LifeSiteNews.com

Thursday February 28, 2008

SHARE THIS PAGE: E-mail  Print ArticlePrint


     

Obama: "Biggest Mistake" Was Vote to Help Terri Schiavo

In speech to Planned Parenthood in July 2007, said he would sign Freedom of Choice Act to enshrine Roe in federal law

By Peter J. Smith

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Barack Obama, the young, dynamic contender for the US Democratic presidential nomination, is continuing to send strong signals to members of his party that he is the strongest anti-life candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

At the last Democratic debate before the March 4 primary showdown in Texas and Ohio that could effectively decide the Democratic nominee, both Sen. Hillary Clinton - a fierce abortion supporter who is aspiring to be the first female president of the United States - and Sen. Obama - who is vying to be the first black US president - were asked which votes they would take back in their senatorial careers. Clinton cited her vote for the Iraq war; Obama said his vote for Terri Schiavo.

"It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake," Obama said at the debate. "And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better ... and I think that's an example of inaction, and sometimes that can be as costly as action."

Obama was referring to his vote in March 2005, when the Senate passed a bill by unanimous consent that permitted Schiavo's parents and brother to make their case before federal courts to keep their brain-injured daughter alive via feeding tube. Terri Schiavo's husband Michael, who had guardianship over her while engaged in public adultery with a girlfriend, had a state judge remove her feeding tube, dehydrating her to death, because he claimed she never wanted to live in a so-called persistent vegetative state (PVS).

"Everyone with a disability, or who knows someone with a disability, should be outraged that a potential US president would so callously reject his own action taken in favor of life over death," Terri's father, Robert Schindler said in a statement released to the press by the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation. "Is it so incredulous that a family had the 'audacity of hope' to believe its government would care about one profoundly disabled woman? It is a shame that Senator Obama, who claims to embody 'hope,' is crushing it for the families of people with profound disabilities."

Obama has been riding a surge of support and enthusiasm among Democratic voters after having won 11 straight primary contests over Clinton. He leads the delegate count, and now seems poised to take the nomination from Clinton.

However, Obama has been seizing the mantle of the Democratic Party's pro-death wing, where once Clinton held an unassailable position as all-but crowned abortion nominee. Despite the fact that 10 influential feminists and leaders of the abortion movement endorsed Clinton last week, Frances Kissling, former president of the abortion advocacy group Catholics for Free Choice and dubbed the "philosopher of the pro-choice movement", came out strongly in favor of Obama, saying that he, not Clinton was the better candidate to "complete the social transformation promised by Roe." (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021910.html)

Obama has an extremely anti-life record that verges into the realm of condoning infanticide, including repeated votes during his career in the Illinois Senate against bills that would have protected babies that survived an abortion. Obama voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act numerous times on the basis that it might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights.

"Thanks to all of you at Planned Parenthood for all the work that you are doing for women all across the country and for families all across the country-and for men, who have enough sense to realize you are helping them, all across the country," Obama told supporters.

In a speech to Planned Parenthood activists in July 2007, Obama made clear that he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act to enshrine Roe in federal law, include Planned Parenthood in a universal health-care scheme, increase funding for sex-education and contraceptives, and select judges in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Pro-life advocates may discover that Barack Obama's rhetorical abilities may make him a more powerful abortion president than the acrimonious Hillary Clinton, who, despite having more political accomplishments as First Lady and a US Senator for the abortion movement, has suffered considerably in the polls in part to her inability to overcome Obama's charm and oratory skill.

"I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties; their days are growing dark, it is time to turn the page," Obama said in July. "We want a new day here in America. We're tired about arguing about the same ole' stuff. And I am convinced we can win that argument."

See related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:

"Philosopher of Abortion Movement" Says Obama A Better Choice than Hillary
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021910.html

See transcript of Obamaa's speech to Planned Parenthood in 2007
http://lauraetch.googlepages.com/barackobamabeforeplannedpar...

Schiavo Foundation Laments Obama's "Mistake" Comment on Terry Schiavo
http://www.zenit.org/article-21905?l=english

Back to Top Back to Top


     

Undercover Investigation Reveals Planned Parenthood's Racism

PP agreed to take donations earmarked to reduce numbers of blacks

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

LOS ANGELES, February 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - UCLA's pro-life student magazine, The Advocate, has revealed an undercover investigation in which representatives of Planned Parenthood enthusiastically accepted a financial donation targeting the abortion of an unborn black baby for racist motives.

Lila Rose, editor of The Advocate, says she has taped responses of Planned Parenthood officials from seven states that reveal the eugenic character of their ideology.

Lila told WorldNetDaily, "Students on campus are shocked and saddened that such a huge organization would have racist leanings in the present day. They are surprised to hear the truth about [Planned Parenthood founder] Margaret Sanger, and how the African-American community is being hurt by abortion. There's a lot of surprise out there. Planned Parenthood does an excellent job of covering up the facts."

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a proponent of "race hygiene" through "negative eugenics," an attempt to reduce the fertility of "dysgenic" groups, in the early 20th century. In 1921, she said eugenics is "the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems, and the ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all." She also cautioned, "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."

The Advocate released a transcript of a taped conversation between an actor posing as a white racist and wanting to make a donation, and a woman identified as Autumn Kersey, vice president of marketing for Planned Parenthood of Idaho.

The transcript reads:

Actor: I want to specify that abortion to help a minority group, would that be possible?
Planned Parenthood: Absolutely.
A: Like the black community for example?
PP: Certainly.
A: The abortion - I can give money specifically for a black baby, that would be the purpose?
PP: Absolutely. If you wanted to designate that your gift be used to help an African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure that the gift was earmarked for that purpose.
A: Great, because I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don't want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids. I just had a baby; I want to put it in his name.
PP: Yes, absolutely.
A: And we don't, you know we just think, the less black kids out there the better.
PP: (Laughs) Understandable, understandable.
A: Right. I want to protect my son, so he can get into college.
PP: All right. Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I've had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I'm excited, and want to make sure I don't leave anything out.

Lila Rose said the actor asked each PP branch contacted about lowering "the number of black people," and none expressed concern about the racist reason for the donation.

Last spring, in another sting on Planned Parenthood, Lila posed as a 15-year-old seeking an abortion at a PP abortuary in Santa Monica, California.

Lila was accompanied by James O'Keefe, who acted as her 23-year-old boyfriend. In a recorded conversation, the employee encouraged Rose to invent a birthday to allow Planned Parenthood to avoid reporting a case of statutory rape.

"If you're 15, we have to report it. If you're not, if you're older than that, then we don't need to," the employee said. "Okay, but if I just say I'm not 15, then it's different?" Rose asked. The employee responded, "You could say 16…well, just figure out a birth date that works. And I don't know anything."

"Planned Parenthood has been concealing statutory rape and child abuse cases for years," Rose said. "This video reveals what really goes on behind closed doors in Planned Parenthood's abortion clinics."

Lila Rose and The Advocate were subsequently threatened with civil action by Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles. 

After The Advocate exposed the incident in the latest issue of The Advocate and uploaded the videos to the popular video sharing website You Tube, Planned Parenthood emailed Rose a letter demanding that she "immediately relinquish to PPLA [Planned Parenthood Los Angeles] the original and any copies of all communications with PPLA employees you have recorded without their consent." The letter, signed by PPLA CEO Mary Jane Wagle, threatens a suit for "$5,000 or three times actual damages."

"This lawsuit threat is an example of Planned Parenthood using intimidation against those willing to expose its crimes," Rose said. "Planned Parenthood is a $900 million operation. Instead of threatening me with a lawsuit, Planned Parenthood should call a press conference condemning its staffers and promising major reform to protect young girls. Instead, they are threatening a college student."

"Imagine a major corporation had been exposed for committing crimes in order to pad its bottom line. There would be a parade of congressmen demanding hearings and reform," said Rose. "Young girls are at risk and Planned Parenthood is receiving federal tax money. The federal government should investigate this and Planned Parenthood, like any other corporation, should be held accountable."

Other lawsuits have been filed against Planned Parenthood across the country for failing to report child abuse and statutory rape. In a Planned Parenthood clinic in Central Ohio, a young girl revealed to clinic employees that she was being forced to have sex with her father for three years. The clinic refused to act, and the child abuse continued for two more years. Finally the girl filed suit against the clinic for failing to report a crime as required by law.

In another case, Life Dynamics, a Texas-based nonprofit organization, hired an actress to make approximately 800 phone calls to abortion facilities across the country. She described herself as a 13-year-old girl and a victim of sexual assault. 91 percent of the facilities that admitted a crime had been committed agreed to conceal it.

Lila Rose is an 18 year-old sophomore at UCLA majoring in political science. The Advocate is a quarterly pro-life student magazine, founded in January.

