Promoting “traditional values of humankind” at the UN
Posted on | February 23, 2012 by Grégor Puppinck, Ph.D
In Geneva, the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Council is currently discussing its “Preliminary Study on promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind”.
This study is part of the effort of the Human Rights Council to implement its resolutions 12/21 and 16/3 adopted on 2 October 2009 and 24 March 2011. Resolution 16/3 affirmed that “dignity, freedom and responsibility are traditional values, shared by all humanity and embodied in universal rights instruments” (para. 3); recognized that “the better understanding and appreciation of these values contribute to promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms” (para. 4); and requested the Advisory Committee, which is a kind of official UN think tank, “to prepare a study on how a better understanding and appreciation of traditional values of dignity, freedom and responsibility can contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights, and to present that study to the Council before its twenty-first session” (para. 6).
The Preliminary study on traditional values of mankind (A/HRC/AC/8/4) (available here in English) was drafted by the Russian Professor Vladimir Kartashkin.
This initiative is very important for the understanding and sharing of universal human rights and fundamental freedoms. But contrary to what the report suggests, there is no reason to believe that civilisations are necessarily included in a historical dynamic of progress; on the contrary, history has often shown that civilisations can regress, both for external and internal causes. In this respect, the effort of building a universal culture of human rights cannot be pursued in a purely abstract and theoretical manner. In order to respect and serve human nature, it is of utmost importance that philosophical theory is not severed from cultural reality, for in its diversity, it acts both as an anchor and a scope of application. This is the usefulness of the perspective which was re-opened for deliberation by resolution 12/21 of 2 October 2009.
The ECLJ, as an NGO accredited to the United Nations (ECOSOC), has submitted a written statement to the Advisory Committee on this issue (in French)
In its statement, the ECLJ welcomes and shares the concern of the Human Rights Council’s resolutions and Study of “reaffirming the moral dimension of the standards of human rights, while recognising that these rights are based on the traditional values of humanity”. In this sense, and in accordance with the classical theory of international human rights law, the “traditional values of humanity” are the natural moral values, which were globally combined in modern times by the declarations of human rights of the first generation. The principles at the foundation of moral action, which underline these declarations, can actually be brought back to the combination of the principles of “Dignity, Freedom and Responsibility”, as enunciated by the Human Right Council Resolution 16/3.
The ECLJ also shares the concern of re-affirming the social dimension of the standards of human rights. One should bear in mind the fact that man is social by nature. Human rights do not only establish a legal relationship between the State and each individual person, but they also bind the entire social fabric of society. This social fabric, in its biological, cultural and political components, i.e., “the family, community and society” is, as far as the individual is concerned, a reality that cannot be ignored. The report echoes its importance, in particular regarding the importance of the family.
In this respect, it is necessary to guard oneself from two obstacles in an effort to protect the individual from infringements of his fundamental rights by the components of the social fabric. On one hand, this involves guarding oneself against the denaturation of the personalism of human rights in an exclusive individualism which negates the very legitimacy of the social fabric, and ultimately, of the common good. On the other hand, one must guard against the distortion of human rights in an abstract ideology which seeks to impose its universality through the negation of the social fabric. Faced with these two pitfalls, the reminder of the natural and gradual legitimacy of the family, community and society is crucial in this regard. On this point, the ECLJ recommends that the purpose of the role of the family, community, society and State be integrated in view of the principle of subsidiarity.
Finally, the ECLJ recalled, because this reference is missing from the report, that the Statute of the Council of Europe signed in Rome in 1949, provides in its preamble that states are “Reaffirming their devotion to the spiritual and moral values which are the common heritage of their peoples and the true source of individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law, principles which form the basis of all genuine democracy.” The preamble to the Lisbon Treaty also refers, more broadly and inclusively, to “the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law.” These texts affirm the vital link between these values and the contemporary political ideal. Henceforth, this heritage of values ??must be mobilised to anchor the fundamental freedoms and thus contribute to their understanding and universal sharing.
Related documents:
- ECLJ written statement on traditional values of humankind French
- Preliminary study on traditional values of mankind (A/HRC/AC/8/4) (available here in English
Abortion Safer than Childbirth?
Posted on | February 22, 2012 by Lucia Muchova
A widely cited study by Elizabeth Raymond and David Grimes published in the leading journal Obstetrics and Gynecology found that women were 14 times more likely to die during or after childbirth than from complications of an abortion.
That abortion is supposedly safer than childbirth is not a new argument. It played an important role in the Roe v Wade decision where the Court took as “established medical fact” that in the first 3 months of pregnancy “mortality in abortion is less than mortality in normal childbirth.”
Now, this argument is being rehashed to criticize state legislation that identifies abortions as high-risk procedures and to “dispel misinformation and lies” about abortion- related risks.
Independent researchers, however, find that the Raymond and Grimes study is the very source of such misinformation. It relies on “seriously incomplete data” and leads to faulty conclusions.
Priscilla K. Coleman, Professor of Human Development and Family Studies, Bowling Green State University writes in her critical analysis:
In arriving at their conclusion that abortion is many times safer than childbirth, Raymond and Grimes relied only on data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to secure numbers of deaths related to childbirth and induced abortion. However, the data reported by abortion clinics to state health departments and ultimately to the CDC significantly underrepresents abortion morbidity.
The authors acknowledge underreporting, but they make no attempt to address the factors associated with this shortcoming, nor do they discuss the magnitude of the problem.
Raymond and Grimes also fail to address abortion-related deaths beyond the first trimester.
Further, the authors never mention the wealth of data showing childbirth is protective in the immediate and long-term against death from non-obstetrical causes, both from natural causes such as breast cancer and unnatural causes including suicide.
Pregnant women are 1/20th as likely to commit suicide when compared to non-pregnant women of childbearing age.
Raymond and Grimes aim to provide “pregnant women considering their options with accurate information about comparative risks.” The critique coming from independent researchers shows they are doing exactly the opposite.
For full critical analysis of the Raymond and Grimes study see:
Priscilla K. Coleman, “A Serious Misrepresentation of the Relative Safety of Induced Abortion Compared to Childbirth Published in a Leading Medical Journal”
and Physicians for Life, “Fact or Fraud: Is Abortion safer than Childbirth?”
Austria’s failure to protect human rights activists against pro-abortionist hooligans
Posted on | February 22, 2012 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
The following is taken from Vatican Insider:
The office of the European Regional Director of Human Life International, Johannes Bucher, was attacked recently after a pro-life March took place in Austria. Seven windows were broken, and thousands of dollars worth of damage was caused in general. The institution’s Austrian director, Dietmar Fischer spoke about the incident on Gloria TV, saying that almost all of the media completely ignored the attack. “Imagine the reaction of the press if some pro-lifer had gone and smashed the windows of an abortion clinic,” Dietmar Fischer said.
According to Gloria TV, during the recent “March of the thousand crosses” in Salzburg more than 50 agents were needed to “protect the protesters from a group of pro-abortion activists ready for violence, many of whom were wearing black masks to hide.” Gloria TV added that the police declared they had taken note of seven abortionists who wore black masks, and of one of them who instead wore white gloves.”
“It ‘a serious injustice that pro-lifers must be subjected to such attacks, simply because they spread the truth about abortion – the interim president of Human Life International, Mgr. Ignacio Barreiro-Carambula said. We will not be intimidated by these acts of violence, we will continue to spread the word of God on the dignity of human beings.”
Canadian Supreme Court Rules Against Exemption in Religious Freedom Case
Posted on | February 22, 2012 by Annalee Seath, J.D.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Feb. 17 that Quebec’s controversial Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) program does not violate the religious freedom of Catholic parents who sought to exempt their children.
The decision drew disappointment from the Catholic Civil Rights League, the Christian Legal Fellowship (CLF), and Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) in what the League is calling a denial of parental rights.
Taking a more cautious approach, the Canadian Conference for Catholic Bishops (CCCB) said in a released statement that it will carefully study the decision.
“If the Bishops decide the ruling may raise questions that extend beyond provincial responsibilities, they will discuss any such concerns at their regional episcopal assemblies and possibly also at the meetings of their national assembly.”
While the Court found that the “Drummondville parents,” known as L and J, did not adequately prove harm to their children, it left open the door for future challenges showing additional evidence of infringement on religious freedom.
The ERC program was implemented in Quebec in 2008 for elementary and secondary students and is viewed as a compromise between the traditional confessional approach to religious education and a secular values curriculum. While Catholicism and Protestantism are highlighted due to their culturally important role in Quebec’s religious heritage, Judaism, Native spirituality, and other religions are also studied.
According to the ERC’s website, it seeks to promote dialog and “is intended to help students develop a spirit of openness and discernment with regard to the phenomenon of religion and to enable students to acquire the ability to act and to evolve intelligently and with maturity in a society that reflects a diversity of beliefs.”
At least 2,000 parents have asked to have their children exempted.
——
More News Articles and Information on the ERC Program:
http://www.catholicregister.org/news/canada/item/13906-disappointment-greets-quebec-erc-ruling
www7.mels.gouv.qc.ca/DC/ECR/index_en.php
EU Commissioner Reding answers disingenuously on funding of gay lobbyism
Posted on | February 22, 2012 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
The European Commission’s strange practice of funding 70% of the budget of ILGA-Europe, a homosexualist lobby notorious for its links to groups seeking to promote pedophilia, is increasingly coming under pressure. Recently we reported about a series of questions on this topic asked by MEP Godfrey Bloom, which, while the Commission still needs to answer them, have triggered a nervous and aggressive reply from some gay and lesbian politicians.
But Mr. Bloom is not the only one to ask questions. A few weeks before him, MEP Konrad Szymanski had already submitted the following question:
The Commission has been one of the main sponsors of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) for some years now. From 2007 to 2010, ILGA received from the Commission a total amount of EUR 4 107 457.12, i.e. more than EUR 1 million per annum. The main part of this sum derives from a DG EMPL funding programme called PROGRESS, from which ILGA receives an operational grant covering up to 80 % of its running costs.ILGA’s main activity is to influence the legislation in order to guarantee rights to lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex persons, in particular in the field of marriage and substitutes for marriage.
In reality, the EU has no competences as regards the recognition of marriages or family law.
1. On what legal basis is the Commission giving out operational grants to associations whose main activities are outside the scope of the EU’s competences?
2. Why has the Commission decided to support associations whose activities are directed towards changing Member State law, this being especially questionable in the case of countries such as Poland, which is under this kind of lobbying pressure regarding its family law and which has declared its legislative independence in that sphere (see the Declaration by the Republic of Poland on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)?
3. Does the Commission recognise that by becoming a major sponsor for the above lobby, active in Poland as well as in other Member States, it is acting outside its competences and is actually breaching the principle of subsidiarity enshrined in the Treaties (Article 5(3) TEU)?
The answer, given by Commissioner Viviane Reding on behalf of the Commission, has now been received. It runs:
Under the PROGRESS programme adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on the basis of Article 19(2) TFEU for anti-discrimination matters, ILGA Europe receives an operating grant to promote non-discrimination and equal opportunities.Regarding the scope of the activities financed, the Commission emphasises that this financial support covers, among others, raising public awareness about the existing rights of all LGBT people in Europe to non-discrimination as well as about the respect, tolerance and the benefits of diversity. In this regard, the Commission fully respects the competences of the Member States in the area of family law.
The Commission recalls that the principles of equality and non-discrimination are core EU values and are guaranteed by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 21 of which prohibits any discrimination based on sexual orientation by the Union as well as by Member States inasmuch as they implement Union law.
Moreover, Article 19 TFEU establishes the legislative competence for the EU to take measures combating discrimination on ground of sexual orientation. On this basis, the Council adopted Directive 2000/78/EC, which prohibits discrimination on ground of sexual orientation in matters of employment and occupation.
As one can clearly see, Mrs. Reding’s reply, albeit lengthy, does not provide the answer to the questions she was asked.
Mr. Szymanski’s first question contained the allegation that ILGA-Europe’s main activities are “outside the scope of the EU’s competences”. This is, one would believe, the decisive point here: if those activities are outside the EU’s competences, then the EU has no right to finance them.
Mrs. Reding, however, neither confirms nor contradicts this allegation. Instead, she writes that the financial support provided to ILGA “covers, among others, raising public awareness about the existing rights of all LGBT people in Europe to non-discrimination as well as about the respect, tolerance and the benefits of diversity.”
The decisive words here seem to be “among others”. In actual fact, only a very small part of ILGA’s activities relate to “existing rights of all LGBT people in Europe”, whereas the group’s main activity consists in campaigninging legislative changes, such as the introduction of ‘same-sex marriages’, homosexual adoption, or similar. Quite obviously, this has nothing to do with “existing rights of LGBT people” that are generally accepted by all Member States. It is a highly controversial agenda that is rejected by a majority of citizens as well as by a majority of Member States. Absurdly, through the Commission’s PROGRESS programme, taxpayers are constrained to finance this agenda, althogh most of them are opposed to it.
Is Mrs. Reding able to explain which part of the funding provided to ILGA is actually used for the “raising of public awareness about the existing rights of all LGBT people” , and which part is used for campaigning on issues that have nothing to do with “existing rights”? Of course not. Because in actual fact the Commission funding is not linked to any particular activities, but it is a bulk grant that can be used for whatever ILGA wants to use it for.
For Mr. Szymanski’s second and third question, Mrs. Reding does not provide any answer. Regrettably, this creates the impression as if the Commission were unable to rebutt the allegation of having acted outside its competences.
It is unlikely that these will have been the last parliamentary questions on the topic.
Codoms are a fantasy this week in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Posted on | February 21, 2012 by Timothy Herrmann
We all know it as Fat Tuesday, Mardis Gras, or perhpas even Shrove Tuesday but in Brazil the Tuesday before Lent is the end of Carnaval, which began last Friday, and consists of a weekend long cultural festival devoted to samba lines, dancing, vacations at the beach, and for some, drunken debauchery often ending in unprotected sex. In response to the latter, the government of Rio has decided to embark on a campaign to preempt the impending wave of STD transmission that is currently sweeping over the world’s most well known beach based metropolis.
In addition to committing to the distribution of over 3,000,000 million free condoms to party goers, they have also come up with some catchy phrases (here they are translated, and also lost in translation) as means of promoting STD prevention:
“Use a Condom this Carnaval”
and
“not without a Condom”
or, my personal favorite
“Whatever your fantasy is, use the condom”
Clearly, the real fantasy, however, is the government’s condom strategy. When one’s first inclination is to combat the problems associated with promiscuous sexual behavior through condom promotion, especially in Catholic Brazil, it can’t be a good sign. In Brazil, the issue is discouraging the problem at its source, not waiting to combat the behavior’s very particular consequences.
The real problem with Carnaval is that it has become synonymous with promiscuity and alcoholism. It is known internationally as a weekend when the real world and its real consequences are placed on hold, at least until the reality of Lent begins on Wednesday. Sure, one can understand that condoms might be better than “nothing” but given that condoms only encourage promiscuous behavior, it might make more sense to take a second look at the benefits of less risky behavior, like monogamy or abstinence. After all, they are the only proven methods of STD prevention. But unfortunately, in today’s day and age, our only option seems to be the condom. What a sad social commentary.
In the end, the government in Rio has opted for fantasy this time around. Rather than encouraging people to take their actions more seriously, or to think about the significance of their life choices, it seems they would rather “throw up their hands” and release free condoms on the masses with barely even a sigh. But one can only wonder, what would happen if rather than giving up on people, governments actually gave them a proposal that affirmed their true potential rather than their tendency for self-destruction.
More articles here:
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-16/americas/world_americas_brazil-carnival-condoms_1_free-condoms-block-parties-revelers?_s=PM:AMERICAS
http://www.christianpost.com/news/abstinence-or-condoms-brazils-christians-debate-campaign-theme-for-carnivals-64812
Ireland Abortion Laws Being Challenged
Posted on | February 21, 2012 by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
A NY Times article’s lead today reads:
“Abortion is back on the agenda in Ireland after a European Court of Human Rights ruling last year found the state in violation of its own Constitution on the matter.”
I am sure I am not the only one to find it strange that the European Court of Human Rights is telling the Irish how their own Constitution should be understood. For those of us in the US, it would be like an International body telling Americans that the US Supreme Court has got its commerce clause jurisprudence wrong.
The article contends that Ireland’s abortion laws are going to become more permissive due to changes in public opinion, especially the increasing estrangement of the Irish from the Catholic Church.
WECARE- New abortion-research initiative
Posted on | February 21, 2012 by Lucia Muchova
Flooded by statistics on the benefits of abortion published by the Guttmacher Institute (a research arm of Planned Parenthood), it could seem as if it was the only authoritative abortion-research agency. For those of us skeptical about the validity of data and methods used in many pro-abortion studies, WECARE (the World Expert Consortium for Abortion Research and Education) will undoubtedly serve as a great guide through scientific information on abortion.
This new initiative was launched by abortion-research expert Priscilla K. Coleman, Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green University in Ohio who writes:
WECARE brings together credentialed scientists with a research program on the physical, psychological, and/or relational effects of abortion on women and those closest to them to engage in international research collaboration, scientific information dissemination, professional education, and consultation.
For years, the formal study of the health effects of abortion was neglected in the academic literature; however, over the past decade dozens of high quality studies have been published throughout the world. Paralleling this recent expansion of research has been awareness of the need for evidence-based medicine. Ironically, as strategies are developed to revamp health care delivery to close the gap between knowledge and practice, the divide is greater than ever relative to dispensing accurate information on abortion.
Political, ideological, and social forces undoubtedly compete with efforts to conduct, publish, and distribute straightforward appraisals of the rapidly expanding literature on the health consequences of abortion. By adopting a non-religious, non-partisan approach to understanding the implications of abortion, WECARE exists to enhance the quality of information, develop strategies for effectively transmitting research findings, and break down barriers to evidence-based medicine.
The website already contains many articles, critical analyses, presentations and other publications, and the number is growing.
Read more here
Contraceptive Revolution Hurt Women
Posted on | February 21, 2012 by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
National Review Online has an article titled “The Pill is Not Good for Women” by By Erika Bachiochi & Catherine R. Pakaluk. The article criticizes the way the sexual revolution and technology have combined to hurt women.
The Pill, together with abortion as backup, appeared to provide full insurance against pregnancy risks. But as economists well know, full insurance tends to induce greater risk-taking: As people perceive sex to be safer, they pursue more of it. This applies especially to people who would otherwise be most vulnerable to the risks of unwanted pregnancy: the young, the unmarried, and those unable to care for a child. While a tight causal argument is difficult to make, correlations alone do not augur in favor of the Pill: The rapidly increasing sexual activity of the Pill era correlates with a staggering increase in non-marital births — less than 5 percent of births in 1960 were to unmarried mothers, compared with roughly 40 percent today. A counterintuitive result, perhaps, but a fairly human one nonetheless.
And this points to an unresolved difficulty with the contraceptive revolution, which was supposed to serve women above all: Women on the whole disproportionately bear the burden of the new sexual regime. They are expected to dose themselves with a Group 1 carcinogen for approximately two-thirds of their fertile years. They sustain greater emotional costs from casual sex. They are at greater risk of contracting STDs and disproportionately suffer from their long-term consequences, such as cervical cancer and fertility loss.And even after 50 years with the Pill, as many as half of all pregnancies are still unintended. Women, not men, must make the heart-wrenching choice between abortion, reckoned a tragic outcome even by its supporters, and bearing a child with little to no paternal support. After all, since children were negotiated out of the bargain by the availability of contraception and abortion, men have secured a strong rationale to simply ignore or reject pregnancies that result from uncommitted sexual relations.
Seizing America’s Demographic Advantage
Posted on | February 17, 2012 by Wendy Wright
America has a brighter future than other countries — because it has a larger population. Susan Yoshihara writes on America’s demographic exceptionalism in an op ed in Roll Call (an influential newspaper for Washington, DC staff) — a theme in her new book on “Population Decline and the Remaking of Great Power Politics“.
Read her op ed at:
Seizing America’s Demographic Advantage
Americans alone among the citizens of developed countries are having enough children to replace themselves. This exceptionalism can make continued U.S. leadership in the world a reality.
Obama Administration Overreaching, Says Constitutional Law Expert
Posted on | February 17, 2012 by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
Great USA Today article by a Notre Dame Law School professor on how the Obama Administration is overreaching through its birth control mandate.
Must read:
The burdens on religious freedom and diversity imposed by the mandate have been obscured by several widespread mistakes and misconceptions. First, it is said by some that those who resist the mandate — the Catholic bishops make particularly appealing villains in this account — are trying to “impose their morality” on employees, or to “deny access” to items and services to which most people — indeed, many Catholics — have no objection. This charge is false. Religious institutions are not trying to control what their employees buy, use, or do in private; they are trying to avoid being conscripted by the government into paying for what they teach are immoral acts. It is the administration, and not the Catholic Church, that is imposing its values on the vulnerable and unpopular.
Next, some insist that the mandate, like the host of other regulations to which religious institutions are subject, is just part of the price these institutions must pay for participating in public life and engaging in “secular” activities. When you enter the state’s arena, they say, you have to play by the state’s rules. But since when are educating the young, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, feeding the hungry, and comforting the lonely “secular” activities? Rather than acting as though the government is doing religious institutions a favor by allowing them to care for others and transform the world, we should acknowledge that religious institutions were ministering to the needy well before the government got into the act, and that religiously inspired love-of-neighbor long pre-dates the welfare state. Indeed, instead of imposing a heavy-handed, conscience-burdening mandate on religious schools, hospitals, and agencies, perhaps the nation should consider a thank-you card and a reimbursement check.
Queer logic: why ILGA-Europe levies no membership fees
Posted on | February 16, 2012 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
In a recent series of posts, we have shed some light on the strange fact that the European Commission is maintaining, at the expense of taxpayers, a fake “non-governmental organization” called ILGA-Europe, which, pretending to be a voice of civil society, seeks to promote the opinion that homosexual behaviour should be rewarded through legal privilege. Our reports seem to have received some attention even in the European Parliament, where Members have started asking questions about these astonishing grants for the propagandists of “sexual diversity”.
Don't need membership fees, have EU funding: homosexual activists on a pride event
As one of 6 world regions of ILGA (World), ILGA-Europe’s member organisations pay their membership to ILGA (World) directly. Out of solidarity, ILGA-Europe supports the principle that membership fees are used by the world association to support LGBTI organisations in other regions of the world. This is why ILGA-Europe does not receive membership fees from its members.
It seems thus that ILGA-Europe’s members finance not ILGA-Europe (which, due to the generosity of the European taxpayer, does not need their contributions anyway), but some franchise organisations elsewhere in the world. Which in turn means that those franchises, too, cannot really claim to be financed by their own members…
Faith Leaders Testify in Solidarity at Congressional Hearing on Contraception Mandate Violating Religious Freedom
Posted on | February 16, 2012 by Annalee Seath, J.D.
C-FAM staff attended Congress’s committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing this morning titled “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience.” Panel members included clergy from the USCCB, Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Yeshiva University and representatives from six Catholic and Christian colleges and universities, standing together in opposition to the HHS contraception mandate.*
In their opening statements, panel members stressed that the HHS mandate constitutes a grave violation of First Amendment Free Exercise, the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA), and the historical principles upon which America was founded.
Bishop William E. Lori of Hartford, Connecticut who serves as chairman of the USCCB ad hoc committee on Religious Freedom used the analogy of forcing kosher delis to serve pork as an illustration of how the government’s mandate wrongly answers questions of doctrine that should be left to religious believers. Rabbi Meir Soloveichik pointed out that the Obama Administration displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what religion is when it constrained religion to just prayer and doctrinal study. Rather, he explained, loving the Lord with all ones heart extends to all facets of life. Congressman James Lankford (R-OK) later echoed this sentiment by quoting from James 1:27: that true religion is caring for orphans and widows.
Congressman Edolphus Towns (D-NY) questioned the panel’s opposition to the mandate and Friday’s accommodation in light of certain Catholic organizations’ support after last Friday’s announcement. Bishop Lori replied that organizations such as Catholic Charities USA and the Catholic Health Association do not speak for the church as a whole and said that churches should have the power over their internal affairs relating to doctrinal issues. Bishop Lori noted that while the US bishops were given the opportunity to comment on the interim final rule in August, they were never consulted on the final rule or the accommodation itself. The other panel members likewise admitted that the Obama Administration never consulted them about the final rule or Friday’s accommodation.
Panel members also fielded questions from the committee about the framing of the issue, whether as a public health debate or a religious liberty issue. Every member of the panel expressed belief that this is a religious liberty and freedom of conscience issue. Bishop Lori stressed that contraception is widely available and distinguished between the government providing these services and forcing private employers to provide them. The panel members agreed that they would not advocate that contraception be prohibited when used to directly treat health and medical problems (aside from prohibiting conception and birth).
The panel met with heated opposition from Representatives Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Gerry Connolly (D-VA). Congressman Connelly argued that the hearing was a partisan ploy using clergy and other panelists as partisan tools. Congresswoman DeLauro chimed in, claiming that the opposition was pointless because exemptions had already been made for places of worship. Congresswoman Maloney worried that the opposition to the HHS mandate might signal a more sinister plan to outlaw contraception altogether. In each case, the panelists steered the discussion back to the issue at hand: government intrusion into the way religious organizations operate.
The panel was not without Congressional support. Representatives Lankford, Blake Farenthold (R-TX), and Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY) expressed frustration with the mandate, noting the excessive fines to which noncompliant organizations will be subjected and the slippery slope mentality of allowing government intrusion into religious affairs. Congressman Tim Walberg (R-MI) appealed to citizens’ inalienable right to religious freedom and called ministers to speak with clarity as to why the HHS mandate violates both the inalienable right to religious liberty and the Constitution. Congressman Lankford noted that the Administration is essentially arguing: “I disagree with your doctrine; you will change it to mine.”
In response to Congresswoman Buerkle’s question on the consequences to religious groups that fail to implement the rule, Dr. Craig Mitchell’s stated that he would be willing to spend nights in jail rather than comply.
Bishop Lori was asked if he would see hospitals close rather than following the mandate. His reply was straightforward: the Catholic Church cannot and will not violate its conscience.
*First Panel: The Most Reverend William E. Lori, Roman Catholic Bishop of Bridgeport, Connecticut; Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, President of the Lutheran Church, Missouri-Synod; C. Ben Mitchell, Ph.D., Union University Professor of Moral Philosophy; Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, Director of the Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University; and Craig Mitchell, Ph.D, Chair of the Ethics Department at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Second Panel: John H. Garvey, President of Catholic University of America; Dr. William K. Thierfelder, President of Belmont Abbey College; Dr. Samuel W. “Dub” Oliver, President of East Texas Baptist University; Dr. Allison Dabbs Garrett, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, Oklahoma Christian University; Laura Champion, M.D. Medical Director, Calvin College Health Services; and Barry W. Lynn, Esq., Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The Power and the Glory. Catholic Church in Mexico Instructs Catholics on Voting
Posted on | February 16, 2012 by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
The Catholic Church in Mexico City has recently issued a letter to the faithful with guidelines for the approaching July presidential elections. The guidelines instruct Catholics not to vote for political actors that support abortion and homosexual marriage.
The Catholic Church in Mexico was hushed during the 20th century because of several waves of anti-clericalism, inspiring the famous novel by Graham Greene, The Power and the Glory. Mexico’s laws still limit any involvement of religious groups in politics, and the guidelines that were just issued by Cardinal Norberto Rivera, Primate of Mexico, are controversial because they are perceived by secularists as flirting with actual involvement in politics.
For more see the Fox News article and The News article. Also, you may wish to read the mexican daily El Universal.
European Court of Human Rights: Critics of Homosexuality don’t enjoy freedom of opinion
Posted on | February 16, 2012 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
In Sweden, critics of homosexuality risk being sent to jail. And the European Court of Human Rights, demonstrating once again its complete and utter failure to protect the fundamental rights enshrined in the European Rights Convention, finds that this constitutes no violation of the freedom of opinion.
freedom of opinion is for homosexual activists - but not for their opponents...
“Homosexual Propaganda (Homosexpropaganda)
In the course of a few decades society has swung from rejection of homosexuality and other sexual deviances (avarter) to embracing this deviant sexual proclivity (böjelse). Your anti-Swedish teachers know very well that homosexuality has a morally destructive effect on the substance of society (folkkroppen) and will willingly try to put it forward as something normal and good.
– Tell them that HIV and AIDS appeared early with the homosexuals and that their promiscuous lifestyle was one of the main reasons for this modern-day plague gaining a foothold.
– Tell them that homosexual lobby organisations are also trying to play down (avdramatisera) paedophilia, and ask if this sexual deviation (sexuella avart) should be legalised.”
For distributing the leaflets, the applicants were charged with
agitation against a national or ethnic group (hets mot folkgrupp). They were convicted to imprisonment by the District Court, but the judgment was overturned by a Court of Appeal. Finally the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the District Court by a narrow 5-3 majority.
It is certainly problematic that the applicants distributed their leaflets at a school, i.e. at a place that should be sheltered from any kind of propaganda. But that is not really the issue here. Firstly, what is at the origin of the dispute is not anti-homosexual propaganda, but the propaganda of homosexual lifestyles that is forced upon minors through the school curricula. If a school is not the right place for propaganda, then it is precisely the promotion of this homosexualist ideology (which certainly holds no better claim to legitimacy than anything the applicants have written in their leaflets) that needs to be questioned in the first place.
Secondly, it appears that the applicants were not convicted fore spreading propaganda at a school, but for expressing critical views about homosexuality. It seems at least doubtful that they would have been convicted for having expressed any other political opinion, for example criticism against the ACTA.
A vulnerable ethnic minority??
A decisive argument seems to have been that the statements quoted above were “more offensive than necessary”. But were they really? As so often, the Court does not give an explanation for what appears to be the core of its argument. As such, the statements contained in the leaflets seem factually correct. Society has indeed swung from rejection to embracing homosexuality, without any new scientific insight as to the nature and origin of this proclivity. At best, this can be explained as a collective change of (subjective) opinion – but that would not explain why an individual citizen should not have the right to adhere to, and promote, the views that were the prevailing ones not very long ago.
It also is objectively true that homosexuality is a deviant form of sexuality. If sexuality serves the purpose of procreating, then a sexual urge that is directed to other persons than those of the opposite sex and of appropriate age is misdirected. This is a fact that will not change, even if a government wants to prevent this truth from being told.
Finally, there is absolutely no serious doubt that – at least in the developed countries of which Sweden is a part – homosexuality is one of the main factors contributing to the propagation of HIV/AIDS, a disease that first appeared within the gay community, and that, correspondingly, men having sex with men, are the group with the highest risk of infection. This has been confirmed over and again by scientific research. According to a recent study, the AIDS rate is 50 times higher among homosexuals than among the rest of the population. Similar findings exist with regard to a number of other diseases, such as syphilis. The medical community has known for decades: the homosexual lifestyle is extremely high-risk and often leads to disease and even death. But in Sweden, this truth appears not to be welcome…
It appears self-evident and does not require any further comment that convicting four young persons to jail sentences for having said the truth about homosexuality is not only completely disproportionate. This is not a question of proportionality – even if the sanction had consisted in a small pecuniary fine, the very fact that the utterance of such opinions is prohibited amounts to a blatant violation of the freedom of speech. Indeed, the law that is put to such use is a law that is directed against truth itself.
Are such laws, as the ECHR Judges have held, “necessary in a democratic society”? Obviously not. Most democratic societies don’t have and don’t want such laws.
In having found no violation of Article 10 of the Convention, the European Court of Human Rights sadly has gone one further step in de-legitimising itself as well as the Convention of which it is the guardian. Apparently, the Strasbourg judges are still slow in taking David Cameron’s recent hint on “controversial rulings having a corrosive effect on people’s support for human rights”…
The Contraception Mandate Fix: Fact vs Fiction
Posted on | February 15, 2012 by Lisa Correnti
If you read the emails and tweets coming from abortion-rights members of congress and pro-abortion feminist groups you have probably heard that Senator Blunts amendment will prevent women from obtaining contraception. International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) claims making birth control inaccessible is by male design to set us back to the dark ages when there were no women in Congress or women CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies, – no, I didn’t make that up. Pro-aborts are hysterical over the the Blunt Amendment, #1520 the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, which could be the first amendment voted on when the Senate returns to the transportation bill.
Below is fact and fiction on the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act:
|
WHAT THEY’RE CLAIMING… |
THE FACTS… |
| THE CLAIM: Senator Blunt’s amendment would allow anyone to deny coverage of any health care for any reason. It would take us back to the medical dark ages. | THE FACTS: This is unequivocally false. Senator Blunt’s amendment simply restores conscience protections that existed before President Obama’s flawed health care law – the same protections that have existed for more than 220 years since the First Amendment was ratified.
|
| THE CLAIM: Any employer can deny coverage of specific items under Senator Blunt’s amendment – whether faith-based or secular. | THE FACTS: Senator Blunt’s amendment would do nothing to change or restrict the same rights that Americans have enjoyed for more than 220 years. If an employer has a religious or moral objection to a type of coverage, Senator Blunt’s amendment affords them the same rights that they had before ObamaCare to negotiate a plan with a health insurance company that meets their needs.However, Senator Blunt’s amendment does nothing to force the health insurance company to offer that plan – it simply ensures that Americans are guaranteed the same rights and freedoms that they enjoyed before President Obama’s unconstitutional mandate.Senator Blunt’s amendment also provides a private right of action for employers and individuals who believe their conscience rights have been violated by government mandates. Federal courts are well equipped to identify spurious claims. |
|
THE CLAIM: Senator Blunt’s amendment would gut existing state mandates on contraception coverage. |
THE FACTS: Senator Blunt’s amendment would not impact existing state laws, and it does not address any other law other than President Obama’s flawed health care plan. |
|
THE CLAIM: There is no precedent for broad conscience protections like ones that the Blunt amendment would enact. |
THE FACTS: Many longstanding federal health care conscience laws protect conscientious objections to certain types of medical services. |
To read Senator Blunt’s amendment, please click here.
Human Rights Abuses in China Subject of Congressional Hearing as Obama Welcomes China’s Vice President to White House
Posted on | February 15, 2012 by Lisa Correnti
Yesterday Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) chairman of the U.S. China Commission presided at a hearing entitled “The Case and Treatment of Prominent Human Rights Lawyer Gao Zhisheng” with Co-Chairman U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). At the same time China’s Vice President Xi Jinping (in line to assume the presidency in March 2013) was meeting with President Obama and Vice President Biden in the White House. The Commission met to review the imprisonment of six prominent Chinese dissidents and heard testimony from the wives of two of the jailed men who called for their husbands release. Congressman Smith said he hoped President Obama would not put human rights last on the agenda as he did last January when Chinese President Hu Jintao visited.
Gao Zhisheng’s wife, Geng He testified that her husband was arrested after he wrote an open letter to the U.S. Congress exposing human rights abuses in China. Mr. Gao, a human rights attorney advocated for “marginalized groups in China— including religious practitioners, rural workers, and human rights activists.” He has been repeatedly imprisoned since 2006 with Chinese authorities refusing to release information on his whereabouts or condition. His wife describes his arrest:
Policemen covered his head with a black mask and took him into a room where they stripped him naked and beat him. They used electric batons to shock him all over his body—specifically his private parts—turning his skin black. After losing consciousness from the torture, he awoke covered in urine. Later, his captors used cigarette smoke to burn his eyes so severely that he could not open them.
In addition to the human rights abuses experienced by imprisoned dissidents, Congressman Smith addressed the one-child policy in his opening statement.
The Chinese government’s one child per couple policy, with its attendant horrors of mass forced abortion and rampant sex selection abortion, is utterly without parallel. In effect since 1979, the coercive one child per couple policy is, in scope and seriousness, the worst human rights abuse in the world today.
Today in China, rather than being given maternal care, pregnant women without birth control permits are hunted down and their babies forcibly aborted. They are mocked, belittled and humiliated. There are no single moms in China—except those who somehow evade the family planning cadres and conceal their pregnancy. For three decades, brothers and sisters have been illegal; a mother has absolutely no right to protect her baby from state sponsored violence.
During the hearing Congressman Smith praised President Bush for effectively dealing with China’s human rights abuses while president and criticized the Obama administration for its “quiet diplomacy” efforts which equated to a policy of “indifference.” Witnesses agreed with Smith’s assessment. Jared Genser, founder of Freedom Now expressed disappointment that the Obama administration ignored requests from the wives of the imprisoned men to meet with them. It was his opinion that movement from the Chinese government on the release of the detainees would only occur if our high level officials engaged in this.
Bob Fu, founder and president of Chia Aid was also critical of the administrations policy of “quiet diplomacy,” saying for the past three years this administration put human rights and religious freedom on the back seat by failing to appoint an Ambassador-at-large for Religious Freedom. Fu believes that a lack of response from the State dept and White House regarding China’s refusal to allow a meeting with the Ambassador and the Chinese government counterpart only emboldened Chinese government officials.
Anticipating the White House meeting with Vice President Xi, several members of Congress sent a letter to President Obama asking him to include specific issues in his meeting. Among them were the ongoing human rights violations including prolonged and illegal detentions and the enforcement of the one-child policy, as well as the intention of China’s military expansion, the trade imbalance and China’s failure to protect intellectual property rights.
Media outlets reported on yesterdays White House meeting claiming President Obama was “friendly but firm.” An official White House release of the president’s remarks on human rights seemed to be limited to just one. “On critical issues like human rights we will continue to emphasize what we believe is the importance of recognizing the aspirations and rights of all people,” Obama said. It would seem Congressman Smith’s assessment of the Obama administrations policy of being one of “indifference” would be accurate.
Birth-Control Mandate: Unconstitutional and Illegal
Posted on | February 15, 2012 by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
Today’s Wall Street Journal Opinion pages have a legal analysis by Rivkin and Whelan of how Obama’s Birth-Control Mandate would fare in federal court. Well worth the read.
Here is the crux:
In an effort to rally its base in the upcoming November election, the Obama administration seems more interested in punishing religiously based opposition to contraception and abortion than in marginally increasing access to contraception services…
In short, the birth-control mandate violates both statutory law and the Constitution. The fact that the administration promulgated it so flippantly, without seriously engaging on these issues, underscores how little it cares about either.
As China goes geriatric, we have the advantage
Posted on | February 15, 2012 by Wendy Wright
Susan Yoshihara puts a twist on a top news story:
Read the full article here.
Fear of demographic deficit leads to abortion restrictions being tightend in Russia
Posted on | February 14, 2012 by Timothy Herrmann
Given the demographic crisis that Russia is experiencing, the latest move by the Russian government to further limit the cases in which abortion is available on demand in Russia is not surprising:
The Russian Health Ministry has cut the list of social grounds that allow women to have a free abortion, which leaves sexual assault as the only excuse for women to abort their pregnancy.
and
The 2010 census showed that Russia’s population dropped from 145 million in 2002 to under 143 million, with the death rate continuing to exceed the birth rate despite government efforts to encourage Russians to have more children.
The parliament may soon pass a new anti-abortion bill that could limit access to abortion services and toughen criminal punishment for doctors who carry out illegal abortions.
The full article can be found here.