|
(CLICK)
Contact your state representatives and protest the elimination
of conscious protections
We
Advocates of The Sanctity Of Life, As Existent From The Womb
To the Tomb, Must Take a Pro-Active Stance, If We are
to Succeed in Getting Our Country Turned Around
In The Air...
On The Wire...
ABC Under Fire for Hosting Obama Healthcare “Infomercial”
By
Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON,
D.C., June 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- Republican and conservative leaders are up in arms after it was revealed
that ABC News would host a primetime special on the Obama administration's
sweeping healthcare overhaul, while the network refused requests from both the
GOP and paid advertisers to offer a separate viewpoint.
All
of ABC's June 24 programs are slated to be broadcast at the White House,
including "Good Morning America" from the South Lawn and "World
News" from the Blue Room.
The
primetime special, "Questions for the President: Prescription for
America," will be moderated by Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer. The
program will feature President Obama discussing his controversial public
healthcare plan and answering questions from audience members pre-selected by
the network.
However,
no airtime was granted to the Republican National Committee, who requested an
opportunity to provide an opposing viewpoint on a plan that conservatives
widely decry as irresponsible spending and a threat to quality healthcare.
"As
the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned
and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on
this critical issue on June 24, 2009," Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff Ken McKay wrote Monday to ABC President David Westin.
"I
believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the
America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our
Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects
millions of ABC viewers."
McKay
aired concerns that "in the absence of opposition" the event would
amount to "a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda."
"If
that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC
coffers," he said. "President Obama does not hold a monopoly on
health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and
time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party
should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your
airtime."
Kerry
Smith, ABC's Senior Vice President, responded on Tuesday by responding to what
he called the "false premises" raised in McKay's letter.
"I
hope we can all agree that a robust debate of health care issues and potential
policies is in order," said Smith. "To that end, ABC News
announced plans to broadcast a primetime hour from the White House devoted to
exploring and probing the President's position and giving voice to questions
and criticisms of that position.
"We
hope that any American concerned about health care will find our efforts to be
informative, fair and civil."
Smith
said the network "prides itself on covering all sides of important issues
and asking direct questions of all newsmakers" from across the political
spectrum.
"In
the end, no one watching, listening to, or reading ABC News will lack for an
understanding of all sides of these important questions," he said.
According
to a Drudge report late Wednesday, ABC is also refusing paid advertisements
presenting an alternate opinion to the Obama healthcare programming.
The
network has reportedly turned down a request by Conservatives for Patients
Rights for the rates of a 60-second advertising slot immediately preceding the
primetime broadcast.
"It
is unfortunate - and unusual - that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising
that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House health care
event," stated Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients Rights.
"Health
care is an issue that touches every American and all potential pieces of
legislation have carried a price tag in excess of $1 trillion of taxpayers'
money. The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and
ABC's decision - as of now - to exclude even paid advertisements that present
an alternative view does a disservice to the public.
"Our
organization is more than willing to purchase ad time on ABC to present an
alternative viewpoint and our hope is that ABC will reconsider having such
viewpoints be part of this crucial debate for the American people."
On The Wire... From LifeSiteNews
 
D.C. Ethics Board Rejects
Referendum on Homosexual “Marriage” Advocated by Black Pastors
By
Peter J. Smith
WASHINGTON,
D.C., June 15, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com)
– Residents in the District of Columbia will not get a chance to reverse the
city council’s decision to recognize out-of-state same-sex “marriages”
in a referendum after today’s ruling from the capital district’s Board of
Elections and Ethics. The elections board claimed that allowing district
residents a vote would violate the human rights of homosexuals protected by
the D.C. charter.
Black
pastors in the District had spoken vociferously against the D.C. city
council’s almost unanimous May decision to recognize same-sex
“marriages.” Many of them were spearheading an effort to allow the people
of the district an opportunity to vote on whether they wanted homosexual
“marriages” obtained out-of-state to be legally recognized or not.
Rev.
Harry R. Jackson, Jr., Rev. Walter E. Fauntroy, Rev. Dale E. Wafer, Melvin
Dupree, Sandra B. Harris, Dr. Patricia Johnson, and Bobby Perkins, Sr. had
filed the Referendum with the Board on May 27, requesting permission for the
matter to be resolved by a vote of the people.
However,
the Board now says that it “concludes that the Referendum does not present a
proper subject of referendum because it would authorize discrimination
prohibited under the Human Rights Act.” (City Paper has the written decision
here)
The
Human Rights Act, as amended in 2002, includes “sexual orientation” as a
specifically protected class.
The
Board further stated that an amendment to current D.C. legislation states that
“the initiative and referendum process would never be used to interfere with
basic civil and human rights.” Ironically that amendment had been proposed
by DC Councilmember Marion Barry - the only dissenting vote to the D.C.
same-sex “marriage” vote.”
Marion
Barry, former mayor and current councilman for Ward 8, told
reporters in May that the black community in D.C. would find legislation to
recognize same-sex “marriage” offensive.
"All
hell is going to break loose. We may have a civil war,” Barry told reporters
after the May 5 meeting. “The black community is just adamant against this.
What you've got to understand is 98 percent of my constituents are black and
we don't have but a handful of openly gay residents.”
The
measure was signed by D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty on May 6. Without interference
from Congress, the measure will take the force of law by July 6. If the new
law goes unchallenged, a bill to legalize full-fledged same-sex
"marriage" in the district is anticipated to follow.
Directory
of D.C. Council contact information: http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/councildirectory
Off The Wire... The up-to-date services our "Fearless
Bleeder" is trying to provide to this dying nation. -- Pablo
President
Barack Obama's Pro-Abortion Record: A Pro-Life Compilation
This document can
be found permanently at http://www.lifenews.com/obamaabortionrecord.html
 Washington,
DC (LifeNews.com) -- The following is a compilation of bill signings,
speeches, appointments and other actions that President Barack Obama has
engaged in that have promoted abortion before and during his presidency. While
Obama has promised to reduce abortions and some of his supporters believe that
will happen, this long list proves his only agenda is promoting more
abortions.
Post-Election / Pre-Inauguration
November 5, 2008
- Obama selects pro-abortion Rep. Rahm
Emanuel as his White
House Chief of Staff. Emanuel has a 0% pro-life voting record according to
National Right to Life.
November 19,
2008 - Obama picks pro-abortion former Sen. Tom
Daschle as his Health
and Human Services Secretary. Daschle has a long pro-abortion voting record
according to National Right to Life.
November 20,
2008 - Obama chooses former NARAL legal director Dawn
Johnsen to serve as a
member of his Department of Justice Review Team. Later, he
finalizes her appointment as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office
of the Legal Counsel in the Obama administration.
November 24,
2008 - Obama appoints Ellen
Moran, the former
director of the pro-abortion group Emily's List as his White House
communications director. Emily's List only supported candidates who favored
taxpayer funded abortions and opposed a partial-birth abortion ban.
November 24,
2008 - Obama puts former Emily's List board member Melody
Barnes in place as
his director of the Domestic Policy Council.
November 30,
2008 - Obama named pro-abortion Sen. Hillary
Clinton as the
Secretary of State. Clinton has an unblemished pro-abortion voting record and
has supported making unlimited abortions an international right.
December 10,
2008 - Obama selects pro-abortion former Clinton administration official Jeanne
Lambrew to become the
deputy director of the White House Office of Health Reform. Planned Parenthood
is "excited" about the selection.
December 10,
2008 - Obama transition team publishes
memo from dozens of
pro-abortion groups listing their laundry list of pro-abortions actions they
want him to take.
Pro-Abortion Presidential Record - 2009
January 5, 2009
- Obama picks pro-abortion Virginia Gov. Tim
Kaine as the chairman
of the Democratic Party.
January 6, 2009
- Obama chooses Thomas
Perrelli, the lawyer
who represented Terri Schiavo’s husband Michael in his efforts to kill his
disabled wife, as the third highest attorney in the Justice Department.
January 22, 2009
- Releases statement restating support for Roe
v. Wade decision that
allowed virtually unlimited abortions and has resulted in at least 50 million
abortions since 1973.
January 23, 2009
- Forces taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform
abortions in other nations. Decison to overturn Mexico
City Policy sends part of $457 million to pro-abortion organizations.
January 26, 2009
- Obama nominee for Deputy Secretary of State, James
B. Steinberg, tells
members of the Senate that taxpayers should be forced to fund abortions.
Nominee erroneously says limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional.
January 29, 2009
- President Obama nominates pro-abortion David
Ogden as Deputy
Attorney General.
February 12,
2009 - Obama nominates pro-abortion Elena
Kagan to serve as
Solicitor General.
February 27, 2009 - Starts the process of overturning
pro-life conscience protections
President Bush put in place to make sure medical staff and centers are not
forced to do abortions.
February 28, 2009 - Barack Obama nominates pro-abortion Kathleen
Sebelius to become
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
March 5, 2009 -
The Obama administration shut
out pro-life groups
from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. Planned Parenthood,
the nation's largest abortion business, made the invitation list as did other
pro-abortion groups.
March 9, 2009 -
President Barack Obama signed an executive order forcing
taxpayer funding of
embryonic stem cell research.
March 10, 2009 - Obama announces the creation of a new foreign policy position
to focus on women's issues. He names Melanne
Verveer, an abortion
advocate, to occupy the post.
March 10, 2009 -
Reverses
an executive order to
press for more research into ways of obtaining embryonic stem cells without
harming human life. The order Obama scrapped would have promoted new forms of
stem cell research.
March 11, 2009 -
Obama signed an executive order establishing a new agency within his
administration known as the White House Council on Women and Girls. Obama's
director of public liaison at the White House, Tina
Tchen, an abortion advocate, became director of it.
March 11, 2009 - Obama administration promotes
an unlimited right to abortion at a United Nations meeting.
March 11, 2009 - Obama administration officials
deny negative effects
of abortion at United Nation's meeting.
March 17, 2009 - President Barack Obama makes his first judicial appointment
and names pro-abortion federal Judge
David Hamilton to
serve on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
March 26 - President Obama announced $50
million for the UNFPA,
the UN population agency that has been criticized for promoting abortion and
working closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced
abortions and involuntary sterilizations.
April 7 - The
Vatican has rejected three Obama ambassador
nominees because of
their positions in favor of abortions.
April 7 - Obama has named pro-abortion law professor Harold
Hongju Koh as the top
lawyer for the State Department.
April 7 - Put more abortion advocates on his White House advisory council for faith-based
issues.
April 8 - Obama
nominee for assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, Ron
Weich, is
pro-abortion.
April 14 - Obama
administration releases document that
claims pro-life people may engage in violence or extremism.
April 17 - Obama
administration releases
the proposed guidelines
that implement his decision to allow taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell
research that involves the destruction of human life.
April 23 -
Refused to appeal a ruling requiring the FDA to allow 17-year-old girls to
purchase the morning after pill without either a doctor visit or parental
involvement beforehand.
April 27 -
Obama's women's ambassador Melanne Verveer touted
Obama's decision to send $50 million to the United Nation's Population Fund.
May 5 - Details
emerge about a terrorism dictionary the administration of President Barack
Obama put together in March. The Domestic
Extremism Lexicon
calls pro-life advocates violent and claims they employ racist overtones in
engaging in criminal actions.
May 8 -
President Obama releases a new budget that allows the Legal
Services Corporation
to use tax dollars to pay for pro-abortion litigation.
May 8 -
President Obama's new budget calls for taxpayer
funded abortions in
the nation's capital.
May 8 -
President Obama's
budget eliminates all
federal funding for abstinence-only education.
May 15 -
Appointed pro-abortion New York City health commissioner Thomas
Frieden as head of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
May 17 - During
his commencement speech at Notre Dame, Obama deceived listeners into thinking
he wants a conscience
clause, promoted
embryonic stem cell research
and misstated
his pro-abortion record.
May 26 -
Appoints appeals court Sonia
Sonotmayor as a
Supreme Court nominee. Sotomayor agrees that the courts should make policy,
such as the Roe v. Wade case. Sotomayor is later opposed by pro-life groups
and supported by pro-abortion groups and those who know her say she will
support abortion on the high court.
Stand by and
cry... I am sure there is more to come, as our "Fearless
Bleeder" continues his agenda to bring America to it's knees...
and beyond. -- Pablo
On My Mind...
Where is everybody heading?
Has this Country just gone
flat insane?
Where is the
leadership?
Who will be selfless enough
to takeover the stewardship of this nation?
Where is the
compassion?
Where is the truth?
Where is Washington taking
us?
Have we all Lost our minds
and just gone crazy?
Whew! There! That feels much
better! I haven't ranted in a great while.--Pablo
 More
Americans 'Pro-Life'
than 'Pro-Choice'
for First Time Since 1995: Gallup Poll
By Kathleen Gilbert
PRINCETON, New Jersey, May 15,
2009 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, has found that 51% of Americans call
themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42%
"pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have
identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking that question in
1995.
The new results, obtained from
Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from
a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Prior to the current
poll, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, in both August
2001 and May 2002.
The new survey documents
comparable changes in views about the legality of abortion. About as
many Americans now say the procedure should be illegal in all circumstances
(23%) as say it should be legal under any circumstances (22%), in contrast
with the last four years, when public opinion tilted more strongly in favor of
unrestricted abortion.
Most people (53%) still say
abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances; of these, 35% say
it should be legal "only in a few circumstances," as opposed to
"most circumstances."
Americans' recent shift toward
the pro-life position is confirmed in two other surveys. The same three
abortion questions asked on the Gallup Values and Beliefs survey were included
in Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 12-13, with nearly identical results,
including a 50% to 43% pro-life versus pro-choice split on the
self-identification question.
Additionally, a recent national
survey by the Pew Research Center recorded an eight percentage-point decline
since last August in those saying abortion should be legal in all or most
cases, from 54% to 46%. The percentage saying abortion should be legal in only
a few or no cases increased from 41% to 44% over the same period. As a result,
support for the two broad positions is now about even, sharply different from
most polling on this question since 1995, when the majority has typically
favored legality.
The source of the shift came
from among GOP ranks, according to the Gallup Values and Beliefs survey, where
Republicans calling themselves "pro-life" rose from 60% to 70% since
last year. About two out of three Democrats continue to identify as
"pro-choice," virtually unchanged from recent years.
The swelling of the pro-life
position since last year is seen across Christian religious affiliations,
including an eight-point gain among Protestants and a seven-point gain among
Catholics.
"With the first pro-choice
president in eight years already making changes to the nation's policies on
funding abortion overseas, expressing his support for the Freedom of Choice
Act, and moving toward rescinding federal job protections for medical workers
who refuse to participate in abortion procedures, Americans - and, in
particular, Republicans - seem to be taking a step back from the pro-choice
position," the pollster comments.
"That's a historic event
from the pro-life perspective," American Life League president Judie
Brown told LifeSiteNews.com today. She called the poll results are
"excellent signs for progress."
Brown said the poll shows that
grassroots-level pro-life education is paying off, and also that "people
have begun to see through the deception of politicians who claim that they
favor a woman's right but in fact don't favor anybody's rights, except the
right to be re-elected."
Regarding the sharp upturn in
pro-life identification over the past year, Brown agreed that the heavily
pro-abortion agenda of President Obama has likely worked in favor of the
pro-life movement.
"I think that people have
now envisioned - maybe for the first time in some of their lives, because
abortion has been decriminalized for so long - they envision an enemy who is
very deceptive, and who never met an abortion he didn't like, and people are
beginning to understand that, to see through him - and that's a great plus for
us.
"As far as we're
concerned, as pro-lifers, he [Obama] is helping us a great deal," said
Brown. "It's fantastic."
On My mind... I guess I am now
a subversive element! --Pablo
?
Well… I am not
sure what a global neo-right-wing-ProLife-extremist is supposed to act like,
or feel like. Because, I mean, this is after all what I and other activists
who support an end to abortion here and abroad, have been labeled, according
to two reports from our "Hairbrained" (or is it Homeland?) Security Secretary
Janet Napolitano.
We ProLife advocates
are now grouped together with other types of radical activists who the
Government, due in large part to her reports, is now concerned will likely
engage in terrorism. I guess that, according to Napolitano, I should now
employ “racist overtones” and the like, while I am engaging in “criminal
activities”. If I were anybody else, I might have trouble deciding whether
Napolitano’s statements are marching orders, or suggested behavior.
In either case, since I am
not a “radical extremist”, I make the choice... I choose, (there is
that pesky word choice again!), not to behave in a manner consistent with the
model set forth by our “Hairbrained” Security Secretary.
Just
some food for thought.
Pablo
Off The Wire... This is an
important ProLife Congress. Make arrangements to attend, if you can! --Pablo
There are only six monthes left before we celebrate the IVth 'ProLife World
Congress' in Saragossa
Saragossa,
May 6, 2009.-There are only six months left before we celebrate the IV Prolife
World Congress in the Auditorium of Saragossa, (November 6 to November 8,
2009). The theme of the congress: 'Sensitization: a symphony for life', will
be tackled from the medical, juridical, political, welfare, ethical and
anthropological point of view.
We
count with the presence of national and international speakers as the founder
of the Global Center for the Strategy ABC of Uganda, Martín Ssempa, the
professor of Molecular Biology of the University of Navarre, Natalia López
Moratalla, and the director of the Familiy Center of Zagreb (Croatia), Marijo
Zivkovic.
The
congress is a task of the permanent council of the Prolife World Congress
organizad on behalf of the Spanish Federation of Prolife Groups by the Aragon
Prolife Association. The number of assistants will be approximately a
thousand. The president of the congress, Álvaro Vázquez, has told that the
target “is to sensitize every body with the fact that life is the most
valued gift that we have” and that “there is no determination more
valuable that to assure a juridical and social frame that should allow the
protection of each and everyone human being in each and everyone of his phases
of development”.
The
previous Prolife World Congresses were celebrated in Madrid, in 2003, in Lima
(Peru), in 2005,
and in Mexico, in 2007. The following congress will be held in Nicaragua, in
2011.
The
permanent international committee, which gives continuity to the different
congresses, is formed by the rector of the University of Medical Sciences of
Nicaragua, Rafael Cabrera; the ex-minister of Health of Peru, Fernando Carbone;
the doctor and cochairman of the Prolife Cuban Association, Héctor González;
the director of the National Prolife Committee of Mexico, Jorge Serrano; the
professor of Sociology of the University of Valencia, José Pérez Adán, and
the lawyer and teacher of Bioethics of the Free International University of
the Americas, Jorge Scala. The committee will be open to other relevant
european prolife leaders at the IV Congress.
The
inscriptions can be realized until October 31, 2009 at inscripciones@zaragoza2009.org.
PLEASE
CIRCULATE
On The Wire... This is a BATTLE FOR LIFE AS WE KNOW IT! --Pablo
"We are at War!":
Bishop Finn Delivers Rousing Clarion Call to the "Fight for Life" in
America
By Kathleen Gilbert
OVERLAND PARK, Kansas, April
21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Bishop
Robert Finn of the diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph issued a powerful call to
action to pro-lifers at the 2009 Gospel of Life Convention on Saturday.
In his speech, Finn heavily criticized pro-abortion Catholic politicians who
claim a "personal opposition" to abortion, stating that such persons
are "warriors of death" who "have abandoned their place in the
citizenship of the Church."
 "As
I speak a word of encouragement today I also want to tell you soberly, dear
friends, 'We are at war!'" began Finn, who said that today's issues bring
"an intensity and urgency to our efforts that may rival any time in the
past."
The bishop warned that an empty
version of the rhetoric of "tolerance" can come from people of all
backgrounds, including Christians and Catholics: "The 'battle between
believers,' who claim a certain 'common ground' with us, while at the same
time, they attack the most fundamental tenets of the Church's teachings, or
disavow the natural law - this opposition is one of the most discouraging,
confusing, and dangerous," he said.
"Occasionally we still
hear an elected official speak of his or her personal opposition to abortion,
while they support the legal right to an abortion," he continued.
"We should be very clear:
Such a person places him or herself completely OUTSIDE the moral framework,
the moral imperative of Evangelium Vitae and other Church teaching on these
issues. ... They have abandoned their place in the citizenship of the Church.
Quite simply they have become warriors for death rather than life.
"If you and I support such
a person who has so flatly told us of their intentions to protect a fraudulent
Right to Death, a Right to an Abortion, we make ourselves participants in
their attack on life," said Finn.
Touching on the Notre Dame
scandal, Finn said the school's decision to honor Obama at this year's
commencement was "scandalous, discouraging and confusing to many
Catholics" and he conjectured that "Fr. Jenkins will probably lose
his job."
Finn suggested that Jenkins
should disinvite the President and give the honorary degree to Bishop John
D'Arcy of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, "who has supported and
tried to guide the University, despite their too frequent waywardness,
faithfully for 25 years."
Finn urged the crowd to never
get used to the "constant magnitude" of abortion.
"Thousands of human lives
every day: If we keep saying this - first of all - some people will get very
upset with us," said the Bishop. "They will want us to stop. They
may quote other statistics about the tragedies of poverty and war. We must
truly share their horror at these things too. However, in the end the measure
of our society is in how we treat the most vulnerable in our midst."
On the role of bishops in the
abortion debate, Finn noted the spontaneous standing ovation received by New
York's Archbishop Timothy Dolan at his installation Mass when he mentioned the
sanctity of unborn life.
Finn said the reaction revealed
the Catholic community's desire for leadership on the issue.
"This is NOT partisan
politics on the part of bishops or their flock," he said.
"This is zeal for life, pure and powerful. This is care for truth,
and attention to the salvation of souls. It cannot and must not be neglected,
even if it means we might get scolded at times by those who want us to speak
less.
"We bishops should note it
carefully - how our people are starving for more leadership - more unanimity -
more courage in this regard."
Bishop Finn urged diligence in
the effort to promote the culture of life, one that must not slacken even as
others "push back" and try to silence the message.
"As bishop I have a
weighty responsibility to tell you this over and over again," said Finn.
"This obligation is not always easy, and constantly I am tempted to say
and do less, rather than more. Almost every day I am confronted with the
persuasion of other people who want me to be silent. But - with God's grace -
you and I will not be silent."
On The Wire... Offensive
statements do not fly!
Group Launches Campaign for
Retraction on Homeland Security Pro-Lifers as "Extremists" Remarks
April 20, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) today announced it is
launching a national campaign demanding that the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) retract a warning it included in a recent report on domestic
terrorism that labels pro-life supporters as 'extremists.'
At the same time, the ACLJ is
notifying all 50 states that the report - and the offensive warning - should
not be used to curtail the First Amendment rights of pro-life supporters.
Further, the ACLJ is supporting a call for Congressional hearings on the DHS
report.
"The report creates a very troubling climate for those who want to
exercise their constitutional rights to speak out about protecting the life of
the unborn," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ.
"It's now clear the DHS
ignored its own internal concerns about this outrageous and inflammatory
warning. We're very concerned that this disturbing report not be used by
law enforcement agencies around the country to silence the legitimate First
Amendment rights of pro-life supporters.
"The fact is that the DHS
must retract this offensive reference. We also support the call for
Congressional hearings to get to the bottom of this. The DHS report
represents at the very least - bad judgment - and at worst - an
Administration-backed effort to intimidate and silence pro-life
supporters."
The DHS's April 7th warning is entitled: "Rightwing Extremism: Current
Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and
Recruitment." Included in its assessment is this reference to
specific groups, including those who oppose abortion:
"Rightwing extremism … may include groups and individuals that are
dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or
immigration." (Read the DHS assessment here:
http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/ACLJ_dhs-hsa-rightwing-extremi...)
News reports now reveal that the civil rights division inside the DHS
expressed concern about the definition of terrorists, which included the
'extremism' label being applied to groups that oppose abortion. But, the
DHS issued the report without addressing those concerns. Some
members of Congress - including Rep. Peter King (NY) - are now calling for
hearings to investigate the DHS report.
Sekulow sent a demand letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano outlining the
ACLJ's concerns and demanding a retraction. That letter is here: http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/NapolitanoLtrDHS4-20-09.pdf
The ACLJ is urging Americans to sign on to its Demand for Retraction to the
DHS (See: https://www.aclj.org/Petition/Default.aspx?sc=3430&ac=1)
On
The Wire... more from the Commission on
Population and Development. --Pablo
UN Pro-life Victory
Tempered
by Troubling Trends
By Samantha Singson
and Piero A. Tozzi
(NEW YORK – C-FAM
) Last week’s pro-life
victory at the United Nations (UN) Commission on Population and Development (CPD)
was not without some setbacks. While there were eleventh hour dramatics on the
question of abortion, other language troublesome to pro-family critics crept
into the document.
One provision calls for “sexuality education.”
Another calls for the training and equipping of health services providers to
perform “safe abortions.” Yet another one supports a controversial but so
far General Assembly-rejected Millennium Development Goal of “universal
access to reproductive health.”
While delegates emphasized that nothing in the
document should be construed to support, promote, or endorse abortion and the
new non-binding document “creates no new rights,” several phrases were
included in the document without precise definitions. UN agencies and
committees use such imprecise language to influence governments to change
their laws on social policy.
The new CPD document, for instance, has new agreed
upon language that calls for “providing young people with comprehensive
education on human sexuality.” The document does not define “human
sexuality,” so UN agencies and committees will likely turn to technical
definitions provided by other UN institutions such as the World Health
Organization (WHO). The WHO states, “Sexuality…encompasses sex, gender,
gender identities and roles, sexual orientation, eroticism, pleasure,
intimacy, and reproduction.” The definition further explains, “Sexuality
is experienced and expressed in thoughts, fantasies, desires, beliefs,
attitudes, values, behaviors, practices, roles, and relationships.” It is
likely that many of the delegates allowing for “human sexuality” into the
CPD document were not aware of the WHO definition.
Sharon Slater of Family Watch International lobbied
last week against the language of “human sexuality” by using a UN
Children’s Fund (UNICEF) sponsored pamphlet distributed a few years ago in
Mexico that bears a striking resemblance to the WHO definition. The pamphlet
“teaches youth that a person can have sexual pleasure” with “inanimate
objects, animals, minors” or with a “non-consenting person.” She also
used a UN Population Fund (UNFPA) sex-ed manual that teaches children, “It
is common for boys to have frequent sexual intercourse with other boys.”
The WHO definitions are not created by governments
and have never been approved by the WHO World Health Assembly [the WHO general
assembly of member states]. Technical definitions of this sort are created
instead by sometimes ideologically-driven staff bureaucrats and “experts.”
Another area of concern in the new CPD document is a
provision that calls on health systems to “train and equip health service
providers” to “take such measures to ensure that such abortion is safe and
accessible.” Critics fear this language could be used to remove conscience
protection from health care workers to refuse to perform or refer for
abortions.
The CPD document also contained two references to a
controversial Millennium Development Goal target on “universal access to
reproductive health” which started appearing in UN literature in 2007,
despite pushback from many countries who insist that no new targets had been
agreed to by the UN member states in the negotiating process in 2000 and in
the 2005 review process. UNFPA has used the supposed new target to call for
greater funding for UN-style family planning programs.
On
The Wire... Un delegates make all the right moves, end on positive note at
last!
UN Commission Ends with Delegations Saying No to Abortion
By Samantha Singson
( NEW
YORK - C-FAM
) As the sun rose on the last
day of negotiations at the Commission on Population and Development (CPD) at
the United Nations (UN) today, delegations were still embroiled in a
contentious debate over language concerning sexual and reproductive health and
rights, which some radical NGOs and UN committees have interpreted and used to
promote abortion. As UN member states came together at the closing meeting to
adopt the document, delegations took the floor to define abortion out of the
document.
Up
until the eleventh hour, the contentious term sexual and reproductive health
and rights remained in the draft document. Just prior to adoption, Iran took
the floor to object to the phrase which has never before been included in any
negotiated UN document. Iran stressed that the term remained problematic
for a number of delegations and urged the Commission to revert back to
previously agreed upon and carefully negotiated language from the 1994
International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Program of
Action, which is understood not to create any right to abortion.
In an
attempt to get consensus, the chairwoman from Mexico suspended the meeting and
after twenty minutes, returned to the room and announced that Iran's proposal
would be accepted and that the term sexual and reproductive health and rights
would be removed from the text. The document was then adopted by
consensus.
Several delegations, however, went further and made statements to explicitly
define abortion out of the CPD document and to reiterate that the document
created no new rights. Comoros, Peru, Poland, Ireland, Chile, the Holy
See, Malta, and Saint Lucia spoke out against the other remaining reproductive
health-related terms such as reproductive rights, reproductive health services
and sexual and reproductive health and emphasized that these could not be
construed to support, endorse or promote abortion.
Malta's
ambassador stated that his delegation was finding it more difficult in
accepting the resolutions of UN bodies like the CPD where there were
consistent attempts to expand reproductive health to include abortion.
Saint
Lucia made an explicit objection to the term safe abortion because the term
could give the impression that abortion was a procedure completely free of
medical and psychological risks. Saint Lucia also highlighted a
provision in the CPD document which called on states where abortion was legal
to train and equip health service providers and should take such measures to
ensure that such abortion is safe and accessible. The Saint Lucian
representative stressed that her delegation understood this provision did not
impact the right of healthcare providers to refuse to perform or be complicit
in abortions as a matter of conscience, stating, Again, no new rights are
created or acknowledged in this document, and the universal right to
conscience can in no way be overridden or weakened.
Only
the representative of Norway expressed regret that the term sexual and
reproductive rights was not accepted in the text, saying that his country had
widespread access to abortion and virtually no negative effects on women.
The
CPD will next meet in April 2010.
On My mind... He is Legion, he is many, and he
currently rules. --Pablo
I wake up
each day with a prayer on my lips.
I then spend
the day worrying, in fear, for our country. I tell myself to trust in God, but
I am mindful of free will, and free will is what troubles me. I pray that God
gives us guidance and direction, but then I get the feeling that The Lord has
given us just what we asked for—just what we deserve. This nation has
fallen. It has become as Sodom and Gomorrah.
-
A nation
where women have the choice to kill infants within the womb, and have done
so at the current rate of approximately one every 3 seconds—over
43,000,000 since Roe v Wade.
-
It is a nation where crime,
drugs and violence have become so every day, that the mainstream media
seems to report nothing else of value. Just watch the first ten minutes of
any news broadcast and you will see what unfolds.
In
light of all of this it is no wonder that some of us fall deep into a bottle
of booze, or needles and drugs… seeking to medicate, seeking a means to
escape, when our souls are so angered, weak and troubled.
There
is one way we can repair the damage to our nation: we require a spiritual
awakening… a return, en masse, to our fundamental need for God in our lives.
This may not be the answer everyone wants to hear, but it is the only answer
that will work. There is power in prayer, and strength in unity and
fellowship. Our path has been time tested, and laid out for us. We need only
embark upon it and we will succeed in not only finding answers, but finding
solutions that will heal our nation. May we find that the countless that have
sacrificed their lives for our nation will not have done so in vain.
Pablo S.
Prescott
Valley, AZ
On My Mind… I have been asked
more than once: "what exactly is a ProLife Joe"? I rather like
answers in a nutshell. --Pablo
Ordinary
Joes make up the world, combined with a far too minimal smattering of
extraordinary people. And, too, sadly for us, maladjusted self-seeking Joes
and Janes are in the mix as well. They are legion, and they are many.
The
Definition of a ProLife Joe, (or Jane), is not complicated, but expansive.
Following are a few key bullet points:
-
ProLife
spiritual Joes do not covet the personal freedom to extinguish life on
demand-- from the womb, to partial birth and beyond.
-
ProLife
Joes are not selfishly interested in their wants and needs: they well know
how to sacrifice and give of themselves, and do so willingly.
-
ProLife
Joes are for the greater good, not the greater gain.
-
ProLife
Joes take responsibility for their procreative and proactive actions or
inactions.
-
ProLife
Joes are willing to speak out against issues involving the taking of a
life. Death is death, whether from abortion, assisted suicide, or any and
all other nefarious means we humans have devised in an effort to
accomplish the inhuman task of infanticide, patricide, and genocide.
In
summary, ProLife Joes are ordinary men who are willing to stand up, speak out,
and are willing to lead, to help bring about an end to the climate of death
that has evolved in our society, and the world at large.
Live
for Life. Be a
ProLife Joe.
--Pablo
| 
