Archive for the ‘Family Planning’ Category

‘Till Death do us Part

In Families, Family Planning, Marriage, The Family, Values on March 19, 2013 at 10:48 am

bride and groom making vows

Rachel Allison

Because of current circumstances in my life, I have had opportunity to witness seven or eight weddings over the past two weeks. I was actually surprised at how many young couples are getting married.  I thought that marriage was a thing of the past.  But apparently I have been wrong.  Good!  I’m glad I was wrong.  Before pronouncing the marriage vows the officiator has offered advise to the bride and groom.

His counsel:

1.  Communication is a key to a successful marriage.  Together your joys will be doubled, and your sorrows will be divided.  To the bride:  “When your husband gets home each evening, ask about his day…and then listen with your ears and your heart.  Your concern and interest can lighten his load and inspire confidence.”   To the Groom:  “Ask about her day…her ups and her downs.  Be the man she can lean on.  Be the man who willingly takes time to listen to her. And both of you need to know when not to speak.  That too, is an important part of communication…wisely determine when to let emotions calm before voicing your opinions.

2.  Create a budget, and live within that budget.  The only time you should go into debt is for a home, education, or a modest car.  You are at the beginning of your lives.  You don’t need the newest and the best.  Character is built when second-hand is okay while together you work and save and sacrifice for better. You have years to reach your financial goals.  Be patient.  Don’t allow debt to destroy peace and harmony in your marriage.

3.  To the husband:  Take your wife out once a week…just you and her.  Every day she should know how much you love her, but that weekly date is the time when you let her know she is still your sweetheart.  At first you may only be able to afford a walk around the park with an ice cream cone.  But it’s the one on one experience that can reignite the reason why you are here today with a desire to live together as life companions.

To the wife:  Get dressed up for your date with your husband.  Wear his favorite dress…or his favorite jeans.  Fix your hair the way he likes it best.   Make him happy to take you out.  And if for financial reasons it’s only a walk through the park, put your arm through his and let him know that things will get better.  You have confidence in him, the future, and your financial goals.

As the officiator offers this advise the young couples have smiled and nodded their heads in agreement.  It’s easy to agree before life’s challenges come into play.

Understanding how important marriage is to man, woman, and child, I have said a little prayer for each bride and groom.  I pray they will remember the officiator’s counsel.  And I pray they won’t give up on each other and their love.

For thirty-eight years I have experienced the highs and lows of marriage and family.  These experiences have given me a wisdom I didn’t have as a young bride.  Even if the officiator’s advice is accepted and lived, it cannot guarantee that their marriage will weather the storms of life.  But those storms will be less fierce when caring communication, financial peace of mind, and devotion to each other (and none else) are fundamental to that relationship.

For Better or for Worse, be Committed to your Marriage

In Divorce, Education, Families, Family Planning, father, Marriage, motherhood, Parenting, The Family, Values on January 21, 2013 at 10:29 am

Couple riding  bikesKristi Kane

Growing up, my parents gave me good advice. I didn’t realize how good until I got married. From my Dad, I learned the importance of making wise financial decisions like “putting money aside for a rainy day,” (or saving), and “living within your means” (never spend more than you make). From my Mom, I learned the importance of  marrying someone you were crazy about and who was also your best friend. “That will see you through the bad times,” my Mom would say. Of course marriage put all of their advice to the test, and I have been the better for listening to and applying their advice.

It’s my Mom’s advice that I would like to focus on here. I’ve attended many weddings. They all are pretty much the same. Everyone is smiling and radiant. There are happy tears, tears of joy. The bride and groom are saying loving words to each other during their vows. Their first kiss as husband and wife is filled with promise of a happy future and perfect wedded bliss. Now fast forward a few years, in some cases, even a few months. The recently blissful bride and groom are now angry. They see only each other’s short comings. There is a general disillusionment towards the idea of marriage. The words “separation” or “divorce” start to frequent the conversation, and then- pop! The happiness is over and so is the marriage.

In each scenario I think, “What happened?! They were so happy? What went wrong?” There are a variety of answers here, but they all boil down to the same thing. Someone or both of the someones got selfish. Thoughts of “how can you make me happy?” or “You are not making me happy enough” entered and replayed over and over in their brain. One spouse did all the giving, the other, all the taking, or there was no giving at all.

The most recent separation in my own family was between my nephew to his bride of eight years. When I heard of the separation, one very strong visual image came to my mind. It was at their wedding luncheon. I could see my nephew standing at the wedding table and glowing with love and emotion, even tears, as he told all of us, his wedding guests, how much he loved his wife, his best friend. He even pulled her up from her chair and put his arm around her, and put her hand on his heart. I must admit, I was touched. It was very sweet. And then the announcement.

Again, I played in my head, “What happened? They were so happy? What went wrong?” To give you the boiled down version, life happened, as it happens to all of us. Children came along. One of the children has a chronic medical condition. My niece-in-law who had ADD had now also developed anxiety and depression. So life happened. And after two sessions with a marriage counselor my nephew announced that “he tried” and “I’m done.” I was floored.

I realize there are some very justifiable reasons for contemplating divorce, like adultery. But there again, it is because someone got selfish and committed an act of irreversible consequence. And even then, I’ve seen spouses forgive the wandering party and work things out.

Now in my case, there were years when my husband was in graduate school that the only time I saw him was on Sunday. There were two years of my marriage when I had four children under 11 that my husband was gone almost 24/7 working on a restructuring of his company, and at that same time, I was diagnosed with a heart defect that was going to require surgery. We had financial distress and health issues, enough to sink any marriage. And yet in all of that mess, one phrase my husband said to me when he asked me to marry him kept playing in my mind: “There is one word we never say in our family, and that is ‘divorce.’ We are married for life. We work things out.” I’d never heard anyone say it like that, but I liked that idea.

So no matter the stress, we worked it out. Was it easy? No. Were there times when resentment and frustration entered our marriage? Yes. Do I think we will ever be faced with trouble again? You tell me. We now have three teenagers.  But we have made a commitment long ago that we both believed in. I have no doubt we will have more challenges, but we will take them as they come and roll with the punches. What else can we do? That’s life. And for better or for worse, we’re going to make it through.

Valued Choices

In Child Development, Divorce, Education, Families, Family Planning, father, Marriage, motherhood, Parenting, Religion, The Family, Values on November 21, 2012 at 10:20 pm

Rachel Allison

Today I am thankful for a mother who chose a husband who would love his family and be devoted to his responsibilities to us…a selfless hard-working man who was loyal and faithful to her, his children and his faith in God.

I am grateful to a father who chose a wife who above all else would be selfless and committed to her family.  Our dad chose a woman capable and willing to teach and train us to be true to our faith in God, responsible in our duties and assignments, hard working and thrifty.  The result of her time and effort helped us develop self-confidence in our capabilities and discerning in our desires for the success we sought in life.

Their decisions made all the difference in the lives of their eight children.

My mind has returned to Maddi Gillel’s UFI article last Thursday that referred to the lowering of the watermark.  I fear for a society that allows this to happen.  Students of American history have read and even observed the improvement of each generation as education, hard work, thrift, and integrity have been applied. What is happening when this improvement stops…or worse, when it regresses?  I would venture to guess that part of it stems from the choices made by young men unwisely choosing the mother of their children, and young women unwisely selecting the father of their children.  This selection of love and marriage is not primarily about sex, or even companionship.  In my opinion it’s about the conscious decision to form a loving, and solid family unit, with hopes of creating children to bless that families’ love and devotion to each other.

When a society (Hollywood…grrrr!) starts dictating what love is supposed to be, and when there are men and women naïve enough to fall for love based on the shallowness of looks and glamour, a weakened family is the result, and unless a course correction is made and attitudes selflessly mature that weakened family could be destined to crumble.

Give me a society that rises above Hollywood “values,” and I’ll place bets on that society raising the watermark for love, family values, and prosperity.

Increased Contraception = Increased Abortion: Who knew?

In Abortion, Abstinence, Cohabitation, Family Planning, Marriage, Research on November 2, 2012 at 10:05 pm

Ann Bailey

Increased use of contraceptives results in increased abortion…who knew!  Seems counter-intuitive, but it is true.  Recently, the media and the Obama spin masters have been all over a study that  supposedly shows that if you hand out free birth control (under Obamacare) you’ll have fewer abortions.  They’re hoping this type of research will convince the general public that forcing employers to pay for their employees’ contraception is a good idea.

The problem for the pro-contraception/pro-abortion team is that the research from countries like Spain, Sweden, England, and Wales tell a completely different story – when you increase contraceptive use you get higher pregnancy and higher abortion rates.  Not to mention that the new Obamacare-supporting study is full of some significant research flaws and invalid assumptions.

Research coming to us from The Guttmacher Institute (a Planned Parenthood affiliate and no friend of the pro-life movement) shows that increased used of contraceptive in the U.S., Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Singapore, and South Korea also brought about an increased rate of abortion.

Despite an increase in the use of contraceptives in England and Wales, the number of abortions increased from 175,542 in 2009 to 189,574 in the year 2010.  Commenting on this increase in the abortion rates, Paula Franklin, director of Marie Stopes International, states:

“with improvements in contraception rates last year, these figures come as a surprise… Although the rise is small, these abortion figures send a warning for the government’s family planning strategy.”

Since Marie Stopes International is one of the largest abortion providers in the UK, it leaves one wondering just how concerned about that news they could actually be.

Why does increased contraception = increased abortion?   When contraceptives are flowing people will engage in more sex acts and in riskier sexual behavior – often outside of marriage which provides a stabilizing influence to human sexual behavior.   You get more pregnancies because contraception (even when consistently used) is far from 100 percent effective and contraception fails in predictable percentages.   By the way, the highest rate of abortion occurs in cohabiting relationships – a fact that this writer finds shocking and disturbing considering the massive increases in the cohabitation rates over the past few decades.

Now stop and think about the increase use of contraception accompanied by increased sexual activity and what that is going to do to the rate of sexually transmitted disease/infection.  With the exception of limited protections provided by barrier methods such as condoms, contraceptives provide zero protection from sexually transmitted diseases.  The Centers for Disease Control provide supporting data, but there should be no surprise to anyone that there’s a clear link between birth control and increases in STDs.

You don’t have to oppose contraception because of religious reasons to have serious misgivings about the efficacy and the wisdom of flooding the world with contraceptives.

Who Has the Moral High Ground?

In Abortion, Family Planning, Human Rights, Population Control on July 25, 2012 at 8:52 pm

Melissa Anderson

I put much of my past focus on the pro abortion campaign of the United States. However, the organization I write for is United Families International. We focus on family everywhere in the world, attempting to raise awareness to the degradation of the family and the means we have to strengthen our own corners of the world. Lift where you stand, wherever you stand.

I’d like to turn our attention for a moment to China. China has been in the news recently after a picture surfaced of a woman lying next to her seven-month gestation preborn infant after she had undergone a forced abortion. (Warning! you can see it here, but extremely graphic!) The Chinese government has attempted to apologize and make amends for this atrocity, but only because the photo has garnered world-wide attention and outrage. This is only one of several well-known cases occurring over the decades since the one-child policy was put in place. Carnage committed in the name of population control.

