Archive for the ‘Family Planning’ Category

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

“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

7 Billion People: Everybody Relax!

In Birth Rate, Demographic Decline, Family Planning, Population Control on October 5, 2011 at 7:34 pm

Sometime this month, demographers tell us that the world population will reach the seven billion mark.  Get ready for lots of hand-wringing and wails from environmentalists and the population control lobby.  Is that a number that should fill us all with dread?  Are humans “over-running” the planet?

Population Research Institute (PRI) has put together another of their clever cartoon videos to explain demographic concepts.  They’re simple and short and well worth your time.  So this month when the media tells you horror stories  about the world’s  out-of-control population, you can just add it to your list of other Halloween tales.


After you watch this one, you might want to take a look at  these other  short PRI cartoon videos:

2.1 Kids:  Stable Population

Food, there’s lots of it!

A new way to look at poverty and population

Isn’t it time we call a spade a shovel?

In Abortion, Family Planning, Media on September 22, 2011 at 11:13 am

By Danny Quinney

I think it is important to point out that of all the contributors to this website, I’m the dumbest.  I say that, not to brag, but to let you know I’m aware of my dumbery.  I ain’t no highly educated man.  See what I mean?  I just used a double negative (seriously, what an idiot).  Despite my dumbery, I am just smart enough to recognize inconsistencies in the media.

I have always been aware of them, but when I recently read an article by Tim Groseclose, it really brought them to the forefront of my mind.  In addition to the article, Mr. Groseclose is an author of “Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind.”  In his article he references an essay appearing in this years August 10th edition of the New York Times magazine titled, “Two-Minus-One Pregnancy”.

Apparently an expectant mother, “after choosing not to endure the extra burden of raising twins” decides to “reduce to a singleton.”  Awwww…Isn’t that cute?  “Reduce to a singleton”, you can almost imagine skipping through a field of daisies, hugging your favorite “My Pretty Pony”, while listening to the “Care Bears Christmas”, can’t you?  The fact that the Doctor injects a long needle filled with potassium chloride into the chest of the baby, quickly killing it, the body of the baby shrivels the remainder of the pregnancy and is removed during the birth of the other twin is just a nifty little side note.

Ew.   When I say it like that it isn’t really nifty at all.


Mr. Groseclose then goes on to show how the media uses cute and fluffy words to describe things that aren’t so pleasant about abortion (Mr. Groseclose, of course, never used the words “cute” and “fluffy” – those are my contributions – remember I’m trying to dummy things down here).  He explains his book, “contains a systematic statistical analysis to document the bias in the abortion language of journalists”.  Now, to be fair, I’m really not sure what any of those words mean.  But I do know that in my lifetime we have gone from “Deaf” to “The Hearing Impaired”,   “Prisoner” to “Correctional Faculties Inmate”, and “Stewardess” to “Flight attendant”.  Honestly, it has to stop. Especially from the media.  The Elderly aren’t “Chronologically Advanced”, the Dead aren’t “Living Impaired”, an Abortion isn’t a “Near-Life Experience” and I am not “Fecally Plenary” (full of crap).

Mr. Groseclose closes his article by saying, “No matter what one’s view on abortion, one can’t deny that “twin reduction” and partial-birth abortion involve gruesome and ghastly procedures. It’s time that the media—when describing these procedures, as well as abortion policy in general—began using more direct and accurate language.”


I’ll end my article like this:  Mary Poppins was right.  A spoon full of sugar really does help the medicine go down.  But as a society we have been force fed sugar for too long.  I, for one, am sugared out.  Can’t the media realize once and for all that we are all grown ups?  We can handle big people words.  Isn’t it time we call a spade a shovel?

What’s this “momentum” thing?

In Environmentalism, Family Planning, Population Control on June 8, 2011 at 5:35 pm

For the last 40+ years we’ve been told that the world is overpopulated and we have a crisis on our hands.  But now, with fertility rates falling through the floor in virtually every corner of the world, the population control fanatics have to alter their message and their tactics.  Now their message is:  “Yes, fertility rates are falling, but we still have what demographers refer to as “population momentum” causing the population to continue to grow.”  They view that as a huge problem that warrants continued population control programs.

So what’s this “momentum” thing?  Here’s a basic explanation:  There are enough women, already born, who will probably bear children that the world’s population will continue upward to an unsustainable level.  But what the population control fanatics don’t address is what happens when the population momentum stops and population growth rates become negative and go into a steep free fall.   That moment is estimated to happen sometime in the next 30-40 years.  Population free fall is happening in some countries right now.

Here’s a simple analogy.  Consider a car running down the highway and it starts up a hill.  If you turn the car off, it will continue up the hill with momentum carrying it forward until it eventually comes to a halt.  Then very quickly it will start to move backwards and pick up speed.  That “hill” is declining fertility rates worldwide.   Once the forward momentum ends you end up a precarious situation very quickly and so will the world’s people.  The downward trajectory of fertility rates is seen in all but a few countries that have extenuating circumstances like extreme poverty, very corrupt government, and internal strife. Falling fertility rates, by the way, have proven notoriously difficult to reverse.

But that knowledge doesn’t stop the population control groups for whom reducing population has become an endless quest – in fact their “religion”- from continuing to try to massage the numbers to give an appearance of a huge population problem. These groups have built large organizations with lots of people who have jobs and plenty of government funding coming their way.  There are a lot of population control “businesses” involved and none of them want their gravy train to go away.

Population Research Institute’s Steven Mosher outlines well the population controllers’ most recent efforts in his article “New Numbers, Same Old Song.”  Take a couple of minutes and read through it.  You’ll be much better prepared to educate those who insist that humans are reproducing like rabbits and will ruin the planet if not stopped.

UFI Reader Poll: Is it crucial that developing countries reduce their population?

In Birth Rate, Environmentalism, Family Planning, Polls, Population Control on April 14, 2011 at 4:28 pm

Here’s the question: 

Do you believe that it is crucial that developing countries reduce their population?

Here is the UFI reader response:

91 percent               No

6 percent               Yes

3 percent               Unsure

United Families International representatives are currently attending the UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD).  The mantra of the UN is that “poverty reduction can best be accomplished by reducing population.”  Of course there’s the ever favorite:  “The world has a population explosion.”  Getting rid of the world’s population is always a priority – especially at CPD.

To see some statistics on fertility rates and population go here.

Also, just for fun, consider this:

The world population (6,793,593,686 as of the end of 2010) if miraculously moved to the state of Texas, would result in a population density of 25,292.5 souls per square mile, or somewhat greater than 1/3 as dense as the current situation in Manhattan, which amounts to 70,994.75 persons per square mile.

Another Planned Parenthood Outrage: Special Webcast Tonight

In Abortion, Family Planning, Planned Parenthood on February 3, 2011 at 3:29 pm

Aiding underage sex-trafficking rings, covering up sex abuse of children, coaching potential clients/patients to lie and commit fraud…sounds like a crime syndicate doesn’t.  Nope, we’re talking about Planned Parenthood clinics.  In the latest undercover sting operation conducted by Live Action, a student-led pro-life group head by Lila Rose, Planned Parenthood is exposed once again.  You may remember some of Live Action’s past hidden camera videos where they show Planned Parenthood dancing around parental consent laws, protecting child abusers and even accepting  donations that were specifically directed at abortions for African-Americans – Margaret Sanger would be proud.

Two videos in this next round from Live Action, have been released; one filmed at a Planned Parenthood clinic in New Jersey and the other in Richmond, Virginia.  Planned Parenthood leaders have gone into damage control mode; firing one employee who was involved and expressing grave concern that their employees were operating outside the policies of Planned Parenthood.  But Lila Rose is not buying it:

“This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Planned Parenthood intentionally breaks state and federal laws and covers up the abuse of the young girls it claims to serve.  Time and time again, Planned Parenthood has sent young girls back into the arms of their abusers. They don’t deserve a dime of the hundreds of millions they receive in federal funding from taxpayers. Congress must cease funding and the Department of Justice should investigate this corrupt organization immediately.”

You can hear Lila Rose tonight in a webcast as she explains some of the details of the sting and what is occurring as Planned Parenthood, law enforcement, and the media react.  Family Research Council is sponsoring the webcast and it will include U.S. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and prominent leaders in the pro-life movement.  It’s tonight, Thursday, February 3, at  8:30 PM Eastern Time.   They’ve entitled it Planned Parenthood Exposed. It’s free and you can register here.

Below, you can also watch the actual video footage filmed at the Planned Parenthood Clinic in January in New Jersey.

“My Daddy’s Name is Donor”

In Families, Family Planning, father, motherhood, Parenting on June 23, 2010 at 11:07 am

The scene was a playground at a small charter school in a suburb of Phoenix.  When asked by a classmate about his parents, the young kindergartner looked perplexed.  “I have two moms, a mommy and a momma.”  “But what about your dad,” asked a persistent classmate.  “Oh, I have a pretend dad; I can look at him sometimes on the internet,” the young boy replied.  So went this actual conversation.

This young kindergartener was a “product” of sperm donation, a common reproductive technology that has been widely practiced around the world for decades.  This kindergartener lives in a fictive world created by his lesbian “mothers” who choose to deny the reality this young boy has a father, a world that cannot acknowledge that this young boy has one-half of himself that he will never be allowed to know.  But he is not alone, nor is this situation only the domain of homosexual relationships.   According to the NY Times:   “Sperm donations generate between 30,000 and 60,000 conceptions every year, and roughly 6,000 children are conceived through egg donation annually as well.   About a million American adults, if not more, are the biological children of sperm donors.”    There are no laws in the U.S. limiting the number of sperm or eggs that can be donated, nor are there disclosure requirements.