To see The Advocate's video of the investigation, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LJVPVh5TWo

To visit The Advocate's website, see:
http://www.laadvocate.com/  

Back to Top Back to Top


     

Latimer Release after Seven Years for Killing Disabled Daughter "A Tragedy"

"Defenseless disabled people need protection from those who would take the law into their own hands and decide who should live and who should die."

By Hilary White

VANCOUVER, February 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Robert Latimer, the Saskatchewan farmer who murdered his 12 year-old daughter Tracy in 1993, has been released on day parole. His lawyer, Jason Gratl, president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, told media that Latimer is "delighted" to be released. Gratl told Canada AM that Latimer "has not wavered" from his decision to kill Tracy, who suffered from a severe form of cerebral palsy. Latimer spent seven years of a ten-year sentence in prison for the murder.

Latimer has never, in any of his trial appearances or in any venue, expressed any remorse for the killing, steadfastly maintaining instead that he acted rightly.

Jim Derksen of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities told CTV News, "I would hope that he does not continue to assert the righteousness of the crime he committed, and that no one would make the mistake of thinking that our society condones the murder of (the disabled)."

Ted Kuntz, a past-president of the Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network, told CTV News that the danger of the Latimer case was that Canadians had "misplaced" their compassion onto Latimer and not with his daughter. Kuntz said his release is "a message about whether it is OK to kill your child because they have a disability."

The two conditions of his parole say that Latimer must not have "responsibility for, or make decisions for, any individuals who are severely disabled" and he must receive "psychological counselling" to "address any personal/emotional issues".

Latimer has consistently claimed that he killed his daughter, by placing her in his farm truck and connecting the exhaust pipe to the cabin, in order to relieve her suffering. Pro-life advocates, however, have argued that Latimer's interest was in relieving his own difficulties with his daughter's disability. The fact that he has become the figurehead of the Canadian euthanasia movement, they point out, has for many bolstered this conclusion.

Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) called his early release a "tragedy."

"Robert Latimer has expressed no remorse for the murder of his daughter," Hughes said. "He even asked to be released in Ottawa, which the Parole Board has complied with, purportedly so he could lobby the government to accept his point of view."

The Crown brief presented at the second trial in the case said that Tracy "enjoyed outings, one of which was to the circus, where she smiled when the horses went by."

She was receiving treatment for her disabilities and pain but the family refused to have a feeding tube connected so that pain medication could be administered more effectively. Tracy attended a school for disabled children and court documents said she responded to visits by her family, "smiling and looking happy to see them".

The brief said, "There is no dispute that through her life, Tracy at times suffered considerable pain. As well, the quality of her life was limited by her severe disability. But the pain she suffered was not unremitting, and her life had value and quality."

Since his arrest for the gassing of Tracy, Robert Latimer has been the lightening rod for euthanasia activists trying to change Canadian law to allow "mercy killing". A majority of the Canadian mainstream press has lent tacit support to this cause, consistently using terms like "mercy killing" in describing his case. Ian Mulgrew, in an editorial appearing in today's Vancouver Sun called Latimer's imprisonment, "a festering wrong".

"Latimer should have been released long ago," Mulgrew wrote.

But CLC says the release of Latimer sends an "unfortunate but clear signal that the lives of people with disabilities are not equally valued."

This signal was reinforced by comments from Latimer's lawyer who called the decision of the Appeal Division of the National Parole Board, one of "wisdom and compassion."

Mary Ellen Douglas, National Organizer of CLC said, "Defenseless disabled people need protection from those who would take the law into their own hands and decide who should live and who should die."
 
Campaign Life Coalition is urging Canadians to call their MPs and ask that protection for the vulnerable handicapped be maintained and strengthened by law.

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Ten years minimum
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2001/feb/010220a.html

Convicted "Euthanasia" Murderer Robert Latimer Applies For Day Parole
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07112704.html

Back to Top Back to Top


     

Canadian Evangelical Leader Provokes Furor after Defending Human Rights Commissions

Janet Epp Buckingham now claims "misunderstanding" and expresses support for HRC reform

By Hilary White and John Jalsevac

TORONTO, February 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - With increasing media attention in Canada and around the world on the two cases of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions vs. Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, some have expressed shock that Janet Epp Buckingham, former legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC), recently came to the defence of the HRCs as just another legitimate part of Canada's justice system.

Writing for ChristianWeek's online edition on February 15, Buckingham said, "Some people are using the mere fact that the commissions are considering the complaints to argue that they should be abolished. That is like saying that the courts should be shut down just because someone has sued me!"

Buckingham wrote, "Sure, it is a pain and can be costly if you hire a lawyer to defend you. But that is what happens in a country where you have laws and courts. You may have to defend yourself against someone whose claim has little merit. Everyone deserves their day in court."

Immediately after the publication of Buckingham's column, however, numerous conservative leaders criticized Buckingham for what they called her naiveté. Canadian Christian journalist Denyse O'Leary, who also writes for ChristianWeek, wrote that she is "appalled that...someone who apparently knows so little about the 'HRCS' workings would even comment".

"No. Everyone whose claim has 'little merit' does NOT deserve their day in an 'HRC' court, as they exist in Canada."

O'Leary writes on her website, "I think Janet Epp Buckingham owes every independent journalist in Canada an apology, but especially the Christian ones, who have - in many cases - sacrificed much and risked much."

In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com, however, Buckingham yesterday said that she feels "a little beaten up" and is "taken aback" by the backlash against her article by fellow conservatives, saying that she is "not the enemy." Buckingham said that she never intended to convey to her readers that there was no problem with the Human Rights Commissions, but rather only wished to caution against prematurely calling for their total elimination.

"I wrote the commentary at a time when there was considerable advocacy for abolishing human rights commissions," said Buckingham, explaining that the piece was written in mid-January.

Buckingham told LifeSiteNews that she agrees that the HRCs are in need of significant reform, most especially when it comes to matters of "expression". Hence, she said she fully supports the private members bill being brought forward by MP Keith Martin, which would repeal section 13 (1) of federal human rights legislation, which is the section that has been invoked in recent times to attack public figures such as Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, Ron Paul, because they ostensibly wrote "offensive" material.

"This is an opportune time to push for reform of the system," said Buckingham, "Some human rights codes include prohibitions on publishing material that 'demeans or belittles' someone or a group of persons based on certain characteristics. This type of provision is a significant restriction on freedom of expression.

"The Human Rights Commissions were never meant to protect against hurt feelings."

Nevertheless, she added, "I do believe that the human rights system can be a public good in Canada. I was trying to make the point that Christians, along with many other groups in society, have been able to stop discrimination through the human rights system. And these people likely would not have been able to afford to go to court when they lost jobs or were refused housing on the basis of their religion or their skin colour."
 
Buckingham said she was sorry that her opinion was "misunderstood." "I did not mean to make light of the expense and hardship people have gone through as they have had to hire lawyers to defend themselves against human rights complaints. It is not only the expense, but negative publicity and emotional hardship that people go through. It is not an easy thing to face a human rights complaint and the system is being abused by those who feel offended by a particular piece of writing." Hence Buckingham said she supports a reform to curtail such abuses.

However, conservative commentators who disagreed with Buckinham's article say that her back-pedalling isn't enough, and that she got what she deserved.

"She never once mentioned that she thought they [the Commissions] should be improved," Gwen Landolt of REAL Women of Canada told LifeSiteNews. "The whole article was drifting to how noble and good the Commissions were." Landolt called Buckingham's article "naïve and shockingly inaccurate."

As to Buckingham's claims that her article was simply misunderstood, Landolt responded, "It was not misinterpreted. Nobody misinterpreted what she said at all. I think what has happened is that she realized that she made very murky arguments that cannot stand up under analysis. She meant what she said. In no words did she give any intimations that the Commissions could be adjusted."

Landolt said that the criticisms levelled against Buckingham's article were, "well deserved. What she said is utterly without merit."
 
Landolt also took Buckingham to task for continuing to downplay the seriousness of the procedural flaws inherent in the Human Rights Commissions, in which the accused is often forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for their defense, while the accuser's fees are covered by the government. "Janet never dealt with that. She just said they were wonderful," said Landolt, suggesting that Buckingham failed to understand the extreme financial burden and mental suffering that the accused in many of the recent cases have had to undergo in order to defend themselves against spurious cases. The Commission tribunals are increasingly being referred to as "kangaroo courts" for their overwhelming weight in favour of the complainants.

In her article Buckingham maintained that while a Human Rights Tribunal complaint may cause "pain", it still constitutes a legitimate avenue of legal redress. But Landolt pointed out that some of the recent cases, such as the Steyn and Levant cases, have shown that that the normal rules of court and legal procedure, designed to protect the legal rights of defendants, do not apply in the Tribunals. "This is quite a different situation than litigation before the courts, when both parties are required to cover their own expenses," Landoldt said.

