Dustin Siggins

,

GOP candidate for NY governor blasts Cuomo for telling pro-lifers they’re not welcome

Dustin Siggins
Dustin Siggins

WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NY, April 23, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Rob Astorino is in his fifth year as county executive of Westchester County, New York. And he says he's the right man for the job of governor of New York State, a position currently held by Democrat Andrew Cuomo.

Astorino, who was recently in Washington to solicit support and fundraising dollars from the Susan B. Anthony List, defended the right to life in an interview with LifeSiteNews. He also criticized Cuomo, who said in January that conservatives "who are right to life [and] anti-gay" are "extreme" and "have no place in the state of New York."

The GOP candidate says he opposes abortion in all cases except for rape, incest, and life of the mother.

"I respect everyone's religious beliefs, or non-beliefs," said Astorino. "I respect everyone's point of view, even though I may not agree with it. The last thing I would do is, as County Executive of Westchester, or as governor of the state, is to tell them to leave. To tell them they are not welcome."

"If, for some reason, they disagree with me on political philosophy or on life -- it's so outrageous. He's never apologized, and it's beyond what any governor should ever say," continued the GOP candidate.

Astorino, who is the only Republican running for his party's nomination, said that "tolerance" is required. "We need tolerance, we need to understand each other, respect each other.”

He noted that "there are probably no issues I agree with ... on abortion" with abortion giant Planned Parenthood, but that he "understand[s] they have a right to be here under the law."

The Republican said that he is "going to try and change hearts and minds, but for anyone who's pro-choice would I sit there and say 'Get out of New York, you don't belong here?'"

"Come on, that's ridiculous."

Describing himself as "Catholic, pro-life," and "attend[ing] weekly church services with my family," Astorino said that he doesn't "impose those views on others." He said that he believes "what is happening today is religion is being chased away, and I also believe that with abortion apparently, this has become the new politics for the Democratic Party." Astorino said that "and unless you go all the way, to the moment of birth, you're not going to get the endorsements of NOW, or NARAL, or Planned Parenthood."

"I respect views, viewpoints, and all different religions," he stated.

One of Cuomo's most controversial legislative efforts is the "Women's Equality Act," which includes a platform position to "Protect a Woman’s Freedom of Choice." Astorino said that while "I think most of us can support most points in the Women's Equality Act," the abortion component "is so radical, and so out of touch that even New Yorkers who consider themselves pro-choice" oppose it.

"Governor Cuomo refused to negotiate" on this part of the bill, according to Astorino, and "refused to separate [it] from the rest of the bill." Calling it "abortion on demand up to birth," Astorino said that "the last thing we should be doing, and what I vehemently would oppose, and would veto in a second, is any expansion of our abortion laws here in New York. We should all be working together with what President Clinton said, right? We should be making it rare, and safe. I don't see how this makes it safer for women who can go in somewhat unregulated clinics, and have non-physicians perform abortions in the third trimester."

While Astorino says he opposes abortion except for rape, incest, and life of the mother, he also "recognize[s] the political atmosphere in New York, and what it is, and Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, this state made their abortion laws before Roe v. Wade. So, abortion is the law in New York State, and it's probably not going backwards too much in the near future."

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The abortions Astorino does support being legal are "a tough issue, too, because all life should be sacred. And that's an area where there can be a legitimate public policy debate on, certainly always in the life of the mother, which generally never happens, but certainly that should always be there. For me, that's even in Catholic doctrine, too, so I think we're pretty consistent with that."

"But nobody can argue that -- in New York, especially -- that it's not easy to get an abortion. We are the abortion capital of the world. Nobody can claim it's difficult, that there's an abortion battle here to abolish abortion -- that's just not happening in New York," said Astorino.

"To continuously try to expand [abortion], I don't know how that helps teenagers," says Astorino. "I don't know how that helps women in any way. And we need to have a frank discussion about this, and there does need to be alternatives."

"We should be promoting adoption. I don't know why promoting adoption would be controversial."

