Purdue University professor Bert Chapman has Purdue students in an uproar over an October 27 blog post entitled “An Economic Case Against Homosexuality.” The post on Chapman’s Townhall.com blog, Conservative Librarian, makes a fairly reasoned and dispassionate analysis of various ways in which both homosexual and deviant sexual behavior impact the economy.

Now amid accusations of bigotry and dishonesty students and LGBT activists are calling for his job, claiming that the University is implicitly endorsing homophobia by keeping Chapman on campus.  The tenor of the student response is anything but reasoned and dispassionate

Purdue junior Max Vande Vaarst, for example, wrote in the student newspaper Exponent:

“Dr. Bert Chapman surrendered his position at Purdue the moment he decided to publish such intellectual diarrhea on his blog. There are those who would defend this atrocious man by claiming that political correctness has conspired to snatch away his free speech, but this is not so. Dr. Chapman has the right to believe that homosexuals are immoral, just as it would be within his rights to believe the same about any other group of people. The issue is not Dr. Chapman’s views of homosexuality, bigoted and wrong-headed though they may be, but that he has abused his authority as a scholar and an expert to disseminate hate-filled propaganda.”

Grad student Corey Bechtel made similar remarks:

“This is a big story and not something that should merely be relegated to the opinions page; the views espoused by Chapman are nauseating and his employment at Purdue would be akin to Purdue employing someone who was openly racist or anti-Semitic. It is astounding that someone who is both a professor and a librarian, someone who is charged with teaching and assisting ALL students regardless of their sexual orientation, is saying these despicable things publicly.”

Purdue University, however, has taken the side of reason and will not be taking action against Chapman.  Purdue spokeswoman, Jeanne Norberg, says:

“The university asks its faculty to make it clear that the viewpoints they express do not necessarily reflect those of the university. Mr. Chapman has gone out of his way to do this with a very clear disclaimer. He also took an extra step and posted his blog on a server not owned by the university. The university has a policy prohibiting harassment if it unreasonably affects a person’s educational or work opportunities or affects his or her ability to participate in a university activity. This does not meet that standard. The First Amendment clearly allows him to state his opinion. The best response is to speak up, which is exactly what our students and some faculty are doing.”

Chapman defends his post and has not taken it down but wishes the matter would go away. “It is sad we live in a time when truly free and open debate on controversial issues is characterized by such virulence,” Chapman said. “As a country, we are in serious trouble if we reach a point when only one side on a public policy issue is allowed to be discussed.”

The Canadian Parliament is currently considering a bill to legalize euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Bill C-384, proposed by Bloc Quebecois MP Francine Lalonde, would alter the criminal code to allow doctors to cause quick and painless death if a patient “appears lucid,” is aware of other treatment options and has made two written requests. As a private member’s bill, C-384 already received one hour of debate on October 2 and is scheduled for a second debate on December 2 with a vote the following day.

Passage of the bill is highly uncertain but proponents cite polls indicating strong public support of euthanasia as indication that it should pass. Some polls have indicated that as many as 60 to 70 percent of Canadians support the legalization of euthanasia, but that number was considerably lower for Canadians over the age of 60 at only 36%.

Yet, as Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition points out, “C-384 is not about creating end-of-life choices for the terminally ill. C-384 gives medical practitioners the right to directly and intentionally cause the death of another person.”

“The bill allows euthanasia and assisted suicide for people with chronic physical or mental pain,” Schadenberg explains.  “The bill allows euthanasia and assisted suicide for someone who requested it, while ‘appearing to be lucid.’ Appearing to be lucid does not mean the person is lucid.  How can a person who lives with chronic depression who ‘appears to be lucid’ make a free choice?”

The most oft used argument in support of legal abortion is that without the option to safely and legally receive an abortion women will end up destroying their health or ending their lives in drastic attempts to end unwanted pregnancies. This logic is at the foundation of an organization called Women on Waves—an NGO that travels the world on a sailboat to countries where abortion is illegal, picks up women, carries them out of domestic waters and performs abortions. The organization also performs its work by educating those in countries such as Tanzania, where abortion is illegal, how to perform “safe” abortions through covert methods.

