---

SHARE THIS PAGE: E-mail  Print

---

---

Largest Canadian March for Life Ever - 8,000 Attend Rally on Parliament Hill

By John Jalsevac

OTTAWA, ON, May 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A massive crowd of pro-life demonstrators, the majority of whom were youth, gathered on Parliament Hill in Ottawa today to issue a call to legislators and Canadians as a whole to put an end to abortion in Canada. An estimate given by a police officer to Campaign Life Coalition president Jim Hughes was that a record-breaking crowd of 8,000 people participated in this 11th annual March for Life. Several other crowd-counters came up with almost identical numbers, making the 2008 March the largest March in the history of the pro-life event.

The day's events began with a Protestant prayer service and a Catholic Mass, the latter of which was held at Notre Dame Basilica and celebrated by Ottawa Archbishop Terrence Prendergast. The Archbishop also later attended and walked in the March. The Basilica, which can hold a capacity crowd of 1200, was packed to the rafters, to the point where not only were all the seats filled, but even standing room gave out and people had to be turned away from the Church.

After the prayer events, pro-life demonstrators began gathering on Parliament Hill beginning at noon under a cloudy sky and cooler-than-average temperatures - the day's projected high was a mere 12 degrees Celsius, or 52 Fahrenheit. The sky itself threatened rain, but as the speeches progressed the clouds cleared and as the March got underway participants walked under largely sunny skies.

Witnesses said that the mood on the Hill was extremely jubilant. David McDonald, the one-time Broadway performer turned pro-life, Christian musician, led the crowd in his repertoire of songs, with which the crowd enthusiastically sang along. As the speeches got underway a group of about 8 pro-abortion activists walked up close to the stage and heckled the speakers, shouting obscenities and pro-abortion slogans. The hecklers attempted to interrupt the testimonies of the women from Silent No More Campaign, but witnesses say that the more the hecklers tried to interrupt, the louder and more enthusiastically the crowd cheered the women on.

A number of MPs attended the March, including Pierre Lemieux who was accompanied by his wife and kids. 

Former MP Pat O'Brien, in introducing the various MPs who were present, told the assembled crowd, "This is consistently the largest demonstration to come to Parliament."

Dr. Alveda King, daughter of civil rights activist Rev. A. D. King, and niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. participated in 2008 March for Life events. King says she knows only too well the injustice of denying the most basic civil right, the right to life, to any innocent person and sees abortion as the civil rights issue of the 21st Century.

 "In my country, black women are three times as likely to have abortions as white women," says Dr. King. "While African Americans are about 12% of the population, we suffer 36% of the abortions. It's as devastating as if a plague came into the land and killed one of every four African Americans. I can tell you as a woman who aborted two of her own children, that there is nothing good that comes from abortion."

 Back to Top

---

1973 Private Letter to Trudeau Suggests Abortion Crusader Morgentaler Used Blackmail

Exclusive Commentary to LifeSiteNews.com by Terry O'Neill

May 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-lifers have long known that the Canadian political elite of the 1960s and 1970s was strongly in favour of abortion, at least in principle. After all, it was a Liberal government-supported by a liberal media-that first legalized the practice in 1969. But Canadians now know that those elites supported abortion, not just in principle, but in practice, as well. And our source for this information is none other than Canada's arch-abortionist, Henry Morgentaler himself.

As revealed in this week's Maclean's, Henry Morgentaler wrote a letter to then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in 1973 in which the abortionist disclosed that friends, family and lovers of many leading Canadian politicians were taking advantage of his then-illegal services. The letter is important, not only because it paints a fuller picture of the turbulent times, but also because it reveals important features of Morgentaler's character - not an inconsequential consideration given the annual attempt to have him awarded with the Order in Canada.

On this latter topic, it seems to me that last February's futile agitation for inclusion of Morgentaler into the Order of Canada represented yet another frantic grasp for legitimacy and respectability by the 84-year-old abortionist and his followers. The most telling moment in the campaign came when Cathie Colombo, a woman described as a long-time assistant to Morgentaler, told a reporter that to deny her boss the honour "is blasphemy" and "a national embarrassment."

One can almost see the beads of sweat forming on the woman's brow as she mouthed these words, which at once reveal both a lack of familiarity with reason (unless, of course, one considers Morgentaler to be a sacred figure) and an unbecoming desperation. But one should not be surprised at the zealousness and self-righteousness displayed by Colombo; after all, she apparently learned from the best, Morgentaler himself. Indeed, the Montreal abortion-rights crusader has long appealed more to passion than reason in his quest to turn Canada into a free-fire zone against the unborn.

Abortions were illegal in Canada until the Trudeau government passed the 1969 law allowing the procedure to take place, but only if a three-doctor hospital committee determined the pregnancy would endanger the mother's life or health. Yet, even this broad liberalization was not enough for Morgentaler, who defied the law by operating a private abortion clinic in Montreal, a dramatic move that led to a series of arrests, charges and trials, while also allowing him to wrap himself in the garb of a martyr-a misunderstood and persecuted reformer whose cries for justice were not being heeded.

Even after the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the country's abortion law in 1988, leaving the procedure completely unlimited by law, Morgentaler continued crusading for more funding and better access for abortions.

Moreover, as revealed by Maclean's, Morgentaler's penchant for portraying himself as a holier-than-thou victim is evident even in the details of the letter, marked "personal and confidential," that he wrote to Trudeau on August 28, 1973. The missive was discovered by George Egerton, associate professor of history at the University of British Columbia, while he was researching documents in the newly opened Trudeau archives. The letter ended up in my hands because of my long public record of opposition to abortion, and I gave it to Maclean's in order to ensure the document received national coverage in a mainstream publication.

The letter reveals much about Morgentaler, not only because of what he wrote but also because of the impressions left by what he did not write. In other words, there is much to be read between the lines. Not inconsequentially, the letter also raises questions about the extent to which the Liberal cabinets of the day in both Ottawa and Quebec City had a vested interest in the abortion debate.

Morgentaler begins the two-page, typed, single-spaced letter with the salutation, "Dear Pierre," after which he informs the prime minister that, "On August 15 the Montreal police raided my clinic; they also had a search warrant for my home and found the correspondence with you which I have kept confidential according to your expressed wishes."

He continues, "My reason for writing you is to advise you that this correspondence is now in the hands of someone in the Montreal police department . . . I do not think there is anything embarrassing to you in it since we mainly discussed changing the laws on abortion, but thought I should advise you of what had occurred in the event this correspondence might be misused by them."

His putative reason for writing the letter now dispensed with, Morgentaler then devotes the rest of the document to getting something "off my chest," that being his contention that he is being persecuted, that he does not receive the official support he deserves, and that the lack of such support is hypocritical.

"I am not a masochist by nature and do not relish the prospect of spending additional time in Canadian prisons after 5 years lost in German ghettos and concentration camps," he tells Trudeau, "so I am going to fight this fight until the bitter end - firmly convinced not only of the moral rightness of my course of action, but also of the hypocrisy, injustice and, indeed, unconstitutionality of the laws under which I am being tried. Please do not misunderstand. I am neither complaining nor looking to you for help. . ."

Maybe so, but Morgentaler then drops a bombshell. "Do I have to convince you really of the hypocrisy of the present laws?" he asks. "Do you know that in my clinic, I have helped wives, daughters, mistresses and relatives of members of the Federal and Provincial Cabinet, including some relatives of yours?

"Do you know that Dr. Leon Trudeau, a cousin of yours, has been referring cases to me? Do you know that Quebec ministers who officially came out against abortion, have had relatives treated in my clinic and helped there? Do you know that a relative of [Quebec health minister] Claude Castonguay (who refused to recognize my clinic as requested by me) has had an abortion in my clinic just the day before I was raided? If she knew she would be safe there, does he not know that all patients would be? Or does he not want to know?"

Morgentaler continues with an unsympathetic examination of the difficult political situation in which he believes Trudeau has found himself over the abortion issue. "Would it be wrong to conclude that the rights of women have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency?" he writes. "And do you not carry moral responsibility for the suffering of women resulting from lack of access to safe abortions by your decision not to amend this law?"

He concludes, "I hope you will forgive me the expression of frank and sometimes critical opinions. I do it, I assure you, without any malice whatsoever. I also want to assure you that if I refer to prominent people having had safe abortions in my clinic it is not with the intention of embarrassing anyone but only to bring into stronger focus the hypocrisy and absurdity of the law.

"I must say I do not really know what this letter to you can accomplish except, perhaps, that if you read it as a message from one man of goodwill to another, written honestly, though with some passion, possibility you will give it some thought."
 
We do not know the nature of Trudeau's immediate response to this letter, but we do know his long-term response: he did nothing to further liberalize the abortion law. It was the Supreme Court of Canada which, in a case involving Morgentaler himself, ruled in 1988 that the 1969 law was in breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is perhaps a testament to the strength of Trudeau's character that he refused to budge from his position, even though Morgentaler's letter could be viewed as a none-too-thinly-veiled threat that, failing to amend the law, names would be named and alleged hypocrites exposed.

Could it really be true that Morgentaler did not appreciate the impact his revelations would have on Trudeau? Could it really be that, while on one hand declaring that he sent his letter without malice and had no intention of embarrassing anyone, that, on the other hand, he did not recognize that his protestations of purity existed in the long shadow of an implied threat of exposure? Blackmail is certainly too strong of a word to use here, but there is, nevertheless, something sinister about the dark facts Morgentaler marshaled in his extraordinary letter.

Of course, it may well be true that Morgentaler's zealousness and self-righteousness prevented him from appreciating the menacing nature of his letter. In other words, his view of himself as a martyr could have distorted his judgment. We are left, then, with a choice about Morgentaler, either option of which does not flatter him: either he was a sinister plotter or he was a foolish zealot.

One imagines that both pro-choicers and pro-lifers will have much to say about this letter: pro-choicers that it shows what a resolute man Morgentaler was (and is); pro-lifers that the hypocrisy it reveals helps explain how abortion became legal in the first place, and how it is able to continue today, utterly unfettered by regulation.

 Back to Top

---

U.K. Amendment Protecting Freedom of Speech on Homosexuality Removed…Then Kept In

By Hilary White

LONDON, May 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - MPs at Westminster voted on Tuesday night to remove protections for freedom of speech from a "hate crimes" bill, but a vote in the House of Lords retained the wording. In a vote of 338 to 136, the House of Commons agreed with homosexual activists who wanted wording removed that would have allowed Christians and others who objected to homosexual behaviour to preach Christian sexual morality in public without fear of prosecution.

Peers in the House of Lords, however, voted today to retain an amendment that allows religious people to claim freedom of religious expression when charged with "inciting hatred". The House of Commons was forced to let the wording remain in the bill due to time constraints.

The amendment says, "For the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred."

Andrew Selous, the Conservative MP for South West Bedfordshire and Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions, warned in the House of Commons that while "we all agree that no one should be abused for their lifestyle," he pointed to several cases where Christians who objected to homosexuality as a lifestyle have been persecuted under current laws.

"An elderly pensioner couple, a bishop of the Church of England, a Roman Catholic archbishop, a leading Muslim figure and a leading author have been investigated by the police, and when that happens people worry about the nature of our society. We must maintain that essential freedom of speech while avoiding the harm and upset that neither she (Labour MP Maria Eagle) nor I wants to see," Selous said.

Nick Herbert the Conservative Shadow Secretary for Justice and MP for Arundel and South Downs argued that the amendment does not weaken the protection for homosexuals.

"We are not here to legislate for matters of taste; we are deciding whether comment should fall within the scope of the criminal law. All the amendment seeks to do is say that for the avoidance of doubt, criticism of sexual conduct and urging people to refrain from certain sexual conduct should not of itself be taken as threatening or intended to stir up hatred. That is a perfectly reasonable safeguard."

The legislation allows up to seven years in prison for a conviction on incitement to hatred based on sexual orientation.

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Motion to Protect Religious Freedom and Speech Defeated in UK Gay Hate Crimes Bill
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/08011113.html

Homophobic Thought Crimes Now High Priority for UK Judiciary
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2002/nov/02112901.html

Dropped UK Amendment Would Have Made it a Criminal Offence to Link Homosexuality to Paedophilia
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08031205.html

British Hate Crimes Response: It Should Not be a Criminal Offence to be a Bore or a Creep
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07111303.html

 Back to Top

---

Homosexualist Activist Links "Corrective Rape" of Lesbians to Ex-Gay Movement

"I call on people of good will to challenge this kind of shrill, polarizing rhetoric," says psychology professor

By Michael Baggot

BROOKLYN, NY, May 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Outspoken "gay rights" activist Wayne Besen posted a provocative message on his TurthWinsOut.org blog yesterday which linked an alleged climate of discrimination produced by Ex-Gay organizations with the rape of lesbians in South Africa performed under the pretext of changing their sexual orientation.

"The notion that GLBT people must be 'changed' no matter what the psychological or physical toll is in step with the West's 'ex-gay' movement. The very existence of these organizations creates a sour climate where GLBT lives are demeaned and homosexual relationships are viewed as inferior," wrote Besen in his "'Corrective Rape' of Lesbians In South African Schools Shows Sickness of 'Ex-Gay' Movement" post.

Besen begins his post with a reference to a recent Human Rights Commission report that notes an increased number of male students raping lesbian students in an effort to make them heterosexual.

"I hope people will condemn this linking of sexual violence with people who refrain from homosexual behavior due to conscience of religious belief," responded Grove City Psychology professor Warren Throckmorton on his own blog.

"I call on people of good will to challenge this kind of shrill, polarizing rhetoric."

Besen admits that "these extreme cases do not represent the so-called 'ex-gay' movement in general. Certainly, Exodus and even NARTH, I believe, would oppose such torture."

Nonetheless, following criticisms of his connection, Besen reaffirmed his contention that the ex-gay movement's work is partially responsible for the horrors of rape in South Africa.

"The indirect actions and violent words by America's ex-gay organizations give license to those who wish to justify assaults and intimidation against homosexuals," wrote Besen following responses to his original post.

Besen singled out the Christian ex-gay organization Exodus in his original post.

"Exodus likes to disingenuously claim it loves gay people. Yet, Exodus has never met an anti-gay law it has not campaigned for (including sodomy laws) and has done everything possible to empower bullies in public schools."

Yesterday, in a related post "Does Exodus Influence Attitudes in Africa," Besen argued that an advertisement from the ex-gay Exodus organization contributes to violence against individuals with homosexual inclinations.

After asking the viewer if he had considered whether homosexuality is part of "God's design for you," the Exodus ad affirms "God can still repair your life." The ad concludes, "He still loves you, change is possible. Come for help!!!"

"It isn't a leap to say that Africans who are portrayed as broken and in need of 'repair' might have an increased likelihood of being victims of hate crimes. After all, once people are dehumanized - it makes it easier to attack them," Besen responded to the ad.

"Clearly, this ad by an Exodus Global Alliance affiliate are demeaning and make the lives of gay people seem worth less than those who are not in need of 'repair.'"

Exodus International's official policy condemns violence against individuals with same-sex attractions.

"Exodus International affirms that gay-identified individuals and those who struggle with same-sex attraction are persons for whom Jesus Christ died and loves equally. Therefore, we strongly oppose bullying, name calling and acts of aggression against any individual or group of individuals for any reason."

"These actions have no place in our society and we must, instead, affirm behavior that validates the personal worth and dignity God bestows upon every human being."

Read Besen's post:
http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/corrective-rape-of-lesbians-in-south-african-sc...

Read Throckmorton's response:
http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/05/07/wayne-besen-links-rape-and-ex-gays

Learn more about Exodus International:
http://exodus.to/content/view/34/57

 Back to Top

---

Western Australia Rejects Clone and Kill Bill

By Hilary White

PERTH, Australia May 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A bill that proposed to allow the creation of cloned human beings for research has been voted down by Western Australia's Legislative Council.

The bill would have allowed researchers to go ahead with experiments to create genetically "matched" stem cells for patients, considered the holy grail of embryonic research. Stem cells taken from embryos create serious medical problems when they are implanted into the bodies of patients due to the problem of the body's immune system rejection of foreign tissue. They have also been shown to create cancerous tumours. Scientists have theorized that cells taken from clones of patients would avoid this problem.

But recent breakthroughs in the creation of stem cells from adult somatic (body) cells have rendered the theory obsolete, according to leading embryo researchers. Ian Wilmut, the creator of the cloned sheep Dolly, had applied to the UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to create clones for stem cell retrieval, but has since repudiated such experiments as unnecessary.

The shift in opinion came after a major research breakthrough was achieved by Japanese and US researchers last November in which adult skin cells were "reprogrammed" to become cells that behave like embryonic stem cells. Like stem cells derived from a clone, these "induced pluripotent stem" (iPS) cells are also genetically matched to the patient.

The defeated bill was identified by pro-life advocates as textbook "clone-and-kill" legislation. It proposed to "allow for the creation of embryos by means other than fertilisation [by cloning] and the use of those embryos for research".

The only restriction the bill proposed was that the creation of these clones must be "subject to the same strict licensing" as that applied to "spare" embryos created in IVF labs. It included the now-standard caveat, decided early on by a consortium of pro-embryo research bioethicists, that such embryos must be killed before they were 14 days old and would not be allowed to be implanted in the womb.

The bill was opposed by several Western Australia legislators who said it had been rendered out-of-date because of the iPS discovery.

Australians for Ethical Stem Cell Research praised the outcome, saying those who voted against the bill had decided "that there is no point enacting laws for a science that is now dead and gone."

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Australian Archbishop Under Investigation for Telling Anti-Life Catholic Politicians not to Receive Communion
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jun/07060708.html

 Back to Top

---

North Carolina Appeals Court Upholds Joint Custody for Separated Lesbian Couple

Lesbian partner deemed de facto parent

By Michael Baggot

RALEIGH, NC, May 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld a district court decision on Tuesday granting a separated lesbian couple joint custody of the child they raised together.

Tuesday's decision upholds Durham County District Judge Ann McKown's ruling in Mason v. Dwinnell that biological parent Irene Dwinnell had freely created a de facto parent status for Joellen Mason, her domestic partner of eight years.

In 1997, Dwinnell gave birth to a child through artificial insemination.  Mason was present during Dwinnell's pregnancy and helped raise the child.  Although the hospital refused to recognize Mason as the child's second parent, the couple continued to identify each other as joint parents on school forms and other documents.

In 2000, the couple signed an agreement granting both equal parental rights.  They separated a year later and began a custody routine that bounced the child back and forth between the two.

Following Dwinnell's efforts to decrease Mason's contact with the child, an October 2004 court granted the couple temporary joint legal and physical custody.

In June 2006, Judge McKown made the joint custody permanent on the grounds that Dwinnell had "encouraged, fostered, and facilitated the emotional and psychological bond between the minor child and Mason."

The Court of Appeals that upheld McKown's 2006 decision stated that it was treating Mason as it would any other "third party" who had acquired de facto parental status.

As Leonard notes, NC courts recognize that biological or adoptive parents have "paramount interest" in their child's care.  Nonetheless, the state's courts have also used "the best interest of the child" to grant custody rights to de facto parents.

Tuesday's ruling is shaping legal precedence to give lesbian partners the same parental status granted to other third parties, such as stepparents of the opposite sex.

"Although this appeal arises in the context of a same-sex domestic partnership, it involves only the constitutional standards applicable to all custody disputes between legal parents and third parties," concluded Tuesday's ruling.

New York Law School Professor Arthur S. Leonard noted on his Leonard Link blog that the NC Court of Appeals "decided to treat this case as no different from any other case involving a custody dispute between a legal parent and a de facto parent."

Tuesday's decision contrasts with that of a similar 1991 case in New York, Alison D. v. Virginia M. In the 1991 decision, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the lesbian partner of the child's biological parent was a "legal" stranger, despite having helped to raise the child.

Read Mason v. Dwinnell:
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2008/070176-1.htm

Read Alison D. v. Virginia M.:
http://www.anusha.com/alison-d.htm

 Back to Top

---

World Health Assembly to Endorse Pro-Abortion Conference

By Samantha Singson

NEW YORK, NY, May 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com/C-FAM) - The General Assembly of the World Health Organization (WHO) will meet in Geneva later this month and is expected to promote the outcome of a controversial pro-abortion conference that took place in London last year. The 61st annual World Health Assembly (WHA) will discuss "mobilizing political will" in the area of "sexual and reproductive health." In a document prepared for the meeting, there is a reference to the Women Deliver Conference which was sponsored by various UN agencies and pro-abortion non-governmental organizations.  

The Women Deliver reference is included in the WHA document as part of a progress report that lists activities that have been undertaken to achieve the WHO's reproductive health strategy that member states first agreed to in 2004. It is thought that the World Health Assembly may try to elevate the Women Deliver conference on par with an official governmental meeting, which it was not.
 
Though Women Deliver was attended by government officials and sponsored by UN agencies such as the WHO, UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the conference was primarily organized by non-governmental organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the Center for Reproductive Rights, Ipas, and the International Women's Health Coalition.

As reported last year by the Friday Fax, Women Deliver was billed as a conference focused on maternal, child and newborn health and reducing maternal mortality, but participants were overwhelmed by the conference's abortion focus. Out of 98 scheduled sessions at Women Deliver, 35 focused on abortion while only 2 dealt with newborn health. The agenda was organized by Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for a Free Choice, and the majority of discussions focused on securing funding and harnessing political will for "reproductive rights," a term that has been interpreted by UN committees to include abortion on demand. One organizer bluntly told C-FAM's Susan Yoshihara that the Women Deliver conference was a "pro-choice conference."

A report on Women Deliver prepared by Yoshihara details six major problems with the conference and the false consensus reached by the conference's organizers that "reproductive health services" is the primary way to reduce maternal mortality. According to Yoshihara, the problems include: contradiction with longstanding medical consensus, diversion of funds from HIV/AIDS and other pressing global health issues, use of poor data, undermining sovereignty and the rule of law through the abuse of UN human rights treaties to pressure countries to remove legal protection from the unborn, undermining health systems and medical regulations to promote risky abortion techniques by lower level health care providers, and attacking religion, culture and the family because they are the strongest barriers to the abortion agenda. 

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America who attended the London meeting, said, "Considering the conference's obsession with abortion, policymakers should not rely on advice from Women Deliver."

The World Health Assembly is the annual meeting organized and run by the WHO. The Assembly is expected to take action on the report during its session later this month.

 Back to Top

---

Michigan Supreme Court Rules Governments, Universities Can't Give Homosexuals Health Benefits

By John Jalsevac

May 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Michigan Supreme Court handed down a ruling yesterday that said that the state's constitutional amendment in defense of traditional marriage forbids local governments and state universities from providing health benefits normally reserved to married couples to homosexual partners.

The majority opinion was held by a solid majority of 5-2.

The plaintiffs in the case, including 21 homosexual couples, argued that the Michigan marriage amendment only referred to the granting of marriage specifically, whereas offering benefits to same-sex couples is not equal to recognizing same-sex partnerships as marriage.

Rusty Hills, attorney general spokesperson, however, said, "The benefits flow from marriage, and you can't really substitute something that's an alternative to marriage based on a law that's been passed in Michigan."

The majority wrote that the lower appeals court, which had originally ruled that same-sex couples could be given health benefits, "held that providing health-insurance benefits to domestic partners does not violate the marriage amendment because public employers are not recognizing domestic partnerships as unions similar to marriage, given the significant distinctions between the legal effects accorded to these two unions."

