UFI

Archive for the ‘Human Rights’ Category

Remembering CSW

In Child Development, Education, Families, father, Health Care, Human Rights, Marriage, motherhood, Parental Rights, Parenting, Population Control, Sanctity of Life, Schools, The Family, UFI, UN, Values, Women's Rights on March 12, 2013 at 2:03 pm

CSW

Rachel Allison

This week is the final week of the “Commission on the Status of Women,” a conference being held at the United Nations in New York City.  United Families International has several volunteers at the UN working to influence pro-life and pro-family language into the outcome documents that will soon become International Law.

As important as this lobbying is, those in our delegation also have opportunity to support women who have come from all over the world to speak to UN delegations concerning their difficult situations at home. Until we hear their stories many of us cannot fathom the situations these good women are experiencing.  In past years I have heard women speak about human slave and sex trafficking.  Their laws and police force do not protect them or their children from such atrocities.   I have heard women talk about watching other women stoned to death without trial or jury.  I have heard women talk about laws that do not protect their 10, 11, and 12 year-old daughters from being bought and subjected to marriage and pregnancy…pregnancy that often causes the unborn baby to die within the womb of the child bride because her body is not mature enough to give birth.

I’m not at CSW (Commission on the Status of Women) this year, but I am trying to read as much as I can about what is happening as they try to direct this year’s focus on eliminating violence against women. I just read an article by someone who is at the conference.  His words brought back vivid memories of needs and concerns that are too often sidelined.

“During the waning days of the conference’s first week and well into this most recent weekend,  I watched and listened as African women discussed and debated the all-important Outcome Document amongst themselves.  Luckily for me, English is their common language and as I sat beside them in the Business Center of our clean but quite modest hotel late into the night on Saturday AND Sunday, I heard their concerns.”

“They are worried about their daughter’s AND son’s education; they want access to potable water in the more remote regions of their respective countries; more doctors, and in keeping with          this year’s conference theme, they want real life-and-death protection for their daughters.”

As I read his article, I was taken back to the years when I attended CSW, and my heart went out to these women who are desperate for help.  I have personally seen women who have to walk miles for potable water.  I have seen the small dark tents where 15+ children huddle to be taught reading and simple arithmetic. I have seen villages whose only “doctor” is a witch doctor who uses the same needle on his patients until it is too dull to be used again.  I have seen mother’s grieve over the loss of a child to dehydration, snakebite, and disease when there was no medicine or help to save.

We who can’t imagine raising a family in such living conditions should count our blessings, and determine that we will give selflessly to strengthen our families, and then support causes that can lift and help the struggling.

Because I have seen what I have seen, and experienced what I have experienced, I cannot, without guilt, spend time on the trivial.  I’m grateful for that guilt.  There are causes too vital not to get involved.  I try to examine my priorities every day. And then I pray like the dickens that my efforts will make a difference.

Abortion’s Dark Storm: An Open Letter to President Barack Obama

In Abortion, Families, Human Rights on January 30, 2013 at 6:18 pm

Obama, pointing fingerDear Mr. President:

I understand that you’re making 2013 a year to highlight and legislate against gun violence in America. Well, I was thinking that maybe at the same time, you could spotlight and issue some executive orders against scalpel violence. The small scalpels abortion business practitioners use to cut up fragile preborn babies as they are removed from their mothers in tiny pieces could be included in your attempt to reduce BOTH violences:   a joint guns and scalpels awareness campaign. And since scalpels kill over a million children a year in the US, curbing scalpel violence would be a huge victory for the kids—and us all!

When you became President, I often heard you being compared to Abraham Lincoln. I was reminded of this during your speech last summer at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte when you mentioned that you knew “exactly what Lincoln meant when he said, ‘I have been driven to my knees many times by the overwhelming conviction that I had no place else to go.’” Actually, Lincoln/Obama comparisons started me wondering if you, like President Lincoln, might use your influence to abolish another peculiar institution.

