“Gendercide: The worldwide war on baby girls”: A must read

We know it is a bit late, but if you missed this article, it is a must read.

It is the March cover story for The Economist—“Gendercide: The worldwide war on baby girls”—and everyone should read it for two reasons:

1. To learn more about a hugely important issue affecting millions of girls around the world.
2. To witness another writer maneuver around having to address abortion as what it really is—murder.

This maneuvering is most evident in The Economists’ opinion piece on the article.

They do an excellent job honestly addressing the magnitude of the problem in the piece. They write,

“It is no exaggeration to call this gendercide. Women are missing in their millions—aborted, killed, neglected to death. In 1990 an Indian economist, Amartya Sen, put the number at 100m; the toll is higher now.”

And they are correct. The numbers are huge. They continue later on to even address some of the causes.

“In fact the destruction of baby girls is a product of three forces: the ancient preference for sons; a modern desire for smaller families; and ultrasound scanning and other technologies that identify the sex of a fetus.”

But notice what is missing from the list of contributing forces. No where in that list does it mention that unlimited access to the primary murder weapon—abortion—might have contributed to the problem. The article does concede that gendercide is an issue, even that abortion is used in the process, but never does it say that unlimited access to abortion is the major contributor to the mass murder of millions of baby girls.

That is how powerful the ideology of choice truly is. Had the murder weapon been a gun, the article would have ended with a bold call for gun control, but the sanctity of a woman’s right to choose prevents abortion from even being mentioned among the contributing forces.

The article continues to miss the point entirely when it offers its solution. According to The Economist, the key to ending the abortion of millions of girls is not to limit abortion, but rather, to foster respect for women:

“And all countries need to raise the value of girls. They should encourage female education; abolish laws and customs that prevent daughters inheriting property; make examples of hospitals and clinics with impossible sex ratios; get women engaged in public life—using everything from television newsreaders to women traffic police. Mao Zedong said ‘women hold up half the sky.’ The world needs to do more to prevent a gendercide that will have the sky crashing down.”

Yes, these are hugely important steps in reducing the problem, but a little gun control might help as well.

Another Voice Tells It Like It Is.

There are times when we at UFI report on things and we wonder:  “Do people really believe what we say about the anti-family, anti-life agenda at the UN?”  “Do people think we are just overreacting or even making this stuff up?”

Then along comes another voice to bear witness to what is occurring.  This time the witness comes from an unexpected place…the country of Belgium.   It comes from a woman who was in attendance at this year’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW).   We marveled as we read her account of what occurred there and realized that we had an unexpected friend in the negotiating room, but we didn’t know it at the time.  Dr. Alexandra Cohen is her name and she’s a member of the Belgian House of Representatives.  You can read the full account of her CSW experience here.

Dr. Cohen’s words echo ours as we reported on the U.S. delegation at CSW and their antics to push a resolution that included language to push abortion rights.

“The resolution was submitted by the new administration of the United States which wanted to make its mark on the UN conference with a very liberal text that included contraception and abortion as means to be promoted and funded by the UN (and by governments at all levels) in efforts to reduce maternal mortality around the world. The Obama administration wanted to enter the world of “women’s rights” apparatchiks and lobbyists with a flourish and immediately take the lead in the feminist cause. Hillary Clinton was returning to the US specially to be present when the resolution, a top priority for the new administration, was officially tabled and accepted on the last day of the conference. Clearly the mood was to be one of triumph.   The chair [from the U.S. delegation] was a hard, impatient woman who led the meetings aggressively and would have rammed her text down the negotiators’ throats if she could.”

Dr. Cohen also gives insights into the actual negotiation process and the “cast of characters” involved.

“The discussions constituted a veritable battle; a battle of words, psychology and endurance. The aim of the US and its allies was to gain ground on the ideological battlefield by including references to “sexual and reproductive rights” in the text, i.e. to include the right to unlimited access to contraception and abortion in the recommendations of the UN (on maternal mortality!) to the governments of the world. Switzerland, Sweden, Canada and Australia were extremely diligent in this respect. Their relationship with the chair was of an amicable nature and the chair smiled upon them each time she gave them the floor. The Turkish representative could have been a hardcore feminist in the Europe of the seventies; the chair welcomed her as a shining star in the firmament of the women’s rights universe. At one point she advised the group to accept an amendment suggested by Turkey with the words “Turkey has been extremely helpful, so don’t oppose them here.” Turkey was also helpful in opposing the alliance of Iran, Qatar and Syria, who wished to adapt some of the wording relating to girls and to marriage. They were given the floor with an air of impatience. The liberals resented the fact that the “pro-lifers”, whom they spoke of with anger and hatred, had enlisted their help. Among the assembled national delegates the pro-lifers were few. The representatives of the Holy See, Costa Rica and Chile opposed the repeated attempts of the chair and her allies to introduce terminology which referred implicitly or explicitly to abortion.”

The “pro-lifers” that Dr. Cohen references include United Families International representatives and other members of the pro-family coalition.  And, yes, “the liberals” are angry with us and hate us.  Why?  Because we are there to thwart their agenda.  We remain grateful to those brave countries that stand on the side of family and life.  UFI will continue to be at UN negotiations to help craft language, monitor and educate, and to give support.

Thank you, Dr. Cohen, for shining some more light on the often malignant practices of the UN.  Be sure to read her words in their entirety.

Polish Ad Promotes Abortion Tourism in Britain

A new ad by Polish pro-abortion group SROM has come under harsh criticism by British MPs for promoting abortion tourism to the UK.

The ad features a young girl in white lingerie with the words “My choice” written on her stomach. The rest of the ad reads like a Mastercard commercial:

“Plane ticket to England – 300 zloty.

Accommodation – 240 zloty.

Abortion in a public clinic – 0 zloty.

Relief after a procedure carried out in decent conditions – priceless.

For everything, you pay less than an underground abortion in Poland.”

SROM is attempting to educate women on how to bypass Polish abortion law, currently the strongest in the EU, in order to obtain “safe” abortions. Unfortunately, Britain isn’t too pleased with their solution.

“When the Abortion Act was liberalised I said it would turn Britain into the abortion capital of Europe and that seems to be exactly what’s happened,” MP Anne Widdecombe told a UK newspaper. Other MPs expressed similar concern over the advertisement and the implications for the British health care system.

Whether the ad is even providing women with “correct” advice is up for debate. The British Department of Health claims that it would be very difficult for a non-resident to receive an abortion unless an emergency. A women from Poland would be required to have a formal referral from a doctor in order to have the procedure. Something unlikely to happen, claims the Department of Health.

However, according to a 2008 report from the Polish Federation for Women and Family Planning 10,000 polish women received abortion in the UK in 2007, costing British National Health Services €5.5 – €11 million.

Parents: What rights did you sign away?

In the wake of the UFI Daily story regarding the State of Washington and the mother who lamented the fact that her high-school age daughter was given an abortion without her knowledge, I went to the Ballard High School website (Seattle, Washington) to take a look at their parental consent form.  You should take a look at it too; it’s included below.  I’ve also marked in red some points you might want to look at closely.  I suspect that versions of this form might be sitting in your child’s school office.

Every parent needs to read carefully any form that comes from your child’s school.  Most of us assume that a consent form like this is simply a way to have our child receive basic medical care and to have our child treated in the case of an emergency.  We all must understand that there are forces at work in your school, lobbying groups who have sway with your school administrators and teachers.  These group’s agendas might not necessarily line up with your ethics and values.  They are counting on you to not pay close attention.  Hopefully, your school’s form is a basic medical consent form, but you need to find out.

·         Please be aware that a mention of “reproductive health care” on any form or document opens the door to contraception, morning-after-pills, and abortion.

·         Note that on this form the decision to inform the parents is arbitrary.

·         Note that the “Center and its staff” are now in charge of all medical decisions regarding your child and that the child or the school does not have to notify you, the parent, of any issues regarding pregnancy, STDs, or drug use.

This situation brings to light many disturbing questions as to the State of Washington’s laws regarding parental rights.  I urge those of you in Washington State to look into the references in this form regarding what is “legally required.”

This situation should serve as a “wake-up call” for parents everywhere.  We all ought to be asking ourselves:  “What rights did I unknowingly sign away?”    And, vigilance is required to keep these types of situations out of our schools.

http://www.ballardbeavers.org/Services/Student%20Health/bthc.html

School-Based Health Centers Consent for Health Services

School-Based Health Centers located in Seattle Public Schools must have a signed consent from a parent or legal guardian before providing services to youth, except in situations where federal and/or state laws allow youth to access such treatment without parent/guardian consent.  Youth may independently access reproductive health care at any age; they may independently receive drug and alcohol services and mental health counseling from age thirteen.  If necessary, the Centers will inform youth of options for outside care and will assist the youth in discussing these issues with parents/guardians. If the youth is enrolled in school but is not enrolled in a School-Based Health Center, he/she can continue to receive school nurse services.

I hereby request and authorize that:

Print Youth’s Name:  ________________________________________________       _______________

First Name        Middle Initial              Last Name                                         Birthdate

receive any and all health care services available from and deemed necessary by the staff of the SBHC.  These services may include, but are not limited to, such procedures as well-teen care, evaluation and treatment of acute illness and injuries, immunizations, blood studies, photographs and X-rays.  Consent is also given for referral of care and if needed, emergency transportation, to other physicians, health care professionals, hospitals, clinics, or health care agencies as deemed necessary by the Center and its staff. This authorization does not allow services to be rendered without the youth’s consent, unless she/he is unable to consent.

When consent is provided for care, all information is kept confidential except in the following circumstances:

1. The client gives permission through a signed release of information.
2. If he/she indicates risk of imminent harm to self or others.
3. He/she has a life threatening health problem and is under 18 years old.
4. There is reason to suspect abuse or neglect.
5. Certain communicable diseases must be reported to public health authorities.

I understand the youth’s consent is legally required for release of information about the following kinds of diagnoses and treatment: pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV/AIDS testing), and alcohol and drug or mental health counseling.

I have received a copy of the Swedish Medical Center’s Notice of Health Information Practices, which provides information about how the student’s health information may be used and disclosed.

The School-Based Health Center encourages each youth to involve his/her parents or guardians in health care decisions whenever possible.

Consent for services is authorized for the length of time the youth is enrolled in a school with a SBHC.  I may choose to withdraw the consent at any time by writing to the Center that serves the youth.

Youth Signature: _______________________________________________Date: ____________

Parent/Guardian Signature: _______________________________________Date: ____________

Name/Relationship of Legally  Responsible Guardian (Print):______________________________

Parent/Guardian Address:_________________________________________________________

Telephone: (_____)__________________ Work Telephone: (______)_______________________

Revised 7/16/03 Please complete both sides

Healthcare Update: Obama signs Executive Order

President Obama finally signed the Executive Order (EO) he promised to pro-life Democrats Wednesday afternoon.  The EO was the tipping point in gaining Stupak and twelve Democratic pro-life votes for health care reform. Without their votes the bill would not have passed.

Before Obama even signed the EO, pro-life groups across the country denounced it, saying it was not enough to prevent taxpayers from covering abortions.

The president’s order instructs government agencies “to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures” within 180 days that would make sure that federal funds are segregated from abortion services, except in the cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother.

Family Research Council analyst David Christensen explains, “An Executive Order simply cannot trump statutory law. If the Senate bill passes, the various abortion funding provisions in it will become the law of the land unfettered by this EO.”

Obviously the pro-life community is upset with the results of the vote and now the EO. What is interesting is that the pro-abortion community is just as angry.  NOW President Terri O’Neill said,

“We remain deeply dismayed by it. President Obama campaigned as a pro-choice candidate. He campaigned as a person, he said, who was opposed to the Hyde Amendment. This deal, with Bart Stupak, is simply unacceptable.”

While Obama’s EO is better than nothing, it’s important we recognize that this fight is far from over.  So far 14 state Attorney Generals have filed a lawsuit against the Federal Government and the Senate still has to vote on changes to the bill.

Kiddie condoms on sale in Switzerland.

Yes. You read that right.

Kiddie Condoms available now!

And it gets better—they are called “Hotshots.”

Let’s set aside the blatant promotion of adolescent sex and the reinforcement of stereotypes of male sexuality in the name and examine the logic here.

Hotshots are extra-small condoms designed specifically for boys ages 12 to 14. They come in response to a government- funded study that found that young boys were not using adequate protection when engaging in adolescent sex. Those responsible for the new condom combined this new information with a German study that showed that 25% of standard condoms are too small for young boys and they reached the logical conclusion that the solution to adolescent boys having unsafe sex is simply smaller condoms.

Don’t worry about trying to reduce the number of sexually active 12-year-olds. Just manufacture small condoms, call them “Hotshots” to reinforce the belief that boys are awesome for having sex at the age of 12, and make the condoms readily available, preferably free. Problem solved.

What a perfectly clear distillation of the logic behind mainstream approaches to protecting our children from STDs, teen pregnancy, and HIV/AIDS.  “Our children are having unsafe sex, let’s give them better condoms.”

The manufacturer, Lamprecht A.G., has said that expanding sales into Britain would be a “top priority” if they marketed abroad. Perhaps kiddie condoms will also help reduce teen pregnancy rates in the U.K.

Mandatory sex-ed in Britain to override religious liberty

The British House of Commons recently passed a new mandatory sexual education bill that would require all schools—public, private, and religious—to include “non-judgmental” information on homosexuality, contraception, and abortion in their sex-ed courses. According to proponent’s of the bill, the new legislation does not violate any religious liberties, but only ensures students get all the necessary information.

The government’s education minister, Ed Balls, explained that the new legislation still allows faith schools to identify their position on an issue but simply requires them to present both sides of the argument. “They can explain the view of their faith,” he said, “but what they can’t do is say that they are not going to teach children about contraception, how to access contraception, or how to use contraception.”

