LifeSiteNews.com Life, Family and Culture News

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 18, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The topic of abortion can elicit strong emotions. For one Congresswoman, thinking about the tragedy of a million abortions a year nearly made her break out into tears on the House floor.

Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, made many impassioned speaches supporting the nationwide ban on abortions after 20 weeks, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives Tuesday evening.

As she completed the last of four brief speeches, she asked her fellow Americans to confront the terror that abortion inflicts on unborn children.

"May we, in love, defend the unborn. May we, in humility, confront this national sin, and may we mourn what abortion reveals about the conscience of our nation," Rep. Foxx said, pausing to catch her breath.

Tears began to visibly well up in her eyes as she said, “Madam Speaker, we go to extraordinary lengths to save, not only human beings but even animals, because we value life so much. However, there are many who do not hold the unborn in the same esteem, and that is tragic.”

“There's nothing more important than protecting voiceless, unborn children and their families from the travesty of abortion,” she concluded.

Pro-life leaders applauded her fervor.

“Congresswoman Virginia Foxx, R-NC, is truly heroic woman! You led the debate for life with grace and strength!” said Olivia Gans Turner of the Virginia Society for Human Life.

“Your tears today are a testament to the enormity of this issue,” Gans said. “The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, HR 1797 is a bill that speaks to our humanity as a nation and our willingness to protect those who have no other defense among us!”

Click "like" if you want to end abortion!

Apparently no one appreciates Foxx's service more than those who know her best. A poll released by the Public Policy Polling earlier on Tuesday found that North Carolina Republicans want Foxx to run for the U.S. Senate seat more than anyone else in the party.

She leads the next closest challenger, State Senator Phil Berger, by 12 points. 

DALLAS, June 18, 2013 (LifeSiteNews) – Embattled breast cancer awareness group Komen for the Cure has announced the selection of a new CEO, Judith A. Salerno.

Salerno currently serves as executive director and chief operating officer of the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a chief adviser to the Obama Administration regarding the implementation of Obamacare.

Under Salerno’s leadership, the IOM told the Obama Administration that insurance companies should be forced to pay for contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion-causing drugs for all women, without co-pays.  That recommendation became the controversial HHS contraceptive mandate, which requires employers to provide such insurance plans for their female employees or face heavy fines, regardless of their religious objections.

Salerno, 61, is replacing Komen founder Nancy Brinker, who stepped down last August after a controversy involving abortion giant Planned Parenthood.  Last year, the Komen Foundation briefly opted to withhold more than half-a-million dollars in annual funding from the nation's leading abortion provider on the grounds that Planned Parenthood does not perform mammograms.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Komen donations doubled in the days after cutting ties with Planned Parenthood. But after a well-orchestrated backlash from Planned Parenthood’s supporters that dominated national headlines for days, Brinker caved in to the pro-aborts’ pressure campaign and restored funding before stepping down from her leadership role.

The betrayal led pro-life advocates to call for a boycott.  Komen spokesman Andrea Rader recently told USA Today that participation in the group’s famous “Race for the Cure” rallies have been on a “dramatic” decline ever since.

Earlier this month, Komen announced that half of its three-day races this year had been canceled due to poor response, a situation that Rader blamed in part on the Planned Parenthood controversy.

The cities where no one will run for a cure are Boston; Chicago; Cleveland; Phoenix; San Francisco; Tampa Bay; and Washington, D.C.

LONDON, June 18, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – At the same time as it faces legislation that some say will likely force them to participate in gay “marriage,” the Church of England issued a legal document last week illustrating the fine lines that must be walked by those responsible for appointing new bishops.

To be admitted to Holy Orders, the document says, a person must be “of virtuous conversation and good repute and such as to be a wholesome example and pattern to the flock of Christ.” It adds, “Bishops are seen within the Anglican Communion as those who have the responsibility ‘to guard the faith, unity and discipline of the whole Church’.”

Nevertheless, the document warns those on appointment committees that a clergyman’s “sexual orientation” is officially “irrelevant to their suitability for episcopal office,” and that it may not be taken into account when considering nominations for bishops.

“It would, therefore, be wrong if, during the consideration of a nomination to a diocesan see by the CNC [Crown Nominations Commission] or the selection process for a suffragan see, account were taken of the fact that a candidate had identified himself as of homosexual orientation,” says the document.

Click "like" if you support TRADITIONAL marriage.

In January, the Church of England’s General Synod voted to drop its ban on ordaining “openly gay” clergy in legal civil partnerships, adding the caveat that they must be willing to remain celibate, even if they live with their “partners”. The decision ended a moratorium on ordaining homosexuals to the episcopate that had been put in place after the US Episcopal Church appointed Gene Robinson, a flamboyant open homosexual, as bishop of New Hampshire, a decision that triggered a global crisis in the Anglican Communion.

The legal office reminded readers of the celibacy clause, adding, “It follows that clergy in civil partnerships who are living in accordance with the teaching of the Church on human sexuality can be considered as candidates for the episcopate.”

However, the document acknowledges that in some cases an openly homosexual bishop may offend the religious sensibilities of a significant portion of his flock, and urges the committee to be cautious in considering candidates.  

As well, “The archbishop of the province in which he is serving will wish to satisfy himself, following discussions between the diocesan bishop and the clergyman concerned, that his life is, and will remain, consistent with the teaching of the Church of England.”

The UK’s Equality Act recognizes nine “protected characteristics,” including gender reassignment and sexual orientation. Due to the nature of religious employment, the document said, there are circumstances under which “discrimination” is not unlawful, but those in decision making capacities have to be cautious.

The legal office explained that under the requirements of the Act, the Church of England is still allowed to hire clergy who believe the teachings of Christianity.

As well, under the law, consideration can be given to the issues of “divorce and further marriage, and homosexuality and civil partnership” status when hiring or appointing clergy. However, if the appointment committee is to take into consideration such issues, the criteria must be well established before any lists of candidates are drawn up, the document warns.

“Where those responsible for a particular nomination exercise wish to consider applying a requirement in relation to a protected characteristic, they should come to a decision at an early stage in the process before they begin their collective consideration of individual candidates. A requirement must be justifiable in law in relation to the particular episcopal office in question and then be applied evenhandedly.”

Conservatives within the Church of England Synod vociferously objected to the decision to allow openly “gay” bishops, pointing to the celibacy clause as impossible to enforce.

Rev. Rod Thomas, chairman of the evangelical group, Reform, said at that time, “To appoint someone in a civil partnership as a bishop would be seen by the world at large as appointing someone who is in an active gay relationship, and undermine the Church's teaching on the exclusiveness of sex within marriage.”

The legal document noted that the Church of England Synod had stopped short of actually endorsing homosexual relations, saying, “The Church of England’s teaching in relation to same-sex relations and, more recently, civil partnerships … make it clear that someone in a sexually active relationship outside marriage is not eligible for the episcopate or, indeed, other ordained ministry.”

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 18, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would restrict all abortions nationwide to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” (H.R. 1797), introduced by Arizona Republica Trent Franks, would end abortion after the point when scientists agree unborn children can feel pain.

In a nearly party-line vote, the measure passed 228-196.

Six Democrats voted yes. Six Republicans voted against the bill. Ten Congressmen did not vote. The full roll call, showing how every Congressman voted, is below.

Democrats who voted yes include: Henry Cuellar of Texas, Dan Lipinski of Illinois, Jim Matheson of Utah, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, Collin Peterson of Minnesota, and Nick Rahall of West Virginia.

Republicans who voted against the bill include Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia, Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, Richard Hanna of New York, Jon Runyan of New Jersey, and Rob Woodall of Georgia.

"Passage of today's landmark bill marks the first time in history, in either chamber of the U.S. Congress, that affirmative protection has been extended to unborn children,” said Franks. “It is my prayer that today also marks a day when America finally opens her eyes to the humanity of these little victims and the inhumanity of what is being done to them."

Leaders in the pro-lifemovement expressed their joy at the bill's passage.

“This vote makes a statement in favor of life even though the Dem[ocrat]-controlled Senate likely won't move on it,” said Cheryl Sullenger, senior policy advisor for Operation Rescue. “Getting this far was a big deal.”

"This pro-woman, pro-science, Constitutional bill deserves an immediate vote in the U.S. Senate," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the SBA List. "It’s simple: children capable of experiencing unimaginable pain from abortion must be protected across the country."

The act's future is uncertain, as it lacks a companion in the Senate, and President Obama has threatened to veto it if the measure ever reaches his desk.

If the bill becomes law, abortionists who perform late-term abortions may face a fine or up to five years in prison.

The legislation would affect the 300 abortionists who perform abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization and an estimated 140 abortion providers who are willing to perform abortions at 24 weeks or later, according to a 2008 report from the Guttmacher Institute.

Some in the pro-life movement were outraged after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia added an amendment allowing abortion in the cases of duly reported rape or incest, a change he made in response to a media feeding frenzy over Franks' remarks about abortion and rape – remarks he says were misinterpreted.

The bill already allowed abortions to save the mother's life.

In response, Georgia Right to Life rescinded its previous support of the bill, saying it had been “hijacked.”

“Sadly, the politics of compromise has decided that one class of children—those conceived by rape or incest—do not deserve protection from the agony of literally being ripped apart,” said GRTL President Dan Becker.

Georgia Congressmen Paul Broun and Rob Woodall were two of the six Republicans to vote nay.

However, most of the nation's pro-life groups strongly supported the incremental measure as an improvement over existing policy. Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said, "Any lawmaker who votes to allow unlimited abortion in the sixth month or later is voting to encourage a continuation of the horrors associated with the likes of Kermit Gosnell."

During debate, Democrats seized upon the fact that Cantor had scheduled Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, to manage today's vote instead of Franks. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, who has strong ties to the Democratic Socialists of America, was among those who drew attention to the fact that there are no Republican women on the House Judiciary Committee that passed the bill last Wednesday.

“Do you think it's fair or proper for a body of men to solely determine one of the most important and private decisions a woman can make in regard to her own health and body?” she asked.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

President Obama issued a statement yesterday saying he“strongly opposes” the bill, which he said presents a “direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and shows contempt for women's health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients' health care decisions, and the Constitution.”

Democrats shared his talking points in the hours prior to the vote.

“The bill is a direct threat to the privacy rights and health of every woman living in this country, and especially women of color,” said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-CA. She said minority members suffered even more “due to the terrible Hyde Amendment,” which forbids taxpayer funding of abortion.

The full roll call vote is as follows:

---- YEAS 228 ---

---- NAYS 196 ---

June 18, 2013 (Pop) - Recent reports from the Guangdong province show coercion in China’s infamous one-child policy is once again on the rise. Women in the southern city of Huizhou, which has a population of 4 million, are being targeted for sterilization. Those who have one child are being forced to wear IUDs. Those who have two children are subject to tubal ligation. Those who bear an “illegal” child are being denied all government services. This means life without access to schools, hospitals, retirement benefits, etc.

Despite increased calls from the international community to rescind the policy, new notices have popped up all over the city of Huizhou by the so-called Centralized Services for Population and Family Planning: “A decision has been made after some research that a focused family planning service campaign shall be conducted in the community under our jurisdiction. This implementation plan is therefore formulated for the purpose.”

Faces of the Policy

The “one-child policy” has been in effect for 33 years, and most persons outside of China have heard repeated stories of the horrific human rights abuses which accompany the policy.

It is easy to grow emotionally complacent after more than three decades of horror stories, but these horrors will now be visited anew on the city of Huizhou: the new notices spell fear and sadness for the women of Huizhou.  

The women in this city of 4 million people now face stricter child-bearing limitations imposed by Communist Party members who have the power to prevent employment, health care, housing and movement. One family planning official recounted her days in the Chinese hospitals:

A few, when I asked if they consented to the operation, burst into bitter laughter. “Why ask me?” one scoffed. “I don’t have any choice.” The population control workers in my unit have been after me for months. ‘Fanxing, fanxing!’ they ordered me. ‘Reflect on your mistake!’ Only if I undergo ‘remedial measures’ [abortion] will they stop pressuring me and my husband.[1]

Another mother was hounded by family planning officials, and she tells the story of her and her husband’s attempt to evade the policy:

“What can we do?” he responded, sounding defeated. “If the authorities are going to make an issue of this, what choice do we have but to go along? How can an egg break a rock?”

My eyes began to fill with tears. The outcome of my pregnancy was now a foregone conclusion. In a few hours my baby would be taken from me. Wei Xin put his arm around me and held me close.[2]

Such is the reality of the new “focused family planning service campaign” which descended on Huizhou last month. 

Fertility and Development in the Guangdong Province

According to recent reports, the new push for population control in Huizhou originates from the city’s “poor performance” in meeting prior quotas for births. Indeed, the women in the province of Guangdong have had a slightly higher fertility than the rest of China since the institution of the one-child policy in 1979.[3] In the context of China, of course, a “high birth rate” does not mean large families. Guangdong province has had below replacement rate fertility--less than 2.1 children per woman--for over a decade.[4]

The province has also been slowly but surely approached the same fertility trends of the rest of the nation. As the province developed, industrialized, and urbanized, the birth rate fell. The cities in the Pearl River Delta (including the city of Huizhou) have had lower fertility rates than the rest of China for decades.[5]

If China put half the energy into developing its economy as it does into population control, it would prosper, and birth rates would take care of themselves. A paper produced by the National Bureau of Statistics of China found that, “at least half of the change in the Total Fertility Rate [in the province of Guangdong] is accounted for by economic and social development, and less than half to marriage and fertility policy.[6]”

After the change of regimes in the late 1970’s the Guangdong province was the first to reform away from the commune system of labor. As a result, the area experienced faster economic growth than any other province. The average person in the Pearl River Delta earns 24,000 yuan per year, while the national average is only 14,000 yuan per year.[7]

Another recent article published by professors at the School of Management and the Institute for Population and Development Studies at  Xi’an Jiaotong University wrote, “Given the negative effect of urbanization on the Total Fertility Rate, it is possible to relax the one-child policy without having adverse implications for population growth.[8]”

The policy which has torn families apart and forcibly aborted over 300 million infants has always been morally reprehensible, but 33 years ago, Chinese officials attempted to make utilitarian policy arguments. After decades of the policy, and decades of research, we can say that the utilitarian economic and demographic arguments do not hold either. China is digging its own demographic grave; it is time for the one-child policy to be revoked. 

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

[1] Mosher, Steven W. A Mother’s Ordeal: One Woman’s Fight Against China’s One-Child Policy. New York: Park Press, 1993

[2] Ibid.

[3] Chen, Jiajian, et al. "Effects of population policy and economic reform on the trend in fertility in Guangdong province, China, 1975–2005." Population Studies 64.1 (2010): 43-60.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Guo, Zhen, et al. "The Effect of Urbanization on China’s Fertility." Population Research and Policy Review 31.3 (2012): 417-434

Reprinted with permission from the Population Research Institute.

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 18, 2013 (LifeSiteNews) – In the wake of a 100-page report by the Republican National Committee and another document from the College Republicans claiming the path to Republican victory in 2014 is to focus on the economy and avoid social issues like abortion and homosexual “marriage,” evangelical social conservatives rallied in large numbers last weekend to tell the GOP not to turn their back on their church-going base.

The Faith and Freedom Coalition met last weekend and told national leaders that now more than ever, it’s time for the GOP to play offense on social issues, especially abortion.

Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer said he finds the GOP’s insistence that common-sense restrictions on abortions are too controversial to be ironic, given the party’s commitment to preserving tax breaks for billionaires which are highly unpopular.  “They’ve got it upside down,” Bauer said. “The social issues we believe in are more popular than the Republican economic agenda.”

In March, Bauer told thousands of demonstrators at the March for Marriage that he would leave the party if it abandoned its principles on the issue of same-sex “marriage.”

“I'm a Republican,” Bauer said. “Let me say to my party: If you bail out on this issue, I will leave the party, and I will take as many people with me as I possibly can!”

Some likely contenders for the 2016 presidential nomination spoke at the conference. All highlighted their pro-life stances and activities.  Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) reminded the crowd that he introduced the Life at Conception Act, which would constitutionally protect unborn human life from the moment of conception. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said the House will continue investigations into whether the Internal Revenue Service targeted pro-life groups with audits and harassing inquiries. 

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Social conservatives are warning the GOP that abandoning social issues will deprive the party of its most valuable commodity: votes.

"If they want to just run on economic issues, you're not going to get the church people," said Bob West founder of VoterDNA.org, who attended the conference, according to Politico. "That's the bottom line."

Former Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, who now works for the Susan B. Anthony list, told the conference that in the aftermath of the horrific trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, the pro-life movement has an opportunity to highlight the brutal reality of abortion.

“This is a time for the pro-life movement like we have not had in decades,” said Musgrave “We must seize the moment.”

Pro-life activists said they also want Congress to hold hearings featuring those who testified at the Gosnell trial, former clinic workers, and abortion survivors.

“It will not happen with namby-pamby conservative politicians who are convinced that the only way to win an election is to sit on top of that really high gray fence,” said Day Gardner, president of the National Black Pro-Life Union. “If you’re going to run for office, especially for House or Senate, don’t bother running if you’re going to leave your backbone in your state.”

June 18, 2013 (FRC) - In the midst of so many crises, it's comforting to know that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is focused on what matters: genderless bathrooms. Unfortunately, that's just one effect of a sweeping proposal that could destroy personal freedom in the American workplace. On Flag Day, Reid saluted the rainbow flag instead of Old Glory, becoming the 50^th cosponsor of the Senate's latest Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), one of the most anti-business policies this Congress will consider.

After two decades of debate, the legislation has new legs under President Obama, who said earlier in the month that the Senate needs to get the measure "done now." Like most liberals, Harry Reid disguises the bill as an anti-discrimination policy when in fact, the bill itself discriminates against men and women who oppose cross-dressing or blatant homosexuality on the job. Although some people defend it as an innocent piece of anti-prejudice legislation, ENDA creates special employment protections solely on the basis of a person's sexual preferences. Businesses would be forced to comply (or face penalties), regardless of the impact on their organization.

"The gender identity provisions," FRC's Peter Sprigg warns in an op-ed for CNN, "undermine the right of employers to impose reasonable dress and grooming standards, by forbidding employers to use the most fundamental standard of all -- that people be dressed in a way [that's] appropriate for their biological sex!" Not too long ago, Sen. Reid's position -- which orders employers (like preschools) to hire transvestites, transsexuals, drag queens, and drag kings -- was considered "too radical" even for homosexual congressman Barney Frank!

And unlike past bills, Sen. Jeff Merkley's (D-Ore.) version doesn't include an exemption for bathrooms, which means that employers at daycares, public schools, and Christian businesses would all have to change their restroom and shower policies to accommodate men who dress like women and vice-versa. Can you imagine walking into your daughter's classroom and seeing her teacher dressed in drag -- or that same man using the ladies restroom with female students? Apparently Senate liberals can.

Click "like" if you support TRADITIONAL marriage.

Apart from the bill's obvious problems, this legislation would be a magnet for lawsuits. "[W]ith the law in place, everyone who doesn't get hired or is removed for cause of any sort finds themselves with the opportunity to sue the employer under the new rules." HotAir goes on to talk about the financial drain this litigation would be on an already struggling and overregulated economy. "Dollars spent in such lawsuits and settlements are dollars not available to expand the payroll and get more workers off the unemployment lines."

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) challenged the wisdom of such a policy in a statement last week. "By and large, I think all Americans should be protected," he said, "but I'm not for any special protections based on sexual orientation." Kudos to Senator Rubio for recognizing that this bill would be just another government club to beat businesses with. It wasn't too long ago that homosexual activists said they just wanted "to get the government out of their bedroom." Now we know why: they want to put their bedroom in the workplace!

To help people understand exactly what's at stake, FRC produced an important documentary that your church, family, and friends need to see. It takes you behind the scenes of communities where laws like ENDA already exist and exposes how destructive the legislation will be, particularly to the faith community.

Tony Perkins is the president of the Family Research Council. 

VANCOUVER, June 18, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Archbishop of Vancouver has once again held the archdiocese's Pro-life Sunday on Father's Day, recognizing the "wonderful gift of fatherhood" and connecting it to the importance of celebrating and protecting life.

This year Archbishop J. Michael Miller took up the theme of the 2013 National March for Life that called for an end to female gendercide in Canada and around the world. He noted the special role that fathers, "the first and foremost protectors of the family," have to "safeguard human life from its conception to its natural end." 

The archbishop said the "alarming assault on the life of unborn girls" is of particular concern to the pro-life cause. 

He cited the UN's estimate that "the number of 'missing girls' - those conceived but killed before they were born - could be as high as 200 million, six times the population of Canada." 

Archbishop Miller also focused on the issue of the "possible widespread legalization of assisted suicide in Canada," in this year's letter to the faithful. 

"Though Parliament overwhelmingly voted not to change the current law, various forces are working towards introducing euthanasia through our court system," the archbishop said. 

"The consequences of permissive legislation for our vulnerable seniors are dire. We must be prepared to be advocates for our loved ones in hospital and care homes, to ensure that they are being properly taken care of." 

Archbishop Miller concluded by encouraging the faithful to support the diocese's pro-life initiatives by contributing generously to the Pro-life Sunday second collection. 

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

"These monies will help Pro-Life organizations within the Archdiocese, including crisis pregnancy centres and euthanasia prevention groups, to work towards creating a culture of life in British Columbia and Canada," he said. 

Archbishop Miller is well known for his orthodoxy, and his strong and outspoken pro-life stand on life and family issues. His motto is Veritati Servire, a Latin phrase meaning “To Serve the Truth.” 

He is a specialist on the Papacy and on Catholic higher education, having served as the Secretary of the Congregation for Catholic Education, which oversees norms for seminaries, Catholic universities and colleges, and Catholic schools. He served in this position from 2003 until being appointed Coadjutor Archbishop of Vancouver in 2007. He assumed pastoral responsibility for the Archdiocese of Vancouver in 2009, following the retirement of Archbishop Raymond Roussin.  

INDORE, Madhya, Pradesh, India, June 18, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A 60-year-old Indian woman shocked doctors, and herself, when she unexpectedly gave birth to a healthy 3.5 kg (7 lb 11 oz) baby girl last Thursday. 