You see, although God requires human governments to execute guilty murderers, I applauded when you signed an executive order early in your first term restoring the “no torture or inhumane treatment” policy for terrorists during interrogation or imprisonment.  Then the thought came to me that it would be so amazing if another of your legacies turned out to be extending the same civility to millions of pre-born American children. They would definitely “rise up and call you blessed!” However, your January 22, 2013 Barack Obama blog on the 40th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade reaffirming your support for “reproductive freedom” and for the right of women “to make their own choices about their bodies” and your comments at last year’s DNC Convention, made me wonder what information, if any, would cause you to reconsider your pro-abortion position.

As you youself put it in a 2005 speech at the Lincoln Presidential Library,

“What separates Lincoln from the other great men has to do with something else. It’s an issue of character that speaks to us, of moral resolve . . . when it came time to confront the greatest moral challenge this nation has ever faced, Lincoln did not flinch. He did not equivocate or duck or pass the challenge on to future generations . . . In the midst of slavery’s dark storm and the complexities of governing a house divided, he kept his moral compass pointed firm and true.”

compassRecalibrate Your Moral Compass

Wouldn’t it be great if one of your successors could say of you one day, “In the midst of abortion’s dark storm, President Barack Obama recalibrated his moral compass”?  According to Lincoln, his compass was the Bible, the same one that you both used for your oath of office.

During your first inaugural speech when you talked about how your father might not have been served in a DC restaurant less than 60 years ago, I was glad that so much has changed.  Now, your dad’s rights would be protected and celebrated.  Hopefully, less than 60 years from now, the dangers and injustice an unborn child faces today in DC will also be just as shameful a memory!  But in your Roe v. Wade blog last year you stated: “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose…” And on July 24, 2012, during a 4 pm campaign speech at the Oregon Convention Center in Portland, you said that your opponent wanted “to get rid of funding for Planned Parenthood.  I think that is a bad idea.  I’ve got two daughters.  I want them to control their own healthcare choices.”

In a Denver, Colorado speech on August 8, 2012, when you talked about “a woman’s right to make her own healthcare choices,” you didn’t mention the other person affected by an abortion decision.  How profoundly sad that made me! Consider this, Mr. President: About 50 million combatants and non-combatants died in the Second World War, while in the Second American Civil War, since Roe v. Wade abortionists have killed about 50 million preborn children who should have had the right to live. Horrific tragedies, but unlike WWII, which ended when the Allied forces overcame concentrated evil, this latest “house-divided” civil war doesn’t have an end in sight. Yet.

Abraham LincolnPresident Lincoln and a Pro-Life Speech

Researching the subject of our inalienable rights, not just to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but also to life, I was amazed to discover a pro-life speech that President Lincoln delivered. I admit that it sounds remarkably like his great anti-slavery speech of 1854. Just a coincidence!
“The doctrine of self-government is right, absolutely and eternally right, but it has no justification as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just application depends upon whether a pre-born baby is not – or is – a person. If the pre-born boy or girl is not a person, in that case, a woman may as a matter of self-government do just what she pleases with her pre-born baby. But if her pre-born baby is a person, is it not to that extent a total destruction of self-government to say that her pre-born baby, too, shall not have the right to life? When the woman chooses for herself and in so doing deprives her pre-born son or daughter of life, that is more than self-government. It is despotism and death and self-destruction. We began by declaring that all are created equal, but now from that beginning we have sunk to the depraved declaration that a woman’s choice to kill her unborn child is a sacred right of self-government. These principles cannot stand together. They are as opposite as God and Satan.”

I know you said in your State of the Union speech last year “No more bailouts!” but now that you are in your second term do you think you might be able to find a little subsidy or something for abortion doctors? These hired baby killers receive only a few hundred dollars for each tiny victim they do away with! While I understand that hospital abortionists don’t have the extra expense that street-side clinic doctors do – for all those umbrellas to shield their paying customers from human eyes – I still think they deserve a raise; a few hundred bucks doesn’t seem like very much money for a contract killing, especially with the danger involved. After all, pre-born babies have been known to fight back when they’re being “procedured.” Of course we don’t torture terrorists, but babies are an exception.

Mr. President, a healthcare worker I know walked into a laundry room in a certain hospital and saw a tiny baby boy in a glass jar that had been left there momentarily by a busy nurse on her way to another errand; the adjacent abortion consent form with the mother’s name in plain sight made for a sad reminder that one more child would never know a mother’s love; never experience a birthday party or a Christmas holiday; never make small talk while taking a walk with Mommy or Daddy. All the little guy rated was a see-through casket!

It takes a brave man or woman to “take out” a little girl or boy that size, but the bravest thing these adults are doing isn’t killing babies, it’s defying the God who created them, the One whom they will bow before someday and give an account. According to the Bible, Gods unleashes His anger on those who “call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Even Lincoln in his second inaugural address, quoting scripture, warned, “Offenses will come, but woe to the one by whom the offense comes.” Check out what God says about hands that shed innocent blood. One day the pro-choice illusion will be exposed as a procedure from hell.

But there is hope. According to God’s Word, even a hired baby killer can enter into eternity cleansed and forgiven.

It is interesting to note that as early as 1834, when the young Abraham Lincoln, like you, was a member of the Illinois Legislative Assembly, he was repeatedly warned not to get involved in the anti-slavery debate if he valued his political career. Aren’t you glad he didn’t heed that advice? Aren’t you glad Lincoln didn’t equivocate or say that while he was against slavery, of course, and was in favor of abolition, of course, there were a few situations that would merit an exception?

Perhaps just a little slavery might be permitted if the slave-owner believed his life would be in danger without a slave or two, or his health negatively affected, or his mental health reduced, or his wealth diminished, etc. But we can all thank God for a President who said: “No slavery, no way!” Lincoln understood that there would be as many exceptions, if allowed by law, as there were creative slave-owners.

The same logic can be applied to the abortion debate. Just a few exceptions, for the mother’s mental or physical or financial health, or for some undesirable circumstances of conception, and the ban on abortion would be honored, as one historian noted about another subject, “more in the breach than in the observance.” Mr. President, I know a sweet, pretty, well-adjusted schoolgirl who was conceived by rape. She loves life, and her mother adores her. Could you look her in the eye and tell her that she should have been aborted? There have been many similar true stories with equally happy endings in the years since Roe v. Wade entered the national lexicon.

Newborn babyTime for Courage

May we never forget, as the old hymn puts it, “[that] though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the Ruler yet!” Respectfully, Mr. President, if you were to reverse your pro-abortion position and come down on the side of goodness and mercy, who cares what the critics would say? Truman didn’t worry about the armchair quarterbacks when it came to some of the courageous decisions he had to make. Won’t you do the same? Then, when you’re an ex-President, sitting in your rocking chair someday, you can have peace with yourself, knowing that you championed the cause of the innocent!

But you say that Roe v. Wade is settled law! Well, didn’t slavery’s justifiers use that same argument? Why, when you were editor of the Harvard Law Review, you made a video praising lawyer Charles Houston for spending his career fighting to overturn the Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. He accomplished that goal with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.

God bless you, Mr. President — like Lincoln — “with malice toward none, with charity for all, [and] with firmness in the right as God gives [you] to see the right.” Back in 2009 you said, “There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being” when you and Tony Blair spoke at the National Day of Prayer. Perhaps, as the Bible puts it, you are “come to the kingdom for such a time as this.” Won’t you re-examine your support of the culture of death? Like God advised Joshua when Joshua became Israel’s leader, taking the people of The Book into the Promised Land: “Be strong and courageous. Don’t be afraid. I will help you.”

Please, Mr. President, please choose life!

Kind regards,

John Hansen
Greenville, South Carolina

Some “What Ifs” of Gay Marriage

In Abstinence, Child Development, Education, Families, father, Grandparents, Homosexuality, Human Rights, Parental Rights, Parenting, Religion, Religious Freedom, Same-Sex Marriage, The Family, Values on January 29, 2013 at 12:31 pm

Gay marriage

Rachel Allison

All four of my sons are Eagle Scouts.  I helped all four of them prepare for any situation as they packed for those monthly campouts and annual scout camps.  I watched them think through the “what ifs” of all the situations for which the scouting program is famous. Our sons learned to analyze the possible problems and prepare accordingly for each eventuality. By the time they earned their Eagle status they got pretty good at it.  Fifteen years’ involvement in the scouting program taught me the importance of being prepared.  I learned to analyze and mentally document the “what ifs” of my own life and that of my family.  I also learned that I can’t just hope for a positive outcome.  I have to analyze, work, study and sacrifice so the outcomes or consequences of my decisions are best for my family.

Enter the Gay marriage movement.  I have to admit that much of the pro-Gay rhetoric is convincing.  “Two people love each other.”  “They are responsible adults.”  “They deserve to be happily married under the law.”

Where should I stand on this issue?   Let me analyze from a mother/grandmother’s perspective.

We are a family who believes in God and the Bible.  I can’t force others, nor do I want to force others to believe as we do.  But if I accept gay marriage, the “what ifs” tell me that my Pastor might be prosecuted and even jailed if he preaches against the gay lifestyle. …or if he refuses to perform a marriage ceremony.  It has happened in other parts of the world.  It could happen here.  Could the Gay movement then become so emboldened as to shut the doors of my church, which would infringe on my families’ weekly devotionals?  As I watch the Constitution being violated on several fronts already, I must stand by principles that protect my religion and my right to worship.  My faith is too dear to not seriously analyze that “what if.”

Do I want my grandchildren reading about “Prince Ferdinand” and “Prince Edmond” who marry and live happily ever after? No I do not.  But it is already happening, in many of the elementary schools across our nation.  If gay marriage is legalized, the advancement of that type of propaganda will increase more and more blatantly as the years pass. Why?  Because there are many leaders in the Gay community who want to indoctrinate.  These leaders will not be content with just getting the right to marry. As I have done my research, I have seen it.  This indoctrination is blatant. And I don’t want my grandchildren confused by this in-your-face rhetoric from the gay advocates with a proselyting agenda. Again, I have done my homework.  I have been to their meetings.  There are Gays who are openly proselyting.

The Gay movement is well-organized.  There are battles being fought on all sides. They now appear to be gaining major ground with respect to the Boy Scouts of America.  I know there are Gays whose only purpose is to become a part of the scouting movement. But when one defines himself by his sexual practices, innocent boys will too quickly become not so innocent.  Nope.  I would not be willing to expose my sons to that education at the young age of 11 and 12.

I don’t pretend to be all knowing on this subject.  But I have studied and observed.  Gay marriage is just one major step of their agenda, but there are many more steps waiting to be implemented when the Gay-marriage laws are in place. I hope that we aren’t so naïve as to think this gay movement is just about the love of two responsible adults being given the right to marry.   For many Gays, the agenda is much more far-reaching.  If you don’t believe me, do your homework and you will begin to recognize all the “what ifs.”

LIBERTY, TYRANNY, AND ANARCHY…WHERE ARE WE?

In Constitution, Democracy, Environmentalism, Families, father, Health Care, Human Rights, Marriage, Sovereignty, The Family, Values on November 29, 2012 at 12:05 pm

Maddi Gillel

Someone once said, “When the government fears the people there is freedom, when the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” Tyranny is also a catch -all phrase for the ‘isms – communism, Nazism, Marxism, fascism, etc.  So with liberty and tyranny loosely defined, what is anarchy?  Anarchy is when there is NO LAW.

Where would you say we were?  I agree – TYRANNY.  The federal government has by-passed the states (in violation of the 10th amendment) and has now taken over areas that were forbidden to the Federal Government under the Founders’ formula: land, schools, air, water, energy, health, welfare, city finances, city beautification, sewage disposal, electricity, thermal power, intra-state commerce, industrial production, local police problems etc.

Do you fear the government?  Think of the following Federal (or federally condoned) programs: IRS, OSHA, EPA, NEA, ATF, UN, Public Schools (state schools), Medicare, Medicaid, federal judges, federal courts, martial law, government lands, BLM, ACLU etc.etc.etc.

The closer government is to the people, the more we can have a voice in what government does.  The family is the foundation of a society and the place where problems should be solved first.  The federal government is too far away and to unwieldy to try to solve problems, which is why the constitution was designed to keep government close to the people (family, local and state).

What is to be done then, to help bring things back into balance?  Do everything we can to strengthen our families, no matter how difficult, or inconvenient or expensive.  God set up families to be the basic unit of our society and we are to take this blessing seriously.  As we do so, we can more confidently ask God to help our country.

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.

 

 

Which is it? Freedom of Religion or Freedom of Worship

In Homosexuality, Human Rights, Religious Freedom on July 18, 2012 at 4:18 pm

Diane Robertson

The two terms: “Freedom of Religion” and “Freedom of Worship” sound pretty synonymous. But are they? In recent years, President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton have often used the term, “Freedom of Worship” in place of “Freedom of Religion.”  What are the differences?

Worship is one facet of religion. The dictionary definition of worship is “reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred. “

Basically, everyone in the world has some sort of “freedom of worship”. Worship is a belief. Most nations allow their citizens to enter a building such as a church or a synagogue to worship.  No government can change or remove a person’s beliefs. They may disallow church attendance, but they cannot change what someone thinks, feels, and believes.

“Freedom of Religion” is different. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects American citizens by refraining Congress from making laws that would prohibit “the free exercise” of religion.

Worship is only part of religion. Religious people use their beliefs and doctrines as a way to act and behave in many aspects of life. Freedom of Religion is about being allowed to live and act according their religion and according to their conscience.

Religious freedom allows the freedom to “exercise” religion in the public square. It does not confine religious worship to a home or a church.

If the government takes away the right to practice faith, whether by subtle shifts or by laws that are more drastic, the people forfeit what the Constitution has protected.

Laws are being made all over that are limiting “Freedom of Religion”–the freedom to act on religious convictions.

In 2006, Elane Huguenin, the photographer for Elane Photography Inc., and co-owner of the company with her husband Jon Huguenin, declined a lesbian couple’s request to photograph their same-sex commitment ceremony. The Huguenins are Christians who believe that God designed marriage as one man and one woman, and that defining marriage is the best way for societies to help children and adults. This is their personally held belief. In acting on their conscience and religious beliefs, the Huguenins refused to allow their company’s photography services to be used to promote a message that was not in accordance with their religious beliefs. Believing they had the legal protection granted under the first amendment, they thought that would be the end.

Instead, the Huguenin’s received paperwork from the State of New Mexico explaining that a complaint of “sexual orientation” discrimination had been filed against their company. Because of a nondiscrimination law that includes sexual orientation and transgenderism, the Huguenin’s have lost their case in both courts. This non-discrimination law clearly goes against the first amendment that prevents Congress from making laws that would prohibit “the free exercise” of religion.

Alliance Defending Freedom Lawyers, who believe that the first amendment protects business owners and that religious freedom should be held above sexual freedom, have appealed the case to the New Mexico Supreme Court, and plan to take it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

Business owners across the nation have found themselves in similar situations. Students in Public universities and schools have found that they are not allowed to express a religious opinion. Slowly, non-discrimination laws are taking away the religious freedom that the Constitution protects. If these laws are not worked against, “Freedom of Religion” will be replaced with “Freedom of Worship”, and no one will be allowed to act on their religious convictions.

Please consider all the implications in your own life and take a stand for “Religious Freedom.”

 

 

 

 

A Cause You Can Believe In

In Abortion, Child Development, Constitution, Education, Environmentalism, Families, Human Rights, Pedophilia, Prostitution, Sanctity of Life, The Family, UN, Values, Women's Rights on March 27, 2012 at 11:12 am

love146

Rachel Allison

There are many causes in the world:  “Save the whales;” “Save the forests;” ”Save our environment;” “Preserve Freedom.;” and, of course, “Save the Family.” It’s important for people to have a cause.  It keeps us focused during our discretionary time on bettering our neighborhoods, community, society, and world.  Because of our potential to make a marked difference we should consider our causes carefully.

I don’t want to rain on anyone’s cause parade, but let’s compare a few causes.

Squirrels or freedom?

Forests or family?

Whales or the birth of a child?

There are many others…and honestly, I’m not trying to discredit anyone’s cause.  I just think we all need to recognize that we have a certain amount of time on this earth, and prioritizing that time is pretty significant. When we meet our Maker, as many believe we will, I can imagine we’ll be making a report of the causes for which we actively advocated.

In my humble opinion Family and Freedom should take precedence on anyone’s list.  However I was just reminded of a cause that I learned about several years ago at the UN.  A film was shown at one of the side events during a major UN Conference.  The film took us to the Brothels of Calcutta where children had been trafficked and sold as sex slaves.  I was appalled!  And the subject of the film literally gave me nightmares.  And then I left NYC and over the months and years I have forgotten that child sex slavery still exists.  Well it does.

This is a cause that every decent man and woman in the world should embrace. Demanding that this type of abuse must stop should be paramount, until pressure is so great that governments have to address the issue and stop the practice.  Information in the film strongly suggests that local governments are compliant with this practice.  Financially there are a lot of people who are benefiting from the trafficking of these young boys and girls… including government leaders and policemen.

If enough people made it their cause, and our voices were united around the world, the lives of these sweet innocent children will be saved.  Go to  LOVE146  to learn more.  Warning:  It’s going to break your heart!

The Pro-Family Effort: The Best and the Worst Development of 2011

In Abortion, Homosexuality, Human Rights, UN on January 4, 2012 at 4:08 pm

With the relentless onslaught by popular culture and politics against the traditional family, it can be a difficult task to narrow it down to just one thing that we at United Families International can say is the worst development of the year 2011.  But that was our assignment.  So here is what our staff thought fit the description of “The Worst Development of the Year 2011.”

But then we wanted you to know that there were very positive things going on too!   You might also want to go and take a peek at a longer list of UFI “good things” that happened during 2011.

Worst Development:

In June, the heavy-handed support of the U.S. State Department in the passage of a UN resolution which the supporters say represents the “first ever UN resolution supporting gay rights.”  This was followed by the mid-December release of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) release of a report (PDF) claiming to be “a critical milestone in the fundamental lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) human rights globally.”  These documents will be relentlessly used by anti-family forces to deceive and to promote the falsehood that sexual orientation receives full support as a human right in international documents.

Best Development:

A developing trend towards being more pro-active in the strategy of providing well-researched, well-documented expert testimony on pro-family issues, such as that provided by The San Jose Articles that can counter the misinformation that is promulgated by anti-family forces.  This is a model/pattern that should be studied and continued on each and every pro-family issue.

 

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.”

And:

“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.

Sincerely,

Carol Soelberg
President, United Families International

“Students defend the family at the UN”

In Abstinence, AIDS, Homosexuality, Human Rights, UFI, UN on August 3, 2011 at 5:44 pm

UFI in the News

Four students from BYU and a student from Arizona State University attended a conference with the UN in New York City to represent United Families International on July 25 and 26. Many young people attended the conference to discuss issues facing the upcoming generation. Among the issues discussed was the sexual rights debate. Abortion and homosexual marriage were at the forefront of the debates, along with the idea that young people, including adolescents, should have no sexual restraints.  Read more

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 121 other followers