Radical Environmentalism: Justifying a Chinese Style Population Control Tyranny  The one child policy in China has led to forced abortion, female infanticide, eugenics, awful heartbreak, and countless other oppressions. But in the world of radical environmentalism, that may be unfortunate–but it is also, apparently, justifiable. How else interpret this statement in the Observer by Alex Renton, which deals with the supposed need to control population to save the planet from carbon dioxide. From the column "Fewer British Babies Would Mean a Fairer Planet:" According to two recent polls, nine out of 10 scientists working in climate change don't believe we will achieve the changes in energy use committed to by the G8 and the EU. If they are right, population is going to start to matter a lot. Don't we need a fallback plan? That fallback plan is radical population control: So the richer a country gets, the more pressing the need for it to curb its population. The only nation to have taken steps to do this is China – and the way it went about enforcing the notorious one child policy is one of the reasons the rest of us are so horrified by the notion of state intervention. Yet China now has 300-400 million fewer people. It was certainly the most successful governmental attempt to preserve the world's resources so far. It was evil! It was accomplished through murder and utter tyranny. Does that not matter anymore? We'be been warned: Either start limiting our families to one child in the developed world–or else! Some scientists, the German chancellor's adviser, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber among them, say that if the cuts are not achieved, we will end up with a planet with a "carrying capacity" of just 1bn humans. [Me: What a crock.] If so, we need to start cutting back population now with methods that offer a humane choice – before it happens the hard way. "The hard way?" as in how they did it in China? Or perhaps, worse? Progressive liberalism used to be about freedom and equality. Increasingly it is about Utopian hysteria and undemocratic control. Perhaps, there's a spot for this guy among the Obama policy czars. Contact: Wesley J. Smith Source: Secondhand Smoke Publish Date: October 25, 2009 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend. |
October 26, 2009
Radical Environmentalism: Justifying a Chinese Style Population Control Tyranny
Handheld Ultrasound: A Peek at the Future of the Pro-Life Movement?
Handheld Ultrasound: A Peek at the Future of the Pro-Life Movement?  New technology hailed as a stunning leap forward in modern health care may be about to give pro-life advocates unheard-of power to save a life - in the palm of their hand. At the Web 2.0 summit in San Francisco this week, General Electric unveiled the ultraportable and user-friendly Vscan, an ultrasound machine about the size of a large flip phone. Dubbing it "the stethoscope of the 21st century," the company offered various scenarios in which the device could vastly advance the landscape of diagnostics. For pro-lifers on the front lines, the new gadget could hugely improve abortion-bound women's access to ultrasounds, which have been found highly effective in helping mothers choose life for their baby. In the past, the sheer size of the devices has given pro-lifers a perennial puzzle over how to bring the heavy medical equipment into the paths of such women. Thomas Peters of the American Papist blog was among the first to ponder the new invention as a potential "revolution in sidewalk pro-life counseling technology." Chris Slattery, the founder and president of the New York pregnancy resource center Expectant Mother Care, called the breakthrough "absolutely awesome." Slattery said that his own operation has been actively pursuing smaller versions of the ultrasound - having just crammed his mobile ultrasound into a 15-foot cargo van, a step up from the previous 20-foot mobile home. "Our movement is going more and more mobile with ultrasound," said Slattery. Some pro-life organizers, he said, are so devoted to the life-saving benefits of ultrasound that they have created "a whole sub-segment of the movement" dedicated to providing mobile ultrasound. But while the vision of pro-life sidewalk counselors nationwide packing a personal ultrasound in their back pocket may be an attractive one, the new technology won't be available for general consumption. Ultrasound sonography is tightly regulated by state law as well as national medical guidelines issued by the American Institute in Ultrasound Medicine, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American College of Radiology. Still, with equipment and training provided by organizations such as Option Ultrasound and National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), more and more pregnancy resource centers today have been able to open the technology to a life-saving venue. Major pregnancy resource center groups now provide regular and ongoing sonography training for medical clinic affiliates. "[Ultrasound] is the most powerful tool in the movement," said Slattery. "I've been looking for a new ultrasound machine - and I want to find out more about this." Contact: Kathleen Gilbert Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: October 23, 2009 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend. |
End of Life Care Should Not End Life
End of Life Care Should Not End Life Ken Connor The subject of how best to honor and care for those facing death due to terminal illness or old age has always been controversial. As talk of "death panels" and "rationing" stirs debate over the government's proper role in health care, two new studies funded by the National Institutes of Health are lending new weight to the argument that, when it comes to providing end-of-life care for the elderly and terminally ill, sometimes less is better. The studies, featured in the New England Journal of Medicine, document how certain medical therapies implemented in the final months of a patient's life often cause emotional and physical stress and pain, effectively negating any positive benefits associated with such treatments. However, those worried that a government takeover of health care will result in health care rationing in keeping with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel's "complete lives" theory view these studies with alarm—and for good reason. In a culture where "quality of life" is increasingly viewed as the predominant justification for abortion, assisted suicide, and even infanticide, there is a legitimate concern that these kinds of studies will be used by the government to advance policies that endanger society's most vulnerable members. The pivotal question is not whether difficult end-of-life decisions must sometimes be made, or whether—as the NIH studies indicate—sometimes the best decision is to forego heroic measures in favor of simply keeping a patient comfortable in his or her final days. The traditions of hospice and palliative care, for example, both work to keep dying individuals in a state of dignity and comfort without resorting to extraordinary, and ultimately futile, measures. The question is who should make these decisions. Government-run health care has ominous implications because it supplants individual doctor-patient relationships with generalized protocols crafted by bureaucrats who have no way of accounting for the particular needs of the human beings affected by them. These protocols are often drafted with cost-cutting goals and resource management in mind—not the criteria most want at the top of the list when it comes to life and death medical care. At many hospitals and nursing homes in the United Kingdom, for example, elderly patients deemed close to death are placed in a "care pathway" designed to ease the dying process and conserve medical resources. Once it is determined that a patient is near death, life sustaining fluids and medicines are withdrawn and the patient is placed under heavy sedation. As bioethicist Wesley J. Smith describes it, "the Pathway misuses the legitimate treatment of palliative sedation, and mutates it in some cases into a method of causing death, known as terminal sedation. This means that sedation is sometimes administered, not because the individual patient actually needs the procedure, but because he or she has been reduced to a category member, and that's how members of the category are treated." When this kind of one-size-fits-all approach is employed, casualties are inevitable. One man has already lost his life due to the misapplication of England's bureaucratic approach to end-of-life care. At the other end of life spectrum, last month a woman in England was forced to watch her premature infant struggle to survive without medical care for hours before finally dying on the delivery room table. The reason? Doctors told the new mother that "national regulations" prevented them from providing medical care because the baby was born two days too early to qualify for life-saving measures. In Canada, the government recently decided to end funding for a medication that adds an additional nine months to the lives of colon cancer patients. Why? "Clinical" evidence suggested that the additional months of life were not worth the cost of the medication. In each of these situations, end-of-life decisions were made without the input of, and sometimes against the explicit wishes of, the individuals involved. These treatments are not being employed as one option among many—they are being imposed uniformly as a matter of policy. Few would deny that some measure of reform is needed in the health care arena. Our country is on the threshold of a veritable Senior Tsunami; an enormous age wave is coming. As America increasingly becomes a mass geriatric society, large numbers of the elderly will soon need acute and long term care. Yet, even as the demand for medical care is increasing, Medicare funds are in short supply, and something's got to give. But if our leaders in Washington are unable or unwilling to come up with a uniquely American solution to this problem, and if the looming health care crisis continues to be exploited by leaders on the Left simply as a means to a greater ideological end, there is good reason to fear that the cold comfort of England's "care pathway" approach to end-of-life care may be coming soon to a hospital near you. Contact: Ken Connor Source: CNSNews.com Publish Date: October 26, 2009 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend. |
Pro-life Rep. Bart Stupak claims enough votes to stop health care bill over abortion
Pro-life Rep. Bart Stupak claims enough votes to stop health care bill over abortion Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) / House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi Washington D.C..- Drawing opposition from pro-abortion politicians and activists, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) is leading a coalition of about 40 pro-life Democrats who are petitioning for an opportunity to vote Hyde Amendment-like abortion funding restrictions into the proposed health care reform legislation. Rep. Stupak is negotiating with Congressional leaders to resolve the dispute. He has threatened to block action on the larger health care reform bill unless he is allowed to offer a stand-alone amendment during floor debate to include the Hyde Amendment, the Associated Press reports. The amendment would bar federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother's life would be endangered. The amendment applies to Medicaid funding, requiring that states which cover abortion for low-income women can only use state taxpayer money, and not federal funds. In its current form, the health care reform bill would create a new stream of federal funds outside the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment. Rep. Stupak has criticized current language that purports to segregate federal funds and funds used in abortions. "Once you get the affordability credits (subsidies) in there, that's public funding of abortion. We're not going there," Stupak told the Associated Press. "How do you get past the affordability credits is really the issue. And we can't." Speaking to CNSNews.com on Thursday, Stupak said that his group of "about 40 likeminded Democrats" will vote to kill the health-care bill if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) does not allow a floor vote on his amendment. "We will try to—we, there's about 40 likeminded Democrats like myself—we'll try to take down the rule," Stupak said. "If all 40 of us vote in a bloc against the rule—because we think the Republicans will join us—we can defeat the rule. The magic number is 218. If we can have 218 votes against the rule, we win." To block the bill, he must assemble "no" votes on a procedural measure that needs to pass before debate can begin. Stupak says he thinks he can gather about 220 "no" votes. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, claimed that everything possible has been done to ensure abortion services will not be federally funded. He said he is working on the issue with Rep. Stupak. According to the Associated Press, Rep. Waxman said that Rep. Stupak's preferred provision would deny any subsidy money to any insurance plan that includes abortion coverage. This would deny to women what he said were legal and sometimes medically necessary procedures. The pro-abortion group NARAL Pro-Choice America has criticized the present form of the bill, arguing that it singles out abortion from "other health care services." "Apparently it was necessary to stop anti-choice politicians from continuing to use health care reform to attack a woman's right to choose," the group's president Nancy Keenan said. NARAL has sent a letter to supporters singling out Rep. Stupak for criticism and asking them to call congressmen to ensure his defeat. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has said it cannot support a health care reform bill unless the pro-life language is strengthened. Commenting on Friday, National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) Legislative Director Douglas Johnson said the proposed bill "explicitly authorizes" the public plan to pay for elective abortions. "Democratic leaders, including President Obama, have claimed that no federal funds would be used to pay for abortions, but this is a deception, because the public plan will be a federal agency program that can spend only federal funds. The federal government would pay abortion providers for performing elective abortions -- a sharp break from decades of federal policy." "Recent polls show strong public opposition to government funding of abortion and abortion coverage," he added, saying an amendment would be needed to remove abortion from the federal plan. Source: CNA Publish Date: October 23, 2009 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend. |
NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY
| NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY (Referral to Web sites not produced by The Illinois Federation for Right to LIfe is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.) Florida Plans Plug Pulling, Death Panels, Healthcare Rationing  Public health officials in Florida are silently drawing up guidelines that call for "rationed" medical care, admission denials, and even withdrawing essential care from certain patients in the event of a serious spread of influenza, documents show. Led by Florida Surgeon General Ana Viamonte, the state Department of Health's Pandemic Influenza Technical Advisory Committee issued a draft report entitled "Pandemic Influenza: Triage and Scarce Resource Allocation" that purports to offer guidance on how to distribute medical supplies in the event of a flu outbreak or other health emergency. It also identifies a "methodology that enables healthcare institutions to make decisions on patient admission and treatment," according to the introduction. Click here for the full article. Abortion, Birth Control Pill Linked To Breast Cancer, Surgeon Says  After her best childhood friend died from breast cancer, Ruth Deddens began researching the causes of the dreaded disease. The Oakwood woman's investigation eventually led her to Angela Lanfranchi, a clinical assistant professor of surgery at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Jersey and president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. Deddens, active in the "40 Days for Life" movement, decided to bring Lanfranchi to town as part of this year's local pro-life campaign. Lanfranchi — who insists there are proven links between breast cancer, abortion and birth control pills — was the featured speaker at St. Anthony Church in East Dayton and a Sunday afternoon, Oct. 25, public gathering at the University of Dayton. She also spoke at two invitation-only events hosted by Deddens in memory of her friend, Katherine "Kit" Benham England, who died last Easter. Click here for the full article. Colombia's Council of State suspends regulations permitting abortion  Bogotá, Colombia - Colombia's Council of State has provisionally suspended regulations allowing abortions to be performed in the country, thus prohibiting any clinic from performing the procedure until its legal status is resolved. According to several media reports, the decision by the Council of State does not overrule the Constitutional Court's decision in 2006 to legalize abortion in cases of rape, fetal deformation or life of the mother. Click here for the full article. Constitutional Court in Peru admits abortifacient effect of morning-after pill  Lima, Peru - Peru's Constitutional Court has ruled against the distribution of the "morning-after pill" at public health care facilities because the abortifacient effect of the drug has not been ruled out. According to the public relations office of the Court, the justices hold that "the inexistence of the abortifacient effect, the inhibition of the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the endometrium, has not been demonstrated." The court accepted the arguments of various NGOs after evaluating the arguments presented by national and international institutions and found that supporters of the pill could not prove that it does not affect the right to life of the unborn, which is protected by the Peruvian Constitution. The court's ruling bans the free distribution of the morning-after pill in public health care facilities... Click here for the full article. Abortion in Health-Care Reform May Hurt Minorities the Most  Black Americans could be the group most affected by including taxpayer-funded abortions in health-care reform, according to pro-life experts. Jim Sedlak, vice president of the American Life League, said studies show one in two African-American pregnancies end in abortion, and the abortion rate for black women is almost three times that of white women. "These statistics show that (health care) is going to wind up paying mostly for abortions for African-American women," Sedlak said. "It's going to be killing off the African-American race in this country." Click here for the full article. View the Entire Pro-Life Petition News Conference Video Nearly 150,000 signatures were delivered to Capitol Hill on Wednesday, representing millions of Americans who do not support taxpayer funding of abortion in health-care reform. Yesterday's Focus Action Update offered a taste of the event, but a video of the entire event is now available. |
U.S. House Speaker Pelosi wants to ram the pro-abortion health care bill through the House
| U.S. House Speaker Pelosi wants to ram the pro-abortion health care bill through the House Telephone your representative in the U.S. House today! This is an urgent congressional alert. Please act on this alert immediately.  Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Ca.) is planning to try to ram the massive health care bill (H.R. 3200) through the House on short notice, without allowing consideration of a critical pro-life amendment. National Right to Life is urging every pro-life citizen to immediately TELEPHONE the office of his or her representative in the U.S. House of Representatives with a clear and firm message urging a NO vote on the so-called "rule," which is the procedural vote that would allow passage of H.R. 3200 with no amendments allowed, and also to vote against the pro-abortion bill itself. Even if you have already called and written your representatives in Congress about the health care bills, it is critical that you call again now. This will just take a few minutes. For guidance on how to make your call, click here. Once there, you will see a box labeled "CALL NOW." Once you enter your zip code in that box, you will be shown the name and phone number of your representative in the U.S. House, along with suggested "talking points" that will help you deliver a crisp, clear message to your representative's staff person in Washington, D.C. |
October 23, 2009
Nun Volunteering as Abortion Clinic Escort in Illinois
Nun Volunteering as Abortion Clinic Escort in Illinois
HINSDALE, Illinois - A Dominican nun has been seen frequenting an abortion facility in Illinois recently - but not, as one might expect, to pray for an end to abortion or to counsel women seeking abortions, but to volunteer as a clinic escort.
Local pro-life activists say that they recognized the escort at the ACU Health Center as Sr. Donna Quinn, a nun outspokenly in favor of legalized abortion, after seeing her photo in a Chicago Tribune article.
"I've called her sister several times, and she never responded," local pro-lifer John Bray told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN). "But it's her."
Amy Keane, a pro-life witness for 11 years, says Quinn has acted as escort for "six years, at least." Keane described one incident in which Quinn began shouting at the pro-lifers as they spoke to a woman about to enter the abortion facility.
"[Quinn] was so angry, and burst out very loudly so everyone could hear: 'Look at these men, telling these women what to do with their bodies!'" said Keane. "She was so angry, that it really took all of us aback." Keane says that the group was peaceful, and that the men present were not among those engaging the woman.
"For those of us who are Catholic, to have a member of a religious order so blatantly - it is so disheartening. It really is," said Keane. "She's participating actively in abortion. That is what is so disturbing for us."
Sr. Donna Quinn, OP, is renowned in the Chicago area as an advocate for legalized abortion and other liberal issues.
In 1974 she co-founded the organization Chicago Catholic Women, which lobbied the USCCB on a feminist platform before it dissolved in 2000. She is now a coordinator of the radically liberal National Coalition of American Nuns (NCAN), which stands in opposition against the Catholic Church's position on abortion, homosexuality, contraception, and the male priesthood.
While LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) was unable to reach Sr. Quinn for comment, NCAN's Sr. Beth Rindler confirmed to LSN that Quinn is still a member of their group, which favors unrestricted legalized abortion and disagrees with the teaching that abortion is intrinsically evil. "We respect women, and believe that they make moral decision, and so we respect their decisions," Rindler explained.
In a 2002 address to the Women's Studies in Religion Program at Harvard Divinity School, Sr. Quinn described how she came to view the teachings of her Church as "immoral": "I used to say: 'This is my Church, and I will work to change it, because I love it,'" she said. "Then later I said, 'This church is immoral, and if I am to identify with it I'd better work to change it.' More recently, I am saying, 'All organized religions are immoral in their gender discriminations.'"
Quinn called gender discrimination "the root cause of evil in the Church, and thus in the world," and said she remained in the Dominican community simply for "the sisterhood."
Sr. Patricia Mulcahey, OP, Quinn's Prioress at the Sinsinawa Dominican community, said in an email response to LSN that the nun sees her volunteer activity as "accompanying women who are verbally abused by protestors. Her stance is that if the protestors were not abusive, she would not be there."
Though Sr. Mulcahey claimed that her sisters "support the teachings of the Catholic Church," she declined to comment on Quinn's public protest of Catholic Church teaching.
Joe Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League says Quinn came in contact with his own office in 1982, when she and a group of other pro-aborts picketed his building on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
"She figures it's part of her religion to take these women in and protect them, and get them abortions," said Scheidler of Quinn's recent activity. "Something dreadful has happened to make a Catholic nun become an escort at an abortion clinic - that's the lowest form you can reach, where you escort a woman with a living child in her into a place to have the child killed, and to ruin that woman's soul."
"If I didn't even believe in the humanity of the child - which of course would be crazy - even if I didn't, I would fight abortion for the sake of the women," Scheidler added. "They miss that baby, and they can't get it back. They never can."
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: October 23, 2009
Link to this article.
this article to a friend.
HINSDALE, Illinois - A Dominican nun has been seen frequenting an abortion facility in Illinois recently - but not, as one might expect, to pray for an end to abortion or to counsel women seeking abortions, but to volunteer as a clinic escort.
Local pro-life activists say that they recognized the escort at the ACU Health Center as Sr. Donna Quinn, a nun outspokenly in favor of legalized abortion, after seeing her photo in a Chicago Tribune article.
"I've called her sister several times, and she never responded," local pro-lifer John Bray told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN). "But it's her."
Amy Keane, a pro-life witness for 11 years, says Quinn has acted as escort for "six years, at least." Keane described one incident in which Quinn began shouting at the pro-lifers as they spoke to a woman about to enter the abortion facility.
"[Quinn] was so angry, and burst out very loudly so everyone could hear: 'Look at these men, telling these women what to do with their bodies!'" said Keane. "She was so angry, that it really took all of us aback." Keane says that the group was peaceful, and that the men present were not among those engaging the woman.
"For those of us who are Catholic, to have a member of a religious order so blatantly - it is so disheartening. It really is," said Keane. "She's participating actively in abortion. That is what is so disturbing for us."
Sr. Donna Quinn, OP, is renowned in the Chicago area as an advocate for legalized abortion and other liberal issues.
In 1974 she co-founded the organization Chicago Catholic Women, which lobbied the USCCB on a feminist platform before it dissolved in 2000. She is now a coordinator of the radically liberal National Coalition of American Nuns (NCAN), which stands in opposition against the Catholic Church's position on abortion, homosexuality, contraception, and the male priesthood.
While LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) was unable to reach Sr. Quinn for comment, NCAN's Sr. Beth Rindler confirmed to LSN that Quinn is still a member of their group, which favors unrestricted legalized abortion and disagrees with the teaching that abortion is intrinsically evil. "We respect women, and believe that they make moral decision, and so we respect their decisions," Rindler explained.
In a 2002 address to the Women's Studies in Religion Program at Harvard Divinity School, Sr. Quinn described how she came to view the teachings of her Church as "immoral": "I used to say: 'This is my Church, and I will work to change it, because I love it,'" she said. "Then later I said, 'This church is immoral, and if I am to identify with it I'd better work to change it.' More recently, I am saying, 'All organized religions are immoral in their gender discriminations.'"
Quinn called gender discrimination "the root cause of evil in the Church, and thus in the world," and said she remained in the Dominican community simply for "the sisterhood."
Sr. Patricia Mulcahey, OP, Quinn's Prioress at the Sinsinawa Dominican community, said in an email response to LSN that the nun sees her volunteer activity as "accompanying women who are verbally abused by protestors. Her stance is that if the protestors were not abusive, she would not be there."
Though Sr. Mulcahey claimed that her sisters "support the teachings of the Catholic Church," she declined to comment on Quinn's public protest of Catholic Church teaching.
Joe Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League says Quinn came in contact with his own office in 1982, when she and a group of other pro-aborts picketed his building on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
"She figures it's part of her religion to take these women in and protect them, and get them abortions," said Scheidler of Quinn's recent activity. "Something dreadful has happened to make a Catholic nun become an escort at an abortion clinic - that's the lowest form you can reach, where you escort a woman with a living child in her into a place to have the child killed, and to ruin that woman's soul."
"If I didn't even believe in the humanity of the child - which of course would be crazy - even if I didn't, I would fight abortion for the sake of the women," Scheidler added. "They miss that baby, and they can't get it back. They never can."
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: October 23, 2009
Link to this article.
this article to a friend.
UN Petition for the Unborn Child Re-Launched, Seeks One Million Names
UN Petition for the Unborn Child Re-Launched, Seeks One Million Names
An international coalition of pro-life and pro-family groups has re-launched a petition that is expected to gather one million signatures in support of the unborn child and the traditional family.
Groups from the United States, Poland, Spain and other European counties launched the petition last fall and at that time gathered nearly 500,000 signatures, which were presented to selected Ambassadors at the United Nations (UN) and at a UN press conference that was broadcast throughout UN headquarters. The groups included C-FAM, Concerned Women for America, United Families International, all from the United States, along with the Polish Federation of Pro-life Groups and the Spanish Institute for Family Policy. A prominent parliamentarian from Honduras also participated in the press conference.
The purpose of the petition is to persuade UN Member States to begin interpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as protecting the unborn child from abortion and also to recognize traditional marriage and the right of parents to educate their children.
Organizers launched the petition partially in reaction to efforts by pro-abortion groups last year to use the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration to promote a right to abortion.
The pro-life petition, which can be signed here in one of 19 languages, specifically references portions of the Universal Declaration that can be interpreted by States in pro-life and pro-family ways. For instance, the Universal Declaration says, “Everyone has the right to life.” Though it is not clear that the drafters meant to include the unborn child in this formulation, States may interpret the document this way.
The Universal Declaration also says, “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.” In recent years social radicals have pushed the UN to call for an international right for homosexuals to marry. Social conservatives point out this is in direct opposition to the intention of the drafters of the aspirational Universal Declaration and its binding implementing covenants promulgated in 1966.
Family-rights proponents also highlight the Universal Declaration's recognition that “Parents have the prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” There is a push in the West to allow homosexual propaganda in schools even against the wishes of parents. This would be in violation of the Universal Declaration.
Additionally, the petition cites the Universal Declaration where it says “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection from society and the State.” In recent years efforts have been made to undermine the natural family by redefining it to include homosexual couples, efforts that have been repeatedly defeated in the UN General Assembly.
Organizers were also inspired by efforts of the Catholic St. Egidio Community of Rome who gathered one million signatures calling for a moratorium on the death penalty that resulted in a successful UN resolution calling for a ban on executions.
European Union Parliamentarians Anna Zaborska of Slovakia and Carlo Casini of Italy led similar efforts to the UN pro-life petition in Europe. Their petitions were presented to the European Parliament last year.
(This article reprinted by LifeSiteNews.com with permission from www.c-fam.org)
Contact: Austin Ruse
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: October 22, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
An international coalition of pro-life and pro-family groups has re-launched a petition that is expected to gather one million signatures in support of the unborn child and the traditional family.
Groups from the United States, Poland, Spain and other European counties launched the petition last fall and at that time gathered nearly 500,000 signatures, which were presented to selected Ambassadors at the United Nations (UN) and at a UN press conference that was broadcast throughout UN headquarters. The groups included C-FAM, Concerned Women for America, United Families International, all from the United States, along with the Polish Federation of Pro-life Groups and the Spanish Institute for Family Policy. A prominent parliamentarian from Honduras also participated in the press conference.
The purpose of the petition is to persuade UN Member States to begin interpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as protecting the unborn child from abortion and also to recognize traditional marriage and the right of parents to educate their children.
Organizers launched the petition partially in reaction to efforts by pro-abortion groups last year to use the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration to promote a right to abortion.
The pro-life petition, which can be signed here in one of 19 languages, specifically references portions of the Universal Declaration that can be interpreted by States in pro-life and pro-family ways. For instance, the Universal Declaration says, “Everyone has the right to life.” Though it is not clear that the drafters meant to include the unborn child in this formulation, States may interpret the document this way.
The Universal Declaration also says, “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.” In recent years social radicals have pushed the UN to call for an international right for homosexuals to marry. Social conservatives point out this is in direct opposition to the intention of the drafters of the aspirational Universal Declaration and its binding implementing covenants promulgated in 1966.
Family-rights proponents also highlight the Universal Declaration's recognition that “Parents have the prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” There is a push in the West to allow homosexual propaganda in schools even against the wishes of parents. This would be in violation of the Universal Declaration.
Additionally, the petition cites the Universal Declaration where it says “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection from society and the State.” In recent years efforts have been made to undermine the natural family by redefining it to include homosexual couples, efforts that have been repeatedly defeated in the UN General Assembly.
Organizers were also inspired by efforts of the Catholic St. Egidio Community of Rome who gathered one million signatures calling for a moratorium on the death penalty that resulted in a successful UN resolution calling for a ban on executions.
European Union Parliamentarians Anna Zaborska of Slovakia and Carlo Casini of Italy led similar efforts to the UN pro-life petition in Europe. Their petitions were presented to the European Parliament last year.
(This article reprinted by LifeSiteNews.com with permission from www.c-fam.org)
Contact: Austin Ruse
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: October 22, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Nurse entangled in web-based suicide chats
Nurse entangled in web-based suicide chats
A Minneapolis nurse is being investigated for allegedly using Internet chat rooms to encourage depressed people to kill themselves.
Investigators believe the nurse offered specific instructions on how to commit suicide in at least two deaths, but there is a snag in prosecuting this case, or any similar case. Rita Marker of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide notes that a person has a First Amendment right to free speech, but the nurse's professional position is to be considered.
"It wouldn't have been considered free speech if she was acting as a nurse, but she would have really, really stepped over the boundaries," suggests Marker. "So while I'd like to give you a quick and easy answer about this and say it's cut and dried, it really isn't."
Rita Marker (International Tasf Force on Euthanasia and Assited Suicide)Whether legal action will be taken or not, the Minnesota Board of Nursing has revoked the nurse's license. Marker agrees with the reaction of the Board.
"I think that's very, very appropriate because, as a nurse, that would have been totally a non-nursy thing to do," she states, suggesting that "there are certain people who, by virtue of their professions, have certain professional requirements -- and so their profession can and certainly should revoke their licenses in cases like that."
Legal experts agree that prosecuting the case would be difficult because of freedom of speech. However, the Minnesota Board of Nursing said the nurse, 47-year-old William Melchert-Dinkel, did tell at least one person that his job made him an expert on the best ways to commit suicide.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: October 23, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
A Minneapolis nurse is being investigated for allegedly using Internet chat rooms to encourage depressed people to kill themselves.
Investigators believe the nurse offered specific instructions on how to commit suicide in at least two deaths, but there is a snag in prosecuting this case, or any similar case. Rita Marker of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide notes that a person has a First Amendment right to free speech, but the nurse's professional position is to be considered.
"It wouldn't have been considered free speech if she was acting as a nurse, but she would have really, really stepped over the boundaries," suggests Marker. "So while I'd like to give you a quick and easy answer about this and say it's cut and dried, it really isn't."
Rita Marker (International Tasf Force on Euthanasia and Assited Suicide)Whether legal action will be taken or not, the Minnesota Board of Nursing has revoked the nurse's license. Marker agrees with the reaction of the Board.
"I think that's very, very appropriate because, as a nurse, that would have been totally a non-nursy thing to do," she states, suggesting that "there are certain people who, by virtue of their professions, have certain professional requirements -- and so their profession can and certainly should revoke their licenses in cases like that."
Legal experts agree that prosecuting the case would be difficult because of freedom of speech. However, the Minnesota Board of Nursing said the nurse, 47-year-old William Melchert-Dinkel, did tell at least one person that his job made him an expert on the best ways to commit suicide.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: October 23, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Success! Adult stem cells overcome spinal-cord injuries
Success! Adult stem cells overcome spinal-cord injuries
Adult stem cells, which do not require killing a human embryo, have shown success again.
A new report from researchers in Portugal and at Wayne State University documents use of adult stem cells to treat spinal-cord injury patients, none of whom had use of their legs prior to treatment. Dr. David Prentice with Family Research Council summarizes the positive results from the treatments.
"Out of the 20 patients that they treated, 13 of those patients showed significant improvement -- things like being able to walk with the aid of braces or using a walker with no braces, [and] recovering feeling, different sensation, and movement below the old injury sight," he shares.
elderly walker smallPrentice believes that with additional treatment there could be even more improvement. The patients who were treated suffered the spinal-cord injuries 18 months to 15 years ago.
"This was an established paraplegia or quadriplegia where the adult stem cells [were] put in and then the patients did the exercise regime," Prentice explains. "They showed significant improvement." According to one of the researchers, individuals with spinal-cord injuries that happened more than 18 months earlier typically show "little improvement."
In contrast, highly touted human-embryo research has produced no benefit. Adult stem cells, however, are being used to treat more than 70 illnesses or medical conditions so far.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: October 23, 2009
Link to this article.
this article to a friend.
Adult stem cells, which do not require killing a human embryo, have shown success again.
A new report from researchers in Portugal and at Wayne State University documents use of adult stem cells to treat spinal-cord injury patients, none of whom had use of their legs prior to treatment. Dr. David Prentice with Family Research Council summarizes the positive results from the treatments.
"Out of the 20 patients that they treated, 13 of those patients showed significant improvement -- things like being able to walk with the aid of braces or using a walker with no braces, [and] recovering feeling, different sensation, and movement below the old injury sight," he shares.
elderly walker smallPrentice believes that with additional treatment there could be even more improvement. The patients who were treated suffered the spinal-cord injuries 18 months to 15 years ago.
"This was an established paraplegia or quadriplegia where the adult stem cells [were] put in and then the patients did the exercise regime," Prentice explains. "They showed significant improvement." According to one of the researchers, individuals with spinal-cord injuries that happened more than 18 months earlier typically show "little improvement."
In contrast, highly touted human-embryo research has produced no benefit. Adult stem cells, however, are being used to treat more than 70 illnesses or medical conditions so far.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: October 23, 2009
Link to this article.
this article to a friend.
Obamacare: Dems Still Playing Abortion Hide the Ball
Obamacare: Dems Still Playing Abortion Hide the Ball
There is a temporary impasse about abortion funding in the House, with pro life Democrats balking at the current bill because it could have federal money fund abortion. From the story:
House Democrats are at an impasse over whether their remake of the nation’s health care system would effectively allow federal funding of abortion. At least two dozen anti-abortion Democrats believe it would, and while their opposition is unlikely to stall the legislation in the end, they are at odds with Democratic leaders just weeks ahead of anticipated floor action on the bill.
Lawmakers on the other side say they’ve compromised as far as they can to address the anti-abortion lawmakers’ concerns by specifying that people receiving government subsidies to buy health insurance couldn’t use that money for abortions.
Negotiations to find common ground have not yielded fruit. “We have a difference of opinion at the moment we cannot bridge,” said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where the abortion language was approved. “We have done everything we can to ensure that there will be no federal funds for abortion services.”
No they haven’t. Waxman is so disingenuous. They could spell out explicitly that non therapeutic abortion is not to be covered by any public plan or by any policy which is fully or partially paid for by public subsidies or vouchers. They could require that abortion coverage be a rider, the cost of which would be fully paid for by the insurance policy holder. They could revoke the Capps Amendment that gave the bureaucrats the power to determined whether abortion would be a covered service under the plan. They could make sure that the bureaucrats–who will put in most of the dirty details–cannot cover abortion.
They could, but they won’t. They want abortion to be covered, I think, more than they want a health care bill to pass.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: October 23, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Abortion Kills More Black Americans Than the Seven Leading Causes of Death Combined, Says CDC Data
Abortion Kills More Black Americans Than the Seven Leading Causes of Death Combined, Says CDC Data
Dr. Freda Bush spoke recently at an event in
Washington, D.C. to recognize the work done by
Pregnancy Resource Centers to help women
who face unplanned pregnancy. She said that
abortion kills more African Americans than many
of the most deadly diseases blamed for killing
blacks each year combined.
(CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
Abortion kills more black Americans than the seven leading causes of death combined, according to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2005, the latest year for which the abortion numbers are available.
Abortion killed at least 203,991 blacks in the 36 states and two cities (New York City and the District of Columbia) that reported abortions by race in 2005, according to the CDC. During that same year, according to the CDC, a total of 198,385 blacks nationwide died from heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and chronic lower respiratory diseases combined. These were the seven leading causes of death for black Americans that year.
A total of 49 jurisdictions reported their abortion numbers for 2005 to the CDC. These included all 50 states--except California, Louisiana, and New Hampshire--and New York City and the District of Columbia. Of these 49 jurisdiction, only 36 states plus New York City and the District of Columbia reported the number of abortions by race.
Of these 36 states, Georgia reported the largest number of abortions--18,325--among African Americans. Idaho and Montana reported the fewest, 16 and 17 respectively.
Among the large states not reporting abortions by race--and thus where the number of blacks killed by abortions is not included in the national total of 203,991--are California, Florida, Illinois and the rest of New York state outside of New York City.
According to the CDC, the total of 203,991 blacks killed by abortion in 2005 also does not include those aborted by "private physicians’ procedures.”
Every year since 1969, the CDC has amassed abortion data by state or area of occurrence, requesting information each year from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City. The CDC attempts to collect data on abortions by the age, race and marital status of the women who undergo them as well as the type of abortion procedure.
However, the “CDC is not a regulatory agency,” Senior Press Officer Karen Hunter told CNSNews.com. “So while we are required by Congress to collect this information, states are not required to provide any data to the CDC, including abortion surveillance.”
In 2005, a total of 820,151 legal abortions were performed in the 49 jurisdication that reported abortions to the CDC, according to the “Abortion Surveillance” report, which is published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, or MMWR, for Nov. 28, 2008. (Scroll up to top of report)
The report states, “Approximately 1 in 5 U.S. pregnancies have ended in abortion,” and also notes some limitations on the data: “The overall number, ratio, and rate of abortions are conservative estimates; the total numbers of legal induced abortions provided by central health agencies and reported to the CDC for 2005 were probably lower than the numbers actually performed.”
In Table 9 of the report, it states that there were 203,991 blacks killed by abortion, which comprises 35.5 percent of all abortions reported for that year.
Rev. Clenard H. Childress, Jr., founder of BlackGenocide.org, told CNSNews.com that according to numbers gleaned from statistics provided by the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion group, 1,784 blacks are aborted each day. Also, he notes on his Web site that three out of five African-American women will obtain an abortion.
Childress said the information and sources on his Web site have never been challenged by abortion-access supporters. “This is because they can see that themselves, and they know them probably to be far worse than we’re reporting. The facts come from the pro-abort/pro-choice community,” he said.
“You want to go to a reliable source where people can’t dismiss what you’re saying,” Childress said.
“Yet the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP, Urban League, and the National Action Committee of Al Sharpton fail abysmally to report not only the decimation but the health ramifications which are questionably very pertinent and provable,” said Childress.
“It would be one thing if we were talking about something hypothetically, but these are actual empirical proofs. … We simply want the health issues of abortion to be discussed,” Childress added.
Susan Cohen, director of government affairs at the Guttmacher Institute, said that black women are not inordinately targeted.
It is the high number of unintended pregnancies among black women that explains the disproportionate number of black abortions, she stated in a policy analysis, “Abortion and Women of Color: The Bigger Picture (2008),” which was provided to CNSNews.com by Guttmacher Institute spokeswoman Rebecca Wind.
While acknowledging that the abortion rate for blacks in the United States is “almost 5 times that for white women,” Cohen concluded in her analysis, “these higher unintended pregnancy rates (among African American women) reflect the particular difficulties that many women in minority communities face in accessing high-quality contraceptive services and in using their chosen method of birth control consistently and effectively over long periods of time."
“Because black women experience so many more unintended pregnancies than any other group—sharply disproportionate to their numbers in the general population—they are more likely to seek out and obtain abortion services than any other group,” said Cohen.
When asked to comment on this report, Dr. Freda Bush, an obstetrician and gynecologist in private practice in Jackson, Miss., told CNSNews.com that she found the explanation for the high rate of black abortions “disingenuous.”
“I would just like for them to explain why there’s such a significant proportion of their clinics that are located in minority communities,” said Bush, who is black. “So if you’ll notice, I did not mention that as a factor when I talked to you [earlier], so I was not accusing them of anything.
“I was just pointing out the fact that we have more, but since they brought it up, I would like for them to explain where their clinics are located, and why their clinics are located in that area,” she added.
“I would also like for an explanation of why their founder, Margaret Sanger, who was a known eugenist, also had a Negro project, and an explanation if that was not directed at the ‘undesirables,’” said Bush. “So, I’m not accusing them of anything. I would just like an explanation for the practices that they have continued.”
Dr. Alveda King, niece of slain civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., is a pro-life activist. In August 2007 she told a meeting of Priests for Life that abortionists “plant their killing centers in minority neighborhoods and prey upon women who think they have no hope.”
“The great irony,” she said, “is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.”
Contact: Karen Schuberg
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: October 23, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Dr. Freda Bush spoke recently at an event in
Washington, D.C. to recognize the work done by
Pregnancy Resource Centers to help women
who face unplanned pregnancy. She said that
abortion kills more African Americans than many
of the most deadly diseases blamed for killing
blacks each year combined.
(CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
Abortion kills more black Americans than the seven leading causes of death combined, according to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2005, the latest year for which the abortion numbers are available.
Abortion killed at least 203,991 blacks in the 36 states and two cities (New York City and the District of Columbia) that reported abortions by race in 2005, according to the CDC. During that same year, according to the CDC, a total of 198,385 blacks nationwide died from heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and chronic lower respiratory diseases combined. These were the seven leading causes of death for black Americans that year.
A total of 49 jurisdictions reported their abortion numbers for 2005 to the CDC. These included all 50 states--except California, Louisiana, and New Hampshire--and New York City and the District of Columbia. Of these 49 jurisdiction, only 36 states plus New York City and the District of Columbia reported the number of abortions by race.
Of these 36 states, Georgia reported the largest number of abortions--18,325--among African Americans. Idaho and Montana reported the fewest, 16 and 17 respectively.
Among the large states not reporting abortions by race--and thus where the number of blacks killed by abortions is not included in the national total of 203,991--are California, Florida, Illinois and the rest of New York state outside of New York City.
According to the CDC, the total of 203,991 blacks killed by abortion in 2005 also does not include those aborted by "private physicians’ procedures.”
Every year since 1969, the CDC has amassed abortion data by state or area of occurrence, requesting information each year from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City. The CDC attempts to collect data on abortions by the age, race and marital status of the women who undergo them as well as the type of abortion procedure.
However, the “CDC is not a regulatory agency,” Senior Press Officer Karen Hunter told CNSNews.com. “So while we are required by Congress to collect this information, states are not required to provide any data to the CDC, including abortion surveillance.”
In 2005, a total of 820,151 legal abortions were performed in the 49 jurisdication that reported abortions to the CDC, according to the “Abortion Surveillance” report, which is published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, or MMWR, for Nov. 28, 2008. (Scroll up to top of report)
The report states, “Approximately 1 in 5 U.S. pregnancies have ended in abortion,” and also notes some limitations on the data: “The overall number, ratio, and rate of abortions are conservative estimates; the total numbers of legal induced abortions provided by central health agencies and reported to the CDC for 2005 were probably lower than the numbers actually performed.”
In Table 9 of the report, it states that there were 203,991 blacks killed by abortion, which comprises 35.5 percent of all abortions reported for that year.
Rev. Clenard H. Childress, Jr., founder of BlackGenocide.org, told CNSNews.com that according to numbers gleaned from statistics provided by the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion group, 1,784 blacks are aborted each day. Also, he notes on his Web site that three out of five African-American women will obtain an abortion.
Childress said the information and sources on his Web site have never been challenged by abortion-access supporters. “This is because they can see that themselves, and they know them probably to be far worse than we’re reporting. The facts come from the pro-abort/pro-choice community,” he said.
“You want to go to a reliable source where people can’t dismiss what you’re saying,” Childress said.
“Yet the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP, Urban League, and the National Action Committee of Al Sharpton fail abysmally to report not only the decimation but the health ramifications which are questionably very pertinent and provable,” said Childress.
“It would be one thing if we were talking about something hypothetically, but these are actual empirical proofs. … We simply want the health issues of abortion to be discussed,” Childress added.
Susan Cohen, director of government affairs at the Guttmacher Institute, said that black women are not inordinately targeted.
It is the high number of unintended pregnancies among black women that explains the disproportionate number of black abortions, she stated in a policy analysis, “Abortion and Women of Color: The Bigger Picture (2008),” which was provided to CNSNews.com by Guttmacher Institute spokeswoman Rebecca Wind.
While acknowledging that the abortion rate for blacks in the United States is “almost 5 times that for white women,” Cohen concluded in her analysis, “these higher unintended pregnancy rates (among African American women) reflect the particular difficulties that many women in minority communities face in accessing high-quality contraceptive services and in using their chosen method of birth control consistently and effectively over long periods of time."
“Because black women experience so many more unintended pregnancies than any other group—sharply disproportionate to their numbers in the general population—they are more likely to seek out and obtain abortion services than any other group,” said Cohen.
When asked to comment on this report, Dr. Freda Bush, an obstetrician and gynecologist in private practice in Jackson, Miss., told CNSNews.com that she found the explanation for the high rate of black abortions “disingenuous.”
“I would just like for them to explain why there’s such a significant proportion of their clinics that are located in minority communities,” said Bush, who is black. “So if you’ll notice, I did not mention that as a factor when I talked to you [earlier], so I was not accusing them of anything.
“I was just pointing out the fact that we have more, but since they brought it up, I would like for them to explain where their clinics are located, and why their clinics are located in that area,” she added.