From his busy website, Ezra Levant, a lawyer and formerly the publisher of the Western Standard magazine, has launched a campaign to abolish, or at least greatly curtail the power of the HRCs. Two years ago, the Western Standard Magazine, alone among Canadian publications, published the now-infamous set of cartoons of the Islamic prophet Muhammad that sparked riots around the world after their original publication in a Dutch newspaper. The HRC complaints against him, in addition to others against Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine, come from Islamic activists who claim that the journalists have defamed their religion.

But the issue at hand, Levant maintains, is not a matter of who has offended whom, but one that is foundational to maintaining a democratic state: freedom of expression and the right of citizens not to be harassed by the state about their private political or religious opinions. Given the expenses and emotional stresses involved, Levant maintains that in what he calls the "Kafkaesque" HRCs, "the process is the punishment".

Read Janet Epp Buckingham's column:
http://www.christianweek.org/stories.php?id=86&cat=canad...

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Prominent Canadian Publisher Denounces Human Rights Commissions at HRC Hearing
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/08011401.html

Governments Must Reform Human Rights Commissions, Says Canadian Magazine Editor
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021301.html

Back to Top Back to Top


     

New York Judge Permits Lesbian Divorce Despite State's Non-Recognition of Same-sex "Marriage"

By Michael Baggot

NEW YORK, February 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A New York judge has ruled that a lesbian known as Beth R. can pursue a divorce from Donna M., the woman that she "married" in Canada.  It is the first time in New York judicial history that a judge has allowed homosexuals to seek a divorce. 

While Donna M. contends that a divorce case is impossible in a state that does not allow for same-sex "marriages," Supreme Court Justice Laura Drager ruled the state can still recognize the marriage that took place outside of New York. 

Donna M.'s lawyer argues that Justice Drager's decision "sets aside 200 years of decisional and statutory law in New York."  He accused Drager of trying to change state law through the court. 

In 2006, on behalf of the New York Court of Appeals, Justice Smite wrote, "We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the legislature."  Unlike at least 41 other states, however, New York legislation does not explicitly define marriage as a union between a man and woman, thus allowing judges like Drager to recognize homosexual marriages contracted elsewhere.

Drager's decision contrasts with a December Rhode Island decision in which the state's Supreme Court refused to acknowledge any out-of-state homosexual "marriage."  Contrary to that decision, Drager ruled that New York would recognize any out-of-state marriage that is not prohibited by the state or is not "abhorrent to New York public policy."  Only incest and polygamy were cited as "abhorrent" practices.

Drager's ruling is the second major legal victory in New York this month for advocates of homosexual "marriage."  On February 1st, the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court of New York ruled that homosexual "marriages" legally recognized in other countries must also be recognized for the purpose of state employee benefits.  After the February 1st ruling, Monroe Community College in Rochester was forced to extend health benefits to the college employee Patricia Martinez, who was "married" to her homosexual partner in Canada. 

The left-wing advocacy group New York Civil Liberties Union admitted to bringing the Martinez case forward in order to move towards the legalization of homosexual "marriages" within the state.  James Esseks, Litigation Director of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project of the NYCLU, said after the February case that "it's now up to the state legislature to finish the job it started last year and pass the marriage bill so that lesbian and gay New Yorkers won't have to leave the state to celebrate their commitments."

Drager's ruling is a part of a continuing trend within New York to recognize the validity of homosexual "marriages."  As judicial recognition of homosexual marriages expands, it is likely that previous state prohibitions of same-sex marriages will disappear. 

Donna M. has said that she plans to appeal the Drager decision.  

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

New York Court Rules State Must Validate Canadian Homosexual "Marriages"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08020406.html

New York Assembly Considers Legalizing Gay “Marriage”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/may/07052402.html

NY Governor Spitzer Pushes Abortion and Gay Marriage
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/may/07050102.html

Back to Top Back to Top


     

Rare European Union Split at UN Over Attempt to Shift Agenda to Include Abortion

Secretary-General refers to "greatest resource for development: mothers raising children”

By Samantha Singson

NEW YORK, February 28, 2008 (C-Fam.org) - The governments of Poland and Malta broke ranks with the European Union on the question of abortion this week. The dissention occurred at the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) which convened it’s annual two-week meeting at UN headquarters in New York on Monday. The reaction of Poland and Malta happened after the EU tried to shift the meeting’s agenda to include the right to abortion.

