’s God” as the founders outlined it, and the ability and humility to compromise in order to accomplish goals.

317: Understanding Why the United States Founders Used Natural Law

In this episode of Life Matters, Brian interviews Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. They discuss in depth the recent failure of California Senate Bill 1196 by Senator Blakespear. The irony is that the bill was not defeated by pro-life efforts. The bill was actually attacked by other pro-death organizations, lobbyist and legislators. Why would other pro-death advocates attack this measure? The prospects of passage in the California legislature are very good - the progressive Democratic Party holds a super majority in both houses. The governor would’ve gladly signed off, as he himself has been supportive and wrote of participating in the intentional killing of his own mother before it was even legalized in California. SB 1196, would no longer allow a need for terminal diagnosis, would make provision to kill those who are not a sound mind, and would remove most qualifying limitations on assisted suicide.&nbsp; The reason the bill was stopped is they knew it would likely pass, and that passage would send alarm bells to an otherwise sleeping public.&nbsp; Assisted suicide is going on in California medical facilities. Assisted suicide is, in fact, the intentional killing of a depressed person. It is happening now and as the death lobby knows, because of media coverage or perhaps lack of coverage, most Californians have no idea California doctors are killing patients. &nbsp; Brian and Alex point out that ‘choice’ whether it be in abortion or in euthanasia, does not actually refer to the patient.&nbsp; It is a medical decision and it is the choice of the doctor to do the abortion, it is the choice of the doctor to perform euthanasia. So when the term ‘choice’ is applied to these procedures, it doesn’t mean protecting a patient. It means protecting the choice of a killing doctor, a doctor who is blatantly defying the oath that made the medical perfection respected. That Hippocratic oath is now gone.&nbsp;

318: SB 1196 with Alex Schadenberg

You’ve often heard it said, “Well, everyone has a right to die.”&nbsp; But is that true?&nbsp; If everyone has a right to die then I’m going to live forever because I simply will not exercise my right to die.&nbsp; It’s an absurd statement that hides a much deeper and sinister meaning.&nbsp; What they’re really saying is they would like to cause people to die or they feel someone should be dead, they’re just not dead enough yet so they want to do the act. That’s a very different verb.&nbsp; Dying is intransitive.&nbsp; We’re all going to die.&nbsp; But not all of us will be killed and that’s the verb they don’t want to bring themselves to say.&nbsp; To cause someone to die, whether it’s yourself or another, it’s killing.

Minute: It's About Killing

Hosted by Commissioner Brian Johnston, a weekly podcast examining the Right To Life, Culture and the Battle of Ideas. With various guests and experts he examines the arts, the nature of the law, the practice of medicine, ethics, and even personal relationships.

Life Matters

Pinned to spotlight

Popular tracks