“I would also like for an explanation of why their founder, Margaret Sanger, who was a known eugenist, also had a Negro project, and an explanation if that was not directed at the ‘undesirables,’” said Bush. “So, I’m not accusing them of anything. I would just like an explanation for the practices that they have continued.”
Dr. Alveda King, niece of slain civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., is a pro-life activist. In August 2007 she told a meeting of Priests for Life that abortionists “plant their killing centers in minority neighborhoods and prey upon women who think they have no hope.”
“The great irony,” she said, “is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.”
Contact: Karen Schuberg
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: October 23, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY
NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY
(Referral to Web sites not produced by The Illinois Federation for Right to LIfe is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)
Personhood Amendments
Affirmation of personhood rights on the march
Cal Zastrow, who heads Michigan Citizens for Life, notes that the campaign in his state has crossed political boundaries. "Five [Democratic] state representatives led by Jim Slezack [have] joined with 18 Republican co-sponsors to introduce the Michigan Personhood Amendment into the state legislature," he exclaims.
The process in Michigan requires the legislature to approve an issue for the ballot. Zastrow describes what voters will be asked to decide.
"It'll define a person as a human being at the moment of their biological beginning," he says. "So we've got 23 state reps who are committed to ending abortion and ending embryonic stem-cell research and cloning."
So far, Personhood Amendment campaigns are active in about 30 states. At least three more should kick into gear by the end of the year, and a number of campaigns will be launched in other states in 2010.
Click here for the full article.
Nevada Launches Personhood Initiative
Another personhood amendment initiative entered the signature-gathering stage on Wednesday after being filed by a pro-life coalition in Nevada. The proposed amendment would change the Nevada constitution to read: "In the great state of Nevada, the term 'person' applies to every human being. Article I Section 8 of the Nevada constitution states, 'No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'"
Click here for the full article.
Personhood Educates Millions of Coloradans
Submitted by Gualberto Garci... on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 21:00 Here is a collection of coverage simply from the launch of the 2010 Colorado Personhood Initiative. As we continue our petition efforts, remember: the victory is ours, because we know the Way, the Truth, and the Light, and we are carrying it to our brothers and sisters as we are called to do.
Click here for the full article.
Abortion Would Be Outlawed Under Proposed Michigan Constitutional Amendment
Abortion would be considered murder under a state constitutional amendment proposed by a Davison-area state lawmaker. The "personhood amendment" -- introduced by Rep. Jim Slezak, D-Davison Township -- would essentially outlaw abortion and possibly some common birth control methods by defining a person as a human being whose life begins at conception. A resolution in support of the amendment was introduced by Slezak last week, as first reported by The Journal on Monday, making Michigan one of 30 states considering such an initiative.
Click here for the full article.
Feminist Organization Pushes Campaign Against Pregnancy Clinics
A feminist organization is trying to warn students about two pregnancy clinics near campus it says misinform women, but the clinics insist they are truthful with their clients. The Feminist Majority Foundation's "Campaign to Expose Fake Clinics" is an effort against crisis pregnancy centers that give women inaccurate information about abortion. The closest center to campus is the Northwest Center, located near Dupont Circle, but another clinic is located on Capitol Hill. Jacqueline Sun, a campus organizer for FMF - a nonprofit organization that raises awareness on feminist issues - said the campaign' goal is to have students be able to discern between a real crisis pregnancy center and a fake clinic, which she said would give clinic-goers inaccurate information about abortion.
Click here for the full article.
FEC Won't Appeal EMILY’s List Ruling
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) announced Thursday it would not appeal a court ruling vacating key regulations regarding funding certain election activities. The decision not to appeal to an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals means independent political organizations will be able to raise and spend significantly more money on voter registration drives and advertisements that refer to political parties. A Sept. 18 Appeals Court ruling vacated three FEC regulations it said violated the First Amendment by prohibiting political speech. Those regulations required political committees not affiliated with a party or a specific candidate to use federal funds, which are severely limited, for many campaign activities. The suit was originally brought by EMILY’s List, the organization that backs pro-abortion Democrat women running for office.
Click here for the full article.
Using contraception to fight poverty is the result of 'unbridled capitalism'
Archbishop Juan Ruben Martinez of Posadas in northern Argentina remarked this week that groups which seek to solve the issue of poverty by the use of contraception reflect a “sort of ‘selfish and unbridled capitalism’” that does not address the crux of the problem.
According to the AICA news agency, Archbishop Martinez warned that such groups “control large media outlets and denigrate the family. He added, that “amazingly, these groups absurdly portray themselves as ‘progressive’ and ‘modern,’ when in reality they reflect the worst of capitalism.”
This “contradiction and hypocrisy of our present-day culture” is in addition to the pressure from many lawmakers and legislatures that support anti-life laws and pro-abortion positions that harm the family.
Click here for the full article.
Okla. District Judge Temporarily Blocks Law Requiring Personal Information About Women Seeking Abortions
Oklahoma District Judge Twyla Mason Gray has issued a temporary restraining order blocking the enforcement of a state law requiring abortion providers to report personal information on women who obtain the procedure, the Tulsa World reports. The law was scheduled to go into effect on Nov. 1 (Hoberock, Tulsa World, 10/21).
The law requires doctors to report to the state a woman's age, marital status, education level and the nature of the relationship with her partner (Women's Health Policy Report, 10/1). It also requires information regarding previous pregnancies, reasons the woman is seeking an abortion, and the cost and method of payment for the procedure.
Click here for the full article.
Abortion Corruption Concerns Deepen as Confer Resigns from KSBHA
Will Women and Babies Pay the Price?
It was confirmed yesterday that Jack Confer, Executive Director of the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts resigned unexpectedly and without explanation on Monday, October 19, 2009. Circumstances suggest that Confer's resignation may have been related to abortion cases that were before the KSBHA.
"We are sorry to see Mr. Confer go. He seemed to us to be a fair man that was above the corrupt abortion politics in Kansas. He will be deeply missed," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.
Click here for the full article.
(Referral to Web sites not produced by The Illinois Federation for Right to LIfe is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)
Personhood Amendments
Affirmation of personhood rights on the march
Cal Zastrow, who heads Michigan Citizens for Life, notes that the campaign in his state has crossed political boundaries. "Five [Democratic] state representatives led by Jim Slezack [have] joined with 18 Republican co-sponsors to introduce the Michigan Personhood Amendment into the state legislature," he exclaims.
The process in Michigan requires the legislature to approve an issue for the ballot. Zastrow describes what voters will be asked to decide.
"It'll define a person as a human being at the moment of their biological beginning," he says. "So we've got 23 state reps who are committed to ending abortion and ending embryonic stem-cell research and cloning."
So far, Personhood Amendment campaigns are active in about 30 states. At least three more should kick into gear by the end of the year, and a number of campaigns will be launched in other states in 2010.
Click here for the full article.
Nevada Launches Personhood Initiative
Another personhood amendment initiative entered the signature-gathering stage on Wednesday after being filed by a pro-life coalition in Nevada. The proposed amendment would change the Nevada constitution to read: "In the great state of Nevada, the term 'person' applies to every human being. Article I Section 8 of the Nevada constitution states, 'No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'"
Click here for the full article.
Personhood Educates Millions of Coloradans
Submitted by Gualberto Garci... on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 21:00 Here is a collection of coverage simply from the launch of the 2010 Colorado Personhood Initiative. As we continue our petition efforts, remember: the victory is ours, because we know the Way, the Truth, and the Light, and we are carrying it to our brothers and sisters as we are called to do.
Click here for the full article.
Abortion Would Be Outlawed Under Proposed Michigan Constitutional Amendment
Abortion would be considered murder under a state constitutional amendment proposed by a Davison-area state lawmaker. The "personhood amendment" -- introduced by Rep. Jim Slezak, D-Davison Township -- would essentially outlaw abortion and possibly some common birth control methods by defining a person as a human being whose life begins at conception. A resolution in support of the amendment was introduced by Slezak last week, as first reported by The Journal on Monday, making Michigan one of 30 states considering such an initiative.
Click here for the full article.
Feminist Organization Pushes Campaign Against Pregnancy Clinics
A feminist organization is trying to warn students about two pregnancy clinics near campus it says misinform women, but the clinics insist they are truthful with their clients. The Feminist Majority Foundation's "Campaign to Expose Fake Clinics" is an effort against crisis pregnancy centers that give women inaccurate information about abortion. The closest center to campus is the Northwest Center, located near Dupont Circle, but another clinic is located on Capitol Hill. Jacqueline Sun, a campus organizer for FMF - a nonprofit organization that raises awareness on feminist issues - said the campaign' goal is to have students be able to discern between a real crisis pregnancy center and a fake clinic, which she said would give clinic-goers inaccurate information about abortion.
Click here for the full article.
