LifeSite Daily News for Tuesday November 18, 2008

See today’s LifeSiteNews stories

Send news tips

SHARE THIS PAGE: E-mail Print

Chinese Woman Threatened with Forced Abortion has been Released after International Pressure

By John-Henry Westen

BEIJING, November 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Arzigul Tursun, the Muslim Uyghur woman who was caught fleeing from authorities while more than six months pregnant was released from China’s northwestern Xinjiang region where she was supposed to undergo a forced abortion. One-child policy enforcers had her under guard at the hospital intending to abort her third child against her will. However international pressure has resulted in her release without having her unborn child killed.

US Congressmen Chris Smith and Joe Pitts, both of whom worked to mount international pressure commented, “Today’s report that Arzigul Tursun, a Muslim Uyghur woman from China’s Xinjiang region, has apparently been released from custody is great news for both her family and women throughout China. The decision to spare Arzigul and her child from the tragedy of forced abortion is, we hope, a sign that more women in China will be saved from this grave human rights abuse.

“We understand that the local population-control committee chief stated that the abortion would have compromised Arzigul Tursun’s health. We know that abortion threatens women’s physical and mental health, and we further recognize that abortion always destroys the life of a child. There are always two victims in every abortion, and we are relieved that this abortion did not take place.

“As Members of Congress, we continue to urge the US government to do everything possible to end human rights abuses in China, including withholding funds from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) until they divest themselves from providing support to the agency that carries out China’s abusive population control program.”

Smith (R-NJ) and Pitts (R-PA), both members of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, have vowed to continue to carefully follow Arzigul’s case to help ensure that she and her family do not suffer any direct or subtle forms of retribution for her courage in fighting to save her child.

In the last few days the two congressmen pressed Chinese officials to release Arzigul and to allow her to keep her baby. Smith also raised concerns directly with Zhou Wenzhong, Chinese ambassador to the United States and Clark Randt, U.S. ambassador to China.

California Attorney General Asks Supreme Court to Rule on Prop. 8

By Kathleen Gilbert

SACRAMENTO, California, November 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – California Attorney General Jerry Brown has filed a legal brief with the California Supreme Court requesting that the court swiftly settle three lawsuits against Proposition 8.

Brown said that the suits challenging Prop. 8, California’s amendment restricting marriage to between a man and a woman, “raise issues of statewide importance, implicating not only California’s marriage laws but also the initiative process and the Constitution itself.

“It is appropriate for the Court to address these issues to provide certainty and finality in this matter,” wrote Brown, who was responding to the Court’s request for Brown to weigh in on the legal action.

Brown also advised the Court to recognize that the scope of the lawsuits – which claim the proposition is a constitutional revision and not an amendment – means that the Court’s review “will be limited in nature and will not have to ‘consider or weigh the social wisdom or general propriety’ of Proposition 8.'”

Brown discouraged the court from enacting a requested suspension of Proposition 8, saying it would only perpetuate confusion on the status of certain unions.

The judges could decide whether to review the suits as soon as Wednesday, when the court meets for its weekly conference.

The attorney for the five official proponents of the measure and the Yes on 8 campaign, Andrew Pugno, agreed that a swift ruling would help allay rising tension and confusion on the matter.

“The people of California are entitled to a prompt resolution of whether Proposition 8 properly amended their Constitution,” Pugno told the Court.

Some true marriage advocates worry that Brown, however, whose office requires him to defend the amendment, may act according to his support for same-sex “marriage” rather than the sound legality of Proposition 8.

Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Proposition 8, in an LA Times article said he was confident Proposition 8 had the law on its side, but said, “We are not confident the attorney general will vigorously defend Proposition 8 in light of his strong opposition to the measure.”

This is not the first time Brown faced suspicion over the question of whether he would be able to put his personal beliefs aside in order to perform the function of his office.

When Brown ran for the office of Attorney General in 2006, some voters questioned whether the former governor of California, famous for his opposition to the death penalty, would uphold his duty as Attorney General to defend death penalty rulings.

“The people of California can count on me to follow the law,” Brown had affirmed. “It’s the law, and I will follow the law. The voters have made it clear, the Legislature has made it clear, and the courts have made it clear. The attorney general’s duty is to follow the law.”

Proponents of the measure have expressed confidence that Proposition 8 is fully legitimate, and noted that courts in neighboring states have uniformly rejected nearly identical challenges to measures banning same-sex “marriage.”

“Proposition 8 is simple, narrow, and targeted to a single issue,” a ProtectMarriage.com statement said. “It restores the definition of marriage to what it was and always had been prior to May 15, 2008 – nothing more.” On May 15, four Supreme Court judges imposed same-sex “marriage” on California in a ruling that dismissed voter-approved protection of authentic marriage in state law as unconstitutional.

“The people of California have spoken by affirming traditional marriage,” Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, told the LA Times.

“It is time to move on. Fourteen words that reaffirm the historic and common sense definition of marriage are not a radical revision to the Constitution.”

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

California Democratic Legislators Urge Judges to Void Prop. 8
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111205.html

Schwarzenegger Assures Same-Sex Couples Previous “Marriages” Intact
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111102.html

Christian Prayer Group Sexually and Physically Assaulted by Homosexual Mob

San Francisco Castro District residents seek vengeance for vote on Proposition 8

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

SAN FRANCISCO, November 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A mob of homosexuals sexually and physically assaulted a group of Christians praying together in the city’s Castro District last week, in apparent retaliation for the recent defeat of homosexual marriage in California.

The Christians, a group of Evangelical Protestants who regularly go to the predominantly homosexual Castro District to sing songs and pray with passers-by, say they were holding hands and singing “Amazing Grace” when a angry mob began to shove and kick them, steal their belongings, pour hot coffee on their faces, and sexually assault them.

“We’d been there for a couple of nights just singing worship songs, people would come up and stand with us and join us, we got to pray for some people,” said one participant in an account filmed at the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsxojbyAQGI), “but on Friday night it just was different.”

“We started worshipping, it was kind of like you would walk into someone’s living room, and people are just hanging out with a guitar, worshipping Jesus, just really peaceful,” she continued. “And a man came up after we’d been there for a little while and just began yelling and swearing at us and commanding us to get out of the Castro District, and our leader went up and he said ‘why are you here?’ and she said ‘we’re here to worship God and we’re here because we love you’.”

The words enraged the man, who was soon followed by others. Although the group did no preaching, the mere presence of Christians praying in the Castro District was enough to provoke a frenzy of violence.

“A few men came and they brought a large piece of cloth and covered us with cloth and cornered us into a corner, and they started swearing at us and yelling at us and just filled with hatred, and the crowd grew larger and larger and larger until it ended up being a few hundred people and the bars had emptied out, and we’re completely surrounded by people yelling at us,” the participant recounted.

“And all of a sudden, me and another friend had hot coffee poured on our faces, and I thought they were pouring boiling water on us until I could smell the coffee, and the girl next to me, someone reached in and took her Bible and she went and said ‘I’m sorry that’s mine, can I have it back please?’ and he hit on her head with the Bible, pushed her onto the ground and began kicking her.”

According to the account, members of the crowd began to shove the group and blow whistles in their ears. They took photographs and said “we know who you are, we’re going to kill you”. The group made a circle with the women protected inside. That was when “it got bad, it got perverse,” the participant said.

Although the videotaped participant did not elaborate, a YouTube member who posted a video of the violence included anonymous testimony from a participant claiming that “they were touching and grabbing me, and trying to shove things in my butt, and even trying to take off my pants – basically trying to molest me. I used one hand to hold my pants up, while I used the other arm to hold one of the girls. The guys huddled around all the girls, and protected them.”

After police arrived in riot gear, the mob reportedly became even more agitated, and began to violently lunge at the prayer group, seeking to go between the officers, who had formed a protective line. That was when the videotaped participant said she thought she was going to die.

The police then reportedly insisted in escorting the group out of the Castro District, stating that it was necessary to preserve the lives of the prayer group members. A video on YouTube records the final minutes of the escort, showing angry homosexuals screaming curse words, threatening the Christians, and attempting to force their way through the protective line of police (see video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRxFoBSPng – photos on this page taken from the video).

San Francisco’s KTVU reports that one opponent of Proposition 8 claimed that “their rights were respected. They got a chance to go ahead and pray on the sidewalk and I had the opportunity to express my freedom of speech which is telling them to get out of my neighborhood.”

The television station explicitly attributed the anger of the homosexual mob to the recent victory of Proposition 8, the California referendum that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Peter LaBarbera, President of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), told LifeSiteNews that America is beginning to see the real face of the homosexual movement in the aftermath of the Proposition 8 victory in California.

“Basically I think what we’re seeing is that the homofascist element of the larger gay movement is coming out of the closet, and they’re emboldened by what they perceive as injustice, but I’m hoping and I’m praying that their antidemocratic behavior educates America and helps Americans wake up to what this movement is all about,” LaBarbera said.

“If you do a little logic test and flip it around and if you had a video of a bunch of Christians or let’s just say conservatives, sexually molesting and chasing some gays out of a city, you’d better believe there would be a national outcry,” he added.

LaBarbera said that his website continues to receive more page views as interest grows in his organization, which is exclusively committed to combating the homosexual political agenda in the United States.

Related Links:

Testimony of Prayer Group Participant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsxojbyAQGI

Video of Mob Assault of Christian Prayer Group
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRxFoBSPng

Americans for Truth About Homosexuality
https://americansfortruth.com/

Related LifeSiteNews coverage:

Prop. 8 Protesters Besiege LA Mormon Temple, Press Forward on Legal Challenges
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110704.html

Video Shows Gay ‘Marriage’ Backers Terrorizing Cross-Carrying Elderly Woman and Reporter
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111010.html

Mormons, Knights of Columbus Face Chilling Threats and More Vandalism for Prop. 8 Support
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111711.html

Homosexualist Anarchists Storm Michigan Church During Sunday Service
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111104.html

“Homophobic” Speech Ruling Overturned in France

Parliamentarian suffered three years of litigation for calling homosexuality “inferior” to heterosexuality

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

PARIS, November 17, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A judgment against a French parliamentarian for “homophobic” hate speech was overturned by the nation’s Court of Appeals last week.

Deputy Christian Vanneste was convicted in 2006 of “homophobic” speech after stating in 2004 that “homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality. If it were universalized it would be dangerous for humanity.” He also called the behavior of homosexuals “bigoted.”

The French Court of Appeals overturned the lower court ruling, remarking that “if the disputed remarks were able to hurt the feelings of certain homosexual people, their contents do not go beyond the limits of freedom of expression.”

The negation of the lower court’s $4,000 fine for Vanneste’s remarks was denounced by homosexualist organizations across the country.

“This decision of the Court of Appeals will unfortunately lead homophobes to believe that they can express their hate with complete impunity,” complained the French organization “Gaylib” on their website. “This is precisely what the (anti-homophobia) law of 2004 sought by the government of Jean Pierre Raffarin was meant to fight.”

“This decision could harm fragile gains” made by the homosexual movement, remarked representatives of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Center of Paris. The organization lamented that “the struggle against homophobia is floundering.”

France’s “ACT UP” claimed that “the legislature gave the means to prosecute offenses based on sexual orientation precisely because society has begun to realize the impact of homophobia. The decision of the appeals court put all of that in doubt.”

“The communication tactics of the gay lobby are habitual,” said Vanneste in an interview with the Evangelical Protestant Committee for Human Dignity. “They’ve been effective, and they’re not going to stop using them.”

“They consist in victimization, and distortions made in bad faith every time they meet an obstacle. The Court of Appeals seeks to say very clearly that I have expressed perfectly acceptable opinions within a framework of normal democratic debate,” Vanneste continued. “I would like to add that they are founded on good sense, and they are shared by the majority. They consist in particular in saying that one can obviously judge behavior on a moral level.”

In his defense, Vanneste’s attorney brought forth philosophical, theological, and legal arguments in favor of his client, and called two philosophy professors and a pastor to the stand to testify.

“I made an exaggerated statement based on the categorical imperative of Kant,” Vanneste said during the trial. “There are concepts that one can universalize and others that one can’t. The first are the greater. That is a justification for the foundation of morality.”

Vanneste also quoted Augustine’s dictum that one must “love the sinner but hate the sin,” and added that “homosexuality is morally inferior, according to the Christian concept of the family and matrimony.”

German Homeschooling Family Applies for Asylum in US

PURCELLVILLE, Virginia, Nov. 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A homeschooling family who recently fled Germany has filed for political asylum in the United States.

Uwe and Hannelore Romeike formerly of Bissingen, Germany, along with their five children made it to the United States in August of this year. The family has settled in Eastern Tennessee where they have been warmly welcomed by local homeschool supporters and are being assisted by the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA).

“The persecution of homeschoolers in Germany has dramatically intensified,” said HSLDA staff attorney Michael P. Donnelly. “They are regularly fined thousands of dollars, sent to prison, or have the custody of their children taken away simply because they choose to home educate.”

Uwe Romeike, a music teacher, and his wife Hannelore, say they are grateful for the support they have received from HSLDA and American homeschoolers.

“The freedom we have to homeschool our children in Tennessee is wonderful. We don’t have to worry about looking over our shoulder anymore, wondering when the youth welfare officials will come or how much money we have to pay in fines,” said Mrs. Romeike.

“We have received so much love and support,” said Mr. Romeike. “Our children are no longer homesick. They are so happy to be homeschooled here. We left family members, our home, and a wonderful community in Germany, but the well-being of our children made it necessary.”

“By supporting a political asylum application we will be able to shine the light of truth on this real and ongoing problem,” said Michael Donnelly. “A successful application will provide a path to safety for German homeschool families escaping persecution.”

HSLDA, with support from the Alliance Defense Fund, has hired immigration attorney Will Humble of Houston, Texas to handle this groundbreaking case.

For more information about Germany’s persecution of homeschoolers, visit https://www.hslda.org/germany.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

The Saga Continues: Previously Tolerant German State Declares War on Home-schooling
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/dec/06122201.html

Proof of Third Trimester Abortions in Canada

MONTREAL, Quebec, November 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – While the legal situation in Canada is such that, in theory, abortion on demand is permitted up until birth, there has been a dearth of information regarding how late into pregnancy abortions are routinely performed in Canada, or elsewhere with Canadian taxpayer funding. A recently unearthed report, however, produced in January 2007 by the Bio-Ethics Committee of Ste. Justine Hospital in Montreal sheds light on the situation of third trimester abortions in Canada. Ste. Justine is known primarily as a children’s hospital, but it also has a maternity ward.

The purpose of the report, entitled “Interruption de grossesse du troisième trimestre pour anomalie fœtale” (“Third Trimester Abortion for Fetal Anomaly”), was to determine whether performing abortions after viability for fetal anomaly was ethically acceptable. The Hospital considers 24 weeks to be the threshold of viability. The report concludes it is ethical to perform third trimester abortions when the diagnosis is certain and the defect is grave and incurable. This, in effect, expands the time frame that abortion may be performed at Ste. Justine.

The report also accepts that there are “grey zones” and that sometimes third-trimester abortions are done in particular “precise situations” in regards to “social conditions.” It recommends that when medical professionals are confronted with these cases, that they act in the “spirit” of the report.

The authors never put forward their ethical arguments for their recommendation; instead they simply point out that professionals surrounding the abortion issue are perfectly at ease in allowing the practice of post-viability abortion for these grave diagnoses. The report said that almost all the third trimester abortions performed at the hospital are of a medical nature, a statement that implies that there may have been some third trimester abortions performed for other, non-medical reasons.

The committee behind the report said the hospital provides first and second-trimester abortions on demand for teenagers. If the pregnancy is beyond 20 weeks LMP (18 weeks gestation), however, and the abortion is not medically motivated, then they are referred to other establishments.

In Quebec, there are a few abortuaries that perform abortions up to 22 weeks. Those that seek abortions later than that are taken care of by the CLSC des Faubourgs in Montreal. CLSC is responsible for making arrangements to obtain an abortion in New York State or Kansas. The Ministry of Health and Social Services covers the cost of the abortion; however, in cases of dire poverty, it will also pay for food, lodging, transportation and incidentals.

The method of late-term abortion used is superficially described in the report. It consists of committing feticide, with an injection of potassium chloride to the unborn child’s heart or umbilical cord. This assures that no live baby is delivered. Labour is induced in a birthing room. After the abortion, the mother is given post-partum care with an emphasis on mourning the lost child.

The authors note that the subject of fetal suffering is controversial, but that many practitioners administer an anaesthetic called Fentanyl. The document underlines that this is done for the peace of mind of the medical professionals and the parents. In that vein, the committee recommended that fetal suffering be avoided.

Some medical professionals in the report expressed discomfort at being involved in third trimester abortions, notably in cases of Down syndrome and Spina bifida. Some feared that by allowing more third trimester abortions, the practice would become routine, and raise the specter of eugenics. Another fear that was raised was that third trimester abortion was the reaction to a lack of resources for handicapped children. Others worried that by raising these concerns, access to abortion might be limited.

In the section dealing with the ethical dilemmas raised by the technological progress in the field of prenatal diagnostics, the report cites a French bioethicist, Robert Rochefort, who justifies eugenic abortion, saying that parents have the “responsibility” to give birth to healthy children.

“Rochefort mentions that prenatal diagnostics is now considered a ‘legitimate right’ that permits a woman to give birth to a normal child,” says the report. He adds that ‘the use (of this technique) is a duty that implies a responsible attitude of avoiding giving birth to a handicapped child.’”

The document can be found here:

https://www.chu-sainte-justine.org/documents/Pro/Interruption…ème%20trimestre%20pour%20anomalie%20foetale.pdf

Donate to LifeSiteNews.com Simply by Surfing the Internet!

November 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – What if LifeSiteNews.com earned a penny every time you searched the Internet? Or how about if a percentage of every purchase you made online went to support our cause? Well, now it can!

GoodSearch.com is a new Yahoo-powered search engine that donates half of its advertising revenue, about a penny per search, to the charities its users designate. Use it just as you would any search engine, get quality search results from Yahoo, and watch the donations add up!

Although this may not sound like a lot of money, if only 1000 of our supporters use GoodSearch.com just 5 times per day, LifeSIteNews.com would receive over $18,000 towards its mission of spreading the truth about the Culture of Life!

It’s easy. Just go to https://www.goodsearch.com and select LifeSiteNews.com as the charity you want your search earnings to go to.

So please, make a commitment to browsing the Internet with GoodSearch.com, with LifeSiteNews.com as your designated charity. Just set it as your homepage, or bookmark it so using it becomes a habit.

As well, you can earn money for LifeSiteNews.com by simply doing you online shopping through GoodShop.com. It is a new online shopping mall which will donate up to 37 percent of each purchase to LifeSiteNews.com. Hundreds of popular stores including Amazon, Target, Gap, Best Buy, ebay, Macy’s and Barnes & Noble have teamed up with GoodShop.com and every time you place an order, you’ll be supporting our valuable mission.

By simply surfing the web with GoodSearch.com and shopping with GoodShop.com you can raise much-needed funds for LifeSiteNews.com!

Of course, you can always donate to LifeSiteNews in the usual way by going to https://www.lifesitenews.com/donate/index.html.

Conservative Delegates Reject Motion Watering Down Party Stance on True Marriage

By Tim Waggoner

WINNIPEG, November 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – More news from the Conservative Convention further amplifies the fact that small-c conservatism is emerging at the party’s base; but it remains to be seen whether this conservatism will spread to the top.

At this weekend’s convention delegates rejected a change that sought to water down the Conservatives’ policy on traditional marriage, which was put forward by a delegate from Cypress Hills Grasslands.

According to Cecilia Forsyth, Western Vice-President of REAL Women of Canada, P-210 would have inserted a new clause calling for “the respect for the freedom of religious organizations to maintain the traditional definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.”

Forsyth explained, however, that while seemingly innocuous, P-210 also sought to remove a clause which states “that Parliament, through a free vote, and not the courts should determine the definition of marriage,” and another clause, which states, “A Conservative government will support legislation defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

The delegates also acted to protect and promote the rights of parents, rejecting resolution P-212 and in turn upholding Policy Section 66, which, as Forsyth described, “recognizes that parents are in the best position to determine the care needs of their children … and that support should go to all parents and families raising children, especially lower and middle income parents.”

The Conservative delegates further demonstrated their respect for the family, supporting a resolution that supports income-splitting benefits to families raising children – amending a clause under Section 20.

When these outcomes supporting marriage and family are coupled with the fact that delegates passed resolutions P-203 and P-207, resolutions to curb the powers of the human rights commissions and to protect pregnant mothers from violent crime, it is safe to say that there is a strong small-c conservative movement among the lower ranks of Canada’s in-power party.

Now only time will tell if the Party’s leader, Prime-Minister Stephen Harper, who in the past has refused to tackle controversial topics, will adopt the same mindset as his party’s members.

“Of course,” said Forsyth about the results of the convention, “our work is not finished. We must continue in all our efforts as individuals and groups until Canada becomes a nation that respects the rights to life of all human beings and supports the traditional values of family and marriage.”

Dutch Officials Tout no Reports of Infant Euthanasia in 2007 Despite Legality

Anti-Euthanasia experts believe unwanted children are instead killed by dehydration

By Kathleen Gilbert

AMSTERDAM, November 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Dutch officials have told the Associated Press that there have been no reports of infant euthanasia in the Netherlands in 2007, the first year after the country officially sanctioned the practice. However, drawing on data from previous years, anti-euthanasia advocates say they suspect that some Dutch infants may have been intentionally killed by dehydration last year, a procedure that is not technically labeled “euthanasia.”

The country was the first in the world to legalize adult euthanasia in 2001, and has since grown notorious for pursuing legalized euthanasia for people of all ages, including newborn infants.

Years before infant euthanasia was legalized, Dutch courts had acquitted doctors who were charged with murdering babies who were born disabled. The physicians were acquitted despite the fact that they admitted to the practice. Acceding to medical experts who claimed unreported child euthanasia was already rampant, the Dutch government adopted medical guidelines in 2006 allowing children under 12 with “no hope of recovery” to be killed with parents’ consent.

A study published in 1997 in the Lancet determined that approximately 8% of all Netherland infants who died in 1995, about 80 babies, were euthanized by doctors – some without the consent of parents. A subsequent study of 2001 deaths confirmed the figures.

The officials’ recent statement on infant euthanasia likely refers only to children killed by lethal injection, as the Netherlands narrowly defines euthanasia to denote a voluntary and active cause of death. Thus, according to Alex Schadenberg of Canada’s Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, the report does not take into account infants killed by dehydration – a common alternative to the official form of euthanasia by lethal injection.

Schadenberg said that many children likely die in this manner, as death by removal of food and water is widely used for other age groups. Because they are killed passively rather than actively, he says, such children don’t make it into official euthanasia reports.

“We don’t know for sure, but I believe that this death by dehydration is most likely what’s going on in the Netherlands for these newborns,” Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.com.

Schadenberg also noted that past reports touting reduced euthanasia in the country failed to take into account the deaths procured by leaving a patient to die of hunger and thirst, usually after having been deeply sedated, and sometimes without explicit consent.

The number of procured deaths in the Netherlands was estimated to account for a staggering 9.3% of all Netherland deaths in 2005, according to a 2007 New England Journal of Medicine report.

See LifeSiteNews.com article:

Media Spins Report on Netherlands Euthanasia to Falsely Suggest Numbers Have Decreased
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/may/07051404.html

Major CDC Study Finds Two to Four Times More Birth Defects from In Vitro Fertilizations

WASHINGTON, November 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Infants conceived with Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) are two to four times more likely to have certain types of birth defects than children conceived naturally, according to a study by the CDC. The report, “Assisted Reproductive Technology and Major Structural Birth Defects, United States,” was released in the journal Human Reproduction.

“Today, more than 1 percent of infants are conceived through ART and this number may continue to increase,” says Jennita Reefhuis, Ph.D., epidemiologist at CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.

The study shows that among pregnancies resulting in a single birth, ART (which includes all fertility treatments in which both eggs and sperm are handled, such as in vitro fertilization) was associated with twice the risk of some types of heart defects, more than twice the risk of cleft lip with or without cleft palate and over four times the risk of certain gastrointestinal defects compared with babies conceived without fertility treatments.

In the United States, cleft lip with or without palate affects approximately 1 in every 950 births; doubling the risk among infants conceived by ART would result in approximately 1 in every 425 infants being affected by cleft lip with or without palate.

The study examined multiple births separately from single births because ART increases the chance of a multiple birth. Children born as part of a multiple birth are more likely to have a birth defect regardless of use of ART. The study showed use of ART did not significantly increase the risk of birth defects among multiple births.

However, ART might contribute to the risk of major birth defects by directly increasing the risk of defects among single births. It may also have an indirect impact because ART increases the likelihood of having twins, which is a risk factor for many types of birth defects. Researchers believe this suggests the need for further studies to determine risk for ART in pregnancies with multiple births.

The study examined data from 281 births conceived with ART and 14,095 conceived without infertility treatments. The National Birth Defects Prevention Study is a population-based study that currently incorporates data from birth defects research centers in Arkansas, California, Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas and Utah. These ten centers have been working on the largest study of birth defects causes ever undertaken in the United States. Information is gathered from more than 30,000 participants to look at key questions on potential causes of birth defects.

Since 1981, ART has been used in the United States to help women become pregnant. It is defined as any procedure that involves surgically removing eggs from a woman’s ovaries, combining them with sperm in the laboratory, and returning them to the woman’s body or donating them to another woman. ART does not include treatments in which only sperm are handled (i.e., intrauterine-or artificial-insemination) or procedures in which a woman takes medicine only to stimulate egg production without the intention of having eggs retrieved.

The number of infants born after ART doubled in the United States from 1996 through 2004. According to data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, almost 12 percent of U.S. women aged 15-44 years have reported using infertility services. In 2005, more than 134,000 ART procedures were performed and approximately 52,000 infants were born as a result of these procedures.

Gardasil Vaccination Results in Three Outbreaks of Genital Warts in Fiji School Children

By Hilary White

November 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Gardasil, the vaccine being pushed by governments around the world to combat the spread of human papillomavirus (HPV), has been linked in Fiji with 3 cases of outbreaks of genital warts among primary school students. HPV, the most common sexually transmitted infection which causes genital warts, has been linked to the development of cervical cancer in women and governments around the world are implementing mandatory vaccination programs using Gardasil.

With the Fijian government pressing forward with mass vaccination programs, Matelita Ragogo, writing in the Fiji Times, asks, “Are our girls guinea pigs?”

She reports that within three months of the government approving Gardasil vaccinations for school girls, three primary school students were reported to have “reacted negatively” to the vaccination. Ragogo points out that although the Fijian government has approved the vaccine for use on young girls, the testing process for the drug is not expected to be completed until 2009. Nevertheless, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has “fast-tracked” approval of the drug after a six-month review process.

Earlier this year, Judicial Watch, a non-profit watchdog group, listed 21 deaths and 9749 “adverse reactions” linked to Gardasil, including 78 outbreaks of genital warts and 10 miscarriages. Judicial Watch uncovered documents through the Freedom of Information Act that show the FDA received reports of 10 deaths associated with Gardasil since September 2007, and 140 “serious” reports of adverse reactions, including 27 “life threatening” cases, 10 spontaneous abortions, and 6 cases of the debilitating Guillain-Barre Syndrome since January 2008.

In Fiji, Ragogo writes, “Effectively, Cabinet approved a vaccine which is still being tested so no one can be sure of its effectiveness or long-term side effects. Our children are guinea pigs for a money-making, I mean, drug-making, machine.”

In a television interview with CBS News in May, Dr. Diane Harper, the specialist who helped develop the Gardasil vaccine, said making the vaccination mandatory is “a real danger zone.”

“The vaccine has not been out long enough for us to have post-marketing surveillance to really understand what all of the potential side effects are going to be,” Harper said. “To put in place a process that says you must have this vaccine means that you must be part of a big public experiment and so we can’t do that. We can’t have that until we have more data.”

At the same time, a recently published article in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics has criticised the pressure in the US for states to make Gardasil vaccinations a mandatory requirement of school attendance. Calling it “premature,” the article’s authors assert that Gardasil is relatively new and long-term safety and effectiveness in the general population is unknown. Long-term testing is required before the drug’s effectiveness can be established. They also warn that since the HPV vaccine does not represent a public health necessity, issues of constitutionality can be raised against mandatory vaccinations.

Nevertheless, Merck has recently published findings that Gardasil may also be used by men, a development that would considerably expand the drug’s market base. The studies have shown that Gardasil can be used as protection against genital warts in men, potentially precancerous lesions, and to prevent penile and anal cancers.

The male market for Gardasil is mainly to be found among the active homosexual population who are at significantly higher risk for genital warts and anal cancer than is the general population. A 2005 study in San Francisco found that 95 per cent of HIV-infected gay men also had anal HPV infection, of which 50 percent had precancerous HPV-caused lesions. HPV type 16 is also associated with oropharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma, a form of throat cancer.

A similar drug, Cervarix, has also been approved for use in mass vaccinations in the UK. Cervarix is designed to prevent infection by only two HPV types out of an estimated 30 to 40 existing types, compared to Gardasil’s four.

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

One U.K. Catholic School Stands against HPV Vaccination
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08092512.html

Controversial HPV Vaccine Causing One Death Per Month: FDA Report
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08070316.html

Pope Reiterates Catholic Politicians Must “Remain Coherent To the Faith They Profess”

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

VATICAN CITY, November 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Pope Benedict XVI told an assembly of the Pontifical Council for the Laity on Saturday that where “the authentic quality of human life in society is implicated,” Catholics involved in political life must “remain coherent to the faith they profess, uphold their moral rigour, capacity for cultural judgement, professional competency and passion for service of the common good.”

The Holy Father’s statement reaffirms his commitment to promoting religious freedom within the realm of public life. In his address to the UN earlier this year the Pope stated that the human right of religious freedom includes the right to make political decisions that are informed and directed by faith.

“Human rights, of course, must include the right to religious freedom,” he said. “It is inconceivable, then, that believers should have to suppress a part of themselves – their faith – in order to be active citizens. It should never be necessary to deny God in order to enjoy one’s rights.” He concluded, “The full guarantee of religious liberty cannot be limited to the free exercise of worship, but has to give due consideration to the public dimension of religion, and hence to the possibility of believers playing their part in building the social order.”

During his meeting with the Bishops of the United States in April Pope Benedict also addressed the “particular problem” of secularism in America, which, while allowing profession of belief in God, “can subtly reduce religious belief to a lowest common denominator,” thereby creating a separation “of faith from life: living ‘as if God did not exist’.”

The Holy Father lamented that some Catholics believe they have “a right to pick and choose” in the faith, “maintaining external social bonds but without an integral, interior conversion to the law of Christ.”

The Pope stressed that the intrinsic bond between faith and reason, “the intrinsic relationship between the Gospel and the natural law,” was the means by which the “sound understanding of freedom, seen in positive terms as a liberation both from the limitations of sin and for an authentic and fulfilling life” could guide Catholics in political life.

Bishop of Fargo North Dakota Prays that Obama will “Not Impose the Intrinsic Evil” of Abortion

By John-Henry Westen

FARGO, November 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A newly released column from Bishop Samuel Aquila begins by congratulating President-elect Barack Obama on his election, but then moves quickly to address his support for the “intrinsic evil” of abortion.

In the column, the Bishop says he will pray “for the conversion of his (Obama’s) heart and mind to recognize the dignity of human life from the moment of conception until natural death and the truth that no government has the right to legalize abortion.”

“I pray that President-elect Obama will listen when it comes to the question of the unborn and not impose the intrinsic evil of abortion on the consciences of so many who know the truth that abortion is the destruction of a unique innocent human being,” he added.

The Bishop notes that, in light of Obama’s election, “the Church, and most especially bishops and priests, will need to make the teaching of the Church known to every Catholic.” Aquila says that he has been “surprised and saddened at how little some Catholics know and accept the teaching of the Church on the matter of abortion.”

He corrects the most serious misperception saying, “Some believe that it is possible to be a faithful Catholic and be pro-choice. This is impossible. Abortion is an intrinsic evil, which means that in no circumstance is it permitted nor may it ever be supported, even as a means to a good end. No Catholic can be faithful to Jesus Christ and the Church and support an intrinsic evil.”

Catholics who support such evils put themselves outside the Church, says the Bishop. “Thus Catholics, be they judges, politicians, or voters, who support Roe v. Wade or ‘assisted suicide’ by any type of legislation or candidate, place themselves outside of the law of God and the Church each time they vote in support of so-called abortion rights or rights to die.”

See the full column by Bishop Aquila here:
https://www.fargodiocese.org/bishop/Homilies/SupportDignityOf…

Leftist Party in Sweden Proposes to Force Christian Pastors to Perform Homosexual ‘Weddings’

By Jonquil Frankham

SWEDEN, November 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Sweden’s Left Party, which holds 22 out of 349 parliamentary seats, is advocating legislation that will force pastors to perform homosexual “marriages,” should homosexual “marriage” be legalized in the country.

Sweden’s coalition government is currently in negotiations over a new marriage law. Under the proposal, Swedish pastors and other officials will be permitted to refuse to perform “marriages” for homosexual couples. Lars Ohly, leader of the Left Party, however, has said that this arrangement is unacceptable.

“In the long run it’s inappropriate to be allow discrimination like this. We don’t think that someone should be allowed to refuse to wed same-sex couples,” said Ohly.

Current Swedish law does not permit homosexual coupes to have church “weddings,” but does permit so-called “civil unions.” So far, the Christian Democrat Party, which forms part of the coalition government, has held firm in opposition to a gender-neutral marriage law.

The parties composing the coalition government, with the exception of the Christian Democrats, will table their marriage bill shortly. Should the legislation be passed, same-sex “marriage” would be permitted in Sweden beginning May 2009.

According to Sweden’s The Local, the Lutheran Church in Sweden will bless civil unions between homosexuals, though it will not call these unions “marriages.” Under Ohly’s proposal, a pastor or official who refused to “marry” a homosexual couple could have his right to perform weddings removed entirely.

For more on this issue, see:

Left Party: ‘force pastors to perform gay weddings’
https://www.thelocal.se/15612/20081111/

Government remains divided over same-sex marriage
https://www.thelocal.se/15484/20081105/

Sweden Considers “Gender Neutral Marriage” Law
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110610.html

Sweden Mulls Law Allowing Gay-Marriage in Civil and Religious Ceremonies
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jul/07070307.html

The California Constitution Requires That Proposition 8 Stands: Pro-family Leader

SACRAMENTO, CA, November 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – With their vote under attack by liberal county governments, homosexual activists and the ACLU, many Californians are wondering whether they’ve lost the right to amend the constitution. The answer is no, according to the constitution itself and the legislative and legal history regarding the difference between an “amendment” and a “revision,” according to one prominent pro-family leader

“An amendment is when the voters make changes to one or more of the provisions of the constitution,” said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, a leading California pro-family organization. “In contrast, a revision is when the legislature and the voters both agree to make numerous, sophisticated changes to the entire constitution. If the constitution were a house, a revision would be an extensive remodel where you knock down all the inside walls and repaint everything; an amendment would be a minor change, like replacing a lamp or a chair in the family room.”

Proposition 8, approved by the voters, added Article 1, Section 7.5 to the California Constitution, reading, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

The City of San Francisco alleges Prop. 8 was a constitutional revision requiring two-thirds legislative approval. Yet in July, the California Supreme Court refused to hear these same arguments when the City of San Francisco urged the court to strip Prop. 8 from the ballot.

“This summer, the Supreme Court unanimously refused to hear the claim that Proposition 8 was a revision,” said Thomasson, who is seeking to intervene in the Prop. 8 lawsuits on behalf of the voters. “The Court disagreed that Prop. 8 is ‘a substantial alteration of the entire constitution.'”

“The Supreme Court knows the difference between a single-subject, voter-initiated amendment and a multi-issue, legislature-initiated, whole-scale revision that alters many sections of the state constitution,” said Thomasson. “The first clue is revisions always require a two-thirds legislative vote, but voter-initiated amendments such as Prop. 8 are directly added to the constitution by the people. Thank God that the state constitution tells us ‘all political power is inherent in the people,’ that ‘they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require'”

In 1978, the California Supreme Court distinguished between a revision of the constitution and a mere amendment of the constitution, stating that a revision referred to a “substantial alteration of the entire constitution, rather than to a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions” (Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization, 22 Cal.3d 208).

The California Supreme Court last ruled on this issue in 1991, rejecting similar arguments that the City of San Francisco is using now.

The California Constitution itself states that the people may amend the Constitution by the initiative process, where they collect signatures, qualify an amendment to the Constitution, and pass it. No legislative “permission” is required for voter-initiated amendments such as Proposition 8. “The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative,” says Article 18, Sec. 3 of the Constitution.

Explaining the clear distinction between an amendment and a revision is University of California, Berkeley Department of Public Science Chairman Emeritus Dr. Eugene C. Lee, who, in 1991, wrote:

“Specific changes to the California constitution may be proposed by amendment. Substantial changes may be proposed by a constitutional convention or by the legislature as constitutional revisions. Regardless of their origin, all changes must be approved by a majority of the electorate voting on the issue. Legislative amendments, the method most commonly used, require a two-thirds vote in each house of the legislature. Initiative amendments may be placed on the ballot by a petition of registered voters equal in number to 8 percent of the total vote cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. By explicit language in the constitution concerning initiatives and by court interpretation with respect to measures arising in the legislature, amendments are required to be limited in scope. As far back as 1894, the California Supreme Court distinguished between a revision of the constitution and a mere amendment thereof (Livermore v. Waite, 102 Cal. 113). As reiterated in 1978, the court held that a revision referred to a ‘substantial alteration of the entire constitution, rather than to a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions’ (Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization, 22 Cal.3d 208).”

Letters to the Editor for Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Dear Editor,

In the context in which it has been used in the political arena, the term “pro-choice” is misleading. It should be called by what it really means, i.e., pro-murder!

We are all “pro-choicers” in this country. God is “pro-choice.” He’s given us the freedom to choose – “Choose you this day whom you will serve” [Joshua 24:15] He’s shown us the pros and cons of the paths before us, but leaves the final decision to us, ever since that 1st choice between “good” and “evil” in the Garden of Eden.

Women in most cases (exceptions are noted), have made the choice to have intercourse without protection. They made that choice, and a bad one it was. They now have to make a second choice – to keep the growing baby in their womb, or to give it up for adoption.

However, that doesn’t seem to placate the self-interest of many. They become militant, instead of repentant, and dare to demand that the government dismiss its long-standing view of murder and the penalty required for this crime.

Instead of receiving the prescribed sentence of 25 years-to-life, they want to be patted on the head, and told – “We give you permission to murder that innocent, frail little baby attached to the umbilical cord within your womb.”

Here are another couple of choices at your disposal … you can choose to “pickle” your baby with a saline solution, scrape it out in pieces, vacuum it out, cut the umbilical cord in utero causing it to suffocate, decapitate it, or wait until it’s partially born at which time the doctor would stab scissors into the base of its neck and withdraw the brain from it.

Instead of insisting that the government and taxpayers pay for your moment of indiscretion, you could (oh look, more choices!) use that same energy and passion to rally for easier adoption laws, work to improve the chance of a better life for the little one nestled under your heart and return sanity to this whole process.

Don’t choose to be a murderer and have to spend the rest of your life living with that guilt. There IS another way. Make the sensible, humane choice.

Barbara A. Tierno
Endicott, New York

____________________________________

Re: Ottawa Archbishop Thanks Canadian Catholics who Promoted Humanae Vitae in the Last 40 Years
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111712.html

Who Promoted Humanae Vitae ????

I really feel that we were not told the truth about Humanae vitae. We were in Saskatoon in 1964 where we attended every meeting regarding this issue. We had all our confidence in the clergy. Now we have to live with the thought that at our death we will be meeting souls of babies that were aborted by my taking the pill for 6 years….. How many of them 5??? 10??? 50???

I dread the look they will give me for following the teachings my Church gave me. How can I stand in front of them and see the gaze of disappointment!!! It’s easy to say…do not look at the past….The past is following us around for the rest of our lives!!! While we were blindly accepting all their explanations, we feel we have been lied to by a clergy who was not courageous enough to tell us the truth.

If only we had been given the text of Humanae Vitae….maybe we would have understood it. I never would have taken the murder contraceptive pill!

I would like to pardon them….but I can’t ask all my lost children who were never held by their devasted and so sad mother and father!!!

E.Campeau
Cornwall, Ontario
____________________________________

Thanks for sending news updates directly to my e-mail. I can’t believe that the majority of Catholics in the U.S. ignored FOCA and voted for Obama anyway. Obviously, the Catholic church is in need of a major revival.

Regards,

Graham Sproule
Alberta, Canada
____________________________________

I am thankfull, that there is a “watchdog”, who keeps an eye out for all of us.

The world is so strange, who would ever think a woman would have an abortion. The most beautiful “gift.” to be destroyed. Unbelievable. Thank you for doing what you are doing. May your work be blessed.

Ann Baarda
Ontario, Canada
____________________________________

To write a letter to the Editor: E-mail your letter to [email protected]. Write “letter to the editor” in the subject line. Include your name, city and province or state of residence, as well as your phone # (the phone # is for our use only, and will not be published). Please note that all letters are subject to editing. LifeSiteNews.com will publish letters to the editor at its discretion, giving priority to the most concise, insightful and timely submissions.

SHARE THIS PAGE: E-mail Print