"However," the majority continued, "given that the marriage amendment prohibits the recognition of unions similar to marriage 'for any purpose,' the pertinent question is not whether these unions give rise to all of the same legal effects; rather, it is whether these unions are being recognized as unions similar to marriage 'for any purpose.'

"We conclude that the marriage amendment which states that 'the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose,' prohibits public employers from providing health-insurance benefits to their employees' qualified same-sex domestic partners."

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law-firm which was instrumental in drafting the language of the Michigan marriage amendment commented, "The Law Center applauds the courageous actions of Michigan Attorney General Michael A. Cox for defending the will of the people. Unfortunately, the same accolades cannot be given to the Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, who decided to abrogate her responsibilities as the chief executive officer of the state by withdrawing her name and office from upholding the law, and then changing sides - siding with the homosexual groups that opposed the amendment."

Thompson also decried the efforts of several publicly financed universities, including the University of Michigan, Michigan State, Eastern Michigan, and Wayne State Universities, which sided with the homosexual groups and used tax dollars in an attempt to go against the marriage amendment.

Thompson went on to say, "The language that the Law Center helped craft for this Amendment has proven to be the model for the rest of the country on how to protect traditional marriage.  This ruling not only affirms the lower court ruling, but affirms the institution of marriage.  In effect, it strengthens the institution and will preserve it for generations to come."

Michigan citizens voted overwhelmingly in 2004 to adopt a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, by nearly 60%.  The amendment is intended to prohibit courts or other efforts to impose same-sex marriage, polygamy, or any other form of counterfeit "marriage" on the state.

 Back to Top

---

Smashing Defeat for Pro-Abortion Forces in Brazil

Legislative committee defeats abortion decriminalization in unanimous vote

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BRASILIA, May 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a stunning victory for the pro-life movement in Latin America, the Social Security and Family Committee of Brazil's Chamber of Deputies (the lower legislative house) unanimously rejected an abortion decriminalization law that pro-abortion forces have fought for since 1991.

The two pro-abortion deputies on the committee left in protest without voting, leaving the remaining deputies to reject the legislation 33-0.

The committee members embraced each other in tears while pro-abortion forces in the audience yelled epithets at them and against the Catholic Church, which this year initiated an intense campaign to protect the right to life.  

The campaign, along with major efforts by Evangelical Protestants, has resulted in a dramatic increase in pro-life sentiment in Brazil.  A recent poll found that 68% of Brazilians now oppose further decriminalization of abortion, up from 63% last year.

The legislation, which is known as Bill 1135/91, will next be considered by the Chamber of Deputies' Constitution and Justice Committee, which is also expected to reject it.  The text eliminates criminal penalties for abortion.  Other bills to decriminalize abortion are also making their way through the National Congress.

The vote represented a smashing defeat for pro-abortion forces in Brazil, and in particular for President Luiz Lula's Minister of Health, José Gomes Temporão.  Temporão has sought to divert attention from the issue of the human rights of the fetus by recasting the debate as an issue of "public health" due to the dangers he alleges are associated with illegal abortions.

Apparently sensing his inevitable defeat, Temporão did not testify before the committee and instead sent representatives.  He used diplomatic language to denounce the ruling, claiming that the current legal approach to abortion was unrealistic and would result in "failure".

Related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Brazilian Judge Rules Abortion Law Unconstitutional
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08042307.html

Catholic Diocese Shows Horrors of Abortions to Faithful, Displays Fetal Models in Parishes
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08031208.html

The Pro-Life Pentecost in Brazil, and what it Means for the Rest of the World
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08032010.html

Brazilian Bishops Launch Major National Campaign Against Abortion, Euthanasia, and Embryonic Stem Cell Research
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08020810.html

The War Continues: Brazil Catholic Bishops Take Pro-Life Battle to the United Nations, and International Foundations
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021313.html

Brazil Bishop: Excommunication for those who Use or Distribute Morning After Pill
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/08012805.html

 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.