FEC Won't Appeal EMILY’s List Ruling
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) announced Thursday it would not appeal a court ruling vacating key regulations regarding funding certain election activities. The decision not to appeal to an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals means independent political organizations will be able to raise and spend significantly more money on voter registration drives and advertisements that refer to political parties. A Sept. 18 Appeals Court ruling vacated three FEC regulations it said violated the First Amendment by prohibiting political speech. Those regulations required political committees not affiliated with a party or a specific candidate to use federal funds, which are severely limited, for many campaign activities. The suit was originally brought by EMILY’s List, the organization that backs pro-abortion Democrat women running for office.
Click here for the full article.
Using contraception to fight poverty is the result of 'unbridled capitalism'
Archbishop Juan Ruben Martinez of Posadas in northern Argentina remarked this week that groups which seek to solve the issue of poverty by the use of contraception reflect a “sort of ‘selfish and unbridled capitalism’” that does not address the crux of the problem.
According to the AICA news agency, Archbishop Martinez warned that such groups “control large media outlets and denigrate the family. He added, that “amazingly, these groups absurdly portray themselves as ‘progressive’ and ‘modern,’ when in reality they reflect the worst of capitalism.”
This “contradiction and hypocrisy of our present-day culture” is in addition to the pressure from many lawmakers and legislatures that support anti-life laws and pro-abortion positions that harm the family.
Click here for the full article.
Okla. District Judge Temporarily Blocks Law Requiring Personal Information About Women Seeking Abortions
Oklahoma District Judge Twyla Mason Gray has issued a temporary restraining order blocking the enforcement of a state law requiring abortion providers to report personal information on women who obtain the procedure, the Tulsa World reports. The law was scheduled to go into effect on Nov. 1 (Hoberock, Tulsa World, 10/21).
The law requires doctors to report to the state a woman's age, marital status, education level and the nature of the relationship with her partner (Women's Health Policy Report, 10/1). It also requires information regarding previous pregnancies, reasons the woman is seeking an abortion, and the cost and method of payment for the procedure.
Click here for the full article.
Abortion Corruption Concerns Deepen as Confer Resigns from KSBHA
Will Women and Babies Pay the Price?
It was confirmed yesterday that Jack Confer, Executive Director of the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts resigned unexpectedly and without explanation on Monday, October 19, 2009. Circumstances suggest that Confer's resignation may have been related to abortion cases that were before the KSBHA.
"We are sorry to see Mr. Confer go. He seemed to us to be a fair man that was above the corrupt abortion politics in Kansas. He will be deeply missed," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.
Click here for the full article.
October 22, 2009
NRLC letter to U.S. House on H.R. 3200 and Rule
NRLC letter to U.S. House on H.R. 3200 and Rule
The following letter was presented to members of the U.S. House on October 21st.
Dear Member of Congress:
The purpose of this letter is to advise you that the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) is strongly opposed to H.R. 3200, the “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act,” based on the versions reported by the committees which considered the legislation.
Moreover, NRLC intends to oppose the Rule on H.R. 3200 and to score the roll call on the Rule, if – as we anticipate – the Rule fails to allow a vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which is the amendment that is necessary to prevent federal funding of abortion through the proposed “public plan” and to prevent federal subsidies of premiums for private abortion coverage. A vote for a Rule that protects the pro-abortion language approved in committee is a vote to establish two new federal government programs that will subsidize abortion on demand.
H.R. 3200 would create (1) a nationwide insurance program run directly by the federal government, “the public plan,” and (2) an “affordability credit” program that would subsidize health insurance for tens of millions of Americans. None of the funds that would be spent by the public plan, and none of the funds that would be spent by the premium subsidy program, would be appropriated through the annual appropriations bills (as the Congressional Research Service has confirmed), and therefore, none of these funds will be covered by the Hyde Amendment or any other current law that restricts government subsidies for abortion. The new government programs created by H.R. 3200 will cover elective abortion, unless the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is added to the bill to prevent this outcome.
The Capps-Waxman Amendment, added to H.R. 3200 in the House Energy and Commerce Committee despite the objections of pro-life members of both parties, would enact not the policy of the Hyde Amendment, but an inversion of the Hyde Amendment. The Capps-Waxman Amendment is an attempt to establish federal government funding of abortion and insurance coverage of abortion by use of misleading, contrived terminology.
The Capps-Waxman language explicitly authorizes the public plan to cover elective abortions. The public plan would be a program within the Department of Health and Human Services, and everything for which it pays will be paid for with federal government funds (as the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has confirmed). Thus, under the Capps language, the public plan would be engaged in direct funding of elective abortion, using federal funds. The federal program would pay abortionists for performing elective abortions, out of funds drawn on a U.S. Treasury account. (It is, of course, entirely irrelevant whether or not the agency hires contractors to help process the paperwork.) It is a hoax to claim, as some have, that this federal program would pay for abortions with “private” funds. The public plan is the federal government, and if it pays for abortions, it is federal funding of abortion.
In addition, the Capps-Waxman Amendment explicitly authorizes federal subsidies to pay the premiums of private health plans that cover elective abortions. This, too, would be a break with the policy established under longstanding federal laws, under which federal funds do not flow to health plans that pay for elective abortions. For example, the 260 private plans that participate in the Federal Employees’ Health Benefits program are prohibited by law from including elective abortion coverage, because they are federally subsidized. Likewise, in Medicaid, current law prohibits not only direct federal funding of abortion but also federal funding of any fund that pays for abortions – and this ban covers even state matching funds.
The Stupak-Pitts Amendment would apply the true principles of the Hyde Amendment to the proposed new programs: No federal funding for elective abortion, and no federal subsidies for private insurance plans that cover elective abortion.
Some versions of H.R. 3200 have also contained provisions that could be used as a basis for government regulations to force expansions in the number of abortion providers, or achieve other pro-abortion policy goals through regulatory action. NRLC will carefully examine the final, melded version of H.R. 3200 to determine whether any such “abortion mandate” provisions are retained and, if so, what remedial amendments would be required to nullify them.
NRLC will also carefully examine the final version of H.R. 3200 to determine whether it contains provisions that would result in denial of lifesaving medical care on the basis of disability or “quality of life” criteria or facilitate assisted suicide. Some such provisions were ameliorated by language adopted in at least one committee, but others were not, and it is very unclear to what extent these problems will remain in the bill that is currently being constructed. Separate and apart from the abortion-related concerns, NRLC reserves the right to score the roll call vote on any version of H.R. 3200 that fails adequately to address these concerns, at the conference report stage if not before.
Thank you for your consideration of NRLC’s position on this critical legislation. We would welcome the opportunity to provide additional documentation on any of the points in this letter. Extensive documentation is also available on the NRLC website at http://www.nrlc.org/ahc and http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/Index.html
Contact: David N. O'Steen, Ph.D., Douglas Johnson, Burke Balch, J.D.
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: October 22, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
U.N. declaration, correctly understood, is pro-life
U.N. declaration, correctly understood, is pro-life
A pro-life organization is asking the United Nations to correctly interpret a decades-old declaration as protection for the unborn.
Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) points out that last year the U.N. celebrated its 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
"At that time, Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups were circulating a petition calling for abortion to be recognized as a universal human right," Ruse explains. "We launched a petition last year to counter that, to say that the Universal Declaration should be properly interpreted as protecting the unborn child from abortion. After all, the universal declaration mentions that everyone has the right to life."
That campaign generated 467,000 signatures and opened the eyes of many people when the petition was submitted at the United Nations. The new petition drive ends December 1.
"There's always a fight at the United Nations over the question of abortion and the rights to abortion and things like that," Ruse admits. "So this is a battle that we fight as an organization, day in and day out -- and we have [done so] for 12 years."
When the next battle starts, C-FAM hopes to present at least one million signatures to the U.N. secretary general. At press time, well over half-a-million had been gathered thus far.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: October 22, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
The connection between 'the Cure' and abortion
The connection between 'the Cure' and abortion
A national organization dealing with breast cancer is a supporter of Planned Parenthood -- a taxpayer-funded agency that harms unborn children as well as women.
Several organizations in America are upset that part of the donations going to Susan G. Komen for the Cure goes to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest aborton-provider. Marie Hahnenberg with American Life League offers more information.
"Susan G. Komen affiliates donated $711,485 to Planned Parenthood affiliates across the country during April '05 to March 2006," she points out. "And the very fact that Susan G. Komen would give money to Planned Parenthood does not make any sense since Planned Parenthood is not only the largest abortion chain in America, but the connection between breast cancer and abortion is very clear."
Studies have shown the connection between breast cancer and abortion, especially with a first-time pregnancy. And while Komen has stated the money it donates is not for abortion services, Hahnenberg says it does pay for other services -- ultimately freeing up the money for abortion.
It makes little to no sense for Komen "to give money to an organization that exploits children, that exploits women, and covers up rape." Hahnenberg concludes that "Planned Parenthood does not help women."
Groups like Live Action and Students for Life have conducted undercover probes which reveal that Planned Parenthood workers coach supposed underage girls in how to have an abortion without getting their adult molesters in trouble while also avoiding parental involvement.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: October 22, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
'Abortion crushes hope,' says Rep. Chris Smith at health care press conference
'Abortion crushes hope,' says Rep. Chris Smith at health care press conference
Rep. Chris Smith speaks at a July 2009
press conference on health care
Pro-life leaders gathered in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday afternoon to discuss the danger of federally-funded abortion being a part of health care reform. One speaker, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), said that although President Obama ran his presidential campaign on “hope,” “abortion crushes hope” and is “its polar opposite.”
The press conference took place at the House Triangle, a grassy triangular area near the Capitol Building. Others present were: Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), Representatives Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.) as well as the organizations Focus on the Family Action, Susan B. Anthony List, National Right to Life Committee, Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America.
Rep. Smith addressed the crowd on the prospect of federal funds being used to pay for abortions under new health care reform measures. He began by noting that President Barack Obama led his campaign based on “hope,” but that “abortion is the antithesis of hope.”
“Abortion is violence against children, and a serious human rights violation—not hope,” he added.
Turning his focus to mothers, Smith explained that abortion also crushes the “hope and the spirit of women,” and that the government needs to “defend women from abortionists, not publicly fund and facilitate this insidious exploitation of women.”
“The myriad of word games routinely employed to divert attention from the gruesome reality of abortion and its deleterious consequences to women and children are now being used to suggest that the public somehow isn’t being coerced into funding and facilitating abortion on demand in the House and Senate health care reform bills,” he warned.
Rep. Smith then recalled Obama's words to Congress on Sept. 9, 2009, when he said, “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion.”
“Oh if that were only true,” Smith lamented, adding that Americans would not pay for abortions if the Stupak/Pitts amendment was enacted. The amendment would have prohibited taxpayer funds from being used for abortion, but it was defeated in a committee vote this past July.
Also in attendance at the news conference was Wendy Wright, the president of Concerned Women for America. Previewing her comments to the media, Wright noted that with the current health care bill, the government will decide which procedures Americans can receive, “with cost as a major factor.”
“It also will fund abortion,” she insisted. “Since abortion costs less than prenatal care, delivery and post-natal care, especially if the mother or child has special needs, it is not unlikely that bureaucrats will put on their green-eye shades and decide that abortion will be covered but expensive maternal and child care is not.”
Source: CNA
Publish Date: October 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
"Assisted Suicide Advocates Seek to Euthanize the Rule of Law"
“Assisted Suicide Advocates Seek to Euthanize the Rule of Law”
I was asked to write a piece for an online magazine called The Church Report. I decided to expand my criticism of the lawsuit in Connecticut to redefine the word “suicide” in the assisted suicide context to “aid in dying.” The suit wants a judge to rule that when the suicidal person is terminally ill and is assisted in self-killing by a lethal prescription from a physician, it is not assisted suicide, in short, a blatant attempt to legalize by lexicon that which could not be done by legislation.
I get into the history of “aid in dying” as an advocacy term coined to overcome poll results showing that people have a negative attitude toward suicide. From the column:
Never mind that it is accurate. The dictionary definition of “suicide” is “the act or an instance of taking one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suicide And forget for the moment that fear of stigma can save lives. C & C is blatantly promoting a postmodern word engineering scheme that would sacrifice accurate and precise legal lexicon on the altar of emotional personal narratives.
Lest you think such subterfuge cannot succeed, it already has. Under Washington State’s newly legalize assisted suicide regime, participating doctors are legally required to lie on the death certificate by listing the cause of death as the underlying disease rather than the prescribed suicide drug overdose.
Redefining the term in order to legalize assisted suicide by judicial fiat would have consequences:
Consider the surrealistic possibilities: If the lawsuit succeeded and I gave a terminally ill friend in Connecticut an overdose with which to intentionally end his life, it would remain a crime. But if my friend consulted a doctor he doesn’t know who is affiliated with Compassion and Choices to obtain the overdose—as happens with most assisted suicides in Oregon— it would merely be legal “aid in dying”—this, even though the act, the motive, and the lethal consequence would be precisely the same in each instance. That’s not only nuts, it is blatantly Orwellian.
But the issue is bigger than just assisted suicide:
It is also dangerous beyond the issue of assisted suicide. The United States, we are often told, is a nation of laws and not of men. If we are to be governed by the rule of law, words have to matter and definitions must be capable of being relied upon. But if a commonly understood term can simply be tossed out in order to legalize what the people’s elected representatives made a crime, why couldn’t a judge similarly criminalize an otherwise legal act via the same sleight of hand machination? Indeed, should judges decide they can unilaterally change the rules by simply redefining terms, what law could permanently be relied upon?
The case should be a slam-dunk, the lawsuit thrown forcefully out of court. But the way things are in the courts today, you never know what will happen. In this sense, the assisted suicide lawsuit in Connecticut not only threatens to remove a vital legal protection from vulnerable patients, it is a lethal threat to the rule of law itself.
And frankly, I don’t think that assisted suicide advocates much care.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: October 19, 2009
Link to this article.
this article to a friend.
Pro-Life Student Forced into Isolation on Day of Silent Witness by School Principal
Pro-Life Student Forced into Isolation on Day of Silent Witness by School Principal
Principal says the right to free speech does not apply to school property
16-year-old high school student Jennifer Rankin fully intended to unite her voicelessness with that of the unborn as part of the annual Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity when she arrived at school yesterday, reports Bill Henry of Sun Media.
She was impeded, however, by her school principal, who stated that the right to free speech does not apply on school property and who forced Rankin to remain in isolation for the entire day as long as she participated in the event.
During the annual Day of Silent Solidarity international campaign, which is organized by Stand True Ministries, students don red bands on their arms and red duct tape on their mouths, remaining silent while passing out fliers about the atrocity of abortion.
Rankin, 16, arrived at Peninsula Shores District School in Wiarton, Ontario yesterday morning, with the red tape over her mouth and with the simple word 'life' written upon it. She and her mother were stopped at the door, however, by school principal Patricia Cavan, while police cruisers stood nearby. Cavan initially told Rankin that she could not enter school property, but then consented to allowing her in the building, separated from other students.
"I was taken directly into a small room that was opposite the vice-principal's office and I was in there all day," Rankin told Sun Media. "I wasn't allowed to speak with or see any other students and students were not allowed to come and see me and I was isolated in that room for the entire day."
While Cavan had informed students in advance that their pro-life witness would not be allowed, Rankin insists that her Charter right to free expression was infringed. "I felt very discriminated by it," she said. "I don't think it was right at all what happened."
Several students had joined her in the event last year, but this time Rankin was alone. "I think a lot of people got scared and backed out," she said. "I would like to have the ability to correct this. I don't think it should be just left alone."
The youth pastor at Rankin's church, Ken Holley, expressed disappointment and insisted that the school's actions violated her rights. "It's a day of silence and basically they lose their voice for those that never had a voice," he said. "It's pro-life. There's no arguing. They can't talk all day. They just stay silent and if anybody asks why they're silent they hand out a little sheet that says this is why."
"I guess I am disappointed that they're not allowed to have a voice, or not have a voice, actually," he said.
Cavan, who did not return a message left by LifeSiteNews.com, told Sun Media that the right to free speech does not apply on school property. "School property is not a public place," she said. "So while absolutely we support the right to free speech in a public space, that's not school property." She said that school policy prohibits the dissemination of one-sided information on religious, political, or other issues that are controversial.
Pastor Holley pointed out that the school does an annual 'Gay Pride' day "where everybody wears pink shirts," and that the school allows nude pictures on the wall to stand as 'art'. "My students have to go to school and deal with that," he said, "and as soon as they try to stand up for anything, it's like, well, just be quiet, go home. I don't think that's right."
Cavan maintains that the 'Gay Pride' event is a different issue because it is about fighting homophobia and supporting rights guaranteed in the Charter. Jennifer Rankin's cause, however, "is not an issue under human rights," Cavan said. "It's an ethical/moral decision and everyone has the right to their view, absolutely. And I commend the students for their personal views and their desire to share their beliefs. I just want to assure that every student feels supported when those beliefs are shared."
Mary-Ellen Douglas of Campaign Life Coalition expressed dismay that the school shut down Rankin's message. "You would think a school, as a facility of education, would be the place where free speech would flourish, not the opposite," she said. Regarding the school's 'Gay Pride' day, she said, "There's only one side on that one, I guess, too, eh? They're just trying to make sure that the truth doesn't get out."
David Cortman, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defence Fund, told LSN that "the school should be ashamed of its hypocrisy."
"On the one hand, the school first of all is apparently picking and choosing which parts of the Charter that it wants to comply with," he said. "It hides behind the Charter to justify its blatant promotion of the homosexual agenda, while at the same time it ignores the students' rights to free expression under the Charter."
"In my opinion, the policy and their actions, violate the Charter," he continued. "If homosexual behaviour is a human right, even more so is life itself a human right. ... I think it's just another instance of government indoctrination that's aimed at the suppression of religious speech."
Contact: Patrick B. Craine
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: October 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)