Democrats have a voter registration advantage in New York, but Astorino -- who said at a recent campaign event that enrollment in Westchester County gives Democrats a two-to-one advantage -- believes "of course we can win." At the campaign event, he said that building coalitions is important, and "you've ... got to offer something" to non-traditional Republican voters.

Astorino faces a tough battle in his effort to reach voters who don't already stand behind him. Cuomo and his allies -- including pro-abortion groups and environmental organizations -- are planning a series of attack ads that could cost as much as $10 million. The goal is to make Astorino look like a "right wing nut."

However, a major backer of Astorino, New York Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long told LifeSiteNews in March that "Cuomo is the extremist. He's already said there is no room for people in New York State who are pro-life and are in favor of traditional marriage.”

In early March, Long told Newsday.com that he didn't think social issues would be a major factor in the gubernatorial race. Astorino also told LifeSiteNews that "the most important thing" in the race is "what's on everyone's mind -- jobs, taxes."

"People are leaving New York, they are throwing in the towel, in droves," he said. "400,000 people have left New York in the last four years. We are dead last, 50th, in all the wrong categories. We have the highest taxes in America, the most corrupt government, the worst business climate, one of the highest electricity rates in America, the greatest population loss. [And] things have not gotten any better under Andrew Cuomo."

"We need to reverse course. We were able to do that in Westchester County, where I've been County Executive now for my fifth year. Where we prioritized, we reduced spending, we reduced taxes, yet we're committed to those most in need."

Astorino has previously said that since he became county executive, Westchester County has reduced the property tax levy or kept it the same, and spending has gone down from $1.8 million to $1.7 million.

Some of those "most in need" are black Americans. "I read somewhere that the most dangerous place to be for an African-American child is in the womb," said Astorino. "And that's really sad, because the abortion rate is through the roof for African-American women, and 60% of pregnancies end in termination."

"There are a lot of reasons for that, and we've got to start addressing those," says Astorino, who sees a connection between economic and social issues. "The breakdown of families in society, economic conditions -- clearly, we want everyone to have a good-paying job, and an education. We don't want people to feel hopeless, that pregnancy should be a burden. And those are the kinds of things that we have to address in a real way."

With seven months until the general election, Astorino is largely an unknown to state voters less than two months after declaring his candidacy. He has seven months to close a thirty-point margin between himself and Cuomo.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

,

Arguments don’t have genitals

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

“As soon as he grows his own uterus, he can have an opinion.”

That was a comment left on The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada’s Facebook page by a woman who presumably opposes men speaking out against misogyny, domestic abuse, rape culture, and female genital mutilation as well. Apparently, you see, male genitals disqualify people from speaking out on various human rights issues deemed by women who define themselves by their uteruses while protesting angrily against being defined by their uteruses as “women’s issues.”

Which abortion isn’t, by the way. It’s a human rights issue.

To break it down really simply for our confused “feminist” friends: Human beings have human rights. Human rights begin when the human being begins, or we are simply choosing some random and arbitrary point at which human beings get their human rights. If we do not grant human rights to all human beings, inevitably some sub-set of human beings gets denied protection by another group with conflicting interests. In this case, of course, it is the abortion crowd, who want to be able to kill pre-born children in the womb whenever they want, for any reason they want.

Science tells us when human life begins. Pro-abortion dogma is at worst a cynical manoeuvre to sacrifice the lives of pre-born human beings for self-interest, and at best an outdated view that collapsed feebly under the weight of new discoveries in science and embryology. But the abortion cabal wants to preserve their bloody status quo at all costs, and so they make ludicrous claims about needing a uterus to qualify for a discussion on science and human rights.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

In fact, feminists love it when men speak up on abortion, as long as we’re reading from their script, which is why the carnivorous feminists have such a support system among the Deadbeat Dads for Dead Babies set and the No Strings Attached Club.

Male abortion activists have even begun to complain about “forced fatherhood,” a new cultural injustice in which they are expected to bear some responsibility for fathering children with women they didn’t love enough to want to father children with, but did appreciate enough to use for sex. Casual fluid swaps, they whine, should not result in custody hearings.