Few Tanzanians are aware that a drug currently legal in Tanzania to stop postpartum hemorrhaging—the leading cause of maternal mortality in the country—can safely induce an abortion. Women on Waves is doing everything in its power to get the word out, holding conferences to educate locals on how to find the drug, how to use it to induce abortion and what to do in case of complications. According to Women on Waves, this is a necessary and humane work in a country where women frequently harm themselves in desperate attempts to stop unwanted pregnancies. The work of Women on Waves, however, is the perfect example of the illogic and self-deception of the abortion movement.

Indeed, the circumstances in Tanzania that drive women to self-induce abortions are unacceptable and the resulting damage to women’s bodies and lives is absolutely tragic. Women there often confront poverty, rape, war, AIDS and a host of other cultural and economic circumstances that make pregnancies and child-bearing enormously difficult. In far too many cases, these circumstances drive women to attempt abortions through the use of sticks, tinctures of cassava root, or even through consuming disinfectant. Women who attempt such desperate deeds clearly believe society has provided them no other option.

The solution provided by pro-abortion lobbyists—safe abortion—only reinforces this belief. Their motto is “A woman’s right to choose.” Yet, how is providing a safe means to accomplishing a tragic deed that society, politics and war have forced upon a woman providing her with a choice? Women on Waves and similar organizations do not provide women with real choices, they simply reinforce the fallacious belief that children are burdens and that in order to be free (or in some cases simply to survive) a woman must destroy what is most unique, beautiful and powerful about womanhood—the ability to create life. This is not empowerment of women—it is debasement.

To truly empower woman and give them the right to choose, women must be given true choices, not just a safer way to do the unthinkable. So next time you hear someone argue that abortion is necessary to save the lives of women, force them to defend how abortion provides any woman with real choices.

What would you say if we told you that the financial meltdown of 2008 was just a birth pang… the first sign of a major social and economic upheaval not seen in the Western World since the Dark Ages?

What would you do if you knew that large portions of the human race were hurtling toward extinction … not at some point in the distant future but during your lifetime?

Such statements might sound a little far-fetched, but what would you say if we told you that some of the world’s most respected scientists, academicians, economists, scholars and public policy experts have been sounding the alarm for years… only to have their warnings fall on deaf ears?

And moreover, what would you do if you knew that this upheaval is already happening… right now… that the worst is yet to come and that your way of life   and the lives of your children and grandchildren is already in dire peril?

What steps would you take… what steps could you take right now… to protect yourself and your family from this social and economic disaster?

On the economic front, we warned you about the financial crash of 2008 when we released the ground-breaking documentary, Demographic Winter, over a year ago.

And on the societal front, our predictions were even more chilling.

We’re proud to say that Demographic Winter was the first documentary to critically examine the real root causes of this global crisis… the social implications as well as the economic implications… before most people had any inkling that there was a problem.

And now, with the release of the much-awaited sequel, Demographic Bomb, we dig even deeper into the problem.

And this time around, we expose the real culprits and the inherently evil and racist policies that set this global crisis into motion and put us on the road to destruction. We explain why this global crisis will only get worse if we refuse to act.

Demographic Bomb uncovers all the shocking details and exposes how the United Nations, population-control advocates and others who benefit from diminishing the role of the natural family in society, have manipulated and exploited the weak… targeted the poor… promoted inherently racist policies, viciously attacked human rights (under the guise of promoting human rights)… and evaded political responsibilities for their actions.

But more than that, Demographic Bomb illustrates that the law of unintended consequences is very real and shows exactly how the programs and policies that were set into motion by these culprits back-fired on each and every one of us and why these programs and policies pose an ever-increasing threat to those of us in the developed world… more specifically… to you… to your family… and to your progeny.

Do not take our word for it. We invite you to use the “View the Trailer” button below to watch the shocking and riveting trailer to The Demographic Bomb: Demography Is Destiny for yourself.

After viewing this riveting trailer for just a couple of minutes… if you agree that Demographic Bomb is the most authoritative and shocking thing that you have seen… if you agree that it exposes the lies that have been spoon-fed to all of us for years… if you agree that we truly reap what we sow and that there is now a clear-and-present danger to your way of life and your children’s and grandchildren’s future… then please, spread the word, forward this e-mail far-and-wide to your family and friends.

Click HERE To View The Trailer

On November 10, the American Medical Association (AMA) voted to oppose both the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy and same-sex marriage bans in the U.S., asserting they were harmful to the physical health of LGBT individuals.

According to the AMA, DADT harms homosexuals in the military by forcing them to lie to their physicians in order to keep their job. Dr. David Fassler, a psychiatry professor at the University of Vermont, explained the decision, “A law which makes people lie to their physicians is a bad law.” We will refrain from commenting on the broader implications of such a ridiculous statement.

The AMA also asserted that same-sex marriage bans endanger the health of homosexuals by denying same-sex families the same benefits given married couples—benefits such as health insurance, social security and retirement benefits. The absence of such benefits, according to the AMA, could put the health of homosexual individuals and their partners at risk.

It is yet to be seen how the AMA’s new position will impact President Obama’s efforts to overturn DADT, but pro-family lobbyists are rightly concerned. The AMA’s recent endorsement of the new health care legislation was seen by most as a huge boost to the efforts to overhaul healthcare. However, the connection between military policy and homosexual health, or marriage law and homosexual health for that matter, seems a bit less tangible (and less credible), which might diminish the political sway of the association’s edict.

It looks like the abortion debate in the new health care bill is just getting started. Since the House passed the bill last Saturday with the controversial addition of the Stupak Amendment, pro-lifers have been praising the Amendment while questioning the legislation itself, whereas pro-abortionists have been universally condemning the amendment, threatening to oppose any health care legislation that includes it.

As the bill heads to the Senate, it appears the debate will just get increasingly more vehement. So we’ve gathered here some of the articles we found most useful in understanding the debate. Perhaps these will help provide better footing as this contentious issue progresses.

Just yesterday UFI sent out an alert providing a general overview of the Stupak Amendment and its relationship to the broader abortion debate. It is great place to start to understand the importance of Stupak for the pro-life movement.

If you are interested in the exact language of the Stupak Amendment The New York Times provides it here.

However, understanding the opposition’s argument is usually the best way to understand your own. This memo from Planned Parenthood concisely and accurately summarizes why pro-abortion lobbyists believe the Stupak Amendment to be such an enormous attack on abortion rights. They argue that by prohibiting federal subsidies from purchasing insurance plans that cover abortion, the new health care plan essentially incentivizes all insurance companies to stop providing plans that cover abortion.

For this reason, Terry O’Neill, the president of the National Organization of Women, called the health care bill an “anti-abortion bill.” O’Neill went so far as to claim that the Stupak Amendment is the equivalent of “pushing women back into the back alleys to die.” To fully understand the wrath of the pro-abortion lobby against the Stupak Amendment read the full summary of O’Neill’s remarks on ABC News.

ABC News also provides a summary and video of President Obama’s response to the amendment. It gives a good sense of how precarious the future of Stupak really is.

And while Obama is trying to remain neutral, here are some articles talking about pro-abortion Representatives and Senators gearing up to ensure that the Stupak Amendment does not end up in the final legislation.

Yet, within all the articles we have read on this issue, only one article—an article from a pro-abortion feminist—hits on what is really at the heart of the abortion/health care debate. The debate really comes down to one simple fact: once the government begins funding health care, the government can then dictate what is and what is not reasonable and necessary health care. This applies as much to abortion as diabetes or cancer. The abortion debate we are witnessing is simply a metaphor for what is more broadly at stake. We recommend reading this article. Although UFI radically disagrees with the position, the analysis of how the new health care bill will drastically alter the abortion debate is spot on, and it has implications for every aspect of health care.

As many of you know, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the “Affordable Health Care for America Act” (H.R. 3962) late Saturday night by a slim two-vote margin. What was less noted in all the clamor was the important addition on November 7 of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which bans public funding for abortions through a public health care system. Although United Families International in no way supports H.R. 3962, we want to impress the necessity of this amendment for any health care bill that may be passed into law. If the government is to put into place a new health care program, it must include a clear and direct guarantee that no U.S. citizen will be forced to pay for the abortion of unborn children. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment provides that guarantee.

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment

The Stupak Amendment, sponsored by Representatives Bart Stupak and Joseph Pitts, essentially removes the two most dangerous pro-abortion components of H.R. 3962. First, the amendment explicitly prohibits the proposed federal government insurance program, also known as the “public option,” from funding abortions other than in cases of rape, incest, or danger to a mother’s life. Second, the amendment also prohibits the use of federal premium subsidies, also known as “affordability credits,” to purchase private insurance plans that cover abortion, except once again in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s life. The bill in no way limits private insurance companies from providing abortion coverage, but ensures that federal funds are never used to cover the procedure.

Past Precedent: The Hyde Amendment

Before the addition of the Stupak Amendment, pro-abortion lobbyists were using the new health care plan to override previous protections in the Hyde Amendment against publicly-funded abortions. The Hyde Amendment, named after chief sponsor Republican Congressman Henry Hyde, was passed in 1976 in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. It bans the use of federal funds appropriated under the annual Health and Human Services (HHS) bill to pay for abortions through federal insurance programs or insurance subsidies.

Although there is debate as to whether the amendment applies strictly to funds appropriated under HHS or to all government funds, past precedent has established that the amendment applies to both HHS and all government trust funds. The amendment now includes Medicare, Medicaid and all government-employee insurance plans.

Overthrowing Hyde

Previous to the Stupak Amendment, H.R. 3962 violated every component of the Hyde Amendment and ensured federal funding for abortions both through the public insurance option and federal insurance subsidies. However, pro-abortion lobbyists attempted to conceal this misuse of public funds through the Capps-Waxman Amendment.

The amendment claimed that the new health care plan could pay for elective abortions without violating the Hyde Amendment by using funds drawn on a U.S. Treasury account, as these would be considered “private funds.” However, funds paid out by the federal government are federal funds. Therefore the Capps-Waxman Amendment amounts to nothing more than federally-funded abortion in sheep’s clothing.

Pro-Life Success

Thus, the last minute passage of the Stupak Amendment to H.R. 3962 is an important achievement for all pro-lifers. In comparison, the official health care bill passed by no more than two votes, whereas the Stupak Amendment passed by a powerful 240-194 vote. This margin is a solid reconfirmation that U.S. citizens are directly opposed to any public funding for elective abortions.

A study conducted by International Communications Research in September of this year showed that 67 percent of Americans oppose any “measures that would require people to pay for abortion coverage with their federal taxes.” Additionally, 48 percent of Americans support a direct prohibition of federal funding for abortion, while only 13 percent believe that the government is responsible for such funding.

The Persistent Threat

Unfortunately, the Stupak Amendment is in no way a secure victory. If similar or identical language is not included in whatever version of the health care bill may pass, there is a very real possibility that the amendment will be entirely removed when the Conference Committee meets to resolve differences between the two versions of the bill. The result will be a hollow victory for the pro-life movement and a huge advancement for the pro-abortion lobby in securing unlimited access to abortions through U.S. federal funds.

This is no small threat. If the U.S. were to begin funding abortions with public tax dollars, it would essentially be a federal endorsement of abortion at a time when the pro-life movement is beginning to gain real momentum in the U.S. and around the world. In fact, a recent Pew Research Center poll shows that support for legal abortions in the U.S. dropped by 11 percent from 2008-2009.

Similar indicators of support for the pro-life cause can be seen around the world. Just last month thousands of Europeans gathered in Spain to oppose pro-abortion legislation in an unprecedented rally for the sanctity of life. The UN Human Rights Council also began a move towards reaffirming life by convening a new workshop on the relationship between traditional values and human rights. Yet, this shift towards life is most notable in youth, as youth involvement in pro-life groups has increased dramatically worldwide. This is encouraging news for all who strive to protect the unborn.

Work Left To Do

Therefore, the small victory of the Stupak Amendment is a great call to action. We cannot allow the Senate or the Conference Committee to remove this important amendment and replace it with a replication of the Capps-Waxman Amendment. Such an event would undermine much of the progress made in support of life and send a message to the world that the U.S. not only allows but promotes abortion.

If you are a U.S. citizen, watch this issue carefully and click here to contact your senators and contact your representatives to express your opposition to any health care bill that does not include the language of the Stupak Amendment.

Internationally, continue to express your feelings regarding the sanctity of life to your political leadership. As global support for protection of life strengthens it is important that they hear from you. When global pro-life forces speak in unison we will see a stronger commitment to protecting the sanctity of life around the world.

Amid all the fuss over the abortion battle in the most recent iteration of health care legislation, the LGBT lobby was able to include four different pro-LGBT provisions into the bill without much notice from anyone.

The most notable of these provisions is the inclusion of language from the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act. Currently, all domestic partnership benefits provided by employer-paid health insurance plans are taxed as income by the federal government, while benefits for heterosexual spouses are not. Under the Tax Equity Act, these taxes would be removed, essentially circumventing domestic partnership or same-sex marriage legislation and providing a marriage-only benefit to same-sex couples.

Another provision, previously offered in Congress as the Ending Health Disparities for LGBT American Act, will direct public funds towards tracking health disparities based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Similar tracking is currently performed according to race, economic state, age and other characteristics.

Additionally, the bill provides public funding for comprehensive sex education programs that explicitly address LGBT behavior, at a time when the federal government is cutting all funding to abstinence-only education.

And finally, under the Early Treatment for HIV Act the bill will expand Medicaid coverage for the treatment of HIV. Currently, patients with HIV must be diagnosed with AIDS before qualifying for Medicaid programs. Under the new legislation, individuals will qualify for Medicaid programs upon diagnosis, literally adding years to the amount of time HIV patients will be able to access benefits.

A fascinating article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago showed that the absence of a father could have a very real impact on the brain development of children.

German biologist Anna Katharina Braun has been studying the brain development of animals typically raised by two-parents when raised by a single parent in order to better understand the brain development in human children. And if her results parallel human development at all, it is clear that fathers are not only necessary for proper emotional development. They are needed for proper brain development as well.

The study focused on degus, an animal related to guinea pigs and chinchillas, because fathers and mothers naturally raise their pups together. When the father was removed from the pups at birth, research indicates that the degu pups experienced negative physical changes in nerve-cell growth.

These alterations in nerve-cell growth were seen primarily in the growth of neuron branches known as dendrites, which conduct electrical signals between neurons. According to WSJ:

Dr. Braun’s group found that at 21 days, the fatherless animals had less dense dendritic spines compared to animals raised by both parents, though they “caught up” by day 90. However, the length of some types of dendrites was significantly shorter in some parts of the brain, even in adulthood, in fatherless animals.

These shorter dendrites were primarily noted in the regions of the brain that control emotional responses and decision-making. As a possible result, the study indicates, the fatherless degu pups “exhibit more aggressive and impulsive behavior than pups raised by two parents.”

According to Dr. Braun, “It just shows that parents are leaving footprints on the brain of their kids.”

Whether there truly are parallels between degu and human brain development is still to be seen. But the evidence seems to indicate what we already know: a child needs both a mother and a father for proper development.

Former Baptist minister and late-term abortion provider, Curtis Boyd, made a startling admission on a local news show earlier this week. “Am I killing?” he asks. “Yes, I am. I know that.”

It is an unusual and disturbing statement from a doctor who is perfectly comfortable providing abortions  as late as 24 weeks, but still says a prayer for every baby he kills.