On Tuesday Radoslaw Mleczko, the Polish Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy, told the gathering of UN Member States that Poland generally aligned itself with the EU but that any EU reference to sexual and reproductive health could not include abortion.

On Thursday afternoon, the head of Malta’s mission to the UN, Ambassador Saviour F. Borg said, “Malta would like to clarify its position with respect to the language relating to sexual and reproductive health and rights in the [EU] statement. Malta firmly continues to maintain that any position taken or recommendations made regarding women’s empowerment and gender equality should not in any way create an obligation on any party to consider abortion as a legitimate form of reproductive health rights, services or commodities.”  

The split in the European Union is significant because the EU hardly ever splits on questions of social policy at the UN. Even countries that are generally anti-abortion go along with the more radical approach taken by the United Kingdom, France and Germany. They do this as an agreement that the EU will always work out their differences behind closed doors and present a united front at UN negotiations.

The agreement works to the advantage of the pro-abortion states since they outnumber the anti-abortion states. Moreover, an EU that is divided is one that can be defeated on social policy questions. In fact, the last time the EU split in any significant way was during the UN cloning debate which resulted in the UN calling for the ban on all forms of human cloning, an effort opposed by the UK, France, Germany and other left-wing European governments. It is unclear how meaningful this current split will be in the negotiations which will begin in earnest tomorrow.
 
Pro-life and pro-family issues were also woven into UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s opening remarks to the commission on Monday when he criticized the now widespread practice of choosing abortions based on the sex of the baby, an issue that was all but taken off the agenda at last year’s CSW despite solid support from both civil society and numerous governmental delegations. In his speech to launch the new UN multi-year campaign to end violence against women, the Secretary-General stressed, “Through the practice of prenatal sex selection, countless others are denied the right even to exist. No country, no culture, no woman young or old is immune to this scourge.”

The Secretary-General also highlighted the importance of families and children stating, “We know that violence against women compounds the enormous social and economic toll on families, communities, even whole nations. And we know that when we work to eradicate violence against women, we empower our greatest resource for development: mothers raising children.”

Among the many pro-life and pro-family lobbyists attending the CSW is a large contingent of high school girls from Overbrook Academy in Rhode Island. Fourteen year old Elsa Corripio told the Friday Fax, “We want these delegates to know that there are many young people who believe in respecting life.”  Ana Paola Rangel, 15, added, “Maybe we can’t change the world, but we know we can make a difference.”

The CSW meeting continues through next week.

Back to Top Back to Top


     

LifeSiteNews.com Newsbytes for Feb. 28

* Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.com. They are presented only for your information.

Democratic Party Insiders Believe Hillary Campaign Is Dead, According to Robert Novak
http://uspolitics.einnews.com/archive/polls

Canada just became scarier for the disabled
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=33920...

Mike Huckabee endorses amendment to Colorado's constitution that defines a person as a human being from the moment life begins at conception
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Huckabee:_Fertilized_Egg_...

Schiavo Foundation Laments Obama's "Mistake" Comment on Terry Schiavo
http://www.zenit.org/article-21905?l=english

Peruvians Decry Protocol on Legality of Abortion - Clarify That "Interrupting Pregnancy" Is Never a Therapy
http://www.zenit.org/article-21904?l=english

Canada's Campus pro-lifers face mounting opposition
http://www.christianweek.org/stories.php?id=90

A big blow to Al Gore - One of the world's leading agencies monitoring climate change says there's no link between global warming and the frequency or severity of hurricanes hitting the United States over the past century.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2...

Ezra Levant calls all researchers to document every occasion that Frequent Human Rights Commission user Warman has either filed a suit against someone or threatened to do so
http://ezralevant.com/2008/02/calling-all-researchers.html

Children's Vaccine Linked to Fevers, Seizures
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j2Gafsj5iWxlQZZP1JUO2ksLt...

AIDS in Africa: Abstinence Works - Interview With Expert Matthew Hanley
http://www.zenit.org/article-21909?l=english

Washington Times Caves to Political Correctness Under New Editor
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/02/25...

America's Most Sinful Cities?
http://www.crosswalk.com/pastors/11568955/

AIDS Rates in Northern Ireland Up By 300%
http://www.uklifeleague.com/pressrelease/080227%20AIDS.htm

Back to Top Back to Top

SHARE THIS PAGE: E-mail  Print ArticlePrint

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.