Interestingly, European countries like Britain, Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland do not allow sperm and egg donations to remain anonymous.  By law, donor-conceived children can have complete access to their family histories when they turn 18.  These countries have also placed limits on the number of children a sperm donor can father. 

What happens to the children conceived in this fashion?

The Institute for American Values has just released startling findings about the lives of adult offspring of sperm donation.  The Institute for American Values describes their work “My Daddy Name is Donor” as “the first-ever representative, comparative study of adults conceived via sperm donations.”   The Institute studied 485 adults ages 28-45.  They used for comparison groups of young adults (562 adopted as infants and 563 raised by their biological parents).

“For young adults conceived through sperm donation the study reveals that:

*    Two-thirds agree, “My sperm donor is half of who I am;

*    About half are disturbed that money was involved in their conception;

*    More than half say that when they see someone who resembles them they wonder if they are related;

*    Nearly half say they have feared being attracted to or having sexual relations with someone to whom they are unknowingly related;

*    Two-thirds affirm the right of donor offspring to know the truth about their origins; and

*    About half of donor offspring have concerns about or serious objections to donor conception itself, even when parents tell their children the truth.

*    They are twice as likely as those raised by biological parents to struggle with substance abuse or delinquency, and 1.5 times as likely to struggle with depression or mental illness.

*    Donor offspring are more likely to have experience divorce or multiple family transitions in their families of origin.”

To see the full report visit:  http://www.familyscholars.org/assets/Donor_FINAL.pdf

Isn’t donor conception “just like” adoption?

“Adoption is a good, vital, and positive institution that finds parents for children who need families,” states the Institute for American Values publication.  Adoption was created as society’s attempt to replace for a child that which was lost:  a mother and a father.  We would emphasize that adoption bears little similarity to the intentional act of creating and bearing a child and then denying that child either its mother or its father–be it a single heterosexual mother or a homosexual couple.

Children as pawns or trophies in an adult game

One of the most telling comments came from one grown-up donor baby who was quoted in the study describing the feeling of existing entirely for “other people’s purposes, and not my own.”   The confusion associated with the (to be expected) wondering and worrying about your place in your parent(s) world must surely be an invisible wound for children that festers and seeps over time.  How tragic to live your life with a question mark regarding your purpose and your identity; to live with an always nagging feeling that an important piece of your life’s puzzle is missing.

Some of the most compelling arguments against the seemingly cavalier thinking regarding the importance of children being raised by both their mother and father comes from experts who describe a “culture of rejection.”  As divorce thrives and multiple-purpose households evolve, children are caught in the flux with rejection being a core feature–rejected by a donor, rejected by a divorcing parent, rejected by a step-parent, rejection of the family unit as a whole.  Though not all forms of family rejection are deliberately brutal, they nonetheless are serious.   Here’s the point to remember:  Parental fidelity to the relationship that generated a child has a powerful positive influence in the life of that child.  It should not be dismissed as irrelevant.

It is now quite common to hear the argument that since more children are seeing the breakup of their parents, or are experiencing other difficulties, tragedies, and disappointments, another one will hardly make a difference (referring to the growth of single parent households and homosexual parenting arrangements).   Thus, a precedent for loss or suffering is permission to inflict more, or somehow makes it acceptable.   This is a cruel mindset that must be rejected!


Identity–knowing who you are, where you came from, understanding your place–helps form the foundation of a successful life.  Without the knowledge of your genetic history and genealogy, unanswered questions can end up defining you.  The link to our progenitors has a strong pull.

Reproductive technologies have blessed countless lives.  But they can also be used as a tool to thoughtlessly bring harm to vulnerable children who deserve better.  Unfortunately for many children and for society, the trend in public policy is toward adult “needs” supplanting children’s needs.   UFI will continue to help implement public policy that will keep the focus aligned with the best interests of children and their families.

We are beginning a year of preparatory meetings for a worldwide conference on Youth and Children’s Rights (July 2011 in Tunisia) where we will run head-on into organizations and national governments who will turn a blind eye toward the real needs of children.   Issues of reproductive technologies, reproductive rights, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious freedom, and national sovereignty are sure to figure prominently in the negotiations.  We at UFI are preparing to serve the families of the world as we work to exert a positive influence on the outcomes from this gathering.  Stay tuned for ways that you can be involved and help!

Support UFI!

Do you appreciate UnitedFamilies.org’s consistent and articulate weekly alerts to keep you informed on the family issues around the world? If so, please do your part by helping us spread around more truth. United Families needs your financial help. You can donate online or donate by mail. Thank you for your serious consideration.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 139 other followers