Politics
Goal: $45,000. Donations received: $26,275.
Thursday November 19, 2009
E-mail
Print- Pro-Abortion Lawmakers Shower Praise on Senate Bill's Phony Abortion Compromise
- 59 Bishops Contributed Financially to Maine Bishop's Effort to Oppose Maine Same-Sex "Marriage" Law
- EU Leaders to Choose President today in Secret "Soviet Style" Meetings
- Obama Evades Questioning on Stupak Amendment in FOX Interview
- USCCB Issues Firm Condemnation of IVF in Reproductive Technology Document
- 6 out of 10 of Americans Oppose Public Funding of Abortion
- McGill University Students' Society Suspends Status of Pro-Life Club
- Canadian Private Member's Motion To Make Internet Counseling for Suicide a Criminal Offense Passes Second Reading
- Council of Europe to Debate Forced Acceptance of Homosexual, Bisexual, Transgender Ideology
- More Condoms, Fewer Poor People in Developing Nations will Solve Climate Change: UNFPA
- NJ School Board Halts Student's Pro-Life Ministry as Too "Religious"
Pro-Abortion Lawmakers Shower Praise on Senate Bill's Phony Abortion Compromise
TODAY'S HEADLINES
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., November 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The phony compromise language unveiled in the Senate health care bill Wednseday night has already won high praise from pro-abortion lawmakers on Capitol Hill; yet, it has not fared as well under the scrutiny of the National Right to Life Committee, who slammed the bill's abortion funding as "completely unacceptable."
The Senate language closely reflects the "Capps amendment" from an earlier version of the House bill, which had been advanced by the pro-abortion Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) as a false compromise measure on abortion instead of the pro-life Stupak/Pitts amendment. (The Senate bill can be viewed here.)
National Right to Life Committee legislative Director Douglas Johnson said it was regrettable, but predictable that Reid would abandon the Stupak/Pitts amendment for the "hollow" language.
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) has rejected the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts Amendment and has substituted completely unacceptable language that would result in coverage of abortion on demand in two big new federal government programs," said Johnson.
"Reid seeks to cover elective abortions in two big new federal health programs, but tries to conceal that unpopular reality with layers of contrived definitions and hollow bookkeeping requirements."
The Senate bill explicitly authorizes the federal Secretary of Health and Human services to require coverage of any and all abortions through a government-funded health insurance option. This means government-appropriated funds would go to elective abortions, violating Hyde-amendment policy. The bill also allows taxpayer subsidies to help purchase plans that cover elective abortions.
The Stupak amendment, on the other hand, fully restored Hyde-amendment restrictions on federal funding for elective abortion in the House bill. Under that amendment, the government-run insurance option would not fund elective abortions, and recipients of taxpayer insurance subsidies would purchase elective abortion coverage with private money.
Major pro-life organizations, including the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), have consistently stated that only the Stupak language acceptably restores the ban on federal abortion funding. Earlier this month, the USCCB and the NRLC jointly tore apart another House "compromise" attempt that also failed to uphold the ban.
Some pro-abortion Senators have already exalted Reid's abortion language, claiming that it accurately reflects the Hyde amendment.
"Senator Reid did an excellent job of crafting language that maintains the decades long compromise of no federal funds for abortion," gushed Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Boxer has a consistently 100% pro-abortion rating from NARAL.
Late Wednedsay, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, who also votes largely pro-abortion, claimed to reporters that Reid's bill "extends the Hyde amendment to these programs so the status quo is maintained." Rep. Capps, another 100% NARAL-approved legislator and author of the House's phony compromise, praised Reid's language and noted that it "closely mirrors my language" in the original House bill.
The same legislators had lambasted the Stupak language as "illogical, discriminatory, and unnecessary" (Capps) and a "very radical amendment which would really tear apart compromise" (Boxer).
By claiming to uphold the Hyde amendment, pro-abortion lawmakers could be hoping to attract the pro-life majority opinion regarding the bill's funding: 61% of respondents in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday opposed the use of federal funds for elective abortion, with only 37% in favor.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Analysis: Abortion Funding in Senate Health-Care Bill Stuck Between Reid and a Hard Place
Updated: Pro-Life Leaders React to Health Bill Outcome: Caution Outweighs Celebration
Updated: Analysis: The Threats to Pro-Life Values Remaining in the U.S. House Health Care Bill
Back to Top59 Bishops Contributed Financially to Maine Bishop's Effort to Oppose Maine Same-Sex "Marriage" Law
Bishop Says God Gave Him Courage, Perseverance and Serenity in the Battle to Defend Marriage
By Peter J. Smith
BALTIMORE, Maryland, November 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - At least fifty-nine US Catholic bishops gave financial support - either personally or through their dioceses and diocesan offices - to the battle to defeat the legalization of same-sex "marriage" and for that the Catholic bishop of Maine is grateful. Portland Bishop Richard J. Malone thanked them for their solidarity with pro-family advocates in Maine by not only defending natural marriage and the family, but suffering for it as well.
Malone spoke on Wednesday to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops at the Fall 2009 General Assembly after a presentation on four different video outreaches designed to teach people about the goodness and nature of natural marriage. The videos are part of a greater catechetical effort to explain why same-sex "marriage" is not a matter of civil rights, but harms the institution of marriage, the family, and religious liberty.
The Portland bishop thanked the USCCB for the just-approved document on marriage and defending the nature of true marriage. Malone said that the pastoral letter was "just what we need to be doing right now" in catechizing Catholics on marriage, saying that most have a shallow sense of what marriage actually is all about.
Malone said that he was grateful for his fellow Catholic bishops "prayer, encouragement, and financial support" and sharing the suffering that now comes with the territory of doing battle with same-sex "marriage" advocates.
"I am sorry to my brother bishops; because of your financial support you have been targeted for criticism," he said.
Malone explained to the Assembly that Maine law requires that "any contribution to this kind of referendum fight over fifty dollars has to be reported to the state, and once it is, of course it is in the public domain."
"People get it, and I know that some of you have got some pretty nasty criticism," continued Malone. "We are in solidarity with that too, and I am very grateful to you for it."
Maine's public disclosure page indicates that eleven bishops sent in contributions in their own name, while forty-eight other bishops supported financially through their dioceses or diocesan offices by sending in sizable contributions to the "Yes on Question 1" effort, the successful people's veto of Maine's same-sex "marriage" law.
Same-sex "marriage" advocates have used state public disclosure laws to find out who supported or contributed to pro-family efforts. Such efforts have lead to the publication of personal information - including names and addresses - of individuals whose names end up in the public domain by signing petitions or making financial contributions to pro-marriage initiatives for the purpose of intimidation, harassment, and even ostracism.
"The solidarity that I felt with all of you during this campaign was one of two great blessings," he continued. "The other blessing for me was the grace that is ours by God's graciousness through Holy Orders, the grace of Orders, the grace of [Episcopal] Office, which we all believe in."
"I came to a new profound experience of that grace during this whole struggle, because I know that God gave me a kind of courage and perseverance and often even a serenity during this thing that I would not have had otherwise," concluded Malone. "So there are blessings in the midst of struggles."
Public-disclosure laws have proved a hazard to individuals and organizations that contribute or put their names to pro-family petitions. Mike Duke, CEO of Wal-Mart, and his wife Susan, were exposed by the homosexual group KnowThyNeighbor.org as signatories to a petition for a 2008 ballot initiative approved by Arkansas voters that restricted adoption and foster-parenting to married couples, excluding homosexual couples and other unmarried unions.
Petition-signers in California received threats of violence and intimidation from homosexual activists who used the state's public disclosure database to identify backers of Proposition 8. One egregious example reported by the Los Angeles Times, involved the LAPD deploying in riot gear when the El Coyote restaurant in California came under siege by hundreds of pro-homosexual "marriage" protesters, because one website exposed the private $100 "Yes on 8" contribution of the proprietor's daughter.
The bishops applauded Malone after he concluded his gracious remarks.
The General Assembly then continued to hear input from several other bishops, including Bishop Galeone and Archbishop Wuerl, regarding the videos developed to catechize the young about the truth of marriage. Both bishops complemented the effectiveness of the videos' catechetical message, with Archbishop Wuerl emphasizing that the word he gets from the Washington Archdiocese's campus ministers is that the youth are badly informed about the true nature of marriage, and need catechizing first, before they can be receptive to political outreach.
To contact Bishop Richard Malone:
Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland
510 Ocean Avenue
P.O. 11559
Portland, Me 04104
Telephone: 207.773.6471
Fax: 207.773.0182
To send an on line message
http://www.portlanddiocese.net/contact_submit.php
See related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:
USCCB Approves Strongly-Worded Document Affirming Value of Natural Marriage
EU Leaders to Choose President today in Secret "Soviet Style" Meetings
New EU constitution does not allow for any public input into process
By Hilary White
BRUSSELS, November 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - With hopes fading for Tony Blair taking the top European job, the Times reports that UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown will make a last-ditch appeal for his former party leader in Brussels this afternoon when he attends a meeting of the Party of European Socialists.
But a German diplomat has dropped the biggest hint so far that the leaders will choose the little known Belgian Prime Minister, Herman Van Rompuy, as the first President of the European Union.
Reinhard Bettzuege, revealed today to the Belgian newspaper, De Morgen, that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is behind Van Rompuy.
Under the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, finally ratified by all member states early this month, the office of President is chosen in secret negotiations among the leaders. The new constitution of the EU does not allow for any public input into the process.
In a deal known to have been worked out among leaders split into two political camps, the socialist government leaders will choose the EU's new "High Representative" or foreign minister and the group of centre-right countries, led by France and Germany, would nominate the president.
Not all EU politicians are comfortable with the opacity of the selection process. Brussels Journal reports that Vaira Vike-Freiberga, a Latvian candidate for the presidency said the search is being conducted with Soviet-style secrecy and contempt for the public. The EU, she says, should "stop working like the former Soviet Union ... in darkness and behind closed doors".
The Daily Telegraph quotes an unnamed Eastern European official complaining, "Trying to work out who is going to be President of the EU Council is not dissimilar to decoding who was in or out in the Kremlin in the 1970s.
"It seems strange to many of us that 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall we have to dust off our Kremlinology skills here in Brussels."
Van Rompuy has kept a low profile in international politics, but is known to oppose the inclusion of Turkey into the EU on the grounds that the country does not share Europe's Christian philosophical and political heritage.
"An expansion of the EU to include Turkey cannot be considered as just another expansion as in the past. The universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are also fundamental values of Christianity, will lose vigour with the entry of a large Islamic country such as Turkey," he said in 2004.
Update to report: The BBC reported later Thursday that Van Rompuy has been chosen as the president and the new foreign affairs chief is EU Trade Commissioner, Baroness Catherine Ashton from the UK.
Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Czech Republic Leader Signs Lisbon - No More Barriers to New European Superstate
Blair's Chances as Euro President Recede as Lisbon Treaty Signed
Obama Evades Questioning on Stupak Amendment in FOX Interview
By Kathleen Gilbert
BEIJING, November 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a rare interview with FOX news last night, President Obama dodged point-blank questioning concerning his position on the Stupak amendment in the health care bill.
The Stupak amendment, which was unexpectedly included in the final version of the House bill, restores the Hyde amendment ban on federal funds for elective abortion.
Fox News Channel correspondent Major Garrett asked Obama: "Will you sign legislation on health care that includes the Stupak language?"
OBAMA: You know, I think that there is a balance to be achieved that is consistent with the Hyde amendment -- what existed before we reformed health care.
I believe in the basic idea that federal dollars shouldn't pay for abortions. But I also think we shouldn't restrict women's choices, so, I think there's some negotiations going on, not just on the Democratic side, but I think among people of good will on both sides, to see if we can arrive at something that meets that criteria and I'm confident we can do that.
GARRETT: Yes or no, does the Stupak language strike that balance?
OBAMA: Not yet.
White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod recently indicated to CNN that Obama would work to remove the Stupak language from the health care bill before it reaches the president's desk.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Pro-Abortion Lawmakers Shower Praise on Senate Bill's Phony Abortion Compromise
White House Advisor Indicates Obama Will Work to Abolish Pro-Life Health Amendment
USCCB Issues Firm Condemnation of IVF in Reproductive Technology Document
Say "Children are not parents' possessions to manufacture, manipulate, or design
By Kathleen Gilbert
BALTIMORE, Maryland, November 18, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - While meeting at their Fall General Assembly Wednesday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops overwhelmingly approved a new document clearly expressing the Catholic Church's opposition to reproductive technologies such as in-vitro fertilization and human cloning, which they say violates the human dignity of the children produced.
The bishops at the meeting approved the new document, entitled "Life-Giving Love in an Age of Technology," by a 220-4 margin. The document is mostly dedicated to parsing the serious moral problems posed by in-vitro fertilization (IVF).
"Children have a right to be conceived by the act that expresses and embodies their parents' self-giving love; morally responsible medicine can assist this act but should never substitute for it," it reads.
In addition to the damage done by the modern contraceptive mentality, say the bishops, the meaning of procreation also suffers when the welcoming of new life is dislocated from its natural context in married sexual love. Ultimately, the bishops say this does not do justice to the "full human dignity of the child," and leads to a minefield of moral and spiritual problems.
The document asserts that abuses stemming from IVF are a "natural outgrowth of the original decision to turn the begetting of a child into a manufacturing process." "In this situation a new life may be highly valued-as a way of meeting parents' goals for family size, or of achieving other goals such as scientific knowledge-but this human life is not respected as human persons deserve to be respected," it states.
Such abuses include the freezing of excess embryonic children, the genetic screening for "desirable" children, and "selective reduction" or targeted abortion of excess implanted embryos - all of which are routine for IVF clinics but considered morally repugnant by the Catholic Church.
Also, the bishops suggest that IVF is inextricably linked to the evil of embryonic stem-cell research, as the overflowing amount of frozen embryos creates a "terrible temptation for researchers to find a 'use' for these human beings no longer wanted by their parents."
"Broader abuse is in the realm of science fiction at this point, although many scientists say it is possible and even should be welcomed: a 'brave new world' in which human beings are tailored for genetic perfection, developed outside their mothers' bodies, and pre-selected for given roles in society," the bishops note. "This would be the ultimate step toward a very efficient society in which the idea of human dignity may seem obsolete."
The bishops conclude: "Children are not parents' possessions to manufacture, manipulate, or design; rather, they are fellow persons with full human dignity, and parents are called to accept, care for, and raise them to be new members of God's family and his Kingdom."
Pro-Life Committee Chairman Cardinal Justin Rigali introduced the new document as a way of addressing "much confusion" among Catholics regarding the Church's teaching on modern reproductive technology.
"Any method of making babies is sometimes considered to be pro-life," said Rigali. "There is a need, therefore, to help Catholics understand specific differences between the Catholic understanding and the secular understanding of human life, and how these distinctions have led to different judgements on technologies that may intervene in human reproduction."
Click here for more information and the full USCCB document.
6 out of 10 of Americans Oppose Public Funding of Abortion
51% said that they would even oppose allowing private insurance to pay for abortions
by James Tillman
WASHINGTON, DC, November 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Six out of ten Americans oppose the public funding of abortion, according to a new poll by CNN.
The news comes as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has released the 2074-page Senate version of the health care reform bill, H.R. 3590, which would permit government funding of abortion.
Nevertheless, a mere 37% of respondents said that they were in favor "of using public funds for abortions when the woman cannot afford it." Only 26% of respondents said that abortion ought to be legal at any time.
Similarly, aproximately 63% of respondents said that abortion ought never to be legal, or legal in only a few circumstances. 36% of respondents said that it ought to be legal in all or most circumstances.
In the same poll 51% of respondents said that they would even oppose the use of private insurance money to pay for abortions and that abortions ought be payed for out-of-pocket.
The CNN Opinion Research Corporation poll is the result of interviews with 1014 adult Americans, including 928 registered voters. The estimated sampling error is plus or minus aproximately 3% for both groups.
McGill University Students' Society Suspends Status of Pro-Life Club
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
MONTREAL, November 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The McGill student pro-life club Choose Life has had its campus rights suspended, but not revoked, by the Student Society of McGill University (SSMU).
SSMU Council voted 16 to 7 by secret ballot in favor of suspending Choose Life's club status.
Two separate motions were put forth to change the club's status. The first resolution called for the club's status to be revoked. After being defeated 11 to 12, a motion to suspend followed, according to the McGill Daily.
Suspending the pro-life group's club status means it can no longer use university property for club functions, will no longer receive student council funding and must meet with council executives to discuss the suspension. Revoking club status would mean legislating the club out of existence.
McGill student society president Ivan Neilson says the student council does not have a position on abortion, but Choose Life's actions were unacceptable.
"We've received several complaints from our students that they felt harassed, that they felt that their safety has come into question and that they felt personally attacked," he told CBC News.
The McGill Daily said that the students who put forth the two motions claimed that Choose Life had disseminated false health information (the abortion/breast cancer (ABC) link that is denied by Health Canada) and exposed students to graphic images associated with abortion and fetal life.
Additionally, the students felt that past events hosted by the club had threatened safe space for students on campus, and violated SSMU policy.
This refers to the pro-life presentation, hosted by Choose Life McGill and given by the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform's Jose Ruba, which was shut down by extremist protesters who disrupted the event to the point where police were called to restore order and civility. Two protesters were arrested.
The motion to suspend the club's status incorporated a clause which would send the club for evaluation by the Equity Committee with the intention of developing "a document that would allow for the expression of a pro-life viewpoint while remaining in line with the SSMU constitution and equity policy."
Choose Life McGill president Nathalie Fohl said she did not feel that the club had contravened McGill's equity policy, explaining that the club's mandate is to promote respect for human life and human rights from conception, defined as the moment of fertilization.
"The goal of our group is to promote the well-being of all persons, including those discriminated against based on age," Fohl said.
After the SSMU vote, Fohl said she was disappointed with the hearing and the outcome. She felt her club had not been treated fairly throughout the whole process and that the club's right to free speech was being limited.
"It's really unfortunate that they see what we do, just promoting discussion on life issues, trying to provide information on child development and abortion and things like that, as breaking any SSMU procedures."
"I really don't feel that if people properly understood what our position was that they would be saying what they said," Fohl explained. "It sounds good to say, 'No, we're not limiting free speech,' but it really is saying, 'You say what you want but only this way.'"
Fohl stated she is willing to meet with the SSMU to work out a solution but wouldn't make any decisions without consulting the rest of the club.
"We will certainly sit down with the Equity Committee and see what their suggestions are but that doesn't mean that we are necessarily going to accept everything," Fohl said.
Contact information:
Heather Munroe-Blum
Principal and Vice-Chancellor
James Administration Building, Room 506
McGill University
845 Sherbrooke Street West
Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T5
Tel.: 514-398-4180
Fax: 514-398-4768
Executive Assistant to the Principal
Ms. Susy Ricciardelli
susy.ricciardelli@mcgill.ca
Tel: 514-398-3329
Fax: 514-398-4768
SSMU Council: http://ssmu.mcgill.ca
See previous LSN coverage:
McGill University Officials Speak Out Against Silencing of Pro-Life Presentation
McGill Pro-Life Presentation Shut Down by Protesters - Two Arrested
McGill Student Union Threatens Pro-Life Club with Defunding for Hosting Event
McGill University's Student Union to Vote Tonight on Motion to Censure Pro-Life Event
Canadian Private Member's Motion To Make Internet Counseling for Suicide a Criminal Offense Passes Second Reading
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
OTTAWA, November 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A motion, tabled in the House of Commons on May 26th by Kitchener MP Harold Albrecht, which proposes that the government should make it a criminal offense to use the Internet to counsel a person to commit suicide, was unanimously passed at second reading on Wednesday, November 18.
The Motion was introduced following the well-publicized case of Nadia Kajouji, the 18 year-old Carleton University student who committed suicide in 2008 after allegedly being coaxed to do so in an Internet chat room.
Kajouji, a seriously depressed young woman from Brampton, Ontario, jumped into the freezing Rideau River in early March 2008. It was later revealed that she had been in conversation in an Internet chat group with William Melchert-Dinkel, a 46-year-old health care worker from Minnesota who had been posing as a teenage girl. The man had allegedly urged Kajouji to hang herself in front of a webcam so others could watch and promised he would die with her.
Motion 388 proposes that the government should ensure that counseling, aiding or abetting a person to commit suicide is a Criminal Code offence "regardless of the means used to counsel or aid or abet including via telecommunications, the Internet or a computer system."
Alex Schadenberg, executive director of Canada's Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) welcomed the Motion and told LifeSiteNews.com that there are serious concerns that people who suffer from depression could become victims of "suicide predators" who use the Internet.
See previous LSN coverage of Motion 388:
Canadian Private Member's Motion Would Make Internet Counselling for Suicide a Criminal Offense
MP Who Introduced Bill to Criminalize Online Suicide Counselling Explains His Motives
Mother of Suicide Victim Exhorts MPs to Criminalize Online Suicide Counseling
Council of Europe to Debate Forced Acceptance of Homosexual, Bisexual, Transgender Ideology
Proposes suppressing cultural, traditional, religious values, and "dominant culture"
By Samantha Singson
NEW YORK, November 19, 2009 (C-FAM.org) - Next week in Europe, a committee of human rights “experts” will discuss a draft recommendation on measures to “combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity to ensure respect for human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons and to promote tolerance towards them.”
Proponents claim there is a need for “specific action” because homosexuals are still subjected to “homophobia, transphobia and other forms of intolerance and discrimination.” For starters, the 47 member states of the Council of Europe (CoE) should ensure that homosexuals have the right to adopt, to access assisted reproductive treatment like in-vitro fertilization and gender reassignment surgery, as well as give full legal recognition of such gender reassignment.
The recommendation calls for states to monitor any “direct or indirect discrimination” on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity and to “ensure that legislative and other measures are adopted and effectively enforced.”
The recommendation lists documents from European and United Nations (UN) sources that it claims “recognize sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination” and takes note of last year’s controversial French-Dutch led statement on sexual orientation and gender identity which was signed by 66 nations in the General Assembly.
Critics point out that the UN statement cited by the recommendation is non-binding and was hotly contested when it was introduced at the UN General Assembly. In a clear showing that there is no international consensus on sexual orientation and gender identity, nearly sixty nations presented a counterstatement to the French-Dutch statement, and Russia, Belarus and the Holy See made separate statements also in opposition.
The counterstatement condemned “all forms of stereotyping, exclusion, stigmatization, prejudice, intolerance and discrimination and violence directed against peoples, communities and individuals on any ground whatsoever, wherever they occur,” while defending the ability of sovereign nations to enact laws that meet the “just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare.”
Conservative European insiders who are monitoring the draft recommendation told the Friday Fax that they were concerned that the draft recommendation shifts from the usual principle of "non-discrimination" to a new one of “non-distinction.” Where the principle of non-discrimination still allows discrimination in proportion to justified reasons, the principle of non-distinction makes no consideration of whether a differential treatment is fair or unfair, since it is the differential treatment itself which is prohibited.
Social conservatives are also concerned by another provision in the draft which states that “neither cultural, traditional, nor religious values, nor the rules of a "dominant culture" can be invoked to justify hate speech or any other form of discrimination, including on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.” They fear that this could inhibit the right of churches and other faith-based organizations to speak on the immorality of homosexual acts as they might be accused of inciting intolerance.
Following next week’s meeting of the steering committee on human rights, the draft recommendation will subsequently be discussed by the Committee of Ministers of the CoE. Larger in membership and older than the European Union, the CoE is considered the chief protector and promoter of human rights in Europe.
More Condoms, Fewer Poor People in Developing Nations will Solve Climate Change: UNFPA
By Hilary White
LONDON, November 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The fight against "climate change" can be won with the distribution of more free condoms and decreases in population, especially in the developing areas of the world, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has said in a report.
"Women with access to reproductive health services ... have lower fertility rates that contribute to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions."
While the UNFPA acknowledged it had no actual evidence of a connection between population increase and climate change, the report insists there is no doubt that "people cause climate change" through CO2 emissions.
"The linkages between population and climate change are in most cases complex and indirect." Nevertheless, the report said, "As the growth of population, economies and consumption outpaces the Earth's capacity to adjust, climate change could become much more extreme and conceivably catastrophic."
Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, the UNFPA's executive director, told a news conference in London that although the largest amount of CO2 emissions do not come from the developing world, the organisation would continue to focus its population control efforts there, saying that women and the poor will be the worst hit in the coming climatological disasters.
"Our impending climate disaster is perhaps the most inequitable threats of our time," the UNFPA's Richard Kollodge told journalists.
But not everyone is as convinced. A Times poll released last week showed that less than half the UK's population believes human activity is responsible for climate change.
The Times says that only 41 per cent accept as a scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made. 32 per cent believe the link is unproven and 8 per cent said it is anti-human environmentalist propaganda. 15 per cent said they do not believe the world is warming.
In the run-up to the Copenhagen climate change summit set for next month, others are offering suggestions that do not involve artificial population control. The head of the US Forest Service, Tom Tidwell, pointed out that trees consume carbon dioxide and emit oxygen.
Tidwell told a Senate panel on Wednesday that his agency is trying to manage forests to combat climate change and that politicians might want to consider the benefits of planting more trees.
"It is time to manage the nation's forests to address climate change and unlock their potential," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the panel's chairman.
Read related LSN coverage:
Condoms, Contraception, Abortion "Cheapest Way to Combat Climate Change": London School of Economics
NJ School Board Halts Student's Pro-Life Ministry as Too "Religious"
By Kathleen Gilbert
CAMDEN, New Jersey, November 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A New Jersey student is suing the Bridgeton Board of Education after officials at Bridgeton High School prohibited her from expressing a religious viewpoint on the 6th annual Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity.
The lawsuit was filed in New Jersey's U.S. District Court Friday on the student's behalf by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, who had distributed a legal memo last month offering to legally defend students across the nation kept from participating in the event by school officials.
"Pro-life students shouldn't be discriminated against for expressing their beliefs," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman.
"The Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity is a non-disruptive, student-led event occurring outside of instructional time. The event provides the opportunity for students to exercise their constitutional right to express their viewpoint on abortion, just as other students have the right to express their views."
The student was prohibited from participating in the Stand True Ministries-sponsored event by distributing pro-life literature during non-instructional times and wearing a red arm band with the word "LIFE" written on it.
According to ADF, school officials told the student that nothing "religious" is allowed in public schools.
"Cumberland County has the highest rate of teen pregnancies in the state of New Jersey, yet Bridgeton High School censors students' pro-life speech opposing abortion," commented Cortman. "Government-run schools say that students need to be educated on these issues, but many times they only want to allow one side to be presented."
Michael W. Kiernan of Marlton is serving as local counsel in the lawsuit, C.H. v. Bridgeton Board of Education.
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.