Recognizing population control in Ethiopia
February 22, 2013, (HLI World Watch) - The African nation of Ethiopia has a Christian history which dates back to the New Testament, even before Saul’s conversion. In the Acts of the Apostles, we learn that Philip baptized an Ethiopian eunuch who was a member of the court of Queen Candace. Happily, Ethiopia has not abandoned its ancient roots in the faith: about 63% of Ethiopians are Christians, the majority of whom belong to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
Ethiopia has a population of over 84 million, which makes the Eastern African nation the 14th largest country in the world. By way of contrast, the State of California has a population of just over 38 million people. But Ethiopia has plenty of room: they have a population density of 79 people per square kilometer, compared to 260 people per square kilometer in the much richer United Kingdom. This fact is often overlooked by those who look at Africa and see only too many people, and view babies as obstacles to “progress.”
With the 13th highest fertility rate in the world, Ethiopians have an average of 5.39 children per woman, making the nation a prime target of Western population controllers.
On the Need to Defend Pro-Life Culture
When I traveled to Ethiopia this past December I spoke with bishops, students and pro-life leaders who, while dedicated to defending life, were surprised just how far reaching and organized the population control agenda had become in Africa. For many it was a wakeup call that a renewed and refocused pro-life movement is needed in Ethiopia.
As in dozens of other countries in Africa and around the world, Human Life International (HLI) uses its limited resources to support the local pro-life mission in Ethiopia. In many African countries, HLI is the only organization providing valuable pro-life training and resources. Father Aloysius Mugisha, AJ (a priest of the order of Apostles of Jesus), is HLI’s country director in Ethiopia, and was my generous host. He is a native Ugandan, but has come to know and love Ethiopia and her people. He speaks the native Amharic language fluently, and helped to make sure people understood the very serious situation I described in my presentations and conversations.
During my first full day in Ethiopia, I offered Mass for 30 leaders of Ethiopia for Life, a dynamic group of students from various universities in the capital of Addis Ababa. In my homily, I reflected on the life of St. Leo the Great, who saved Rome from a barbarian invasion in 452 A.D.
As in St. Leo’s day, there is a vicious type of barbarism that we find today – attacks on the most vulnerable human life. The new barbarians, however, are very sophisticated, and claim not to be bound by the moral restrictions of the past. Since population control fell out of favor decades ago, they now wage the same war against the people of developing nations with the falsely inspiring language of “reproductive justice,” “maternal health,” and “safe motherhood.” Yet their methods are exactly the same: abortion, contraception, euthanasia, basically any means of eliminating the “unwanted.”
This was also the aim of Margaret Sanger, the founder of the organization now known as Planned Parenthood, to create “a race of thoroughbreds.” Marie Stopes, a friend and colleague of Sanger, also was a racist and eugenicist. She founded the Society for Constructive Birth and Racial Progress, which eventually became the eponymous organization that is most active in Africa today.
Click "like" if you want to end abortion!
I asked the students to pray to Pope St. Leo the Great and ask him to help us overcome this new barbarism, that we might create a culture in which life is respected at every stage, and to preserve the faith. Right action follows from right belief. The false philosophies of the 19th century led to the atrocities of the 20th, as well as to the lack of respect for human life that we see today.
Spreading the Word
After Mass, I gave a presentation to the students on the population control agenda. Bishop Lisane-Christos Matheos Semahun, Auxiliary Bishop of Addis Ababa, also attended. They were alarmed to hear that Ethiopia was one of the 13 countries targeted by the United States for population control since the 1970s. On December 10, 1974, the United States National Security Council promulgated a top secret document entitled National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report. It was subtitled “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” Declassified in 1989, the document laid out a detailed strategy by which the United States would aggressively promote population control in developing nations in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries.
The document stated “The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries.” Ethiopia was one of 13 nations named that would be primary targets of U.S.-funded population control efforts. Other countries named were India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia.
According to NSSM-200, elements of the implementation of population control programs could include: a) the legalization of abortion; b) financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates; c) indoctrination of children; and d) mandatory population control, and coercion of other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.
