Dr. Ligaya Acosta

How Western agencies are using billions to foist their population agenda on Filipinos

Dr. Ligaya Acosta
By Dr. Ligaya Acosta
Image

Co-authored with Stephen Phelan

June 6, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Many Catholics around the world have become aware of the goings-on in the Philippines, perhaps the most Catholic and pro-life country in the world. Thanks primarily to the strong and united leadership of our faithful bishops, Filipinos have been successful in fighting off a sustained assault from the West in the form of a “Reproductive Health (RH)” bill that threatens the families and future of the Philippines. But the bill’s proponents seem undaunted and incredibly well-funded, so we wanted to help Catholics around the world understand the situation on the ground, and ask for your prayers and support.

The Philippines does not need and does not want the RH bill.  It is a foreign imposition, the contents of which are alien to Filipino values and culture.

The vast majority of Filipinos oppose the bill, as proven by the many huge rallies over the country – the biggest of which saw almost 500,000 gather in Manila last March.  The same bill has been filed and re-filed since 1998’s 11th Congress (it is now the 15th), but as we have seen, its Western promoters have no intention of taking ‘no’ for an answer this time around.

Why, one might ask, does it keep reappearing, sometimes with different names or slightly revised content, if the people of the Philippines have so clearly rejected it? It reappears because it is fueled by mind-boggling amounts of money from international population control organizations, including the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), who have long expressed their concern that there are too many poor Filipinos for their comfort. Most recently, the European Union added to the pot, promising 35 million euros as a further enticement for the Philippines to embrace the desired “health reforms.” These groups have essentially bottomless bank accounts, and will not stop until they have reduced Filipino fertility to levels that they are comfortable with.

Sadly, almost everything in the bill has already been implemented surreptitiously by both government and non-governmental organizations. The Philippines now has “population officers” to keep tabs on poor women and try to get them to stop having children. Ubiquitous promotion of “safe,” promiscuous sexual activity has given the Filipinos increasing rates of teenage pregnancy, and many people now think that those who created the problems are the ones to provide the solutions. Slowly, the language of the population controllers is taking hold among young people, the government and the media, while voices of opposition, such as those of the bishops, are increasingly portrayed as being in opposition to Filipino progress.

But the bill will have further and even more devastating consequences if it becomes law. It has provisions to force medical professionals and businesses to promote and perform a full range of “reproductive health services,” regardless of conscientious objection. It promises to fine and jail opponents who spread as-yet-undefined “malicious” falsehoods about the bill. It requires couples to undergo government-mandated RH training and certification before they can obtain a marriage license.

Its primary goal, however, is to define the governmental roles, relationships and structures needed to fully implement the draconian population control program that is being pushed so aggressively by Western elites. And although the bill does not specifically legalize abortion, this omission is widely understood to be a temporary, pragmatic concession to the strongly anti-abortion Filipinos. No abortion – for now. Abortion, as it always does, will soon follow once the rest of the program is adopted, and once the true changes in behavior sought by Western elites are effectively mainstreamed.

Around the world, without exception, “reproductive health” always means contraception and abortion, and is always implemented surreptitiously until the society buys into the false solutions to problems they didn’t have before the population controllers showed up.

The disingenuousness of the bill’s promoters is truly stunning. While they claim it is pro-woman, it actually harms women by promoting hormonal contraceptives that are increasingly tied to various cancers and lethal, stroke-causing blood clots. While they say that the bill is an attempt to alleviate poverty, their proposed solution is actually to eliminate the poor rather than to confront the rampant corruption in Filipino government and business.  While they preach about responsible parenthood, they promote radically irresponsible sexual behavior and seek to eliminate its natural consequence – pregnancy – with contraceptives, and soon, abortion.  And while they say that population growth must be managed by the government because of limited financial resources, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting their false solutions, leaving the real cause of the Philippines’ poverty unaddressed.

It is truly sad that while “Catholic” Philippine President Benigno Aquino ran successfully on an anti-corruption platform, he is pushing a bill which would institutionalize the worst corruption of all – the corruption of human lives and moral values. And while he talks about poverty alleviation, he is promoting the greatest poverty of all – spiritual poverty.

Following his recent public promises to push for the bill even at risk of being excommunicated from the Catholic Church, President Benigno Aquino has placed himself firmly with the Western elites who think there are too many Filipinos, and against the bishops. This is indeed a sad turn of events. His mother, the late, beloved former President Corazon Aquino, who always stood with Filipino families and the Church, must be turning in her grave.

As mentioned earlier, however, Filipinos have been successfully fighting the bill in the legislature for over a decade, and have no intention of giving in now, even as a new congressional session has begun and the population controllers increasingly express confidence that it is only a matter of time before the bill is passed. We have hope and trust in the Lord of Life, and united with you in prayer, we will continue to fight this bill with all we have.

Based in Manila, Dr. Ligaya Acosta is Human Life International’s Regional Coordinator for Asia and Oceania, and is a former health officer of the Philippines. Stephen Phelan is HLI’s Director of Communications and writes from Front Royal, Virginia.

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, , , ,

The first pro-abortion Republican enters the 2016 presidential race

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

EXETER, NH, May 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The large and expanding field of would-be Republican presidential candidates grew by one today, as George Pataki became the first GOP presidential hopeful this election season to openly support abortion-on-demand.

The 69-year-old long-shot candidate also has a history of supporting homosexual legislative causes.

In the weeks leading up to his formal announcement, George Pataki took out TV ads asking Republicans to refrain from talking about abortion and gay “marriage,” branding them “distractions.”

“In 12 years [as governor], I don’t think I talked about that issue twice,” he once said of abortion.

On same-sex “marriage,” he says, “I think, leave it to the states. I don’t think it’s a role in Washington.”

However, Pataki has a long history of enacting the homosexual political agenda as governor of New York from 1994-2006. He signed a “hate crimes” law that added the words “gay” and “lesbian” to New York state law for the first time.

He signed the Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination Act (SONDA), which prohibits business owners from “discriminating” against homosexuals in housing or hiring, with an exemption only for religious institutions.

He also added sexual orientation to state civil rights laws, alongside such immutable characteristics as race and sex, in an apparent quid pro quo for a gay activist group's endorsement in his last run for governor. The New York Times reported that, under pressure from Pataki, the then-Senate Majority Leader “shifted his position on the bill as part of what is tacitly acknowledged, even by Senator [Joseph] Bruno's senior aides, to have been a deal to win an endorsement for Governor Pataki from the state's largest gay rights group, the Empire State Pride Agenda.”

After the LGBT activist group endorsed Pataki in 2002, citing a long list of his service to the homosexual political cause, Pataki personally lobbied senators for the bill's passage, then signed it into law that December.

Coupled with his stance on gun control, environmentalism, and other issues, he stands well to the left of the Republican mainstream.

The three-term governor of New York, who belongs to the Roman Catholic Church, took his own advice by largely avoiding social issues today. The closest he came was his vow, “I'd repeal oppressive laws like ObamaCare and end Common Core.”

He added that he would “fire every current IRS employee abusing government power to discriminate on the basis of politics or religion. That is not America!”

Otherwise, Pataki's announcement speech hewed to stand pat Republican issues like reducing taxes, shrinking the number of federal employees, increasing military spending, and supporting entrepreneurship.

He began by thanking his supporters, in English and Spanish.

Smiling, his head pivoting between twin teleprompters, he said, “Let me tell you some of the things I'd do right away to get oppressive government off the backs of Americans.”

He would institute a lifetime ban on congressmen acting as lobbyists after they leave office. “If you ever served one day in Congress, you will never be a lobbyist,” he said. He favors forcing Congress to live under the laws it passes, so there will be “no special rules for the powerful.”

He cited his history of cutting taxes, reducing welfare rolls, and leaving his state with billions of dollars in surplus. “That's what our policies can do,” he said. “I know we can do the same thing for the United States.”

In recent weeks, he has called for a more interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East. Today, he reminded his audience that he was governor of New York in 9/11. “I will not fear the lesson of September 11,” he said. “To protect us, first we must protect the border,” he said – an unexpected phrase, as Pataki supports amnesty for the at least 11 million illegal immigrants already in the United States.

“We will stand with our ally, Israel, a democracy on the front lines of terror and barbarism,” he said.

Like former Sen. Rick Santorum, who announced he is running for president yesterday, Pataki agreed that “if necessary, American forces will be used to actually defeat and destroy ISIS on the ground” – although he promised not to become “the world's policeman.”

Some of his campaign promises drew skepticism, such as seeking to develop self-driving cars and to cure Alzheimer's disease and cancer within the next decade.

The speech's venue was chosen deliberately by Pataki, who considered entering the presidential race in 2000, 2008, and 2012. The town of Exeter, New Hampshire, claims to be the founding place of the Republican Party. (Ripon, Wisconsin, makes a similar claim.)

More importantly, the first-in-the-nation primary skews more libertarian on social issues than evangelical-dominated Iowa and South Carolina, so Pataki has essentially staked his candidacy on doing well in New Hampshire. Fellow pro-abortion Republican Rudy Giuliani made a similar bet in 2008, banking on a good showing among transplanted New Yorkers in the Florida primary. He left the race after finishing a distant third.

Short of a stunning upset in the Granite State, Pataki has little chance of breaking through the pack this year. A Fox News poll ranks him dead last among 16 announced and potential candidates. Holly Bailey of Yahoo! News said, “George Pataki would never say this, but you do have to wonder if he's sort of, maybe, gaming for vice president.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Pataki is not the first “pro-choice” Republican to run for president.  Giuliani (who supported partial birth abortion) and Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore (another potential 2016 candidate, who supports abortion during the first trimester) ran in 2008. Twelve years earlier, both California Gov. Pete Wilson and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter supported abortion-on-demand. Arlen Specter later left the party and became a Democrat.

In 1988, General Alexander Haig opposed a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So did Texas Gov. John Connally in 1980.

George H.W. Bush supported abortion and voted for Planned Parenthood funding early in his career but changed his position by the time he ran for president the second time, in 1988.

President Gerald Ford was the last Republican nominee to proclaim himself “pro-choice.” 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Steve Jalsevac / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

, , , ,

Ireland ‘defied God’ by voting for gay ‘marriage’: Cardinal Burke

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

OXFORD, May 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Cardinal Raymond Burke lamented how formerly Catholic Ireland has gone further than the pagans in the pre-Christian days of old and “defied God” by calling homosexual behavior “marriage” in the referendum last week.

“I mean, this is a defiance of God. It’s just incredible. Pagans may have tolerated homosexual behaviours, they never dared to say this was marriage,” he told the Newman Society, Oxford University’s Catholic organization, in an address Wednesday about the intellectual heritage of Pope Benedict XVI. The Tablet, Britain’s liberal Catholic newspaper, reported his remarks.

On Friday, 1.2 million Irish people voted to amend the country’s constitution to say: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.” A little over 734,000 people voted against the proposal. 

Burke said that he could not understand “any nation redefining marriage.”

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

The cardinal also emphasized the important role that parents play in protecting their children in a culture increasingly hostile to God’s laws. “The culture is thoroughly corrupted, if I may say so, and the children are being exposed to this, especially through the internet,” he said. One practical piece of advice that he offered families was to put computers in public areas to prevent children from “imbib[ing] this poison that’s out there.”

During the same Oxford visit, but during a homily at a Mass the day before, Burke called marriage between a man and woman a “fundamental truth” that has been “ignored, defied, and violated.”

Burke warned during the homily of the dangers of “various ideological currents” and of “human deception and trickery which strives to lead us into error.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
John Stonestreet

,

Why young Christians can’t grasp our arguments against gay ‘marriage’

John Stonestreet
By John Stonestreet

May 28, 2015 (BreakPoint.org) -- For five years, Dr. Abigail Rine has been teaching a course on gender theory at George Fox University, an evangelical school in the Quaker tradition.

At the beginning of the semester, she tells her students that “they are guaranteed to read something they will find disagreeable, probably even offensive.”

Writing at FirstThings.com recently, she related how five years ago it was easy to find readings that challenged and even offended the evangelical college students “considering the secular bent of contemporary gender studies.”

But today, things are different. “Students now,” she says, “arrive in my class thoroughly versed in the language and categories of identity politics; they are reticent to disagree with anything for fear of seeming intolerant—except, of course, what they perceive to be intolerant.”

And what do they find “intolerant”? Well, in her class, an essay entitled “What is Marriage?” by Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan Anderson, which was the beginning of the book “What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense.”

In their article, Girgis, George, and Anderson defend what they call the conjugal view of marriage. “Marriage,” they write, “is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other … that is naturally fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together.” They defend this view against what they call the “revisionist view” of marriage, which redefines marriage to include, among other things, same-sex couples.

“My students hate it,” Dr. Rine wrote. They “lambast the article.” “They also,” she adds, “seem unable to fully understand the argument.” And again, these are evangelical students at an evangelical school.

The only argument for conjugal marriage they’ve ever encountered has been the wooden proof-texting from the Bible. And besides, wrote Rine, “What the article names as a ‘revisionist’ idea of marriage—marriage as an emotional, romantic, sexual bond between two people—does not seem ‘new’ to my students at all, because this is the view of marriage they were raised with, albeit with a scriptural, heterosexual gloss.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

As Rine points out “the redefinition of marriage began decades ago” when “the link between sexuality and procreation was severed in our cultural imagination.”

And if marriage “has only an arbitrary relationship to reproduction,” then it seems mean-spirited to Rine’s students to argue that marriage by its very nature excludes same-sex couples.

And where do students get the idea that marriage “has only an arbitrary relationship to reproduction”? Well, everywhere—television, church, school, their homes, in youth groups.

Rine writes, “As I consider my own upbringing and the various ‘sex talks’ I encountered in evangelical church settings over the past twenty years, I realize that the view of marital sex presented there was primarily revisionist.”

In other words, once you say, “I do,” you get “the gift” of sex which is presented as “a ‘gift’ largely due to its [erotic], unitive properties, rather than its intrinsic capacity to create life.” Even in the Church, children have become an optional add-on to married life rather than its primary purpose.

What can we do to win back our children, our churches, and the culture? In our recent book “Same Sex Marriage,” Sean McDowell and I lay out a game plan. We offer strategies for the short-term and the long-term, with the ultimate goal: re-shaping the cultural imagination towards what God intended marriage to be, starting with the church. Come to BreakPoint.org to pick up your copy.

As Chuck Colson once said in a BreakPoint commentary about marriage, “We Christians are very good at saying ‘No.’ But we’ve got to get better at saying ‘Yes’: showing how God’s plan for humanity is a blessing. That His ways, including faithful, life-giving marriage between one man and one woman, lead to human flourishing physically, emotionally, and spiritually.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Reprinted with permission from Break Point.

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook