OpinionWed Oct 10, 2012 - 4:56 pm EST
An inside view: abortion is foreign to Africa
October 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - So-called progressive organizations are attempting to paint a false picture of abortion in Africa.
In a recent report written by Kapya John Kaoma for the “progressive” group Political Research Associates, the author personally attacks myself and the organization I represent, Human Life International (HLI), claiming we are using Christianity to “destroy innocent lives” and “colonize” African culture through our work to protect the sanctity of life and the sanctity of the family.
In the author’s warped view of Christianity and of African culture, we are led to believe that Africans have traditionally embraced abortion, and that those who rely on Christian teaching to show the immorality of abortion are attempting to subdue traditional values in Africa. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The report claims that in Africa “abortion is widely accepted as a personal matter, even when viewed as morally wrong.” HLI is attacked for exposing an illegal abortion in Uganda because it is supposedly a “stark deviation from African culture” to make such things public. The author even charges HLI with making the apparently ridiculous claim that “birth control is a Western import,” and attacks our work against contraception when it is widely known that tens of millions of dollars’ worth of contraceptives are literally imported annually from Western nations. Western governments and NGOs boast of this fact in their annual reports and web sites. Why Mr. Kaoma would deny this is a question worth asking.
I think that most people realize that using the privacy of a matter to defend its morality is a questionable tactic. Female circumcision also happens in private and is widely practiced in some African nations. Is Mr. Kaoma suggesting that there should therefore be no laws against this cruel practice? Should this also be considered a “personal matter,” and thus be left unprosecuted by authorities?
In African communities, the death of a child is no small matter. We have never “accepted” abortion in African culture. Expanded legalization of abortion is being forced upon us by the traditional colonizing powers of the West, who are using their money and power to “destroy innocent lives.” Pro-life Christians are working, with limited sums, to protect our culture.
CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!
Growing up in a remote area of Tanzania, I attended my primary education in a rural setting. I never even left my village until I went to university, where I specialized in languages and African literature. Together with my studies in sociology, my perspective broadened greatly as I learned about African cultures through various literary works, and as I learned how the culture of people is embodied in its language. While investigating whether or not any African language has any word or phrase that would correspond to the English word “abortion,” I have yet to find a single example. You would think something so “widely accepted” in our culture would be named.
I speak two local languages, Kinyanja and Kimatengo, neither of which has a word for abortion. Among the Igbo in Nigeria, human life is widely respected and any attempt to kill unborn human life is regarded as an abomination. When I asked colleagues in Sudan two years ago if they have word for abortion, they laughed at me and said they have never heard of such a word. I have also asked the Sotho in Lesotho, the Swazi in Swaziland, the Shona in Zimbabwe, the Chewa in Malawi and the Baganda in Uganda – all of whom unequivocally said they do not have word for abortion. Instead, they told me, there is a word for miscarriage. There is also often a special rite to bury the body of a stillborn baby, usually only women were involved. In fact, the rite was done so respectfully and secretly that children were not allowed to know.
So the claim that “since abortion is widely accepted as a personal matter, even when viewed as morally wrong” is utterly false and is meant to whitewash the imposition of a foreign concept into an African cultural setting. Until recent years, there was little or no abortion practice in Africa – and it was certainly not considered acceptable if it was practiced. It has always been viewed as morally wrong, and that is why it cannot be treated as merely a personal matter, any more than any other morally offensive practice. This is why those who have tried to forcefully introduce abortion in Africa have in large part failed.
Indeed, those who are still trying to bring abortion into Africa have tried to sell the evil practice by calling it “safe abortion.” But with a few sad exceptions they have yet to succeed. In an obscure provision (Article 14 (2)(c)), the Maputo Protocol tried to introduce abortion by appealing to exceptions such as abortion for rape, incest, for the mother’s life or health, but has not succeeded either. In Tanzania, the abortion lobby, through the deceptively named “Safe Motherhood Bill,” included exceptions to allow abortion for the woman’s physical or mental health, in the case that the child would be physically or mentally disabled and even if the mother suffers from a mental disability.
By using the concept “safe motherhood” abortion proponents thought it would appeal to the African mind. It has not and it will never convince African fathers and mothers to kill their unborn children “safely.” For, in truth, there is no “safe abortion.” People in Africa know in every abortion one person is killed, one person is wounded and one person gets paid.
Sadly, this attempt to expand abortion access in Tanzania has been led by a development organization that until recently has enjoyed great respect in Africa, CARE International. When I held a press conference to condemn the hidden expansion of abortion in the “Safe Motherhood” bill, I was contacted by CARE representatives who apparently thought they could change my mind. Since my reply to them, I have not heard back.
The fact that CARE International is now a leading promoter of both abortion and contraception in Africa should give serious pause to any government or Christian organization who is thinking about working with them. Interestingly, even CARE does not seem to care for the word “abortion” very much either, since they only refer to it and to contraception under the name of “reproductive health,” which they now say is as essential as food, water and shelter in “helping” Africans who are in emergency situations.
So it is true that abortion, like contraception, is an import from the West into African countries; a “gift” from those who seem to think that there are too many Africans. And now after gaining the support of liberal members of our society – radical feminists and gender activists – through media and financial incentives, a number of women do undergo abortions. But this does not in any way mean that abortion is accepted by a majority of women. That is why any attempt to use the Parliament to enact abortion laws has been met with stiff resistance by life-loving parliamentarians who still faithfully represent their constituents.
Emil Hagamu is HLI’s Regional Coordinator for Anglophone Africa.
Donald Trump says he will promote LGBT ‘equality’ as president
CONCORD, New Hampshire, February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Does Donald Trump support the gay agenda or oppose it? On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, observers are still scratching their heads about where the GOP frontrunner actually stands.
Trump has repeatedly and consistently said he supports the natural definition of marriage, but can a President Trump be relied on to promote it resolutely and cogently? It is this question that has many marriage activists expressing concern about his increasingly likely hold on the GOP nomination.
In fact, the National Organization for Marriage has gone so far as to say that Trump has “abandoned” the pro-marriage cause.
Trump himself underscored the problem on the weekend when he told a New Hampshire television station that from the White House he would push “equality” for homosexuals even further forward.
A cable news reporter self-identifying as a lesbian asked him last Thursday after a rally in Exeter, "When President Trump is in office, can we look for more forward motion on equality for gays and lesbians?"
“Well, you can and look - again, we're going to bring people together. That's your thing, and other people have their thing,” Trump told Sue O’Connell of New England Cable News. “We have to bring all people together. And if we don't, we're not gonna have a country anymore. It's gonna be a total mess.”
Following the comments, Trump appeared Sunday on ABC’s This Week program with George Stephanopoulos and would not commit to appointing Supreme Court justices who’d overturn Obergefell, though that would be his “preference.”
“We’re going to look at judges. They’ve got to be great judges. They’ve got to be conservative judges. We’re going to see how they stand depending on what their views are. But that would be my preference,” he told Stephanopoulos. “I would prefer that they stand against, but we’ll see what happens. It depends on the judge.”
Trump’s comments follow his statements during a Fox News Sunday interview last week, when he said, “If I'm elected, I would be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things, but they've got a long way to go.”
“[Marriage] should be a states rights issue,” Trump continued. “I can see changes coming down the line, frankly.”
When asked by Fox if he “might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage,” Trump replied, “I would strongly consider that, yes.”
The real estate mogul criticized the Supreme Court for the Obergefell decision imposing homosexual “marriage” on all 50 states last June, but then later in August, Trump voiced support to NBC News for banning companies from firing employees on the basis of sexual orientation. “I don't think it should be a reason” to fire workers, he said at the time on Meet the Press.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and a number influential evangelicals have endorsed Senator Ted Cruz in the race for president. The Texas senator has not only committed to appointing pro-marriage justices, but says the president and the states can rightly defy the “fundamentally illegitimate” ruling just as President Lincoln defied the Dred Scott decision.
NOM has also been highly critical of Trump, saying he has “abandoned” their cause. The organization said in its January 27 blog post just prior to the Iowa Caucus that “Donald Trump does not support a constitutional amendment to restore marriage to our laws. Worse, he has publicly abandoned the fight for marriage. When the US Supreme Court issued their illegitimate ruling redefining marriage, Trump promptly threw in the towel with these comments on MSNBC: ‘You have to go with it. The decision's been made, and that is the law of the land.’”
NOM had said the week before that Trump “has made no commitments to fight for marriage, or the rights of supporters of marriage to not be discriminated against and punished for refusing to go along with the lie that is same-sex 'marriage.'”
New Hampshire voters have been tracked as showing support for homosexual “marriage,” as a poll last February showed 52 percent of Republican NH primary voters saying opposing gay “marriage” is unacceptable.
The latest CNN/WMUR tracking poll shows that overall 33 percent of likely Republican primary voters support Trump, giving him a growing 17-point lead over the nearest GOP contender. RealClearPolitics polling average in the state puts him at 31.0 percent support, with Marco Rubio second at 14.7, John Kasich third at 13.2, and Ted Cruz fourth at 12.7.
The unravelling of Chris Christie
February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- I'm a member of the clergy and for the past eight years have lobbied the powerful in Trenton, covering the administrations of both Governors Jon Corzine and Chris Christie. I did much of my work on behalf of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, associated with Tony Perkins' Family Research Council. I am currently the President of the Center for Garden State Families.
Those of us who are engaged in the fight to secure the right to believe, speak, and practice the Christian faith in America were all heartened by the election of a Pro-Life Governor in 2009. Not only did Chris Christie run as an open Pro-Lifer, but he adopted a position in support of natural marriage in the course of the campaign. And when legislative Democrats attempted to pass same-sex marriage in the lame duck session, so they could have outgoing Governor Corzine sign it into law, Chris Christie rallied opposition and stopped it. Those were the early, hopeful days; but as Governor, Chris Christie has presented himself in an inconsistent, even scatterbrained way, often making decisions that go against earlier stated beliefs.
One of his first decisions was to make a liberal Democrat the state's Attorney General. Once approved by the Senate, and she was, the Attorney General could not be fired by the Governor, as was the case with other cabinet officers. This gave a liberal Democrat enormous power and she used it to join up with liberal Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley in filing a brief against Christians in a case called Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. Just one day after being sworn in, the newly appointed state Attorney General took the most aggressive legal posture available to defend former Governor Corzine’s one-gun-a-month handgun rationing law, moving to dismiss an NRA lawsuit to overturn the law, and later vigorously opposing the NRA’s motion for a preliminary injunction in the case. Because of this appointment, New Jersey did not join in the lawsuits to overturn ObamaCare.
Governor Christie appointed a radical "sexologist" to run the NJ Department of Children & Families. This appointee would later resign when it emerged that she had held the top job in an organization that had supported a study advocating the normalization of some forms of adult-child sex.
His judicial appointments were also confusing. While claiming to oppose same-sex marriage, Governor Christie nominated an openly gay Republican to the state Supreme Court who supported it. Even Democrats wouldn't support this plainly unqualified appointment, and he never served. The Governor supported the advancement of a liberal Democrat to the job of Chief Justice, while refusing to support the re-appointment of a Republican and the Court's most conservative member. He also appointed a controversial defense attorney who had defended a number of Islamic extremists who had violated immigration law.
In 2013, many of those in the Christian community opposed legislation that banned young people from receiving counseling and therapy to lead them away from homosexuality. As an ex-gay myself, I could have personally attested to the benefits of such counseling, much of which is no different than what is found in contemporary twelve-step programs. However, the Christian community opposing the ban was not afforded the opportunity to meet with the Governor. Only the homosexual community with its pro-ban agenda was given that benefit.
Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.
I don't blame the Governor for this, but I do blame his staff. As President Ronald Reagan said, "personnel is policy," and Governor Christie's choices in personnel have not advanced the policies he campaigned on, and often it was the direct opposite.
New Jersey ended up being just the second state in the country that only allows young people to receive counseling that advocates homosexuality, but bans by law counseling that advocates heterosexuality. When he signed it into law, Governor Christie embraced the made-up "science" of the propagandists, when he cited un-specified "research" that "sexual orientation is determined at birth." This is the so-called "gay-gene" trope that has baffled those engaged in the Science of Genetics because it has never been discovered.
As a candidate for Governor, Chris Christie talked the talk and raised the expectations of Christians in New Jersey. As Governor, and especially in his appointments, Christie undermined our confidence in his leadership. Christians should ask tough questions before extending our faith in him again.
Pro-life investigator hits back with new footage after judge blocks release of abortion sting videos
SAN FRANCISCO, February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A new video from the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) shows two National Abortion Federation (NAF) employees saying that abortion clinics would be interested in kickbacks from profits on fetal tissue and body part sales.
The video comes three days after a San Francisco imposed an injunction sought by NAF against CMP videos that one of the abortion group's attorneys said meant that "NAF's members can sleep a little easier tonight."
CMP accused the pro-abortion organization of hiding behind the court.
According to U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick, however, NAF "made...a showing" that release of CMP videos would harm rights to privacy, freedom of association, and liberty of NAF members.
"Critical to my decision are that the defendants agreed to injunctive relief if they breached the agreements and that, after the release of defendants’ first set of Human Capital Project videos and related information in July 2015, there has been a documented, dramatic increase in the volume and extent of threats to and harassment of NAF and its members," wrote Orrick.
Additionally, the judge found that CMP's videos “thus far have not been pieces of journalistic integrity, but misleadingly edited videos and unfounded assertions," and that nobody from the abortion industry “admitted to engaging in, agreed to engage in, or expressed interest in engaging in potentially illegal sale of fetal tissue for profit" in the CMP videos.
However, in a new video released today that is unrelated to the injunction, a NAF employee told undercover journalists that kickbacks "definitely [sound] like something some [of] our members would be really interested in," with another chiming in that money from private purchasers to abortion clinics were "a win-win" for clinics.
The undercover investigators, who had purported to be part of a biotechnology company with an interest in fetal parts, were offered the chance to be at a NAF conference. “We have an exhibit hall and then we also have the general conference. But I mean, this is a very great way to talk to our members. We have a group purchasing program through our membership,” the journalists were told. “So it seems like this would be a really great option to be able to offer our members, as well.”
This is the second ruling against CMP in recent weeks, and the second by Orrick since July. The San Francisco judge issued a restraining order against CMP related to NAF's 2014 and 2015 meetings in San Francisco and Baltimore that Friday's ruling extended.
The other recent ruling came in the form of an indictment of CMP's David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. Merritt and Daleiden turned themselves into Houston authorities for booking and processing last week. After being released on bail, Daleiden spoke at a LifeSiteNews/Christian Defense Coalition press conference after which more than 100,000 petition signatures backing Daleiden were dropped off to the Harris County, Texas District Attorney's office.
According to Orrick, who says he reviewed the more than 500 hours of recordings from CMP, "It should be said that the majority of the recordings lack much public interest, and despite the misleading contentions of defendants, there is little that is new in the remainder of the recordings. Weighed against that public interest are NAF’s and its members’ legitimate interests in their rights to privacy, security, and association by maintaining the confidentiality of their presentations and conversations at NAF Annual Meetings. The balance is strongly in NAF’s favor.”
NAF did not respond to a request for comment about the allegations by Orrick and a NAF spokesperson that CMP's videos have caused threats and other security concerns against NAF members.