Fr. Peter West

Inevitably Controversial: Melinda Gates and contraception for the poor

Fr. Peter West
By Fr. Peter West
Image

July 27, 2012 (HLIWorldWatch.org) - In the age of Wikipedia and viral internet sensations, it is easy for facts to be overshadowed by carefully crafted stories — the truth eclipsed by popularity.  It can take days, months, or even years to correct false information once it has “gone viral.”

Often such claims don’t involve life-and-death situations.  But then there is the case of Melinda Gates and her sophisticated media campaign insisting that there is “No Controversy” in pushing harmful contraceptives onto the women of the developing world.  Here we have the potential to negatively impact millions.

“When I travel and talk to women around the world, they tell me that access to contraceptives can often be the difference between life and death,” Gates said in a statement following the London Summit on Family Planning on July 11, organized by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.  I have traveled around the world some myself, and I agree that contraceptives can be the difference between life and death.  But the truth of the matter is that the nations that embrace contraceptives are the ones suffering demographic collapse.  It’s in such nations that women suffer harmful medical side-effects from drugs that they believed would help them.

Mrs. Gates especially should know this, as the Gates Foundation actually funded a study which found that women using hormonal contraception, especially injectable methods like Depo-Provera (the kind favored by Ms. Gates), were at increased risk of contracting and spreading HIV, which continues to decimate many African nations.  In fact, the list of known risks of using hormonal contraception continues to grow.

The stated goal of the obviously not uncontroversial London summit was to raise $4 billion so that 120 million more women in the developing world might have access to contraception by 2020.  They surpassed their goal by some $600 million, with a host of governments and NGOs promising to support the campaign.  Ms. Gates also plans to give billions to research new contraceptive devices, such as one that is implanted in a woman’s body for her entire life and “can be turned on and off.”

Interestingly, Mrs. Gates and her partners weren’t pressed much by the media on the secrecy surrounding the location of the launch of the “No Controversy” campaign to radically increase contraception use in the developing world.  The location was not released to the public in advance, and the summit was by invitation only, even as Mrs. Gates boasted of her foundation’s “transparency” in a recent appearance on Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report.

Thus far, Mrs. Gates has yet to face any hard questions surrounding her controversial initiative and the facts about how contraceptives destroy cultures and harm women.  For that intrepid reporter who dares to ask some pertinent, if unwelcome, questions, there are many newsworthy angles for exploration.

CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!

Even beyond the increasing number of studies showing the danger posed by hormonal contraception, one might ask how Mrs. Gates and her partners, which include the world’s two largest abortion providers in Marie Stopes International and International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF), how they plan to ensure that such products will not be used coercively by governments who are under increasing pressure from the United Nations to lower their total fertility rates.  Forced abortion and sterilization are certainly ongoing in China, India, and Uzbekistan, and these phenomena are likely much more common worldwide than reported.

And coincidentally, or not, it happens to be one hundred years since London’s First International Eugenics Conference.  This should also be a fruitful line of inquiry for reporters, since the founders of Gates’ partners Marie Stopes (Ms. Stopes herself) and IPPF (Margaret Sanger) were leaders in the early-20th-century movement to rid the world of those “unfit to live.”

Sanger’s troubling views on what should be done with the poor and “unfit” are now widely known, if for some reason still declared off-limits by the “reporters” who are busy repeating the Gates Foundation talking points following the summit.  And like Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes was a eugenicist who believed in creating a more pure race, writing in 1920′s Radiant Motherhood that the “sterilization of those totally unfit for parenthood [must] be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.”

Again, Gates would surely repudiate these views, but they can’t be disconnected from the partners she has chosen to work with her in bringing “social justice” to the women of the developing world.  Population control and eugenics are in no way just, and as a Catholic, Mrs. Gates should know this.  It does no good to simply repackage the Sanger and Stopes missions as “reproductive health” and continue apace.  Helping to lift the poor out of poverty and preventing their existence are two very different things.

Will Mrs. Gates ever be forced to answer the obvious and, yes, controversial questions about concerns related to eugenics and to the ill effects on women from her proposed remedy to poverty?  Solving the problem of poverty by reducing the number of poor people is absolutely controversial, as are Gates’s partners. Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International both perform abortion, which is opposed to the traditional values of the cultures of many nations.  A representative of Marie Stopes International even brazenly admitted at a London conference in 2007, to the obvious embarrassment of his peers, that the organization breaks the law and does illegal abortions all over the world.

It is not too late for Bill and Melinda Gates to use their vast wealth to help the poor in ways that are both uncontroversial and effective.  They could make huge investments in infrastructure and in educating the citizenry of poor nations.  They could use their clout to organize a coalition to put pressure on corrupt regimes that oppress the poor, and they could encourage more investment in developing nations, which leads to job-creation and increasing wealth and opportunity.

These are longstanding problems with solutions more complicated than can be examined here, but Mrs. Gates, the British government, and their partners will not change course unless they are challenged by reporters outside the conservative/pro-life community.  It is a dark day when those charged with breaking through the carefully choreographed message of the wealthy and powerful instead see their vocation as helping these powers to craft their message and deflect criticism.

A true reporter should be offended when reasonable questions are ignored, when informed contrary opinions are dismissed without argument, and when good-faith efforts at fact-finding are condescended to with talking points claiming that there is “No Controversy” in joining with population control organizations to help the developing world emerge from poverty.  Those more concerned with truth than with popularity and access to power will challenge Mrs. Gates and her powerful partners on these important questions.

Father Peter West is the vice president for missions at Human Life International, which is challenging Melinda Gates to rethink her approach to helping developing nations. This article originally appeared on AmericanThinker.com.

LAST CALL! Can you donate $5?

Today is the last day of our fall fundraising campaign. Can you help us reach our goal?


Share this article

Advertisement
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

Sandra Cano, ‘Mary Doe’ of Doe v. Bolton, RIP

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson
Image

Sandra Cano, the woman whose divorce custody case morphed into a Supreme Court decision extending the “constitutional right” to an abortion throughout all nine months of pregnacy, has passed away of natural causes.

Cano was “Mary Doe” of Doe v. Bolton, the other case settled by the High Court on January 22, 1973. In 1970, at 22, Cano saw an attorney to divorce her husband – who had a troubled legal history – and regain custody of her children. The Georgia resident was nine weeks pregnant with her fourth child at the time.

Cano said once the attorney from Legal Aid, Margie Pitts Hames, deceptively twisted her desire to stay with her children into a legal crusade that has resulted in 56 million children being aborted.

“I was a trusting person and did not read the papers put in front of me by my lawyer,” Cano said in a sworn affidavit in 2003. “I did not even suspect that the papers related to abortion until one afternoon when my mother and my lawyer told me that my suitcase was packed to go to a hospital, and that they had scheduled an abortion for the next day.”

Cano was so disgusted by the prospect that she fled the state.

Yet the legal case went on, winding up before the Supreme Court the same day as Roe v. Wade. The same 7-2 majority agreed to Roe, which struck down state regulations on abortions before viability, and Doe, which allowed abortions until the moment of birth on the grounds of maternal “health” – a definition so broad that any abortion could be justified.

All the justices except Byron White and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed that “physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age” are all “factors [that] may relate to [maternal] health.”

“I was nothing but a symbol in Doe v. Bolton with my experience and circumstances discounted and misrepresented,” Cano said in 2003.

Two years later, she told a Senate subcommittee, “Using my name and life, Doe v. Bolton falsely created the health exception that led to abortion on demand and partial birth abortion... I only sought legal assistance to get a divorce from my husband and to get my children from foster care. I was very vulnerable: poor and pregnant with my fourth child, but abortion never crossed my mind.”

On the 30th anniversary of the case, she asked the Supreme Court justices to revisit the ruling that bears her pseudonym, but they denied her request. “I felt responsible for the experiences to which the mothers and babies were being subjected. In a way, I felt that I was involved in the abortions – that I was somehow responsible for the lives of the children and the horrible experiences of their mothers,” she explained.

By that time, both Cano and Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, opposed abortion and implored the Supreme Court to overturn the rulings made in their names. Both also said their pro-abortion attorneys had misrepresented or lied about their circumstances to make abortion-on-demand more sympathetic.

"I pledge that as long as I have breath, I will strive to see abortion ended in America,” Cano said in 1997.

Priests for Life announced last week that Cano was in a hospital in the Atlanta area, in critical condition with throat cancer, blood sepsis, and congestive heart failure.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

“My heart is broken that Sandra will never witness an end to abortion,” Janet Morana said. “She never wanted to have an abortion. She never had an abortion, and she certainly never wanted to be a part of the Supreme Court decision, Doe v. Bolton, that opened the gates for legal abortion at any time during pregnancy and for any reason.”

“Sandra’s work to overturn that devastating decision that was based on lies will not end with her death,” Fr. Frank Pavone said. “When life ultimately triumphs over death, Sandra will share in that victory.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
We don’t kill problems anymore. We kill people, and pretend that it is the same thing.
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

First we killed our unborn children. Now we’re killing our own parents.

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

In a culture that elevates transient pleasure as a “value,” while reducing “value” itself to a subjective and utilitarian status, I suppose it should not be surprising that the worth of human beings is now constantly in question.

We once lived in a culture that drafted laws to protect “dependents”: the very young, the very old, and the disabled. This was done in recognition of the fact that a human being’s increased vulnerability correspondingly heightens our moral responsibility to that human being.

Now, however, the exit strategists of the Sexual Revolution are burning the candle at both ends - abortion for children in the womb, euthanasia and “assisted suicide” for the old. Both children and elderly parents, you see, can be costly and time-consuming.

We don’t kill problems anymore. We kill people, and pretend that it is the same thing.

I noted some time ago that the concept of “dying with dignity” is rapidly becoming “killing with impunity,” as our culture finds all sorts of excuses to assist “inconvenient” people in leaving Planet Earth.

There is a similarity to abortion, here, too—our technologically advanced culture is no longer looking for compassionate and ethical solutions to the complex, tragic, and often heartbreaking circumstances. Instead, we offer the solution that Darkness always has: Death. Disability, dependence, difficult life circumstances: a suction aspirator, a lethal injection, a bloody set of forceps. And the “problem,” as it were, is solved.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

We don’t kill problems anymore. We kill people, and pretend that it is the same thing.

There is something chilling about the intimacy of these killings. As Gregg Cunningham noted, “Ours is the first generation that, having demanded the right to kill its children through elective abortion, is now demanding the right to kill its parents through doctor-assisted suicide.” The closest of human relationships are rupturing under the sheer weight of the selfishness and narcissism of the Me Generation.

The great poet Dylan Thomas is famous for urging his dying father to fight on, to keep breathing, to live longer:

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Such sentiment is not present among the advocates of euthanasia. In fact, the tagline “dying with dignity” is starting to very much sound like, “Now don’t make a fuss, off with you now.” Consider this story in The Daily Mail from a few days ago:

An elderly husband and wife have announced their plans to die in the world's first 'couple' euthanasia - despite neither of them being terminally ill.

Instead the pair fear loneliness if the other one dies first from natural causes.

Identified only by their first names, Francis, 89, and Anne, 86, they have the support of their three adult children who say they would be unable to care for either parent if they became widowed.

The children have even gone so far as to find a practitioner willing to carry out the double killings on the grounds that the couple's mental anguish constituted the unbearable suffering needed to legally justify euthanasia.

… The couple's daughter has remarked that her parents are talking about their deaths as eagerly as if they were planning a holiday.

John Paul [their son] said the double euthanasia of his parents was the 'best solution'.

'If one of them should die, who would remain would be so sad and totally dependent on us,' he said. 'It would be impossible for us to come here every day, take care of our father or our mother.'

I wonder why no one considers the fact that the reason some elderly parents may experience “mental anguish” is that they have come to the sickening realization that their grown children would rather find an executioner to dispatch them than take on the responsibility of caring for their parents. Imagine the thoughts of a mother realizing that the child she fed and rocked to sleep, played with and sang to, would rather have her killed than care for her: that their relationship really does have a price.

This is why some scenes in the HBO euthanasia documentary How To Die In Oregon are so chilling. In one scene, an elderly father explains to the interviewer why he has procured death drugs that he plans to take in case of severe health problems. “I don’t want to be a burden,” he explains while his adult daughter nods approvingly, “It’s the decent thing to do. For once in my life I’ll do something decent.”

No argument from the daughter.

If we decide in North America to embrace euthanasia and “assisted suicide,” we will not be able to unring this bell. Just as with abortion and other manifestations of the Culture of Death, the Sexual Revolutionaries work hard to use heart-rending and emotional outlier examples to drive us to, once again, legislate from the exception.

But for once, we have to start asking ourselves if we really want to further enable our medical community to kill rather than heal. We have to ask ourselves if the easy option of dispatching “burdensome” people will not impact our incentive to advance in palliative care. And we have to stop simply asking how someone in severe pain might respond to such a legal “service,” and start asking how greedy children watching “their” inheritance going towards taking proper care of their parents.

And to the pro-life movement, those fighting to hold back the forces of the Culture of Death—the words of Dylan Thomas have a message for us, too.

Do not go gentle into that good night…
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

Advertisement
Featured Image
Luka Magnotta http://luka-magnotta.com
Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

,

Gay porn star admits dismembering ex-lover and molesting his corpse on film

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski

Montreal gay porn actor Luka Magnotta admits killing and dismembering his ex-lover and molesting his corpse on film, but pled not guilty on Monday to all five charges filed against him.

Magnotta shocked the world in June 2012 by allegedly killing and cannibalizing a 33-year-old university student from China, Jun Lin, then posting a video of his actions and the results online. He later hid some of the dismembered parts in the garbage, but also mailed parcels containing body parts to political offices in Ottawa and schools in Vancouver.

He was charged with first-degree murder, committing an indignity to a body, publishing obscene material, mailing obscene and indecent material, and criminally harassing Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other MPs.

Magnotta's lawyer Luc Leclair is basing the not guilty plea on the defendant having a history of mental illness, thus making him not criminally responsible.

Crown prosecutor Louis Bouthillier said he intends to prove that Magnotta planned the alleged murder well before it was committed.

"He admits the acts or the conducts underlying the crime for which he is charged. Your task will be to determine whether he committed the five offences with the required state of mind for each offence," Quebec Superior Court Justice Guy Cournoyer instructed the jury, according to media reports.

However, some authorities have pointed out that Magnotta’s behavior follows a newly discernible trend of an out-of-control sexual deviancy fueled by violent pornography.

Click "like" if you  say NO to porn!

Dr. Judith Reisman, an internationally-recognized expert on pornography and sexuality, told LifeSiteNews in 2012 she believes Magnotta’s behavior “reflects years of brain imprinting by pornography.”

“His homosexual cannibalism links sex arousal with shame, hate and sadism,” said Reisman. Although cannibalism is not as common as simple rape, she added, “serial rape, murder, torture of adults and even of children is an inevitable result of our ‘new brains,’ increasingly rewired by our out-of-control sexually exploitive and sadistic mass media and the Internet.”

In their 2010 book “Online Killers,” criminology researchers Christopher Berry-Dee and Steven Morris said research has shown “there are an estimated 10,000 cannibal websites, with millions ... who sit for hours and hours in front of their computer screens, fantasizing about eating someone.” 

This underworld came to light in a shocking case in Germany in 2003, when Armin Meiwes was tried for killing his homosexual lover Bernd Jürgen Brandes, a voluntary fetish victim whom Meiwes picked up through an Internet forum ad seeking “a well-built 18- to 30-year-old to be slaughtered and then consumed.”

After the warrant was issued for his arrest, Magnotta was the target of an international manhunt for several days until he was arrested in Berlin, where police say he was found looking at online pornography alongside news articles about himself at an Internet café.

The trial is expected to continue to mid-November, with several dozen witnesses being called to testify before the jury of six men and eight women.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook