Posted on | April 18, 2013 by Rebecca Oas, Ph.D
An international abortion advocacy group recently created a questionnaire as a way measure abortion stigma. However, a look at the series of questions reveals it’s not a neutral tool to measure people’s attitudes, but rather an implement of advocacy seeking to redirect stigma onto those who oppose abortion.
The “stigmatizing attitudes, beliefs and actions scale” was created by Ipas, which promotes abortion worldwide by distributing abortion devices and holding “values clarification” workshops to remove stigma and generate acceptance for abortion.
The tool includes three groups of questions: negative stereotyping, exclusion and discrimination, and fear of contagion. Each category contains a series of statements and a place for those taking the assessment to record their reaction to the statements, ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.”
The first statement on the list is “A woman who has an abortion is committing a sin.” The remaining seventeen statements are a catalog of medical inaccuracy (“if a man has sex with a woman who has had an abortion, he will become infected with a disease”), sociological prejudice (“A woman who has had an abortion cannot be trusted”), and personal cruelty (“I would tease a woman who has had an abortion so that she will be ashamed about her decision”).
Notably absent from the list is any statement that alludes, even negatively, to the life of the child being aborted (e.g. “A woman who has an abortion is committing a murder” or “Unborn babies have rights that are violated by abortion”.) The statement about abortion being a sin is not qualified in any way as to what type of sin it is. Also absent from the questionnaire is any statement that makes moral judgments about sexual activity, such as whether promiscuity or extramarital sex is wrong.
Instead, the statements on the questionnaire range from ludicrously inaccurate to explicitly uncharitable. Presumably, this is so that the person taking the test will think that those who believe abortion is a sin also agree with the other statements, or wish to distance himself or herself from people who would be prejudiced or superstitious enough to believe them.
In social science research, the crafting of surveys is a painstaking art, due to the subtle ways that the wording of a question can influence the reaction of the study subject. The same is true of opinion polling. Rather than asking questions that get at the heart of why people have negative attitudes toward abortion, Ipas presents a list of statements that blatantly mischaracterize the religious beliefs and cultural attitudes favoring children that are the reason many reject abortion.
While it may be tempting to assume that Ipas simply misunderstands the basis for their opponents’ objections, this would be naïve. By painting the opposition to abortion as ridiculous, Ipas invites their survey subjects to ridicule those who oppose abortion – including those who view it as sinful, yet would never intentionally abuse or ostracize a post-abortive woman.
In the information accompanying the survey, Ipas recommends that it be used 1) to gather information to design interventions to reduce stigma, 2) as way to determine which groups have more stigma against abortion, in order to target them for stigma-reduction interventions, and 3) as a “pre- and post-test” to measure short-term changes in the attitudes of individuals or groups before and after such an intervention has taken place.
Not included in that list is a presumptive 4) as a way to discredit abortion stigma by characterizing it as ignorance, superstition, and malice.
As this “research” tool demonstrates, the combination of advocacy and inquiry accomplishes nothing good in the absence of intellectual honesty.
Posted on | April 18, 2013 by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
If you are less than 18 yrs old and have blonde hair and blue eyes, you are probably better off than any other kid in the world according to a UN program for children.
A recently released UNICEF report with the serendipitous title “child well-being in rich countries” finds that the top ranked countries for children’s health were all raided by the Vikings in the first millenium:
US kids, by contrast, are not doing as well as kids in other “rich” countries. The US overall rank is 26 in a list of 29 industrialized countries. According to an op-ed analysis of the report published in the NY times, worth reading in its own right, the US needs better parenting, better policy, and less guns. The analysis included the fact that the US has a high teen pregnancy rate, but failed to note how the statistic reported by UNICEF had nothing to do with teen pregnancies but teen births.
The UN program’s report does not include having a mother and a father among the indicators of child well-being, but it did include interesting subjective indicators of well-being (the result of one of those “are you happy?” surveys). The Netherlands and the Nordic countries perform strongly on both subjective and objective measures.
How do they do it?
Posted on | April 15, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.The constitutional convention backs the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples, the Irish Times reports. With this decision, Ireland seems set to join the fold of countries that want to destroy the institution of marriage by re-defining it beyond recognisability. But it could still be prevented, as a popular referendum will be needed.
In welcoming this result, Tánaiste (Deputy Prime Minister) Eamon Gilmore said he had always believed “that our laws reflect the past, not the future” on this issue. “It’s not the role of the State to pass judgement on who a person falls in love with, or who they want to spend their life with.”
Just two short comments on this statement, which is really of an outstanding silliness:
First, saying that existing laws “reflect the past”, while proposals to change them “represent the future” is the prototype of a non-argument, typically used by those who want to avoid a debate to substance. But the reality is that only marriage between a man and a woman can contribute to the future, and that is precisely what marriage is about.
Secondly, I f someone believes that “it’s not the role of the State to pass judgement on who a person falls in love with”, then he should not be in favour of same-sex “marriages”. People who marry do precisely this: they seek public recognition for their relationship. It is therefore simply outlandish to say that marriage is a purely private matter on which the State has no saying. The real problem of the same-sex “marriage” debate is not that anyone is disturbing the privacy of gay or lesbian people, but that these people want to use this institution, which has completely different purposes, for their exhibitionism. And so does Eamon Gilmore, exhibiting that he is absolutely clueless what he is speaking about.
The turn of events is, by the way, astonishing. As recent debates in France have shown, the recognition of same-sex “marriages” would immediately (and without further debate) open the door to the adoption of children by gay couples – and thus to the systematic ‘recruitment’ of children for homosexuality. During the child abuse scandals concerning the Catholic Church, the current Irish Government held themselves out as the great protectors of the innocence of children… and now look what they’re doing.
Posted on | April 9, 2013 by Wendy Wright
Call it the new population control. Dr. Peter Saunders of Christian Medical Fellowship looks at the combination of demographic decline, financial crises and disrespect for life and comes to a sobering conclusion:
The generation that killed its children will in turn be killed by its own children.
In other words legalised abortion will lead to legalised euthanasia as a cost-saving and population-control measure. . .
it is rich people in the affluent West, rather than the poor in the Global South, who say they can’t afford to look after their dependents and are clamouring for euthanasia.
He provides an alternative. Read it here
Posted on | April 8, 2013 by Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
Yesterday, the Providence Journal published a PolitiFact editorial claiming that my use of one word–”shattered”–in the Rhode Island marriage hearings last month rendered my statement to the committee entirely “false” and me imprudent. But to make their claim, the editors constructed and attacked a straw man argument which ignored the context of my statement–context I provided both in my public testimony and direct communications with them. Ironically, PolitiFact ended up vindicating my statement in the process of trying to disparage it.
In my statement I said that the scholarly basis for claims that it makes no difference whether a child is raised by her parents or by adults engaged in a homosexual lifestyle were not based in the scholarship. To the contrary, and as the PolitiFact hit piece concluded, there is an ongoing debate in the literature. As one of its interviewees put it, there is nothing “definitive.”
But that is not what we in Rhode Island heard at the last round of hearings and that is precisely why I found it important to bring this to the attention of the committee this year.
Before making a sweeping change to a fundamental aspect of our society–before we redefine marriage–we should first remove any doubt about whether doing so promotes the common good and especially the good of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society including children. As I said in my testimony, this is the value of research. It allows us to know whether we can extend the many moving personal stories and anecdotal evidence to the broader population.
Let’s start at the beginning. On March 25th I received an email from Michael McKinney, who said he was a reporter at the Providence Journal writing a story about my statement.
In my reply to his email I explained that the reason I brought the new study to their attention was precisely because of the Rhode Island Senate Judiciary Committee’s keen interest in question of where the peer reviewed research stood on this question during their last round of marriage hearings at which I also testified.
At that hearing, the committee chair asked witness after witness whether there was any “peer reviewed” research to refute a then-recent study which asserted that children do just as well or even better when raised by lesbians than in other family arrangements. So relentless was her questioning that it began to draw laughter when witnesses preempted her query and stated up front whether they had anything “peer reviewed” in their testimony.
The senators were noticeably silent on the matter at this year’s hearing. Not a peep about where the peer reviewed literature came down. No smug queries meant to highlight the one-sidedness in the journals concluding it made no difference whether a child had a mother and a father. That is because last June Mark Regnerus and his colleagues at the University of Texas published some of their findings in an extensive study that found children do better when raised by their own parents.
Mr. McKinney said the Regnerus study “has not reordered the social-science world in the way Yoshihara suggests.” I never said it reordered the social science world. But it certainly reordered this year’s hearings and the conception of the academic status quo. And it certainly raises doubts about whether redefining marriage is good for our children.
One would think that a reporter at a reputable newspaper would have read the testimony he was fact checking. I submitted the testimony in writing for the public record. Yet Mr. McKinney leads the reader to believe that I only provided links to the papers when he and PolitiFact requested them. In fact, I spoke about each at some length.
Mr. McKinney further leads the reader to believe that I was not aware of the criticisms the Regnerus study evoked. To the contrary, I not only acknowledged the challenges to Regnerus’s study in my oral and written statements but also noted that the authors had re-run their data based upon the extensive criticisms. I believe this added to their credibility and I said so in writing and for the record. Mr. McKinney left all of this out of his story as well as any mention of how and in what ways Regnerus and his research were vindicated.
When Mr. McKinney wrote a second time raising the question of the criticisms, I put him in touch directly with Dr. Regnerus. Yet Mr. McKinney did not make mention of this nor allow the reader to have any statement of rebuttal from Regnerus in the piece.
Mr. McKinney criticizes my use of the term “best” to characterize the Regnerus study by claiming my statement covered the full constellation of any and all research ever done on this matter. Let’s put it back in perspective. In the quote Mr. McKinney excerpted from my testimony, I contrasted the quality of the study touted in the previous year’s hearing with the superior quality of the latest research. That previous study, which I referenced in my email to Mr. McKinney, had 78 subjects (39 boys and 39 girls) and used self-selected responses to an online query. As I explained both in my testimony and in my email, this is on its face inferior to the 15,000 subjects, almost 3000 interviews, which informed the Regnerus study.
One would think that a reporter trying to promote the facts would have made better use of them.
For their use of a straw man argument and for misleading the reader regarding the context and content of my statement, I rule Mr. McKinney’s and PolitFact’s editorial False.
Posted on | March 27, 2013 by Wendy Wright
This morning a TV news hostess announced her engagement to her colleague, a female reporter, and her pregnancy. Their confusion over the facts of life (that it takes a man to create a child) constructs a pretend world that everyone else is supposed to validate.
NBC’s Jenna Wolfe revealed she’s been dating foreign correspondent Stephanie Gosk for 3 years. Jenna is pregnant with a girl. The two women are engaged.
NY Daily News reports “The pair have been talking about family planning for some time, but at first had some trouble conceiving.”
Uhh, yes. Maybe they missed that lesson in sex ed.
“We were constantly on the road, juggling a thousand balls at once,” Wolfe told People mag. “It’s a miracle we got it all together.”
NewsFlash: It doesn’t matter where the two women are located. They still can’t conceive a baby together.
File this as a turning point when we are all expected to extol the Emperor’s new clothes – and pretend fathers are unnecessary.
1.4 million rally in Paris against same-sex “marriage”. Government uses tear gas against Families with Children
Posted on | March 27, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
The French Government’s plan to introduce same-sex “marriages” increasingly looks like the act of tyranny of a ruling class that wants to rule against, and not for, the people. But the resistance is growing.
Despite the chilly weather, an estimated 1.4 million citizens participated in the second edition of the “demonstration for all” (Manifestation pour tous), making it the biggest political manifestation in this country since WWII. A similar event on 13 January had produced a turnout of one million.
President François Hollande’s Government persists in an attitude of self-incapsulation. Rather than listening to the people, it has decided to prevent the demonstration from taking place on the prestigious Avenue des Champs Elysées in order to spare the President the unpleasant sight of protesting citizens. Police made liberal use of tear gas and clubs against some of the peaceful demonstrators, thereby unmasking the true character of the Government’s LGBT-project.
The Senate will discuss the draft law, which already has been rushed through the National Assembly, in the first week of April.
Posted on | March 26, 2013 by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
An article from Keith Riler at First Things fleshes out the long term effects of population control efforts among the poor in America. Riler suggests that the FED and States should gladly spend $11,000 worth of Medicare on births among poor Americans, rather then spend for family planning. Riler sees it as an investment.
The argument is based on the fact, at least in the US, that few people remain permanently under the poverty line, and therefore it is better for people to be born, even if in poverty. Here is the crux:
Assume that upon exiting poverty, sooner or later these people experience the same average result—an average job with an average income ($46,600), average incometaxes (13.8 percent), average property taxes (in Texas, $1,475/year), and average sales taxes (in Texas, $1,684/year). At these levels, an average adult who was born into poverty will pay federal, state, and local governments about $430,000 over a working lifetime of forty-five years (ages twenty-one to sixty-five). That’s thirty-nine times the $11,000 Medicaid-birth investment.
Assuming that government spending on family planning actually has an effect on fertility levels, which is disputed, the implications of this kind of analysis can reach beyond the confines of the wealthy USofA. We can brign this line of thinking to developing countries and even least developed countries, especially in sub-Sharan Africa, with great profit.
UN officials think population control is an absolute necessity in Africa, whether coercive or not. While much is said about the “demographic dividend” to incentivize African leaders to follow countries in Asia who jumped on the population control bandwagon decades ago (with brutal programs that continue to this day), African leaders might want to think again about what they are hearing. In my opinion this promotion of slow population control is reckless at best, and may actually be malicious.
Most countries in Africa barely have a viable political system, let alone a fiscal system. Telling countries to reduce their populations, and their future workforce is like cutting the legs of a possible fiscal order before it is even set in place.
The welfare state is bankrupt in the USA and EU thanks to declining fertility, despite the fact that countries in the EU and the USA collet trillions of dollars in taxes every year. What will the fiscal systems of African nations look like in 30 yrs when the desired effect of the population control policies of the UNFPA and its partners will kick in? Some countries will probably just have begun to develop welfare systems. other might have had one in place for little over a decade. It is hard to fathom Africa plunging deeper into poverty than it already is, but it is not impossible.
If one were to use the above logic, and take it to its full extent, then family planning programs funded by the USA and EU countries are the principal means for wealthy countries to keep poor countries undeveloped. Just think of how far the money from the extra taxes could go in an African nation where people subsist on much less than $1 a day.
What about the argument that family planning is about women’s choices?
If it were a choice the last two generations of African women, who have grown up on UN educational materials telling them to use condoms or die, should have already drastically reduced the number of children they have. They haven’t. It means, that contrary to radical feminists who have an ideological aversion to marriage, family and children, many women in the world want children, and more then one or two for that matter. It is a pity that they have neither the time nor leisure to trounce around the globe telling people what women want like the radical feminists you are likely to run in in the halls of any global or national political institution (no doubt they will say that African women don’t know what they should want).
Family planning is just another word for population control, let no one be deluded. It has little to do with women choosing, and a lot to do with people being told what is best for them and their country.
Posted on | March 26, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
Why don’t such issues get the public attention they deserve…?
Posted on | March 25, 2013 by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
Here is a funny story of how the Gates Foundation is looking for someone to invent better condoms. The creative genius who will design the new or improved condoms will be awarded $100,000. Expect idle college kids to invent new weird and wonderful contraptions…
Posted on | March 22, 2013 by Wendy Wright
Abortion leaders have shamelessly discussed how they can tap into the massive global funding on HIV/AIDS. Now LGBT leaders are eyeing the flood of money going toward climate change.
Noelene Nabulivou, from Fiji, is a member of Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN). She proposed this theory at a panel on Development Debates in a Fierce New World in New York City:
“Looking at the example of climate change funding at the moment, there is a lot coming in… but there is no funding, less funding for sexual rights work… [yet] these issues are interlinked, and this makes women’s bodies, and lesbian bodies more vulnerable to the effects of climate change.”
Posted on | March 22, 2013 by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
The Holy Father met diplomats from around the world at the Vatican earlier today. He explained his choice for the name Francis in these terms:
As you know, there are various reasons why I chose the name of Francis of Assisi, a familiar figure far beyond the borders of Italy and Europe, even among those who do not profess the Catholic faith. One of the first reasons was Francis’ love for the poor. How many poor people there still are in the world! And what great suffering they have to endure! After the example of Francis of Assisi, the Church in every corner of the globe has always tried to care for and look after those who suffer from want, and I think that in many of your countries you can attest to the generous activity of Christians who dedicate themselves to helping the sick, orphans, the homeless and all the marginalized, thus striving to make society more humane and more just.
But there is another form of poverty! It is the spiritual poverty of our time, which afflicts the so-called richer countries particularly seriously. It is what my much-loved predecessor, Benedict XVI, called the “tyranny of relativism”, which leaves everyone to the measure of themselves and endangers the coexistence of peoples. And that brings me to a second reason for my name. Francis of Assisi tells us we should work to build peace. But there is no true peace without truth! There cannot be true peace if everyone can be the measure of himself, if everyone can always and exclusively claim his own rights, without at the same time caring for the good of others, of everyone, on the basis of the nature that unites every human being on this earth.
You can find the full address here.
Posted on | March 22, 2013 by Grégor Puppinck, Ph.D
Here is a post published on the Blog “Constitution Project” of the University College Cork (UCC), an inter-disciplinary research group looking at issues surrounding constitutional law, history, governance and politics.
It may also be of interest for the readers of Turtle Bay.
Abortion in France gives Ireland the benefit of hindsightPosted on March 22, 2013
We are delighted to welcome this guest post on the issue of abortion from Dr Bénédicte Sage-Fuller, Faculty of Law, University College Cork and Dr Grégor Puppinck, European Centre for Law and Justice, Strasbourg, France.
Anyone who thinks that opening the door to restricted abortion can be kept to narrow and well intended cases should take a look at the French example. Legalised in 1975, abortion was at the time all about the dignity of women when facing a distressing situation. It was meant to be good for them and for society. Women needed to change the male-dominated country that France had been for centuries. After all, the right to vote was only fully recognised to women in 1944. France had never – and still has not ever –had a woman as head of State. Abortion was meant to help recognising women as full citizens. It was part of their full emancipation.
This is still very much the attitude. The belief that abortion is necessary for women is even legally defended. It is no longer a crime to incite someone to have an abortion, but it is a criminal act to protest or even talk publicly against abortion. On Monday 21st January 2013, a pro-life activist was before the courts. His protest was entirely non-violent, and yet he was charged with “having exercised psychological and moral pressure on women and trying to dissuade them from having an abortion”. He prayed outside an abortion hospital, and later walked inside and gave baby-size woollen boots to women considering having an abortion. He faces heavy fines and imprisonment. On the other hand, anyone who puts psychological or moral pressure on a young teenager or woman to have an abortion will not be prosecuted.
Of course in 1975 the legislation included strong safeguards, in order to care for and protect women making this choice. But 38 years on, the procedure is entirely liberalised. The safeguards have been reduced to virtually nothing. The law was changed to allow abortion up to 12 weeks, rather than the initial 10 weeks. The right for doctors and nurses to refuse to carry out an abortion is restricted. Public and subsidised private hospitals are not allowed to refuse to provide the procedure. Young underage girls no longer need to tell their parents, let alone obtain their consent. Compulsory pre-abortion counseling was made optional for adult women, with the result that by 2009 the vast majority of private abortion clinics and half of the public hospitals do not offer the service to women.
There is widespread recourse to medical rather than surgical abortion, where women take abortive pills in front of a nurse or doctor, and then go home. Having expulsed their foetuses alone in their bathroom, they must bring them back to the clinics so that a nurse can verify that the abortion is complete. No psychological support is offered during or after this harrowing time, which takes between 3 to 5 days. Women are alone and without any psychological support and, in the case of teenage girls, isolated even from their parents.
The number of abortions has risen to about 600 per day. There were 220,000 performed in 2012. One in four pregnancies is terminated. The biggest increase has been among underage teenage girls (+25% between 2002 and 2006). Yet, the French government makes no apologies. On the contrary, it decided in October 2012 to fully refund the procedure, with taxpayers’ money, deploring that French women do not have equal access to abortion services.
The 1975 law recognised the protection of human life for all, and then went on to make an exception for foetuses under ten weeks. This was the price to pay: that the law clearly admits that abortion is an exception to the right to life of all human beings. If the embryo or foetus was legally recognised as a person by virtue of its very existence, it would, as an inescapable logical consequence, enjoy all of the rights that all other human persons in France enjoy, including the right to life. To the contrary, the legal denial of the personality of the embryo or foetus carries with it its own logical consequences, including the inevitable liberalisation of abortion laws, and the increasing absurdity of the law.
This absurdity can be seen in the following examples. In the infamous wrongful life decision of Perruche in 2001, the highest court in France held that a baby born with serious abnormalities was entitled to sue his mother’s doctor and to receive compensation for the damage of being alive, because the doctor failed to detect the condition in the womb. In other words, a child was allowed to sue for the “wrongful prejudice” of having been born. A law was passed in 2002 to reverse this decision in respect of the person who is born, but leaves the possibility to parents to sue for their personal damage of not having been told their child would suffer a disability. It is considered that they “missed the chance” to make an informed decision about aborting their baby. On the other hand, the same court ruled that somebody cannot be criminally prosecuted for causing the death of a viable unborn child in a car accident as a consequence of their reckless behaviour, unless the child lived for some time outside the womb after the accident. Failing to provide medical information to parents that would convince them to terminate the life their child is punished by the law, but recklessly causing the death of a viable unborn child is not. The legal system and the courts decide subjectively who has the right to life and who does not. This is a direct consequence of admitting an exception to the right to life for all in the 1975 abortion law.
Once abortion is accepted in law, no matter how narrow or well intended the reasons are, there is no going back. It becomes part of society. It affects deeply every woman, man and child, whether they have been directly involved in an abortion or not. Irish people, TDs, Senators and Ministers need to take a good look at the French example before they decide that abortion is really what they want for their country. Unlike French people 38 years ago, they have the benefit of the experience of other countries, and they can avoid making the same mistake.
Posted on | March 21, 2013 by Lisa Correnti
The following is a Statement to the Congressional Record made by Congressman Daniel Webster (R-FL) in support of the March for Marriage to be held next Tuesday, March 26 in Washington DC. The March is being organized by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and is joined by a large coalition of pro-family organizations, state partners, African-American, Latino, Catholic and Protestant leaders.
SUPPORTING THE MARCH FOR MARRIAGE
(Extension of Remarks – March 21, 2013)
HON. DANIEL WEBSTER
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2013
Mr. Webster. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support for the March for Marriage. Next week, individuals from across the country will travel to Washington, D.C., in order to participate in the March for Marriage and to highlight the fact that the institution of marriage is worth protecting through the Defense of Marriage Act.
Marriage is the sacred union between a man and a woman. On September 23, 1972, I was blessed to marry the former Sandra Jordan of Orlando, and this year we will celebrate 41 years of marriage.
Marriage is a vital part of the foundation upon which a strong and prosperous society must be built. It is the institution through which new life is formed, and it provides children with mothers and fathers. Marriage plays an important role in children’s development and success, and it has been shown to contribute to greater economic prosperity.
Marriage and strong families are indispensable contributors to the prosperity of our nation.
Posted on | March 21, 2013 by Rebecca Oas, Ph.D
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a statement praising the benefits to children of being raised by parents who are married.
“Civil marriage is the legal and social institution in modern society that serves as the basic building block for family structure and child-rearing. Marriage is generally considered the optimal relationship between 2 adults who share responsibility for children.”
The AAP statement goes on to stress that the best situation for children is a two-parent household in which the parents are married and not cohabiting outside of marriage.
“A report from the AAP Task Force on the Family noted that married couples have more financial and social resources to nurture and raise children. Additionally, ‘married men and women are physically and emotionally healthier and are less likely to engage in health risk behaviors…than are unmarried adults.’”
At any other time, such a pronouncement would probably be viewed as discriminatory and stigmatizing to single and cohabiting parents. Today, it’s probably the least controversial part of the statement. Go figure…
Posted on | March 21, 2013 by Lisa Correnti
Just one day after USAID released a progress report on development reform, a US and UK funded AIDS prevention ad was pulled for being offensive and immoral for its promotion of extramarital affairs.
While Christian and Muslim religious leaders called on the Communications Commission of Kenya to remove the ad from airwaves, it was a public outcry, in particular from parents that resulted when children viewed it during prime time airings.
The ad ‘Weka Condom Mpangoni’, which translates to ‘use a condom when having an affair’ depicts two women in a marketplace discussing the extramarital affair and the friend reminds her to use a condom while having sex with her boyfriend.
Bishop Julius Kalu of the Anglican Church of Kenya told Kenya’s Daily Nation the ad promoted extra-marital affairs and sex among school pupils.
“There are better ways of passing useful information to society. This one has certainly failed. It openly propagates immorality, especially when all family members are gathered before television sets, waiting to watch news,” said Bishop Kalu.
The ad was part of an anti HIV/AIDS program sponsored by Kenya’s health ministry, USAID and UKAID.
Sexual and reproductive health programs funded by USAID in developing countries have often been criticized for sexualizing traditional cultures.
Posted on | March 21, 2013 by Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
IPS reports on the UN’s burgeoning bureaucracy, arguing it has become a haven for out of office world leaders, most recently Mary Robinson, former Irish president (1990 to 1997), who was appointed last week as the secretary-general’s Special Envoy to the Great Lakes region of Africa.
Robinson is making her rounds in New York, pumping her oddly-named new NGO “Mary Robinson Foundation–Climate Justice (MRFCJ)” at the Carnegie Council’s handsome upper East Side headquarters.
According to IPS, France’s former president Nicolas Sarkozy has been floated for a job as well. Michele Bachelet, who just announced she is quitting the troubled UN Women and is expected to run again for office in Chile, is a safe bet to be tapped as a future UN envoy.
Others ex-leaders drawing a UN salary or per diem include, according to IPS: Romano Prodi, prime minister of Italy (1996-1998 and 2006-2008) as U.N. Special Envoy for the Sahel and Jose Ramos-Horta, president of Timor-Leste (2007-2012) as head of the U.N. Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau, Helen Clark, prime minister of New Zealand (1999-2008), was the first woman to be appointed as administrator of the U.N. Development Programme (since April 2009) and is expected to get another four-year appointment from the UN Secretary General next month.
Posted on | March 19, 2013 by Wendy Wright
Tim’s Place is a restaurant that specializes in breakfast, lunch and hugs. Entrepreneur Tim Harris, a Special Olympics athlete, homecoming king, and sailor is the owner and inspiration for the New Mexico restaurant that bills itself as the “world’s friendliest.”
Want proof? Watch Tim “happy dance” his way into work:
Tim embodies the theme of this year’s International Down Syndrome Day, held on March 21. “The Right to Work” for those with the unique distinction of being born with a third copy of chromosome 21 will be celebrated at a day-long event at UN headquarters in New York.
Down Syndrome is a natural condition that occurs in all countries, ethnicities, and socio-economic environments. This video “Let Us in – I Want To Work” shows people with Down Syndrome in 62 countries at work:
Tim’s sincere assessment of people like him is infectious. “We are a gift to the world,” he exults, as he hugs his customers.
Posted on | March 18, 2013 by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
As the Justices ask themselves whether or not homosexual couples are constitutionally entitled to marriage next week, they will certainly ponder how the United States Constitution came to be and how we have succeeded as a nation.
The liberal justices will undoubtedly embrace the president’s own reading of American history. Obama’s February inaugural address sums up how the president thinks: “It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began… Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law. For if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”
I wonder if that is what 25,000 american patriots died for at the founding of our nation. I wonder if that is what Abraham Lincoln had in mind when he watched 625,000 americans die in the war to end slavery, when he signed the emancipation proclamation, or what Congress had in mind when it enacted the 14th amendment. I wonder if that is what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed, and the reason other civil right leaders fought to abolish Jim Crow…
In fact, I am pretty sure nothing could have been farther removed from all their minds. They would have all thought it deeply offensive (scandalous!) that anyone would suggest that all those patriots fought and died so that homosexual couples could marry. Even today – when polls tell us that a majority of Americans support gay marriage, despite bans on gay marriage in 42 states – I doubt any Americans would be willing to give their lives so that homosexuals can sodomize each other with the blessings of the law.
The problem is Obama thinks they are. By designating LGBT rights a foreign policy priority he said as much. Who knows what he might be emboldened to do if the Justices accept his reading of US history…
Posted on | March 18, 2013 by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
“Though Shalt not pass!”
Last week at the Commmission of the Status of Women, nations that cherish traitional values were able to halt the advance of the global abortion lobby towards abortion as a human right. Despite attempting to do so for over 40 yrs, nations and groups that want abortion to be a human right are failing to make any progress.
In recent times, the United States and Norway, together with a rotating group of blood thirsty nations, have been trying to get nations to scrap the 1994 Cairo Programme of Action (ICPD), which famously refused to recognize abortion as a human right and acknowledged the sovereign prerogative of countries to legislate according to their own priorities, cultures, religions, and traditions, and to even outlaw abortion.
In UN documents , any appearance of terms that have to do with reproduction are a qualified with reference to ICPD. That is a serious obstacle to establishing abortion as a right, and last year, the Obama administration and its nordic allies preferred having no CSW agreed conclusions to accepting a document that stopped at ICPD.
This year, the same countries have spent the past month trying to convince diplomats from developing countries that times have changed, and ICPD is obsolete. They have failed again – to establish abortion as a human right. Sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights are only “in accordance with ICPD”.
And now, other controversial “services” are being included in UN documents under the ICPD standard – this time “emergency contraception” (originally known as the morning after pill) and “sexual and reproductive health services”. Now emergency contraception is clearly under ICPD standard.
They failed to remove reference to national sovereignty, as well as due regard to religions, cultures and traditions, in the implementation of UN policies. The final CSW agreed conclusions include a paragraph from a recent GA resolution that is increasingly cited by UN member states for wherever controversial policies of western nations may be implicated.
They also failed to get “sexual and reproductive health services” in a paragraph on conflict, and where it appears in the context of a paragraph on youth, it is qualified by “appropriate”, and “with due regard to the rights and duties of those legally responsible”.
Mind you, ICPD is by no means a pro-life document. It is treacherous in fact, and speaks of “safe abortion” as part of “sexual and reproductive health”. ICPD includes a definition of sexual and reproductive health comparable to the infamous “mystery passage” from justice Kennedy: “a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing, in all matters relating to the reproductive system”, “a satisfying and safe sex life”, “the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so.” The Holy See has a strong reservation to this language wherever it appears, that it renews at every session of the General Assembly.
Most nations are satisfied with ICPD because it allows them to prohibit abortion within their territories, and prevents other nations from dictating that abortion is a human right. It is a sad state of affairs when the Holy See alone, among UN delegations, wants to protect all unborn children from abortion, and is willing to speak up for them. We should hope that in the future more and more nations will speak up for unborn children, even at the cost of being intrusive, and even at.
By the way… There is a Hobbit in this story too, but we will not reveal who it is, lest the dark lord turn his gaze toward him.« go back — keep looking »