This is not to mention a genuine social tragedy that has men forcing or pressuring women to have abortions or abandoning them when they discover that the woman is, indeed, pregnant.

Or the fact that abortion has assisted pimps, rapists, and misogynists in continuing the crimes of sex trafficking, sexual abuse, and sex-selection abortion.

And coming against these disgusting trends are thousands of men in the pro-life movement who believe that shared humanity means shared responsibility, and that when the weak and vulnerable are robbed of their rights, we have to stand up and speak out.

We are not at all convinced by the feminist argument that people should think with their reproductive organs or genitals. We think that the number of people currently doing that has perhaps contributed to the problems we face. And we refuse to be told that protecting the human rights of all human beings is “none of our business” and “outside of our interests.”

Arguments don’t have genitals, feminists. It’s a stupid argument trying to protect a bloody ideology.

Reprinted with permission from CCBR.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Rachel Daly

,

Gvmt strikes UK Catholic school admission policy that prefers Mass attendees

Rachel Daly
By Rachel Daly

St. Joseph's Catholic Primary School in Epsom, England, was ordered to change its admissions policy after it was ruled discriminatory by the nation's Office of Schools Adjudicator, according to Your Local Guardian. St. Joseph's reportedly had been granting preferred acceptance to students whose families attended Mass at the affiliated church.

St. Joseph’s School is for students from age 4 to 11 and describes itself as “enjoy[ing] a high level of academic success.” The school furthermore places high priority on its Catholic identity, affirming on its homepage that “We place prayer and worship at the center of everything we do.”

The school states in its current admissions policy that it was "set up primarily to serve the Catholic community in St Joseph’s Parish" and that when the applicant pool exceeds 60 students, its criteria for prioritizing students includes "the strength of evidence of practice of the faith as demonstrated by the level of the family's Mass attendance on Sundays." 

Opponents of this policy reportedly argue that since donations are asked for at Mass, it could allow donation amounts to influence acceptance, and that forcing non-accepted local students to seek education elsewhere imposes a financial burden upon their families. 

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

As Your Local Guardian reports, the adjudicators dismissed claims that donation amounts were affecting school acceptance, given that it is impossible to track donations. Nonetheless, the adjudicators maintained that "discrimination ... potentially arises from requiring attendance at the church rather than residency in the parish."

The Office of Schools Adjudicators, according to its website, is appointed by the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State of Education, to perform such functions as mediating disputes over school acceptances. The Office's ruling on St. Joseph's will require the school to release a revised admissions policy, which is expected in the next few days.

Reprinted with permission from the Cardinal Newman Society.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Carolyn Moynihan

African women at risk of HIV, hostages to birth control

Carolyn Moynihan
By Carolyn Moynihan

Which should be the priority for a health organisation: preventing an incurable disease, or preventing a natural function that might have adverse physical consequences?

Preventing the disease, you would think. But the World Health Organisation would rather expose African women to HIV-AIDS than withdraw its support from a suspect method of birth control, arguing that childbirth is also risky in Africa. Riskier, apparently, than the said contraceptive. And at least one of WHO’s major partners agrees.

This is one of the stories you will not have read in coverage of the International AIDS Conference held in Melbourne last week, despite the fact that WHO made an announcement about it during the conference and the findings of a highly relevant study were presented there.

The story is this: there is increasing evidence that the method of contraception preferred by family planning organisations working in Africa (and elsewhere) facilitates the transmission of HIV. The method is the progesterone injection in the form of either DMPA (Depo Provera, the most common) or NET-En (Noristerat).

Millions of women in sub-Saharan Africa receive the injection every three months. The method overcomes problems of access. It can be given by nurses or health workers. A wife need not bother her husband for any special consideration; the teenage girl need not remember to take a pill.

But for 30 years evidence has been accumulating that, for all its “effectiveness” in controlling the number of births, the jab may also be very effective in increasing the number of people with HIV.

Three years ago at another AIDS conference in Rome, researchers who had analysed data from a number of previous studies delivered the disturbing news that injectables at least doubled the risk of infection with HIV for women and their male partners.

That study had its weaknesses but one of the experts present in Rome, Charles Morrison of FHI 360 (formerly Family Health International, a family planning organisation that also works in AIDS prevention), considered it a “good study” and subsequently led another meta-analysis that addressed some of the issues with previous research.

Last week at the Melbourne conference he presented the results. His team had re-analysed raw data on the contraceptive use of more than 37,000 women in 18 prospective observational studies. Of these women, 28 percent reported using DMPA, 8 percent NET-En, 19 percent a combined oral contraceptive pill, and 43 percent no form of hormonal contraception. A total of 1830 women had acquired HIV while in a study.

The analysis showed that both injectables raised the risk of infection by 50 percent:

Compared to non-users [of any hormonal contraceptive], women using DMPA had an elevated risk of infection (hazard ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.31-1.86), as did women using NET-En (1.51, 95% CI 1.21-1.90). There was no increased risk for women using oral contraceptives.

Similarly, comparing women using injections with those using oral contraceptives, there was an elevated risk associated with DMPA (1.43, 95% CI 1.23-1.67) and NET-En (1.30, 95% CI 0.99-1.71).

Morrison also noted:

The results were consistent in several subgroup and sensitivity analyses. However, when only studies which were judged to be methodologically more reliable were included, the increased risk appeared smaller.

Morrison acknowledged that observational studies such as the FHI analysis depended on have their limitations. He is looking for funding to conduct a randomised controlled study – something that, after 30 years of suspicions and evidence, still has not been done.

So what is his advice to the birth control industry? Stop using this stuff in regions with a high prevalence of HIV until we are sure that we are not feeding an epidemic?

No.

One reason is that FHI is at least as interested in contraception as it is in HIV prevention. Though its website reflects a broad range of development activities, its core business is integrating birth control programmes with HIV prevention. The WHO – one of its partners -- describes the US based, 83 percent US government funded non-profit as “a global health and development organization working on family planning, reproductive health and HIV/AIDS.”

Another reason is that FHI 360 has a vital stake in precisely the kind of contraceptives that are under suspicion. Its annual report refers to:

Our trailblazing work in contraceptive research and development continues, as we develop and introduce high-quality and affordable long-acting contraceptives for women in low-income countries. Research is under way to develop a new biodegradable contraceptive implant that would eliminate the need for removal services. We are also working with partners to develop an injectable contraceptive that would last for up to six months. Currently available injectables require reinjections monthly or quarterly, which can be challenging where health services are limited.

That project is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and USAID.

So Morrison did not argue in Melbourne for restrictions on the use of injectables, and neither did the WHO, whose representative at the conference outlined the UN body’s new guidelines on contraception and HIV. Mary Lyn Gaffield said a review of studies up to – but not including Morrison’s – did not warrant a change to WHO’s policy that DMPA and NET-En should be available, without restriction, in areas of high HIV prevalence.

The most WHO will advise is that women should be informed of the risk:

“Women at high risk of HIV infection should be informed that progestogen-only injectables may or may not increase their risk of HIV acquisition. Women and couples at high risk of HIV acquisition considering progestogen-only injectables should also be informed about and have access to HIV preventive measures, including male and female condoms.”

Condoms? How do they defend such cynicism? By equating the risk of HIV with the risks of motherhood – complications of pregnancy or childbirth, maternal death and the effect on infants... And yet motherhood remains risky precisely because 90 percent of the world’s effort is going into contraception!

Seven years ago a meeting of technical experts convened by WHO to study the injectables-HIV link showed the reproductive health establishment worried about that issue, to be sure, but also concerned that funding was flowing disproportionately to HIV-AIDS programmes, setting back the cause of birth control. The integration of family planning and HIV prevention spearheaded by FHI 360 looks like they have found an answer to that problem.

Whether African women are any better off is very doubtful. They remain pawns in a game that is, above all, about controlling their fertility. They and their partners are encouraged to take risks with their health, if not their lives, while researchers scout for funds to do the definitive study.

FHI had an income of $674 million last year, most of it from the US government. Couldn’t it give Charles Morrison the money to do his research today?

Reprinted with permission from Mercatornet.com.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook