Russia’s Birthrate now Exceeding Abortion Rate

The Russian Federation was pleased to report to the U.N.’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) Committee that, for the first time in decades, the Russian birth rate now exceeds their abortion rate—a change that should be acknowledged and praised.  But instead the Russian delegation was dished a chastisement from the 23 “independent” U.N. experts who are charged with reviewing their country’s efforts toward achieving “women’s rights.”

According to our friends at Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-Fam), “the committee expressed concern that the government was promoting motherhood and women being able to stay at home with their newborn children, instead of facilitating their quick return to the workforce.  The Cuban expert warned of the negative sexual stereotypes that could result if women were only seen as ‘good mothers, good wives, and caretakers, while men were seen as the economic providers.’”

In another remarkable piece of news, the Russians also informed the CEDAW committee that the “declining number of abortions was also decreasing women’s mortality rates after birth or abortion.”    Once again the Committee was not impressed, even though 100s of millions of dollars are spent worldwide to lower maternal mortality rates.

*Here are a few other examples of “counsel” coming from the CEDAW Compliance Committee experts:

• One expert lamented that access to “transgender medical services” were not available in many regions of Russia, and called on the nation to ensure that “women’s sexual and reproductive rights were based on scientific evidence and not on religion.”
• Fiji was taken to task for not making marriage and reproductive technologies available to same-sex couples.  The Thailand expert inquired of Fiji if the decriminalization of prostitution for adult sex workers could be proposed.
• Albania was asked, “What is the government doing to fight homophobia and violence against gays, lesbians, and transsexuals?”

The CEDAW Compliance Committee gets together to work their mischief a couple of times a year and each country that is a signator to the treaty is required to be reviewed every four years.

*A big “thank you” to C-Fam for reporting on these meetings.

Education Establishment is Not a Friend of the Family

Summertime means the annual National Education Association Convention.   The National Education Association (NEA) is the largest professional organization and labor union in the U.S. and its influence on education reaches around the world.  Their power and influence extends from the walls of the school room to legislative halls as they promote and finance various candidates and initiatives and work to assure their ideology is entrenched in culture.  But what many people may not know, including teachers and parents, is that the NEA is not a friend of the family.

In addition to such groups as the “Lesbian, Bisexual  and Transgender” Caucus and the silly “No Cocktail Left Behind” Caucus, this year saw the recognition of the “NEA Drag Queen” Caucus.  In fairness to the NEA, they also recognize such groups as the Ex-gay Educators, People of Faith, and Catholic and Jewish Caucuses, but the nonsensically-tolerant and politically-correct NEA has an agenda that ought to concern all people who want their schools teaching education basics and not promoting anti-family propaganda to our children.

United Families International has written about the NEA in the past but we thought we’d provide you with an update and a few examples of NEA activity.

Abortion

This year’s convention in New Orleans once again saw the defeat of an abortion neutrality resolution.   However, each year since 1990 this resolution has been reaffirmed:

“The NEA supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom….  The NEA will oppose any legislation which will erode the status of Roe v. Wade…”

The NEA has over 3.2 million members in the U.S. and hardly any of them know that the union that they pay annual dues to is one of the most ardent abortion supporters in the country and that their dues may be helping finance pro-abortion efforts around the world.

Homosexual Advocacy

The NEA is squarely in the back pocket of gay advocates.  The Wall Street Journal reported (2006) that the NEA gave $65 million to liberal groups such as the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the Human Rights Campaign, and People for the American Way.  They oppose the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and in 2009, a resolution was passed to oppose any efforts to put in place amendments banning same-sex unions or marriage:

“NEA will support its affiliates in opposing state constitutional and/or statutory provisions that could have the effect of prohibiting the state and its political subdivisions from providing the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples as are provided to similarly situated heterosexual couples…”

Millions of NEA dollars have been spent on such creating and promoting publications such as:

• “Understanding Gay and Lesbian Students through Diversity”
• “Just the Facts” (A 24-page booklet created by the NEA and the American Psychological Association.  In 2008, the booklet was sent to 16,000 school districts and it tells students that homosexuality is a “normal expression of human sexuality.”)
• “Focus on Gays, Lesbian, Bisexuals and Transgendered Persons”
• “A Report on GLBT People in Education:  Stepping out of the Closet, Into the Light”

The bulk of these informational pieces are part of a well-orchestrated attempt to provide a platform on which to mainstream homosexual behavior in the schools.  One goal is to mandate anti-bullying” and “anti-discrimination” policies that will provide special protection to homosexual-related categories such as “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and “gender expression.”  UFI believes that schools should provide protection against harassment and bullying to every child, for any reason, equally.  To see a list studies and talking points that give rebuttal to the NEA’s “Just the Facts” booklet go here.

Parental Rights

The NEA, in spite of their rhetoric, is not a friend to parents.  It appears that the NEA, not parents, “know best.”  The NEA is in league with groups such as Planned Parenthood and SEICUS to promote what they call “Comprehensive Sex Education” in the schools.  The NEA recommends that parents not be allowed to “opt out” their children when comprehensive sex education and “diversity” curriculum is being taught.  They oppose laws that require parental notification for abortion or contraception distribution.  NEA supports the abolishment of “heterosexism” (the belief that heterosexual behavior is superior to homosexual behavior) in the schools and that curriculum that promotes “anti-discrimination and equality for all members of the GLBTQ community” should supersede any wishes that parents might have regarding the teaching of their children.

Conclusion

Our school districts are populated with amazing and hardworking teachers.  Please know that we are not castigating educators individually, but the union to which many are required to belong and pay dues.  The NEA is powerful and wields great influence over schools, the legislative and public policy environment, and the culture at large.  Teachers need to consider how their dues are being spent and work to change the leadership of their union.   Please be aware and get involved.

Parents, please be actively involved in your schools.  If you hold conservative and traditional family values, social or economic, be assured that the NEA doesn’t share them and they are aggressively engaged in promulgating their values at the expense of your children.   Don’t under estimate the power that you have as a parent and constituent of a school district and don’t feel like you’re alone–most parents share your values and concerns.   Get involved and make the next school year a family-friendly one!

Teacher Fired for Comment on Origins of Homosexuality Wins $100K Settlement

There have been two “fired” professors in the news lately.  Both were dismissed from their teaching assignments because a student complained of being “offended” by the professors’ remarks on homosexuality.

In June 2007, June Sheldon adjunct professor at San Jose/Evergreen Community College District, made a statement in class regarding research of a well-known German scientist that found a correlation between maternal stress during pregnancy and later homosexual behavior in males.  When a student complained, the school launched an investigation and declared her comments “offensive and unscientific.”  Ms. Sheldon was later terminated.

This past spring, the University of Illinois fired Ken Howell an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism was fired after a student accused him of engaging in hate speech because he discussed the Catholic teaching that homosexual sex is contrary to natural moral law.

The good news:  June Sheldon, with the help of Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and Pacific Justice Institute, received a legal settlement of $100k from San Jose Community College and is currently teaching at another college.  Ken Howell is also receiving legal help from ADF; his case is still in process.

“Professors shouldn’t be fired simply for doing their jobs as educators. Professionally addressing both sides of an academic issue according to the class curriculum is not grounds for dismissal; it’s what a professor is supposed to do,” remarked ADF Litigation Staff Counsel David J. Hacker.

These two cases show the efforts underway on many college campuses to stifle alternative viewpoints.   The message to all academics?  “Be very, very careful what you say… and definitely speak only supportive words about homosexual behavior.”   Even though college administrators may eventually be forced to back down and have to pay out money for their blunder, the message is still sent.  The chilling effect on academic freedom has already occurred.

One last thought, how many conservative students are “offended” by their leftist professors remarks every single school day?  Somehow I doubt their “feelings” are going to get the same level of attention by the college administration as gay students or those who espouse liberal viewpoints.  Double  standard?  Boy, is that an understatement.

The ACLU is at it again! Marriage challenged in Montana

The ACLU filed a lawsuit on July 22 seeking to force the state of Montana to provide legal status to same-sex couples in spite of the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The Montana marriage amendment was passed in 2004 with 67 percent of voters supporting the initiative.

Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), states that in the case of Montana, the American Civil Liberties Union has a new legal strategy they seem to be trying out.  “They are targeting states that have limited marriage amendments and seek out ‘friendly’ judges to rule in their favor—regardless of whether the people support their efforts or not.”

According to JURIST:

“The complaint argues that, in not providing a legal status to committed same-sex relationships, the state has violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the Montana Constitution.  The lawsuit does not argue for same-sex marriage, which is banned under the state constitution, but argues that the court should order the state to provide same-sex couples with civil unions. The ACLU argues that the state is discriminating against the plaintiffs based on their sexual orientation and that this situation unconstitutionally burdens the plaintiffs’ rights to privacy, dignity and the pursuit of life’s basic necessities, in addition to violating their state due process rights.”

The complaint goes on to state that the State is “perpetuating a social stigma and prejudice long suffered by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals in Montana, that they and their relationships are inferior to heterosexual individuals and heterosexual relationships.”  The complaint explains that the Plaintiffs suffer “distinct dignitary harms.”

It seems that perceived “distinct dignitary harms” is not much of a case to challenge a state constitutional amendment, but details like that have never slowed down the ACLU and other same-sex advocates in their quest to use the courts to steam roll the country into accepting same-sex marriage.

“Remediation” Required for Graduate Student Who Voices Opinion on Same-sex Behavior

We at UFI have often discussed how long it might be before counselors, psychologists, and psychiatrists—those who maintain a viewpoint that homosexual lifestyle and behavior should not be promoted and mainstreamed–will be forbidden to participate in their profession.

The recent situation of Jennifer Keeton, an Augusta State University student getting her master’s degree in counseling, should give everyone pause.  Jennifer has been assigned to attend remediation for her beliefs regarding same-sex behavior and if she does not agree to the university’s demands, she will be dismissed from her Counselor Education Program.

Jennifer had made responses in class and had discussions outside of class regarding her belief that same-sex behavior was a lifestyle and not “a state of being.”  This and other interactions with faculty prompted the program chair to call Jennifer in and demand that she, among other things:

• Attend workshops of diversity sensitivity toward GLBTQ populations and write reports on her experiences and how her beliefs were impacted.
• Read articles on improving effectiveness with GLBTQ populations and write reports on what she learned.
• Increase her exposure and interaction with gay population with an emphasis on attending the Gay Parade in Augusta, Georgia.

Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorneys filed suit against the university on Keeton’s behalf on First Amendment grounds.  According to ADF, university faculty said Keeton’s beliefs are unethical and incompatible with the counseling profession, saying it would hinder her “ability to be a multiculturally competent counselor, particularly with regard to working with gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning populations.”

Anyone who is a part of the counseling professions needs to take note of this case.  If you are a student or have a child that is considering this profession, you should be fully apprised of the challenges involved.

To read the complaint filed by Alliance Defense Fund, where you can learn the details of what occurred, go here.

Marriage is Dead? The Case against “The Case Against Marriage”

“Marriage is dead,”. . . or, at least,  no longer necessary was the Nietzchean-like declaration of two young, female writers in Newsweek last month.  In an article entitled “The Case Against Marriage,” Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison lay-out with dismissive nonchalance, and not a small amount of arrogance, the various reasons that they, and women like them no longer need marriage. “Once upon a time, marriage made sense,” they write.
“It was how women ensured their financial security, got the father of their children to stick around, and gained access to a host of legal rights. But 40 years after the feminist movement established women’s rights in the workplace, a generation after the divorce rate peaked, and a decade after Sex and the City made singledom chic, marriage is–from a legal and practical standpoint, anyway–no longer necessary.”

Well, from a “legal standpoint,” they may be correct. With the advent of no-fault divorce, civil unions, and a growing welfare state, singledom is no longer legally disadvantaged, and as they claim, may be advantaged in some ways. However, from every other standpoint–practical or otherwise–they could not be further from the truth. Legal structures and societal trends may obscure this fact, but the truth is marriage benefits everyone–men, women, children, and as a result, society. Marriage is in fact necessary. Why? Simply put: because marriage produces the best results for society and especially for women.

The danger is that the “Marriage is dead” crowd, so aptly represented by Bennett and Ellison, is getting louder, and with changes in public policy increasingly disadvantaging the married, and society increasingly glorifying “chic singledom” this crowd is becoming more persuasive. Fortunately, the facts are on the side of marriage. So please indulge us as we take on Bennett and Ellison, point by point, in our case against “the case against marriage.”

1. Marriage is no longer necessary for child-rearing or, at least, society no longer expects women to be married to have children. Bennett and Ellison point out that the social stigma against marriage disappeared a long time ago, with 41 percent of births in 2008 being to unmarried mothers. They also make the claim that this can be an advantage, for in Scandinavia, where unmarried parents are the norm, parents actually spend more time with their children. What Bennett and Ellison seem to forget are outcomes.

Yes, the social stigma against single parents may be gone, but the negative consequences for children are not. Study after study has shown that children living with married parents are better off. They are more likely to have better health, fewer behavioral and emotional problems, better cognitive and verbal development and greater education and job attainment. All the statistics are clear, marriage is better for children.

As for the parent with child time ratio, if their facts are correct, Scandinavia would be the exception, an exception enabled by a cradle-to-grave welfare state in which the government compensates for the financial and social instability inherent to unmarried child-rearing. The more children are raised out of wedlock, the more government welfare programs are needed to compensate. That is a simple fact. And with government debt rising around the world, this is a responsibility most governments simply cannot afford.

2. Marriage is no longer necessary to engage in sexual relations. It is true that many, some would argue most, no longer wait until marriage to engage in sexual intercourse. Bennett and Ellison fairly accurately, if a bit glibly, express the general attitude: “And the idea that we’d ‘save ourselves’ for marriage? Please.” Yet, as mainstream as this attitude may be, it is not one they should be touting as a reason to dispose of marriage.

No matter what societal mores may be, pre-marital sex leads to negative outcomes. It leads to more out-of-wedlock childbearing, more STDs, more violence in relationships, more mental and emotional trauma to women, and cohabitation contributes to a higher divorce rate–and that’s just the short list of the “contributions” of pre-martial sex. There is nothing about this trend that is healthy and good for society.

3. Government programs and legislation no longer benefit the married, and probably advantage the single. Bennett and Ellison rightly point out that under current governmental policy; it sometimes doesn’t pay to be married. Unmarried couples have nearly all the rights of married couple, “federal law favors unmarried taxpayers . . . and under President Obama’s new health plan, low-earning single people get better subsidies to buy insurance.”

But the duo forgets to mention that 75 percent of the $150+ billion dollars spent annually on various government welfare programs goes directly to single parents and individuals in non-traditional relationships. On the other hand, marriage is financially advantageous in nearly every other way. Here’s just a few facts:

- Marriage increases wealth over one’s lifetime. Among couples who marry and stay married, their net worth increases on average by 16 percent with each year. Over a lifetime that is, on average, a 93 percent increase in wealth over those who remain single.

- For those in poverty, particularly, marriage is even more important financially. According to one study, seventy percent of never-married mothers would be able to escape poverty if they were married to the father of their children.

No government program can tout such success in alleviating poverty. So government programs may not directly benefit the married, but the married are still better off financially, even without tax breaks.

4. Women are not happier in marriage. Well, this one is just blatantly false. If you would like to talk superficially about marriage, as Bennett and Ellison do, you can certainly cite enough male shortcomings to discourage any woman from wanting to marry. But the truth of the matter is evidence indicates that both men and women are happier in marriage. Statistics show that married people are happier and wealthier than widowed, divorced, separated, or never-married people across the board. And not only are women happier in marriage, they also experience lower levels of violence, poverty, depression and emotional trauma. Not to mention, they also enjoy better sex lives and live longer than single women. So the amount of housework they do weekly may increase due to the simple fact of being married to a man, but the positives definitely outweigh the negatives.

5. Humans are not made to stay together for a lifetime, as illustrated by soaring divorce rates. “With our life expectancy in the high 70s,” write Bennett and Ellison, “the idea that we’re meant to be together forever is less realistic. . . . Healthy partnerships are possible, for sure–but the permanence of marriage seems naive, almost arrogant.” Let us suggest that what is “arrogant,” is assuming humans are not equipped for lifetime commitment (against centuries’ worth of evidence to the contrary) on the evidence that we are living a little longer and divorcing more often.

The truth is extended longevity accounts for only a tiny fraction of the increase in divorce from 1965 to 1980. And more importantly, over 70 percent of all people who have ever been married are STILL married to the same person. The other 30 percent are part of a marry-divorce, remarry-divorce, remarry-divorce pattern that drives the overall divorce rate to around 50 percent.

So perhaps a more accurate diagnosis of the problem is not human nature, but the unrealistic expectations on the part of a minority who continue to marry and remarry. Bennett and Ellison, themselves, identify that expectations of marriage have changed. “Young people today don’t want their parents’ marriage, says Tara Parker-Pope, the author of For Better–they want all-encompassing, head-over-heels fulfillment: a best friend, a business partner, somebody to share sex, love, and chores. In other words, a “soul mate”–which is what 94 percent of singles in their 20s describe what they look for in a partner.” Such expectation would doom any relationship to failure because they are based on selfish gratification which is a number one contributor to divorce. Seventy percent of the population has learned that real fulfillment comes through years of sacrifice and service as soul mates are created–not found!

Conclusion

Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison in “The Case Against Marriage,” aren’t the first to set out to disprove the benefits of marriage. In fact, such attempts are almost as old as marriage itself. A very inclusive study of this nature was attempted by a well known anthropologist of the early 1900′s named Joseph Daniel Unwin. He too set out to prove that marriage was irrelevant and even harmful. In his research he chronicled the historical decline of 86 different cultures and was forced to conclude that only marriage with fidelity could lead to cultural prosperity. In fact, he said, “Once a society departs from a social norm of absolute marital monogamy, social chaos ensues within three generations!”

United Families International acknowledges Unwin’s findings and we dedicate large amounts of time and efforts in protecting the institution of marriage as the most basic unit of society around the world. Join us in this effort!

To see a list of studies documenting the importance of marriage as discussed above, go here. Or visit UFI’s website to see UFI’s Guides to Family Issues: The Marriage Advantage and our guide discussing the impact of Cohabitation.

What do You Want Your Child Taught: Sex before marriage or only after marriage?

Do you believe that individuals should wait until after they’re married before engaging in sex?   If you answered “yes” to that question, The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) believes you’re wrong.    They are working very hard to make that belief and mindset a thing of the past.  Ground zero for their effort is the public schools.

SIECUS recently released their “7th Annual State Profiles” a report that compares “comprehensive” sex education laws and policies in public schools to that of abstinence-only efforts.   The report applauded the fact that Obama administration is dedicated to ushering in a “new era of sex education” in the U.S.  They are pleased that Obama has eliminated two-thirds of federal funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, but lament that any abstinence-only funding slipped into Obama’s new healthcare program.  Referring to that abstinence funding:

“How this program went from being left on the scrap heap to being included in the most ambitious and progressive social legislation in decades should baffle anyone who believes in putting science- and evidence-based decision making ahead of cheap political gimmicks. The Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage program was never about public health or even about pregnancy prevention—the creators of the program were clear, it ‘was intended to align Congress with the social tradition…that sex should be confined to married couples.’ As such, it had absolutely no place as part of legislation dedicated to improving the health of our nation.”

So there you have it.  Belief that sexual relations should be confined to marriage is nothing more than a “social tradition” and “has no place” in improving the health of our nation.  As for SEICUS’s claim that abstinence-only education is devoid of “science” we refer you to Miriam Grossman, author of “You’re Teaching My Child What?“. Dr. Grossman documents how sex educators only tell teens the “facts of life” that promote acceptance, sexual exploration, and experimentation.   So what do you want your children taught?

$23 Million U.S. Taxpayer Dollars Spent to tell Kenyans How to Vote

When UFI last reported on the Obama administration’s involvement in the upcoming August 4 vote on Kenya’s new constitution, the taxpayer tab was $686,000.  But the tally has gone way up:

“The Inspector General (IG) for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Donald Gambatesa, has provided information that the US Government is spending over $23 million for activities in Kenya to influence the voter to pass a highly contentious constitution which includes overturning Kenyan’s current life of the mother only restriction on abortion.” (Rep. Chris Smith Website)

Members of the Africa and Global Health Subcommittee, and other key U.S. lawmakers recently received a chart listing recipients of USAID-funded activities related to the proposed constitution and a summary of their agreements. Some of recipients of U.S. funds include:

• The Kenyan Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA-Kenya)  A member of the Kenyan Reproductive Health and Rights Alliance (RHRA), which is supported by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA).
• The Committee of Experts on Constitutional Review in Kenya, which drafted the abortion-related provisions in the proposed constitution.
• The African Woman and Child Features Service, a media non-governmental organization that seeks to increase media coverage about abortion and “comprehensive reproductive health rights” in Kenya.

United Families International President, Michael Duff, puts this circumstance into perspective:

“Since the end of World War II the American people have generously allowed their government to foster the development of democracies around the world.  Now, the Obama Administration has crossed the line from building democracy in Kenya to trying to determine the outcome of an historic public referendum.  The most radical, anti-family adminstration in America’s history is now using taxpayer dollars to institutionalize abortion in a nation that has historically rejected this heinous practise.  As advocate for the international abortion industry, the Obama Administration is misusing the power of the Executive Branch to expand the genocidal practise of abortion in Africa.  It is a shameful overreach and should not be tolerated by anyone that values life and the institution of the family.”

Please make sure that you make a phone call to your elected representatives and politely express your disgust and concern with such misuse of funds and illegal foreign involvement. Their phones should be ringing off the hook.

Go here to contact your Senator

Go here to contact your Congressman

Does a “Fetus” Feel Pain during Abortion? New Study

The fetal pain question has always seemed outrageous and irrelevant to me.  Debating at what point an unborn baby feels pain so that an abortion can be performed “painlessly” is horrific, dehumanizing and oh so cavalier.  It’s the equivalent of saying:  “No worries…I’m going to kill you and then dismember you, but I’ll give you some pain killer before I do it.”  Even some outspoken abortion supporters acknowledge that  whether or not a fetus feels pain  “makes little difference to the central arguments on either side. Either a foetus is a life from conception, or it is not — ability to feel pain is not, in itself, a defining factor.”

The fetal pain question moved into the media spotlight recently because Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’ (RCOG) claim to have determined that a fetus is not able to feel pain before 24 weeks of development. RCOG’s study is being used to uphold Britain’s current legalization of abortions up to 24 weeks.   Pro-life experts are pointing to this study as being politically timed and politically motivated as pro-life momentum in Britain is growing with more and more efforts to lower the time limit for legal abortion.

Jeanne Monahan, Family Research Council, explains how this new report misrepresents the facts:

“RCOG is using a faulty definition of pain in this study. A number of experts in the field of fetal development, who were not consulted for this report, previously have refuted the idea that the cortex needs to be fully developed for an unborn baby to feel pain. On the contrary, it is possible that unborn babies between 20-30 weeks of development can experience greater pain than a full-term newborn or older child. At 20-30 weeks, an unborn child possesses the highest number of pain receptors per square inch he or she will ever possess, and the baby’s nerve fibers are located closest to the surface of the skin.

Below is a video clip from the documentary “The Silent Scream.”  It is disturbing to watch, but hopefully it will inspire you to get more involved in working to provide women with real options and end abortion.

UFI’s ‘Stay Alive’ Program Reaches more Children!

United Families International is pleased to announce that Trivani Foundation has joined the Stay Alive team.

“The Stay Alive Program is an international program created to address the HIV/AIDS problem in many parts of the world in order to save lives and offer a higher standard of living. This program targets children ages 9-14 and teaches them how to make smart choices before they become sexually active. A basic understanding of what HIV/AIDS is as well as how it is transmitted is a key component of the program. In addition, children learn how to protect themselves from the disease through celibacy, practicing sexual abstinence before marriage and by staying faithful in marriage.” (Trivani press release)

The Trivani Foundation is creating a new Stay Alive outreach program in Northern Uganda. To learn more about  Trivani Foundation and their work with the Stay Alive program go here.