Some time ago, my husband traveled to China on a study abroad trip in college. While exploring the Great Wall of China, he met a woman selling raincoats. As my husband was becoming fluent in Mandarin Chinese, he was eager to speak to the woman. She told him about her children. She had three. She related that after having her first child, a son, she felt the desperate desire to have more children. She lived in the city at the time and the one-child policy was strictly enforced in the city. This woman and her husband sold everything they owned and moved away from family in the city, to start a poor life in the squalor of the country. They wanted one thing: a baby. They hoped that the Chinese government would grant them a waiver to have another child if they farmed in the country. Their hopes were realized twice. The woman selling raincoats was granted a waiver, and then another after that. For her three children she gave away all she possessed in the world. She had ten minutes to tell a young American student the most important thing in her life, and she reveled in the three children her country had allowed her to have.

In many areas of China, the government is very strict in enforcing the one-child policy. They are so strict that officials force abortions on women found in violation of the policy. Women in China are forced to hide subsequent pregnancies from authorities and pay exorbitant fines to the government when they attempt to keep a child conceived in violation of the one-child policy. When the pregnancies are discovered, government officials have the authority to tie the woman down, still fighting, and force an abortion and sterilization. Chinese forced abortions are not new and are certainly not unknown to the international community who tends to look the other way.

The reality is appalling.

I always like to remind people to take a hard look at ourselves before we look for the faults in other people or other communities.

In many western countries, women flock to abortion clinics, demand states pay for their abortions with taxpayer funds, swear these funds aren’t being used for abortions while finding legal loopholes to pass the bill of the preborn dead onto people who neither condone nor tolerate the conduct.

So I ask you, who is worse, the lawmaker who openly forces an abortion, or the lawmaker who promotes abortion policy or sells his convictions to the highest bidder?

Which is worse, the mother breaking a law to carry a child and then being tied down while her preborn infant is killed, or the woman asking, paying, for someone to put an end to the life of her pre-born child?

While Chinese women fight for the right to keep their children, we fight for a right to kill ours.

Which is worse? Which community has the highest need for moral introspection and reflection?

I ask that we band together to stand with the women of China who desire to keep their babies. Stand with the women willing to sell all they possess for the chance at having another child. Stand with the women who courageously fight to have a family.

The Chinese Ambassador to the United States is Zhang Yesui. Email Ambassador Zhang at chinaembpress_us@mfa.gov.cn and kindly, politely, respectfully, voice your personal concern.

Urge change. Then get involved in changing laws and stopping the abortion industry in your own state and country.

Melissa Anderson is a lawyer in San Antonio, Texas. She is the mother of seven crazily adorable children and an author of children’s books. In her spare time, Melissa volunteers extensively with Court Appointed Special Advocates educating the community on issues related to child abuse and neglect.



What happened at the UN conference on women?

In Family Planning, Feminism, Gender, Population Control, UN on March 17, 2012 at 5:11 pm

Carol Soelberg

What do phrases like “gender transformers,” “comprehensive sex education,” or endless references to “contraceptive commodities” have to do with a priority theme of: “The empowerment of rural women and their role in poverty and hunger eradication?”  Those are the questions that our UFI team asked themselves for the last two weeks (Feb. 27-March 9) as they engaged in the spectacle known as the UN “Commission on the Status of Women” (CSW).

Most of the world’s poor do live in rural areas and most of the poor are women.  All steps that actually do work in regarding to alleviating their economic plight should be welcomed. But once again, CSW did not stay true to its stated agenda and our United Families team in New York had their hands full trying to stop an obvious anti-family agenda from gaining ground.

There were at least six draft resolutions, three of which dealt most directly with pro-family issues.  Our UFI team followed them very closely and worked with delegates on the various resolutions to not only keep out the bad stuff, but to include some very positive language on family, parental rights, and the importance of religious and cultural values of each member state.  The negotiations included:

1)  A resolution on the empowerment of rural women and their role in poverty and hunger eradication (Agreed Conclusions)
2) A resolution on eliminating maternal mortality & morbidity
3) A resolution on women, the girl child and HIV and AIDS

Gender, gender, gender….

During the negotiations on the priority theme resolution, a suggestion to include a positive reference to “wives and mothers” and a reference to the “vital role of the family in society” met with stiff resistance while the same resolution included 15 references to “gender” (gender mainstreaming, gender sensitive, gender dimensions, gender equality, gender perspective, gender inequality, gender-stereotypes, gender transformers, and on and on).  The resolution on maternal mortality at one point had 18 similar references to “gender”, and the HIV resolution had 29!

This alone serves as a reminder that the UN as a whole and the Commission on the Status of Women in particular is focused on the promotion of radical feminism and that the intentional overuse of “gender” also lays the framework for the promotion of the idea that a person’s gender is “fluid”- tying it directly to the homosexual agenda.  Even though in prior UN documents, the definition of “gender” has been clarified as meaning male or female, the United States, the European Union, Canada, and their anti-family allies refused to allow that definition to be added to any of the current resolutions.  That speaks volumes.

Comprehensive Sex Education

What does “Comprehensive Sex Education” have to do with reducing the number of women who will die during childbirth because of lack of pre-natal and post-natal medical care and the presence of skilled birth attendants during delivery?   We wondered that also as the U.S. and E.U. delegations insisted that that phrase remain in the resolution on reducing maternal mortality.  The U.S. delegation then shut down any effort to immediately qualify the phrase with the addition of consensus parental rights language such as: “recognizing the rights, duties, and responsibilities of parents to direct the education of their children.”

Later at a U.S. Briefing, Laurie Phipps, a senior negotiator for the U.S. State Department, gave us the reason for the push.  Phipps stated:  “Here at CSW, we are taking the opportunity to talk about Comprehensive Sex Education because that is something that is a priority for the U.S. government…”  When the briefing ended Laurie Phipps privately acknowledged to an associate that she had “rambled too much” during the briefing and that she was “going to be in trouble” for her statements and that what she had said “would probably end up all over the internet.”   We are working to make sure Laurie’s prediction comes true and we want to warn you about the inclusion of the adjective “comprehensive” before sex education.

What exactly is “Comprehensive Sex Education?”  The shortest answer is probably this:  Comprehensive Sex Education is pornography for children.  Those who promote it are seeking to change society by changing sexual and gender norms and that includes training young people to advocate for “sexual rights.”  The pro-family coalition actively worked against the U.S. delegation who repeatedly tried to strong-arm and deceive the other delegations into including the phrase “Comprehensive Sex Education.”  It was our task to inform and convince these countries of what they would be signing on to if that language were included.  To see an explanation of what is included in “Comprehensive Sex Ed” programs go here(warning:  contains graphic content)   

Contraception, contraception and more contraception

To the amazement of some long-time UN observers, the delegates from the U.S. attempted to insert “access to contraceptives” at every opportunity – at one point inserting it so many times in the proposed resolution on HIV/AIDS that the representative of the Holy See wryly asked:  “Are we trying to prevent births or HIV?  Contraceptives are for the purpose of preventing conception – not preventing the transmission of HIV.”

It became increasingly clear that the pushing of so much “contraceptive” language may well be an attempt to shore up the Obama administration’s highly controversial “contraception mandate” by inserting it into international documents in an attempt to justify it not only to citizens of the U.S., but to the rest of the world.  

Sexual and reproductive health rights and services

It seems no UN conference document or resolution would be complete without the repeated attempts to establish a global “right to abortion” with the ubiquitous inclusion of phrases like “reproductive health services” and “sexual and reproductive rights.”  Once again you will see different versions of these phrases inserted multiples of times in the same resolution while sentences and paragraphs promoting true health care for women are conspicuously absent.
This is a battle that UFI representatives and their pro-family allies fight virtually every UN commission and conference.

An opportunity to showcase real success

This Commission on the Status of Women did give United Families International an opportunity to showcase “Best Practices for Alleviating Poverty of Rural Women and Their Families.”  UFI joined with our colleagues at Reach the Children, The Howard Center, and Care for Life for a “parallel event” where we highlighted the Stay Alive Program (HIV prevention program), Care for Life’s “Family Preservation Program,” sustainable agriculture projects in Kenya, and poverty reduction programs in China.  Many individuals who attended the event commented that it was remarkable to hear about real and effective programs – programs that are actually helping women, children, and their families instead of dealing with the mostly empty rhetoric that is the stock and trade of the UN system.  Thanks to all who helped with this exceptional presentation.

In the end…

After 2+ weeks of pouring over resolutions, inserting and deleting language, monitoring negotiations, and working closely with delegates, we have some good things to report and a not so good thing.  The U.S. sponsored resolution on maternal mortality and morbidity was adopted last Friday – in spite of countless hours of work on the part of the UFI team and other pro-family groups to strip it of some very anti-life and anti-family language.  We will be doing “damage control” from this resolution for years to come.  We found we couldn’t compete effectively with the lack of transparency of the closed negotiations (mostly held within the U.S. Mission complex) and the less-than-honest manipulations of a highly-aggressive U.S. delegation.

On the good news side of the ledger, the resolution on the HIV was “tabled” with a possibility of the topic being revisited next year.   The negotiation of the resolution on rural women and poverty eradication (also referred to as “Agreed Conclusions”) had not been completed by last Friday’s deadline and was continuing into this week.   As of a few hours ago, negotiations ended and this resolution also failed to reach consensus.  A few sources are laying the failure at the feet of the U.S. delegation that refused to budge off their agenda of pushing things like “sexual and reproductive health rights” and “comprehensive sex ed” language.

Although possibly harmful to careers of UN diplomats, for those in the pro-life/pro-family world, the failure of the negotiating delegations to reach agreement on a resolution is not a bad ending.  We express gratitude to those brave delegates who stood firm and refused to bow to the pressure from the anti-family delegations from the European Union, Canada, Australia, U.S. and from a couple of Latin America countries (list is certainly not exhaustive).

We thank our UFI team (Kelli Houghton, Diana Lacey, Esme Weathers, Marcia Barlow, and Mike Lacey) and all of you who generously support our efforts.  We do it for you and can’t do it without you. Together we will continue to secure a future for the family.

Week-long Sex Strike? Really?

In Abortion, Abstinence, Birth Rate, Family Planning, Feminism, Health Care, motherhood, Population Control, Values, Women's Rights on March 13, 2012 at 9:03 am

woman alone

Rachel Allison

Townhall’s political editor, Guy Benson’s article caught my attention with the shocking title:  Liberal Women Plan “Sex Strike” to Protest Nonexistent Contraception Ban.

“Liberal Ladies Who Lunch” is the organization who is calling for the “Sex Strike.”

Quotes by “Liberal Ladies Who Lunch:”

“If our reproductive rights are denied, so are yours.”

“…if we lose our hard won rights to medical care, birth control and pregnancy choice, it won’t only affect women. Men will have to…go back to the days when they waited for or paid for sex.”

There are several things that bother me about the statements made by Liberal Ladies.

1.  A “Sex Strike” for a week?  Seven days without sex makes a statement?   It’s almost laughable.  Are these women afraid of losing their significant other if they hold out longer than a week?

2.  I would hope that there are women in the world who recognize the personal responsibility that accompanies adult decisions.  And unless a woman is raped, there is a decision involved when it comes to sex.

3.  “The health of the woman” is the statement we hear over and over and over again.  True Statement: “A healthy woman is able to conceive and bear children.”

Contraceptives and abortifacents prevent normal fertility of the woman and continued existence of newly conceived life in the womb.  Contraceptives and abortifacents are not designed to promote health.  They are designed to take consequences out of the decision to engage in sex.

4.  Sandra Fluke’s testimony doesn’t make sense to those of us who have used or are using contraceptives.  They just aren’t that expensive. And it’s all a matter of priority.  If there is very little money and if sex is a priority don’t stop at the neighborhood Starbucks. Pay for your own contraception. This entitlement mentality needs to change.  “I want ______ so you pay for it.  Where did that thinking come from?

5. With all the real heartbreak and need in the world why are we focusing our time and attention on sex? Has our society become so sex driven and self absorbed that we can’t seem to focus on loftier causes? I am a woman.  I enjoy sex with my husband. But sex is a balanced part of my life. I have books to read, projects to finish, travels to enjoy, service to give, beauty to experience, babies to hold, friends to help.  In other words, my life is rich and full and wonderful. I make it that way.

My advice to “Liberal Ladies Who Lunch:” Focus on loftier causes.  Your lives and those you love will become so much more rewarding.

Sweet Victory!

In Abortion, Courts, Education, Family Planning, Sanctity of Life on January 17, 2012 at 8:01 am

TexasIn Texas, a federal appeals court upheld the state’s sonogram law, which requires that women seeking abortions view a picture of their baby before having the procedure. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling, which had issued an injunction, preventing the Texas law from taking effect. The decision allows the state to begin enforcing the law immediately, mandating doctors to give pregnant women “truthful, non-misleading and relevant” disclosures before they have an abortion.

The appellate court logically said, “The State’s interest in respect for life is advanced by the dialogue that better informs the political and legal systems, the medical profession, expectant mothers, and society as a whole of the consequences that follow from a decision to elect a late-term abortion.”

Texas’ new law not only requires doctors to conduct a sonogram before performing an abortion, showing the woman the image of her unborn child, but they also play the fetal heartbeat aloud and describe the features of the fetus at least 24 hours before the abortion.

Lawmakers in favor of the bill say it merely allows women to make a more informed decision, and that heart sounds and sonogram are “educational aides.”

Opponents argue that women deciding to undergo an abortion do so with much thought and serious reflection. Perhaps, but statistics  show that many women use abortion as their form of birth control.  When four, five, and six abortions are performed on the same woman, what else can it be called?

We at United Families International hope that Texas will lead the charge on this battlefront.  What a sweet victory!




Reader Poll: “Regarding reproductive technologies, I would, under the right circumstances, consider being a sperm donor, a surrogate mother.”

In Family Planning, Polls, Research, Sanctity of Life on October 28, 2011 at 9:17 pm

Here’s the question we asked our UFI readers:

Regarding reproductive technologies, I would, under the right circumstances, consider being a sperm donor, a surrogate mother, Ok for others, but not for me, or both are wrong.

Here’s how readers responded:

“Regarding reproductive technologies, I would, under the right circumstances, consider:

7 percent             Being  a sperm donor

13 percent           Being a surrogate mother

69 percent           Both are wrong

15 percent           Ok  for others, but not for me

This question, of course, is a very personal one.  Reproductive technologies are a great blessing to many; it has opened the door to married couples that may never have had children.  However, technologies associated with reproduction are becoming increasingly controversial.   There are also significant dangers that arise from egg donation and conflicts abound in surrogacy arrangements.

Society needs to scrutinize carefully techniques and policies that can open the door to a child never knowing one of their parents such as is the case with most sperm donations and situations where homosexuals obtain children to the exclusion of the one of their biological parents.  Children need BOTH their mother and their father in a married home.  They need to know their history and their heritage.

Punching Back at Pro-Abortion Advocates

In Abortion, Family Planning, Human Rights, UN, Women's Rights on October 13, 2011 at 4:50 pm

UN Logo“If you tell a lie loud enough, long enough, people will believe it.” 

So goes the adage that exemplifies the approach that the pro-abortion and anti-family advocates at the UN and in the international arena are using to promote worldwide abortion.  The notion that “Abortion is an International Human Right!” is continually advanced by individuals, non-governmental groups, and UN agencies who wish to deceive, manipulate, and coerce countries to legalize abortion and alter their laws to reflect this false understanding.

In an effort designed to inject the truth back into the dialogue and to give support to diplomats and policy makers from countries that are being bullied with this misinformation, the San Jose Articles have been introduced.    Crafted in Costa Rica last March by legal professionals, doctors, scholars, public health officials, and experts in international policy from around the globe, these articles lay out some basic principles and understandings:

*    From conception each unborn life is a human being and is entitled to recognition of their inherent dignity and protection of their inalienable human rights.

*    There is no right to abortion, either by way of treaty obligation or under customary international law.

*    In fact, under basic principles of treaty interpretation, the state has a responsibility to protect the unborn child from abortion.
To see a complete list of the articles, go here and for accompanying notes and clarifications, here.

Why is this document important?

As Robert P. George, distinguished law professor at Princeton University and member of the drafting committee states:

“It is simply not true that international instruments or international human rights law includes, contains, sanctions or in any way condones the idea that there is an international right to abortion.  That is sheer manipulation.”  He continues that “it is a partisan desire to advance the belief in the justifiability of killing the unborn.”

During the UN press conference releasing the San Jose Articles, George made it clear that this is also an effort to maintain the integrity of all international law by not allowing it to be misused in such a fashion.

We, at United Families International, can personally attest to the fact that policy makers of countries, particularly developing countries, are regularly being told that legalizing abortion is inevitable because the international legal instruments that their country has signed on to demand it.  There is an attempt to infuse the idea that “abortion is a right” in to every UN dialogue, document negotiation, and non-UN gathering that is even remotely related to social policy – most especially into the reduction of maternal mortality discussions.

The release of the San Jose Articles is particularly timely as the “abortion as a right” meme has been ramped up in recent weeks as two major UN pro-abortion reports were issued recently, one in Geneva and one in New York.   Both reports received wide support from the UN Secretary General.  The Report of the High Commissioner of Human Rights falsely claimed that States have an obligation to address “unsafe abortion:  – the implication being that states have an obligation to legalize abortion.  Among other untrue statements related to abortion, the author of the Report of Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the highest attainable standard of health, states:

“Criminal laws penalizing and restricting induced abortion are the paradigmatic examples of impermissible barriers to the realization of women’s right to health and must be eliminated.”


“States must take measures to ensure that legal and safe abortion services are available, accessible, and of good quality.”

Sounds like this Special Rapporteur not only wants governments to legalize abortion, but have taxpayers pay for them too!

According to the pro-abortion organization Human Rights Watch, the UN treaty known as CEDAW (The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) has directed 93 countries to legalize abortion.   The CEDAW compliance committee who issues these edicts has no power to do so, but it doesn’t stop them from trying to bully countries that don’t feel they have the clout or the tools to stand against this form of coercion.

Giving countries the tools to stop this type of misinformation and harassment is what the San Jose Articles are all about.  Now a public policy official or UN diplomat who is told “your country must legalize abortion” can, with authority,  reply: “That is incorrect and here is why.”  They will not be misled.  They will not only be knowledgeable of the fact that there is no right to abortion contained in any international documents, but will have the voice of over 30 highly-regarded international experts in law, medicine, and public policy behind them.

We at United Families International join with those who crafted the San Jose Articles in working to stop this type of falsehood from gaining further traction.  We are grateful to those who are willing to step forward and state the facts so clearly and compellingly.  We believe that the San Jose Articles are a “game changer” and we are thrilled to be part of the pro-family coalition that is promoting them.  To see the impact that is already occurring from the San Jose Articles go here:

Queen’s cousin campaigns to block ‘human right’ to abortion

The world doesn’t have a right to abortion

United Families International is dedicated to protecting unborn children and it is a battle that we engage in virtually every day.  We will continue to raise awareness on this issue and invite you to share this very important development with others.  Spread the good news.


Carol Soelberg
President, United Families International


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 139 other followers