Only identified as Lilabai, the mother of (now) four children presented herself at the Prakash Chand Sethi Hospital last Tuesday, June 11, with stomach pains, reports the India Times. Upon examination, it was determined she was with child and was presenting low haemoglobin levels. 

She was immediately rushed to a maternity ward at Mahraja Yeshwantrao Hospital to be stabilized before delivering the child via cesarean section.

Lilabai was reportedly in “good spirits” before surgery.

Dr. Lakshmi Maru, the head of gynecology at MYH, declared the procedure a success, saying, “The patient and the baby are healthy.” 

Lilabai was thankful for her health, but even more so for the safe delivery.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

“I was more worried about the baby,” she told reporters. 

A senior health official who assisted in the treatment of Lilabai and her baby told reporters that there are no imminent health concerns for the two patients, save for worry that the child will be orphaned due to the advanced age of her parents. 

Julie Ryan Evans, a columnist for India Today, said the birth suggested it was time to consider post-menopausal birth control methods. 

But ultimately, Evans wished Lilabai and her husband well. 

“Hopefully it will turn out to be the most wonderful surprise of their lives,” she said, “and she’ll add to their family in ways they never could have imagined.”

HUIZHOU, Guangdong China, June 18, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Chinese government has given notice to citizens of the city Huizhou that all women of childbearing age must be fitted with Intrauterine Devices (IUDs) or be permanently sterilized via tubal ligations.

Women who are currently in compliance with the one child policy must be fitted with IUDs. However, women who are in violation of the population control law with two children must present themselves for tubal ligations. 

The government is using both monetary rewards and threats that women will lose access to government-run social services in order to coerce women into submitting themselves for the temporary and permanent sterilizations. 

Women not in compliance with the mandate, and therefore not possessing a certificate of compliance, will not be able to enroll their children in school, receive social security benefits, or have access to government services. Hospitals will not issue relevant certifications without proof of IUD insertion or sterilization. 

Furthermore, when registering for a household registration in Huizhou for a newborn, the mother must first present a certificate that she has been fitted with an IUD. 

Some speculate the heightened population control measures are due to regional birth rates that are too high and low abortion and sterilization rates. 

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Those who do comply within a certain timeframe are promised rewards commensurate with their form of compliance.

For example, in the Lilin Township, couples one with child and an IUD-fitted mother will receive 300 yuan (roughly $50 U.S.). 

In the same township, couples who legally have two children and who have been sterilized will warrant a 2,000 yuan reward ($326 U.S.).

Couples who have legally had two daughters are enticed with the promise of 10,000 yuan, or $1,630, for being sterilized. 

Other local township governments are offering different rewards, which has raised suspicions that neighborhood communities and city departments are embezzling reward money. 

There are reports that these measures are underway in other provinces, as well.

AUCKLAND, June 18, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - “We must provide students with an ideal to strive for, one that offers them the healthiest option physically and emotionally.  The healthiest ideal is to postpone sexual activity until adulthood, and ideally, until marriage.”

This is the recommendation of Miriam Grossman and Christopher White in a report entitled “Sexuality Education in New Zealand:  A Critical Review,” which was commissioned by Family First NZ.

The report is an analysis of various sex education resources promoted to New Zealand adolescents and used in a number secondary schools.  The resources reviewed were typically websites and included curious.org.nz, iwannaknow.org, getiton.org.nz, sexnrespect.co.nz and publications from Family Planning, an affiliate of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).

The analysis found that information presented to adolescents “is not accurate, comprehensive, or up-to-date.”  Permeating the sexuality education resources was the message that sex is “risky only when it’s ‘unprotected’”.  The materials overstated the efficacy of condoms, “in some cases vastly so”.

Grossman concluded that “the sexuality education programmes that have been reviewed are seriously flawed, with both sins of commission, and sins of omission.” “[S]tudents are left misinformed, and with a false sense of security” as “critical life and death information” is “distorted or ignored,” says the report.

While the Ministry of Education states that “a key message” is the “need to delay the start of sexual activity”, resources given to adolescents promote sexual activity and only have a cursory mention of abstinence being a sure fire way to avoid STIs and pregnancy.

Using iwannaknow.org as an example the report points out that abstinence is defined correctly “but the message is ambivalent, and the expectations are low.  Delaying sex is ‘good’ – but at the same time, know how to use a condom.”  This approach “is merely a wink and a nod, before a much longer and detailed instruction on how to go about having sex with your partner(s).”

Discussed in the report is the overriding belief held by many sexuality educators that adolescents should be treated as adults, with the right to engage in sexual activity when they consent.  Grossman states “We cannot expect teens to delay sexual activity while instructing them, ‘only you know when you’re ready’.  It is the nature of adolescence to feel ‘ready’ for just about anything.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The report examines the biological differences between boys and girls, exposing the fact that “girls pay a higher price than boys for early sexual debut and multiple partners.”  That price includes both emotional ramifications and the physical consequences of STIs and pregnancy. 

Many of the resources analysed are explicit and discuss the “how to’s” of sex, including homosexual sex and other risky sexual behaviours, all the while failing to adequately warn adolescents of the dangers and facts surrounding contracting STIs such as Chlamydia.

Grossman points out that even though every young person may not postpone sex “we are still obligated to inform them of the grave risks they face, to teach them biological truths about their physical and emotional vulnerabilities, to warn them in a no-nonsense manner about avoiding high risk behaviours, and to encourage the highest standard.”

The report has been labelled, in part, ‘homophobic’ by Shaun Robinson, executive director of the Aids Foundation who says his organization “encourages behaviour change – celebrating condoms as a normalised part of sex.”

But the Sexuality Education in New Zealand Report concludes, “Adolescents look to adults for authoritative guidance.  It is our responsibility to do precisely that –guide them with authority, firm rules and high expectations.  That is not accomplished by telling them ‘only you know when you’re ready’.  When we provide that message, we fail young people.  When we teach them to rely on latex, we fail again.”

R18 Sexuality Education in New Zealand:  A Critical Review

Warning: Some of the sites mentioned at the beginning of the article have explicit home pages.

June 18, 2013 (LiveActionNews.org) - Mom, Dad, I’m pro-life.

The day I “outed” myself to my ultra-liberal family, I was terrified. These are the people who basically tried to bully me into aborting my son (aka, their grandson) back in 2011. Lord knows I love them, but I was seriously considering taking this to the grave.

You’ve got to understand that I’ve always been the person in my family to keep my opinions to myself. Thank goodness I didn’t do that when I found out I was pregnant at 17 years old.

I can date back several family issues that came up where I would nod my head and go to my room to keep from saying what I thought. By that time, my thoughts sounded like screams, and my ears would burn.

It’s very interesting to me that I’ve done this, because my parents have always encouraged my brother and me to speak our minds. And to be fair, sometimes I did. I was in the GSA in high school. I helped lead a peace rally. But should I go against my family’s beliefs?

I know this spiritual transformation I’ve been going through might look completely foreign to members of my family, but really it shouldn’t. They drove me to church, dropped me off, and then picked me up. I loved church. I’ve always loved God. I’ve always loved the messages of Jesus Christ.

Now, at 19, I am taking these things more seriously and trying to live like a Christian in every aspect of my life. I’ve noticed the gifts God has given me that I’ve stuffed down for so long. I have a voice. I’ve always used this voice in music, and my parents were always blown away by my sometimes very dark, deep lyrics.

At some point, your ears are burning too much that you just POP! Well, now I use my voice.

They like to think this is an “early 20s phase” and that I believe that abortion is wrong only because I’m a Christian. Oh, also something about me living in Texas.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Sorry to break the news, folks. I’m pro-life for many, many reasons. Yes, I do believe that the Bible is clear about this issue. But for me, I just have a hard time ignoring the scientific facts. I have a hard time believing that the testimonies of people who have worked in the abortion industry are “fake.” I know that those pictures of aborted children aren’t Photoshopped. I know countless women who regret their abortions. My mother-in-law hung out with Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade. Norma, who helped make abortion legal, is now pro-life!

I mean, come on, guys. I have yet to meet someone who has made the switch from pro-life to pro-choice and has medical evidence to back up his or her claim.

I know you think that it’s rude to be in people’s business, because everyone had his or her private reasons for aborting his or her child. I get it. But with that same logic, if I see a little girl being punched by a guy on the street, I shouldn’t call 911 or somehow intervene. I mean, he must have his own private reason for abusing her, right?

You’ve taught me to stand up for injustice. Equality for all. Well, this is exactly what I’m doing! This is global genocide! I haven’t even covered half of the horrible things about the abortion industry.

As I told my parents I was pro-life, I realized that I’m done trying to not step on toes. Every day children are dying from legal and illegal abortions in countries all over the world. I’m a Christian pro-life warrior, which means I reach out with love and knowledge to people.

And I can’t tell you how awesome it is to have a young mom deliver her child and thank me for giving the message of life. So if you are reading this and have a similar situation, come out! Be proud to be on the side of life! Don’t be afraid to talk to women and men about this very final choice they are making. We are spreading the message of life, and it’s working!

Come out, come out, wherever you are!

P.S. If anyone is offended by my using the term “outing” because you think it only applies to LGBTQ, you might want to remember that “outing” yourself means embracing your identity. =)

Sierra Champion is 19. She lives in Texas with her husband and 19 month old James. She enjoys singing, baking, writing, and watching nerdy things like Doctor Who. She is the writer of the lucyricardoblog.blogspot.com where she tries to break down the stigma of young mothers! Sierra is passionate about this movement and is ready to see an end to abortion! This article reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.org. 

TORONTO, June 18, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An “alternative” school dedicated to “equity” issues has opened the Toronto District School Board’s first co-ed washroom.

Intended primarily for students identifying as “transgender,” the washroom was set up after a petition by grade 8 students that cited last year’s passage of Bill 33, which enshrined protections based on “gender identity” and “gender expression” in Ontario.

The school board unveiled the washroom at City View Alternative Senior School on Friday in a sign-hanging ceremony, according to the Toronto Star.

City View caters to Grade 7 and 8 students and is dedicated to “peace and social justice,” teaching the curriculum “through the lens of race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability.” Its website says there are 64 students and four teachers.

Ryan Bird, a spokesman for the Toronto District School Board, told LifeSiteNews that the washroom has two stalls, meaning that it would be a shared space for boys and girls.

Cheri Di Novo, who proposed the “gender identity” bill and was present at the school for the ceremony, told the Toronto Star that this is just the beginning of the fall-out from her legislation.

“There will start to be demands for this in the workplace,” she said. “Transgender people are a small minority in the grand scheme of things. But they were a silenced minority until the passage of Toby’s Act. This will give them a voice.”

Some critics are shaking their heads, however, at the notion of putting teenage boys and girls in the same bathroom.

“It’s just being so politically correct that they’ve lost all common sense,” said Gwen Landolt, national vice-president of the pro-family group REAL Women. “What you don’t need is adolescents sharing common bathrooms.”

A co-ed bathroom is offensive to the unique dignity of man and woman, she argued. “It’s just void of common sense. All of this is trying to be on the frontlines of progress, but it really is on the front lines of knee-jerk adjustments to try to appear to be progressive and is actually regressive.”

The Toronto District School Board is the largest school board in Canada and the fourth-largest in North America.

Click "like" if you support TRADITIONAL marriage.

Find contact information for the Toronto District School Board’s trustees here.

June 18, 2013 (PJSaunders) - In this last week both Belgium and the Netherlands have taken major steps towards euthanasia for children.

A consensus among members of the Belgian Federal Parliament has reportedly formed in support of legislation to allow children to choose to undergo euthanasia in certain dire cases, according to a report in the Belgian daily newspaper Der Morgen, as translated by the Paris-based news agency Presseurop.

If child euthanasia is legalized in Belgium, the country would become the first in the developed world to have a law on the books formally allowing the practice.

Belgium became the second country in the world after the Netherlands to legalize euthanasia in 2002, but the statute currently extends only to people 18 or older.

The bill, introduced by the Socialist party last December, lays out guidelines for doctors to decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not a child is mature enough to make the decision to end his or her own life, as well as whether a child's health is grave and hopeless enough to warrant euthanasia.

"The idea is to update the law to take better account of dramatic situations and extremely harrowing cases we must find a response to," Socialist party leader Thierry Giet said shortly after the bill was introduced, according to Agence France-Presse.

"On both sides of the linguistic border, liberals and socialists appear to agree on the fact that age should not be regarded as a decisive criterion in the event of a request for euthanasia," Der Morgen wrote last week.

The decision to consider the bill follows months of testimony by medical experts, doctors, clergy members and others, and it marks a turning point in the nation's approach to the rights of young people, some of whom would be able to choose to die if the law were to pass, even while still being legally barred from driving, marrying, voting or drinking liquor until they turned 18.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The bill would also likely allow euthanasia for patients suffering from Alzheimer's and other diseases leading to advanced dementia, who may otherwise be deemed incompetent to make the decision to die. There were 1,133 cases of euthanasia recorded in Belgium in 2011, accounting for about 1 percent of the country's deaths that year, according to AFP.

Peter Deconinck, president of the Belgian medical ethics organization Reflectiegroep Biomedische Ethiek, has come out in support of expanding the practice to minors, as has the head of the intensive care unit of Fabiola Hospital in Brussels, who testified before a Belgian Senate committee.

"We all know that euthanasia is already practiced on children," he told the committee. "Yes, active euthanasia."

A majority of members of the Belgian Parliament are reportedly ready to pass the child euthanasia bill.  

In a separate move the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG), which represents doctors in the Netherlands, has said that distress felt by parents can justify euthanasia of a dying newborn.

The Netherlands has since 2005 not prosecuted doctors who perform euthanasia on some minors as long as the doctors act in accordance with a set of medical guidelines dubbed the Groningen Protocol, drafted by Dr Eduard Verhagen in 2004.

Verhagen reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 2005 on 22 babies with spina bifida who were given lethal injections under the protocol over a seven year period.

However, in a new policy document, ‘Medical decisions about the lives of newborns with severe abnormalities’ (in Dutch only) the KNMG now explains why it is acceptable, and perhaps even necessary, to euthanase children.

What is new about this statement is that it says that the parents’ suffering may be a reason to kill the newborn.

Amongst other conditions, the policy states that a lethal injection of muscle relaxant is ethically possible when "the period of gasping and dying persists and the inevitable death is prolonged, in spite of good preparation, and it causes severe suffering for the parents."

Dr Verhagen, who is also one of the authors of the recent KNMG report, explained to Volkskrant, a leading Dutch newspaper, why parental anguish is relevant.

Doctors should spare parents the ‘abomination’ of seeing their child die in distress, he argues.  It is part of good palliative care.

The criteria for euthanasing newborns are as follows (from page 54 of the report): if the child is suffering, if it cannot express its own wishes, if death is inevitable and if the dying process is prolonged, then the child may be euthanased in order to spare the parents further severe suffering.

Of the 175,000 babies born every year in The Netherlands, the KNMG suggests that about 650 might be cases which would be worthy of euthanasia.

‘These babies, despite very intensive treatment, will certainly die in the short term. They have a poor prognosis and a very bleak life perspective. They may not be dependent on intensive care but they face a life of serious and hopeless suffering. Doctors and parents face the exceedingly profound question of whether to start or continue treatment or even whether a good action may actually be a harm, in view of the suffering and disability that may result from the poor health of the child.’ 

These disturbing latest developments in the two countries which were the first to legalise euthanasia in Europe demonstrate graphically the incremental extension that takes place once the door is opened and the public conscience begins to change.

The acceptance of two key concepts is what makes this extension inevitable – first it is accepted that there is such a thing as a life not worth living and second that the active ending of a person’s life is justified in order to lessen the suffering of others.

It was these two principles that were used to justify the killing an infant with limb abnormalities and congenital blindness (named Knauer) with parental consent by Dr Karl Brandt in neighbouring Germany in 1939.

This 'test-case' paved the way for the registration of all children under three years of age with 'serious hereditary diseases'. This information was then used by a panel of 'experts', including three medical professors (who never saw the patients), to authorise death by injection or starvation of some 6,000 children by the end of the Second World War.

The euthanasia programme in Nazi Germany, later headed by the same Karl Brandt, did not begin in prison camps like Auschwitz and Treblinka. It began far more subtly with doctors in hospitals and its very first victims were children who were killed on supposedly compassionate grounds.

It is bitterly ironic that child euthanasia is happening again seventy years later on the very same grounds in two countries that share a common border with Germany. 

Reprinted with permission from Christian Medical Comment. 

OTTAWA, Ontario, June 18, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Ottawa Catholic School Board (OCSB) amended its “Partnership, Sponsorship, and Donations” policy last week after repeatedly facing parental backlash over choices of school trips, events, and speakers that parents say were hostile toward the Catholic faith. But life and family leaders and parents are concerned that the amendments will do little or nothing to curb the scandals happening in the schools under the board’s watch.

“The amended policy is way too ambiguous and has too much wiggle room,” said Jack Fonseca, Project Manager for Campaign Life Catholics to LifeSiteNews.com.

“What this policy needed is a simple statement, such as: ‘We will not engage in partnerships or sponsorships with individuals or organizations who publicly advocate for positions contrary to Catholic moral teaching nor will we give a platform to any speaker who publicly advocates for such positions.’”

While Teresa Pierre, president of Parents As First Educators (PAFE), called the policy a “step in the right direction,” she said she “wished for clearer vetting procedures [...] to better reduce the possibility of problematic partner choices slipping through.”

James Doak, a concerned parent who made a presentation at the board meeting last Tuesday when the policy was amended, said PAFE and the other parents at the meeting did "excellent work" but said overall it was "largely a disaster for orthodox parents."

“In the end, the Board added a small statement about ‘Moral Teachings of the Church’. However, they have no accountabilities or mechanisms for determining if partners follow the ‘Moral Teachings of the Church’. In addition, it appears to me that the new policy does not apply to controversial speakers in schools or groups being visited in El Salvador during field trips. The new policy definition of partnerships included only businesses, post-secondary institutions, government departments or community agencies."

Earlier this year, a hundred or more parents packed the OCSB office demanding that the board change its policy in light of what they called “scandals” that involved schools in the board. These included:

• A civics trip to campaign for the reelection of pro-abortion President Obama;
• A visit by same-sex ‘marriage’ and abortion supporter Justin Trudeau;
• A ‘social justice’ trip to El Salvador to visit groups that advocate for legalized abortion, legalized prostitution, the promotion of contraception, and the right to adoption for lesbian couples;
• A co-op placement of a student with a homosexual activist organization called Jer's Vision that promotes the normalization of homosexuality and partners with the pro-abortion group Canadians for Choice, as well as with pro-prostitution groups Maggie's Sex Work and Sexapalooza.

PAFE demanded at that time that the OCSB change its policy so that board partners “may not publicly undermine the goals of Catholic education.”

OCSB’s amended “Partnership, Sponsorship, and Donations” policy

The June 11 amended policy states: “Partnerships and sponsorships with individuals, parish and community groups, business, industry and government shall be forged to ensure respect for the distinctive nature of Catholic education and adherence to the Roman Catholic tradition. The Board’s philosophy, vision statement, as well as Catholic Social and Moral Teaching, will also direct partnerships and sponsorships.”

The policy continues: “Students shall not be involved in promoting commercial products in any way and shall not be involved in partisan political activity.”

Regarding administrative procedures, the policy states: “Any business sponsoring activities within the Board or its schools will be accepted as environmentally safe, and be consistent with a healthy lifestyle and aligned with Catholic Graduate Expectations. Controversial products and services are to be avoided (e.g., alcoholic beverages and tobacco products), as well as influences contrary to Catholic social and moral teaching.”

“The goal of any partnership will be to enhance the quality and relevance of education for learners and it should deemphasize the financial and/or acquisition aspects, while promoting a commitment to the Catholic Graduate Expectations.”

According to the “Catholic Graduate Expectations,” young men and women having completed Catholic secondary education are expected to be a “discerning believer formed in the Catholic Faith community” and a “responsible citizen who gives witness to Catholic social teaching by promoting peace, justice and the sacredness of human life.”

OCSB ignores parents’ pleas for tighter policy

During the meeting prior to the policy’s adoption, PAFE representative Bruce Clark argued that the policy should be amended to better vet speakers with positions held publicly contrary to the Catholic faith.

When Trustee Butler asked Clark whether he did not think that something valuable could be gained from hearing anyone speak, Clark replied: “Some things are just morally evil. Is it wise to bring them into the schools?"

Doak agreed with Clark, asking the Board in his presentation to “[p]lease develop a clear vetting policy for speakers and partnerships with NGOs and for field trips to places such as El Salvador.”

Quoting a statement by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, he said: “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

Doak pointed to a Cardus survey that he said showed Catholic school graduates were more likely than public school graduates to support gay ‘marriage’ and to believe that religion is a private matter that should be kept out of public debates on social and political issues.

“Clearly, the strategy of offering children speakers who have a ‘diversity of views’ on fundamental moral views is not working,” he said.

Despite concerns raised, trustees did not propose any amendments to the policy and voted unanimously to adopt it.

Fonseca said that the policy will still allow OCSB teachers and staff to flout Catholic teaching in choices of speakers and partners.

“Why permit continued ambiguity in the wording such as ‘to be avoided’, unless it’s to permit some flexibility for teachers and staff to continue flouting Catholic teaching. Why not say ‘are strictly prohibited’? This is an invitation for dissidents to continue bringing in anti-Catholic speakers and say, ‘Well, in this case, it couldn’t be avoided’.”

LifeSiteNews.com contacted the OCSB for comment by phone and email, asking if the amended policy will bar same-sex ‘marriage’ and abortion advocates — like Justin Trudeau — from speaking at OCSB schools, but did not hear back by press time.

A Catholic blogger at Socon or Bust offered encouragement to Ottawa parents for “pressuring” the OCSB to better align its policies with the Catholic faith, despite policy shortcomings.

“Despite this improvement, the language in the policy remains ambiguous to the extent that it’s not clear that anti-life speakers will be systematically turned away or that students will be protected from going on trips to visit anti-life organizations in the Global South.”

He said that “Rome wasn’t built in a day” and that parents have “obtained a first positive step in the right direction” and that with “continued vigilance, we can build on this going forward.”

Foreshadowing battles yet to come, he said: “Word to the trustees: if anything goes wrong under this policy, we’ll be back for more changes. Count on it.”

June 18, 2013 (Breakpoint.org) - Last week, the President threw America's parents and their daughters under a bus. And I'm hopping mad about it—and not just because I have a young daughter of my own.

First, a little history: In 2011, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled the Food and Drug Administration's request to make the “Plan B One-Step” drug available to all women and girls without a prescription, no matter their age. Plan B is a so-called emergency contraception drug that its maker admits could “inhibit implantation” of a fertilized egg in the womb. Sebelius agreed with the decision to distribute the drug—but insisted girls must be at least fifteen to purchase Plan B One-Step.

Well, that proved too much for federal judge Edward Korman (who is a Reagan appointee, by the way). In a decision that dripped with contempt for those concerned about the impact of the drug on young girls, Korman removed all age restrictions on the sale of the drug. He claimed they were “politically motivated” and “scientifically unjustified.” And to add insult to what will surely be many injuries to America's daughters, the Obama administration has just announced that it will not appeal the judge’s ruling.

Now, if you’re like me, you were somewhere between depressed and outraged in hearing this. My 14-year-old daughter can’t go on a field trip without my permission, but soon she'll be able to legally buy the morning-after pill without my knowing anything about it. Even 11- and 12-year-old girls will be able to pick up Plan B along with their candy bars and lip gloss at the neighborhood drug store.

What's next? Selling abortion drugs in junior high vending machines? (“No way!” you say? Well, they’re already in college vending machines. But maybe I'd better not give them any ideas.)

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Even President Obama, the most abortion-minded president we've ever had, said that there ought to be an age limit on this Plan B. As he noted in 2011, the reason Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius insisted on an age limit was because “she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old going to a drugstore should be able ... to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could have an adverse effect.”

But if the President knows this drug is potentially dangerous, why did he abandon the fight to protect our daughters? Frankly, I've known ten-year-olds who haven't mastered the art of putting the lid back on a tube of toothpaste. And yet Judge Korman and President Obama are going to trust these kids to carefully read the instructions on a potentially dangerous drug, and take it properly? Are they kidding?

Plan B will have another destructive impact—and this, too, will harm our daughters. By law, children and younger teenagers cannot consent to sex; if they’re pregnant, it's a case of statutory rape—or worse, violent rape. Making Plan B available to young girls gives sexual predators another way to hide what they’ve done from their victims’ parents and doctors—and the police.

The sad reality is that even if there were an age restriction, teens would do what they already do with the purchase of alcohol: Get somebody older to buy the drugs for them. But we ought to be angry at what an arrogant federal government is teaching our kids. The law is a moral teacher, and it's teaching kids that parents are irrelevant.

You and I live in a time when government is actively undermining the family. We need to fight back. Congress can pass a law insisting that no child under eighteen be allowed access to this drug, and that it be sold only with a doctor's prescription. Please urge your congressman to sponsor a bill to get this done.

Reprinted with permission from Breakpoint.org. 

June 18, 2013 (LiveActionNews.org) - On his radio show Friday, Rush Limbaugh delivered a powerful monologue (transcript, video) asserting that in addition to its innate monstrousness, abortion is “at the root of our cultural decay” as a nation, its impact stretching from respect for life and personal responsibility to crime, immigration, and the economy:

If you use the popularly accepted figure of 1.3 million abortions a year, go back to Roe vs. Wade 1973, 52 million taxpayers haven’t been born, is the way Washington looks at it.  They don’t look at it morally. They don’t look at it in any kind of cultural way or any kind of cultural impact. They just say we’re 52 million people short.  We have 52 million fewer people paying taxes.  We gotta replace ‘em.  Hello amnesty.  The Democrat Party needs a permanent underclass in order to keep themselves alive as Santa Claus, to keep winning elections and stay in power […]

I just want to tell you something.  I really think that abortion is at the root — you could do a flowchart — I think abortion is at the root of so much that has and is going wrong in this country.  I think that the number of abortions themselves, but what in toto it all means, culturally, in terms of the sanctity of life, how that’s crumbled, I think it’s almost at the root of everything.  And if it’s not at the root of everything, it’s clearly had a profound impact on our culture, our society, and our politics, I think in ways that people don’t even stop to consider.

None of it good and it’s caused all kinds of horrible problems that nobody knows how to fix.  Because they refuse to even accept that abortion is more than what it is.  To most people, it’s just a woman’s right to choose, and it’s nobody’s business, and leave it alone and I don’t want to talk about it.  But it’s really had much more impact on this country than just that.  It’s had impact on crime.  It’s had a profound impact on our politics.  It is at the root of our cultural rot and decay.

You can trace the problems with accepting personal responsibility, no consequences for your actions, you can trace so much right back to it.  And I’m not talking about the women.  I’m talking the overall effect of a society having literally no problem with eliminating 52 million of its citizens.  That can’t be good […]

I don’t know how you can have so much white guilt over slavery 150 years ago and have no guilt over what’s happening with abortion.  I really don’t.  I think it is the cause of so much that seems to be inexplicable to people.  Why are 10-year-olds shooting each other to death in Chicago?  Why is our society so permissive, anything goes, the more ribald, the better?

As an example of just how far we’ve fallen, Rush pointed to the utter unwillingness of Nancy Pelosi, leader of House Democrats, to explain the moral difference between Kermit Gosnell killing a newborn and aborting a baby of the same age before birth. When a former speaker of the House of Representatives, one of the highest offices in the land, calls ending infanticide “reprehensible” and feels no obligation to even pretend she cares about the answer, it’s hard to deny how much our national conscience has dulled.

Rush is absolutely right; in fact, he could have gone a lot farther. Last July, our own Mitch Behna found that the United States’ birth rate isn’t quite meeting our replacement level and that without the percentage of the population taken by abortion, Medicare and Social Security are short $11 billion and $47 million, respectively. Economist John Lott has demonstrated that, contrary to claims popularized by the dubious book Freakonomics, the legalization of abortion likely led to an increase in violent crime. Forbes contributor Bill Flax puts the lie to the popular talking point that abortion is necessary to stem out-of-wedlock births, noting that actually, the opposite has happened. Professor Michael New has linked abortion’s legalization to an increase in child abuse.

It’s not hard to see the shapes taken by the fallout of these social ills – educational failure, poverty, dependence, sexually transmitted diseases, social alienation and resentment.

Take a broader look around us today, and abortionism’s worst siblings are readily apparent. It is increasingly respectable to entertain ideas about neglecting and eliminating our elderly and disabled countrymen. Parental neglect that would have been unthinkable a generation ago almost becomes something you can set your watch to. Slavish devotion to pointless regulation can win out over a little girl’s fight to survive. You can advocate doing nothing about doctors starving newborns to death in closets and still get elected leader of the free world.

Rush Limbaugh scratched the surface of a discussion the country desperately needs. As the country is preoccupied with economic malaise and immigration uncertainty, he should be commended for reminding us that, as abortion is a outright rejection of the first truth of our country, it cannot help but upset the balance of everything else.

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.org. 

June 18, 2013 (Mercatornet.com) - On June 12 the New York Times published an article by graduate student Joshua Lang, “What Happens to Women Who Are Denied Abortions?” Mr Lang is currently enrolled in UC Berkley’s Joint Medical Program, a five-year Master of Science/Medical Doctorate Program. Sadly, Lang’s desire to push a political agenda was apparently the most salient force behind his shoddy piece. Like many before him, Lang tries to dismiss more than 100 peer-reviewed studies revealing an increased risk of mental health problems by focusing on one counter study that has yet to generate any peer-reviewed publications. Lang interviewed me last fall for over an hour and he clearly understood the science.

According to Mr Lang, “There is no credible research to support a ‘post-abortion syndrome’, as a report published by the American Psychological Association in 2008 made clear. Yet the notion has influenced restrictive laws in many states.” This statement actually indirectly affirms the strength of the published evidence regarding abortion as a risk factor for mental health problems, because the evidence presented in courts continues to trump the APA conclusions. The vast majority of research studies on the psychological implications of abortion do not address a “Post-Abortion Syndrome”. Instead, researchers examine abortion as a risk factor in mental illnesses that are identified by mainstream professional organizations.

The results of hundreds of studies published in leading peer-reviewed medicine and psychology journals over the past three decades indicate that abortion is a substantial contributing factor to women’s mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, substance use disorders, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. This evidence has quite reasonably influenced informed consent legislation in many states. In upholding the South Dakota law in 2012, the US Court of Appeals relied upon this body of data.

A critique of the 2008 APA report is posted at the website of the World Expert Consortium for Abortion Research and Education (WECARE), a group of 10 credentialed scientists working to bring accurate information to a public in dire need of evidence-based facts concerning abortion.

Among dozens of other peer-reviewed studies, Lang ignores the results of a meta-analysis entitled “Abortion and Mental Health: A Quantitative Synthesis and Analysis of Research Published from 1995-2009” that I published in the British Journal of Psychiatry (BJP) in 2011. Meta-analyses have much more credibility than the results of individual empirical studies or narrative reviews, such as the APA’s 2008 report. In a meta-analysis, the contribution or weighting of any particular study to the final result is based on objective scientific criteria (sample size and strength of effect), as opposed to an individual’s opinion of what constitutes a strong study. The BJP sample consisted of 22 studies and 877,297 participants (163,880 experienced an abortion). Results revealed that women who aborted experienced an 81 percent increased risk for mental health problems. When compared specifically to unintended pregnancy delivered, women were found to have a 55 percent increased risk of experiencing mental health problems. This review offers the largest quantitative estimate of mental health risks associated with abortion available in the world.  

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Many women who make the decision to abort do so without a thorough understanding of the procedure. A number of peer-reviewed studies have revealed that feeling misinformed or being denied relevant information often precipitates post-abortion difficulties. Moreover, there is considerable evidence that a high percentage of women walking into abortion clinics are conflicted about the choice. In another study I published with colleagues in the Journal of Medical Ethics, we found that 95 percent of a socio-demographically diverse group of women wished to be informed of all possible complications associated with drugs, surgery, and/or other forms of elective treatments, including abortion.

Lang also offers the misleading statement that “Most studies on the effects of abortion compare women who have abortions with those who choose to carry their pregnancies to term.” This ignores the fact that a minimum of eight peer-reviewed studies have included, as a comparison group, women who had an unintended pregnancy and delivered. Many additional studies have included women who have not experienced a pregnancy or had a miscarriage as a comparison group.

Lang puts great emphasis on Diana Foster’s Turnaway Study, which is presented as superior to any existing studies. But the Turnaway Study has glaring flaws. First, less than a third of the women who were approached to participate agreed to do so. This is unacceptable, because those agreeing may have differed systematically from those who declined. Consent to participate rates should be at least 70 percent. Second, women who obtained or were denied abortions around the gestational limits included women for whom the legal cut-off ranged from 10 weeks through the end of the second trimester or 27 weeks. This is not a variable that can be loosely defined, as there is a wealth of data indicating the psychological impact of abortion differs between first and second trimester abortions. Women aborting at such widely varying points in pregnancy cannot be lumped together.

Lang states that “Women cite not recognizing their pregnancies, travel and procedure costs, insurance problems and not knowing where to find care as common reasons for delay.” Actually, the best documented reason for delay is ambivalence about the decision.

Lang also says that women seeking second-trimester abortions “tend to be particularly vulnerable, given the difficulties of finding an appropriate clinic and the higher cost of a later procedure.” Yes, they are particularly vulnerable, but the primary reason is that psychological and physical risks increase exponentially with delayed abortion decisions.

But the most appalling statement in the whole article is Lang’s quoting Foster’s claim that “later abortions are significantly safer than childbirth.” The risks of late-term abortion to women's physical well-being are well-documented. For example, using national data, Bartlett and colleagues reported in 2004 that the relative risk of abortion-related mortality was 14.7 at 13–15 weeks of gestation, 29.5 at 16-20 weeks, and 76.6 at or after 21 weeks. This compares to a 12.1 rate for childbirth. Bartlett reported that the causes of death during the second trimester included hemorrhage, infection, embolism, anesthesia complications, and cardiac and cerebrovascular events.

As academics, politicians, and lawyers debate the post-abortion psychological and medical literature, the most expedient route to the truth is likely through women’s own voices. The woman in the story who was denied an abortion told Mr Lang about her daughter, “She is more than my best friend, more than the love of my life” “She is just my whole world.” The Turnaway Study, using a seriously-flawed methodology, will likely silence most of these voices and perpetuate the suffering of women rushed through abortion clinics. 

Priscilla Coleman is Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University. This article reprinted from Mercatornet.com under a Creative Commons License. 

LOS ANGELES, June 17, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Rapper Kanye West's new single, which glorifies aborting the babies men conceive with their mistresses, leaked out to the public just as Kim Kardashian was about to give birth to his baby girl.

The song, “Blood on the Leaves,” appears on his new album "Yeezus." The title is a blasphemous play on his nickname "Ye," the last two letters of his first name.

The third verse begins by talking about “second-string b----es trying to get a baby”:

Then she said she impregnated; that's the night your heart died
Then you gotta go and tell your girl and report that
Main reason 'cause your pastor said you can’t abort that

The song goes on to talk about the costs of fatherhood, such as not snorting cocaine, buying a new Mercedes, or abandoning one's wife:

Now your driver say that new Benz you can't afford that
All that cocaine on the table you can't snort that
That going to that owing money that the court got
On and on that alimony, uh, yeah-yeah, she got you, Homie
'Til death but do your part – unholy matrimony

“The lyrics clearly describe a man who knocks a mistress and pressures her toward aborting her child, so that his wife will never find out,” writes Perez Hilton, a homosexual Hollywood gossip columnist.

The song samples the classic Billie Holiday tune “Strange Fruit,” a song exposing the outbreak of racially motivated lynching in the South. She sang with an intention to stop the murder of black people.

Kanye became a father with Kim Kardashian, who gave birth to a baby girl on Saturday morning via c-section. The child was approximately one month premature.

Click "like" if you want to end abortion!

Kardashian was raised by an Armenian Apostolic Orthodox father and a Catholic mother, both churches that fervently oppose abortion. Although Kim Kardashian clings to her Armenian heritage, she currently attends Life Change Community Church.

"Kimye" has been the subject of media attention for months, including a rare segment on Conan O'Brien's TBS show, Conan, which depicted their unborn child backing away from a Planned Parenthood office in fear.

Kim's sister, Kourtney, said stories of post-abortion trauma convinced her to keep her baby in 2009.

West has sallied into controversial territory before. In February 2011, he wrote a Twitter message that again addressed mistresses and abortion: "An abortion can cost a ballin' nigga up to 50gs maybe a 100. Gold diggin' bi---es be getting pregnant on purpose. #STRAPUP my niggas!"

When asked if he was speaking from personal experience, Mr. West replied, "It ain't happen to me but I know people."

His tweet, since removed, angered British singer Lily Allen, who had recently suffered her second late miscarriage. "Never has a tweet put me in such a bad mood,” she wrote. “This is wrong on so many levels."