He further explained teachers will be required to teach “different views on homosexuality, they cannot teach homophobia, they must explain civil partnership and must give a balanced view on abortion. They must explain both sides of the argument and how to access an abortion. The same is true on contraception as well.”

Faith schools, therefore, will be able to say they are opposed to abortion but they must do so without sounding judgmental and while also educating students on why abortion is acceptable and where and how they can obtain one. As one observer so adequately pointed out, “It is facilitation under the guise of information.”

It is another clear case of the push for sexual rights overriding religious rights. Under the auspice of neutrality and education, the government will be forcing faith schools to teach and reinforce within its own walls a secular view of sexuality that directly contradicts its own. Such an imposition on any person’s religious beliefs should not be tolerated by anyone who believes in freedom of religion.

The bill passed the House of Commons by a vote of 177-68 and is currently under debate in the House of Lords.

Obama’s Healthcare Devastating to the Health of the Unborn

With the passage of Obama’s Healthcare Bill comes what some are calling “the greatest expansion of elective abortion since Roe v. Wade.” Although Bart Stupak and other supposed “pro-life democrats” want the public to believe that a Presidential Executive Order will save unborn lives and prevent taxpayers from funding abortion, the reality is that legal precedent in such court rulings as Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and Commerce of U.S. v Reich leave much doubt as to whether an Executive Order could even stand a court challenge—one that would surely come.
Add that to the doubt that Obama would even put much effort into an Executive Order banning taxpayer supported abortion. Candidate Obama promised, repeatedly, that abortion would be treated as a “basic health care mandate” that both taxpayers and health insurers would be required to subsidize. When you add this attitude to the fact that Pres. Obama could rescind his Executive Order at any time and that future Presidents have the ability to rescind as well, it leaves one wondering if an Executive Order such as this is even worth the paper it is written on.

Obama and the Democrats in both the House and the Senate have for months and months insisted that the various Healthcare Bills as written did not allow for abortion. So now with agreeing to an Executive Order barring tax payer funding of abortion, they have admitted that abortion is in the Healthcare bill. Why should we trust President Obama and his fellow Democrats now when their deceit on this issue is clear?

It is a dark day for the unborn and for all Americans.

Contraceptives are NOT a top priority

After attending CSW in New York this month, imagine my surprise to see the headline “Third World Women Don’t Want Contraceptives, Expert Tells Canadian Politicians.”

I honestly did a double take.

After hearing for two weeks how contraceptives are the only solution to maternal mortality it was refreshing to see a different viewpoint.

The Population Research Institute (PRI) has conducted surveys in Kenya, Ghana, Sierra Leone and Mexico. In each country “reproductive health” was nowhere near the top of healthcare priorities for women.

“It’s not what they want,” said Steven Mosher, president of PRI.  “They ask for clean drinking water, and we give them contraceptives.”

Western based corporations such as Planned Parenthood and UNICEF are assuming that because having children is an inconvenience to them that it is for everyone.

“We’re talking about women in the developing world who want to have children.  They just don’t want to die in the process,” stated Mosher.

Research like this study from PRI is vitally important to help us all in realizing ways that we can truly help the millions of women (and of course men) that are struggling. Clean water and sanitary hospitals are infinitely more important then contraceptives.

Part of me says, ok let’s all the pro-contraceptive people out in the desert with just their contraceptives and no water and see how they survive. However that is not very nice.  And since I consider myself a generally kind individual I would instead ask them

Which is more important for survival: clean drinking water or a condom? A hygienic doctor’s office for prenatal care or a plan B pill?

The answer should be blatantly obvious.

Another City Joins the Anti-Religious Fervor

Just as Gilbert, Arizona draws near to a resolution on its anti-religious city code, similar tensions flare in Rancho Cucamonga, California (the second time this year).

On Tuesday, the city informed the Shiloh Tabernacle to either cease its household meetings entirely or acquire an expensive permit, which adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. A letter was sent to the homeowner, insisting that the regular Friday night meetings are not allowed because the group’s activities define it as a “church,” and hence is required to obtain the Conditional Use Permit for residential areas. Also, the city notified the group that no permit would be granted and that the meetings must cease by Good Friday on April 2nd.

The Pacific Justice Institute, a non-profit legal defense organization specializing in matters of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties, represents the homeowner and plans to file an appeal against the city.

Brad Dacus, President of the Pacific Justice Institute, said, “Imposing a Condition Use Permit requirement on a home Bible study is manifestly absurd and unjust. I don’t know of a single court in America that would approve their actions.”

The organization wants to give the city a chance to rescind its letter without litigation. Even so, the Pacific Justice Institute is fully prepared to take the case as far as is necessary to defend both the Bible study group and religious freedom.