May - June 2009
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 PollPro-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.
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
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!
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
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.