---

SHARE THIS PAGE: E-mail  Print

---

---

Abstinence Alone Protects Fully Against HIV, Ugandan First Lady Tells Youth

By Gudrun Schultz

MUKONO, Uganda, December 6, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Janet Museveni, First Lady of Uganda, has continued her strong support for the country’s successful abstinence campaign against HIV/AIDS with a statement encouraging youth to live lives of “love, faith and purity,” New Vision reported December 2.

"I would not be caught advising you to take any shortcuts or compromise your lives by using any device invented by man, such as condoms, in order to facilitate any desire to go against God's clear plan for your life,” Mrs. Museveni told students at the Uganda Christian University, Mukono, for World AIDS Day.

“God's plan for your life is that you should honour your body because it is His temple."

Warning the young people that they should not be complacent as HIV infection rates rise, Mrs. Museveni asked them to encourage  other students to abstain from premarital sex.

Ugandan President Museveni and his wife introduced a program encouraging sexual abstinence before marriage and fidelity afterwards, in an attempt to combat the scourge of HIV/AIDS.

The program has been harshly condemned by international organizations promoting condom use, but in fact Ugandan HIV transmission rates dropped by as much as 75% in some regions after the program was introduced, down to 5-7% from a high of 18%.

Uganda is in an ongoing struggle with Western NGOs pushing condom use in the country. UNICEF, the UNFPA, the World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control are among those organizations relying on condom promotion for AIDS prevention in African nations. The UN has openly opposed the use of abstinence programs as a successful alternative to Western approaches on lessening virus transmission rates.

Criticism of the West’s emphasis on condom use has been growing, as HIV/AIDS transmission rates show no signs of slowing after years of condom promotion. Medical Journalist Sue Ellin Browder reported in June 2006 on evidence showing dramatic increases in condom distribution in African nations paralleled an explosion in HIV/AIDS infection rates.

“So far, there’s no good evidence that condoms will reverse population-wide epidemics like those in sub-Saharan Africa,” Browder wrote for Crisis Magazine.

See previous LifeSiteNews coverage:

Medical Journalist Says Reliance on Condoms Spreads HIV/AIDS
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jun/06062304.html

Uganda AIDS Prevention Success Being Undermined by Infuriated UN Condom-Pushers
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/feb/05020408.html

UN Anger Over Uganda's Successful Abstinence Program Fueled by Loss of Funds Says Researcher
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/oct/05101404.html

Uganda's First Lady Warns Teens against Condom Use
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/jan/04011205.html

Ugandan Abstinence AIDS Prevention Program Equivalent to a Highly Effective Vaccine, Researchers Find
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/apr/04043004.html

 Back to Top

---

Liberal Leader Dion: Won’t Whip Vote on Marriage Motion But Will Force Liberal MPs to Back Gay ‘Marriage’

Echoes Chretien, Martin line, saying ““We are the party of the Charter”

By Gudrun Schultz

OTTAWA, Canada, December 6, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Members of the Liberal caucus will be free to vote as they choose on the coming motion to re-open the same-sex ‘marriage’ debate in Parliament, new Liberal leader Stephane Dion suggested yesterday, but not on legislation itself if it comes to another vote.

Dion indicated members would not be forced to follow party policy since the motion to re-open debate is procedural, although he said the final decision would be made after today’s caucus meeting.

“Since it is a stratagem (on the part of the Conservatives), we have to think strategy,” Dion said, according to a Montreal Gazette report. “Are we more effective with a free vote or a party vote? That is something we have to discuss in caucus because if we have a whipped vote, he will say, 'he muzzled his MPs who agree with us and if they had let them vote, the vote would have passed.' So perhaps on the strategic level, it is better for us to leave it as a free vote."

However, he said if the government should introduce a motion to restore the traditional definition of marriage, MPs would be forced to vote along party lines.

"[I]t would be a whipped vote,” Dion said. “We are the party of the Charter. There's no way we would accept that, because the charter would be under attack.”

"The first step is a matter of tactics. What is the best way to send a signal that we don't want that at all," he told Jane Taber in an interview with CTV.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper targeted the Liberal leadership over the issue of a free vote in the House Monday, saying he hoped Dion would not force a party vote.

“I know that the new Leader of the Opposition has said he will not allow a free vote by his caucus members,” PM Harper said. “I hope that proves not to be the case because I think the rights of members of Parliament are some of the most important rights we have in this country.”

When the vote on same-sex marriage legislation passed in 2005, Liberal Cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries were forced to vote for the bill, while thirty-two Liberal MPs voted against it. The measure passed 158-133.

The Liberal Party holds 102 seats, while the Conservatives have 124. The NDP and Bloc Quebecois hold 80 seats together, and both parties will force their members to vote in line with party policy on this conscience issue, the CTV reported. The parties officially support same-sex “marriage.”

See previous LifeSiteNews coverage:

Prime Minister Harper Goes on the Offensive on Same-Sex “Marriage” Free Vote
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/dec/06120501.html

See related story
Canadian Parliament Gay ‘Marriage’ Debate Begins – “Same-Sex Marriage is Not a Human Right”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/feb/05021701.html

 Back to Top

---

Second Canadian University Student Union Bans Official Recognition of Pro-Life Clubs

*** UPDATE ***
University says it is "Not Bound by" the Decision and will Allocate Space to Pro-Life Students http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/dec/06120605.html ;

  By John-Henry Westen

OTTAWA, December 6, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Carleton University in Ottawa has become the second university in Canada to ban pro-life students from forming official campus clubs.  A vote of the Carleton University Student Association (CUSA) late last night had 25 of the 32 members back the motion to ban the pro-life club Lifeline. 

The motion read: "CUSA further affirms that actions such as campaigns, distributions, solicitations, lobbying efforts, displays, events, etc. that seek to limit or remove a woman's options in the event of pregnancy will not be supported."

Lifeline President Sarah Fletcher spoke with LifeSiteNews.com about the motion when it was presented last month.  "I think it pretty ridiculous that this governing body which is supposed to be representing all students would be declaring itself pro-choice because not all of the students are going to agree with them on that view," she said.

Two weeks ago the University of British Columbia's student union similarly decided to ban pro-life clubs from campus. (see coverage: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/nov/06112810.html)

The decision by CUSA to discriminate against pro-life students has already cost the University at least one donor.  Ottawa's CFRA radio this morning carried the reaction to the vote of Carleton  University Alumnus, Andrew Harwood.  Harwood told the host that he had sent a letter to the president of Carleton saying he would stop donations to Carleton if the CUSA motion passed. 

Harwood said he could now no longer support the University financially due to his concern over free speech. He said it is wrong to silence debate at the university on either side of the issue.

To respectfully express concerns to the University:

Dr. Samy Mahmoud
President and Vice-Chancellor Pro Tempore
Office of the President
503 Tory Building
1125 Colonel By Drive,
Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B6
Canada

Phone: 613 520-3801
Fax: 613 520-4474

Email:  

 Back to Top

---

University says it is "Not Bound by" Student Union Decision and will Allocate Space to Pro-Life Students

However pro-life students must so far fund student union which has actively discriminated against them

By John-Henry Westen
OTTAWA, December 6, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Carleton University in Ottawa has reacted to the vote by its student union banning pro-life students from having their group recognized as an official club on campus.  University Director of Communications Doug Wotherspoon told LifeSiteNews.com that in terms of space allocation CUSA's decision would not amount to much.  But pro-life students, at least currently, must fund the student union which has actively discriminated against them.

A press release on the issue by the University Administration stated, "Carleton University welcomes the diversity of opinion and has always been committed to the free expression of ideas in an open and respectful way.  The deliberations that have taken place this evening by the Carleton University Students' Association (CUSA) are an example of the health of public discourse on Carleton's campus."

While the University said it respects "CUSA's independent decision-making process," it added that "The University, however, is not bound by the views or opinions held by the Carleton University Students' Association."  The university states that "Student groups, both those recognized by CUSA and those that are not, have had and will continue to have the opportunity to book space on campus in accordance with Carleton's existing policies and procedures."

Wotherspoon told LifeSiteNews.com that CUSA "has access to a small amount of space in comparison to the space available to student clubs and groups across campus."  The CUSA motion, he said, restricted only "the space that they have authority over."

As an example he spoke of "The galleria that we have, which is the main location for student clubs and societies to set up."  He noted, "a third of that space is managed by the Carleton University Students Association; two thirds of that space is managed by the University." 

"As a matter of course, largely over these types of issues," he said, "the university makes space available to students both individuals and student groups whether they are recognized or not by CUSA or any other student organization."  He added that "for the most part that space is provided free of charge."

Asked if the University had any restriction on groups which would advocate legal protection for unborn children, Wotherspoon replied, "No, it does not."  He added, however, that there may be issues over "graphic images", but those he said, "are ruled on a case by case basis."

In terms of being denied funding from CUSA, Wotherspoon noted that similar to space allocation, "clubs and societies across campus have a whole host of venues with respect to securing funding."  He suggested that funds for groups rejected by CUSA could be applied for from departments or programs or the "associate vice president of student academic support services who has discretionary funds."

Wotherspoon did admit that pro-life students would still have to fund the pro-abortion student union which has actively discriminated against them, but he left open the possibility of a policy change in that regard.  "At the present moment anyway, that certainly is the case. There is no portioning off of student fees based on based on [sic] a disagreement with CUSA over an issue."  So opting out of funding CUSA is "not currently available" to students, he said.   He added that the university board of Governors could hear a presentation on the matter and said he could not speculate "what they might decide down the road."

See related coverage:
Second Canadian University Student Union Bans Official Recognition of Pro-Life Clubs
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/dec/06120604.html

 Back to Top

---

UK Researchers Seek Human Trials for Fetal Cell Stroke Therapy Despite Past Disasters

Brain tissue of aborted 12-week baby used to grow cells for treatment

By Gudrun Schultz

GUILDFORD, United Kingdom, December 6, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A UK company wants to use stem cells taken from the brain of an aborted 12-week-old child to attempt to treat stroke victims, claiming the artificially-stimulated cells have potential to regenerate stroke-damaged tissue.

BBC reported yesterday on ReNeuron’s request to the US Food and Drug Administration to begin human trials on 12 stroke patients. The process requires genetic modification of the brain cells taken from the unborn child, however, raising serious safety questions since the technique utilizes a gene associated with tumor growth.

In order to increase the cells’ ability to multiply, researchers introduced a gene called c-myc, which under normal conditions aids in cell division. When abnormalities are present within the cell, however, the gene can contribute to uncontrollable cellular replication, causing cancer.

The ReNeuron team claims to have controlled the gene’s activity by modifying it so it only triggers cell replication when a chemical is added, and stops once the chemical is removed.

Previous research experiments with human trials using tissue obtained from unborn babies have had catastrophic results. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed the “disastrous” side effects of using brain cells from aborted babies in an attempt to treat Parkinson’s disease, as patients began to “chew constantly” and “writhe and twist, jerk their heads, fling their arms about.” The infant cells produced too much dopamine in the adult brains.

A second U.S. study found that 13 of 23 Parkinson’s patients treated with aborted fetal tissue developed severe uncontrollable movements. Side effects in both cases were irreversible.

Experiments using embryonic cells to treat animals have repeatedly found that the cells triggered tumor growth through uncontrolled replication.

A further serious problem has been adult rejection of the fetal tissue, necessitating the constant use of damaging anti-rejection drugs.

Pro-life advocates spoke out against ReNeuron’s proposal to use cells obtained from an unborn child as “unethical in every way.” John Smeaton, director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, told the BBC he was completely opposed to the research.

“It’s a sick proposal. It involves cannibalizing an unborn child,” Smeaton said.
“It’s unethical in every way - killing one member of the human race to help another. We are totally opposed to this.”

 At 12 weeks gestation an unborn child is fully formed and capable of controlled movement. Recent developments in ultrasound technology fascinated the public with images of unborn babies at 12 weeks “walking” in the womb, sucking their thumbs and showing facial expression.

In the meantime the list of successful treatments on human patients using stem cells obtained from the patient’s own tissue continues to grow. The most recent breakthrough has been the successful treatment of heart attack victims with stem cells obtained from their own bone marrow, scheduled to begin trials in London in January. International trials found the treatment remarkably successful in causing the damaged heart tissue to regenerate.

See BBC coverage:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6207236.stm

See related LifeSiteNews coverage:

Fetal Tissue Transplants Cause Disaster Again for Parkinson's Patients in Experimental Treatment
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2003/aug/03082503.html

Placenta Cells Share Characteristics of Embryo Cells Without Tumor Formation
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/aug/05081004.html

Adult Stem Cells from Human Retina Reproduce and Differentiate Easily
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/oct/04102605.html

Adult Stem Cells Used to Treat Emergency Heart Attack Patients
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/nov/06110809.html

Amazing New Ultrasound Shows First-Ever Pictures of Unborn at 12 Weeks 'Walking' in the womb
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/jun/04062801.html

 Back to Top

---

Australia Lifts Ban on Human Cloning For Research

Parliament says ends justify means

By Hilary White

CANBERRA, December 6, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – By an 82 to 62 House of Representatives vote, Australia’s parliament has lifted the legal prohibition on human cloning, despite opposition from the Prime Minister and party leaders.

Prime Minister John Howard voted against the legislation, a private member’s bill, saying, “In the end you have to take a stand for some absolutes in our society, and I think what we're talking about here is a moral absolute and that is why I can't support the legislation.”

The legislation had already passed in the Senate in early November by a narrow 34 to 32 vote. In addition to allowing human beings to be created for use as test subjects, the bill allows for human ova to be collected from aborted female foetuses.

Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile, leader of the Nationals party, said, “We must not attempt to achieve good ends through what I believe are immoral means.”

In early August, federal Health Minister Tony Abbott warned that to change the prohibition on cloning would overturn the country’s basic moral principles. “It is very hard to start muttering about the end not justifying the means,” said Abott, “and yet that has always been a classic position in the Western ethical tradition. I think we abandon it at our peril.”

The debate in the House was presented in the manner that has become the mainstream media’s boilerplate on the issue, as a conflict between “progressives” who want to find cures for diseases and backward “conservatives.” The bill’s sponsor, former health minister Kay Patterson, who said the law could be made more liberal, told reporters, “At some point people will say 'We don't believe the means justify the ends. At the moment, the parliament has said: 'That's not the case.'”

The anti-cloning group, Do No Harm: Australians for Ethical Stem Cell Research, collected 18,977 names on a petition asking legislators to defeat the bill.

In addition, the group, Hands off Our Ovaries, warned that the bill would allow vulnerable women to be exploited. “There have been too many instances of coercion and deception, and violations of informed consent. Left uncontrolled, research demands will place undue burdens on young, poor women,” the group said.

The debate began on Monday with party leaders who spoke against the change. Labour Party Leader Kevin Rudd, whose mother recently died after a battle with Parkinson’s disease, said, “I find it very difficult to support a legal regime that results in the creation of a form of human life for the single and explicit purpose of conducting experimentation on that form of human life.”

Treasurer Peter Costello rejected the commonly proffered argument that a human in the embryonic stage has less moral worth than an adult and that embryos should be ‘harvested’ because they would likely die anyway.  “According to this argument, the fact that an embryo is marked for death at the outset deprives it of moral significance," he said. "This appears to me to be rather a self-serving argument.”

The vote came just months after an announcement in August that the government was not going to revisit the country’s stem cell legislation.

Researchers in Australia are allowed to use so-called “spare” embryos to extract stem cells for research, but the law, passed in 2002, prohibited the creation of cloned human embryos for destructive research.

The new law will come into effect in six months, after the drafting of guidelines for its implementation.

Australian Health Minister Warns Cloning, Embryo Research: “A Bridge Too Far”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/aug/06080302.html

 Back to Top

---

Art World Luminaries Rally to Curator Accused of Child Porn Exhibit

By Hilary White

PARIS, December 6, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – More than 100 international figures of the art world have rushed to the defence of Henry-Claude Cousseau who is facing charges of displaying child pornography as art. Among the modern art luminaries defending Cousseau is England’s Sir Nicholas Serota, the curator of the prestigious Tate gallery.

Alfred Pacquement, director of the Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris told the Times that Cousseau is a “serious figure” in the modern art world.

The petition states, “We wish to express our dismay at this attack on the artistic and curatorial freedom of expression and offer our unconditional support for Henry-Claude Cousseau in the present circumstances, together with the exhibition curators Marie-Laure Bernadac (a curator at the Louvre) and Stéphanie Moisdon (an art critic).”

Cousseau, the director of the prestigious École Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts in Paris, is accused of displaying works of “a violent pornographic nature, unacceptable for a young public” and “spreading violent messages of a pornographic character or contrary to the dignity due to a minor”.  A conviction could bring a fine of €75,000 and up to three years in prison.

The exhibition called, Presumed Innocent: Contemporary Art and Childhood, held in 2000, displayed works that included video footage of children performing graphic sex acts and photos of young children with their eyes scratched out.

The Times reports the exhibition was held at the Centre d’Arts Plastiques Contemporains, one of several important museums in Bordeaux. A judicial inquiry was opened in response to complaints from La Mouette, a child protection association in Agen.

Northern Ireland MLA Esmond Birnie of south Belfast and the Ulster Unionist Party’s spokesman for family and children, condemned the use of “artistic expression” as cover for “abusive pornography.” He expressed his shock at the “astonishing” level of support for Cousseau in the art community.

“We have all become aware of the way in which “modern art” has sometimes become an expensive joke; preserved dead sheep or sharks or an unmade bed or a pile of bricks,” said Birnie.

“It does seem, sadly, that these days art is an excuse for child pornography.”

 Back to Top

---

SHARE THIS PAGE: E-mail  Print

---

---

MORE NEWS: LifeSiteNews.com Home Page  Last 10 Days   Archives   Special Reports

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.