You might ask why a policy adopted during the Nixon administration is relevant today, especially since it is unlikely that most of today’s bureaucrats and population control advocates even know of its existence. It is relevant because the assumptions and recommendations of this troubling document are now those of the international development industry, which is funded by governments of wealthy nations and Western multi-billion dollar foundations. A policy that was classified due to the very reasonable assumption by its authors that there would be an uproar if it was know that the most powerful government in the world saw the people of developing nations as obstacles to its own flourishing, is now the basic framework of the international development industry, and its strategies and tactics are now considered “best practices,” just as the language used in their implementation is now “pro-woman” rather than “population control.”
Our brothers and sisters in Ethiopia and other developing nations deserve to know that those bearing gifts from wealthy nations have an agenda. There are often strings attached to the huge financial grants dangled in front of the leaders of these nations, and these strings will ultimately tie down, and not empower, Africans.
A Strong Clergy can Make a Difference
Bishop Semahun was so alarmed at the array of forces seeking to limit the population of Ethiopia he pledged to focus the rest of his Episcopal ministry on the defense of human life and the family. Thankfully, the Archbishop of Addis Ababa, Berhaneyesus Demerew Souraphiel, C.M., has also been very supportive of the pro-life ministry in Ethiopia. The support of the Catholic Church in Africa is essential in responding to the threats of population control and the anti-life agenda.
While pro-life leaders, including many Catholic clergy, are well aware of the great evils posed by the Culture of Death, it’s hardly possible for any one person or one group to confront and defeat them all. The pro-life movement in Africa is growing, but supporters of their efforts don’t have the billions of dollars spent every year to suppress the Gospel of Life and undermine Africa’s traditionally life-loving culture.
As we go through our daily activities, we should be mindful and keep in prayer the students of Ethiopia for Life, as well as Father Aloysius, Ethiopia’s bishops, and all those working diligently to strengthen a Culture of Life in nations that still value children. May they have the courage of St. Leo to stand against the forces of evil in our day.
Father Peter West is the vice president for missions at Human Life International.
Reprinted with permission from HLI World Watch.
Texas AG to Target: Show me how you’ll protect women and kids from criminals
AUSTIN, Texas, May 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – The latest backlash Target received as a result of its transgender bathroom policy was a letter from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asking the company to provide its safety policies to protect women and children from “those who would use the cover of Target’s restroom policy for nefarious purposes.”
“Target, of course, is free to choose such a policy for its Texas stores,” Paxton wrote in a letter to Target CEO Brian Cornell. He noted the possibility of the Texas Legislature addressing the issue in the future, but said, “regardless of whether Texas legislates on this topic, it is possible that allowing men in women’s restrooms could lead to criminal and otherwise unwanted activity.”
“As chief lawyer and law enforcement officer for the State of Texas, I ask that you provide the full text of Target’s safety policies regarding the protection of women and children from those who would use the cover of Target’s restroom policy for nefarious purposes,” Paxton continued.
More than 1.1 million people have pledged to boycott Target over its new policy allowing men to access women’s bathrooms. Opponents of the policy worry that it puts women and children at risk by emboldening predators, who may now freely enter women’s restrooms.
Target’s new policy is “inclusive,” the company claims, and they say “everyone…deserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally.”
“Texans statewide can no longer be silent on the issue of protecting the safety of women and children,” Texas Values President and Attorney Jonathan Saenz said in a statement Wednesday urging Texans to boycott Target. This is the first time in its history the pro-family group has called for a boycott.
“We need all Texans to understand that Target is using this radical change in their store policy to try convince people that our laws should be changed in this dangerous direction as well,” said Saena. “Our goal with this boycott is for Target to change its dangerous new policy, to raise awareness of the real threats to safety that these policies bring and to help businesses and lawmakers understand the significant opposition to such measures that is growing daily… Texans all across our state must join this Boycott Target effort before someone gets hurt.”
On Tuesday a male allegedly filmed an underage girl at a Frisco, Texas, Target fitting room. Police are searching for the man.
There have been numerous incidents of male predators across North America accessing women’s facilities and citing transgender policies as allowing them to do so.
Christians, America has reached a crisis point. Are you ready to take up this challenge?
May 5, 2016 (Albert Mohler) -- For nearly two and a half centuries, Americans have enjoyed the enormous privilege and responsibility of forming our own government—a privilege rarely experienced throughout most of human history. For most of history, humanity has struggled with the question of how to respond to a government that was essentially forced upon them. But Americans have often struggled with a very different reality; how do we rightly respond to the government that we choose?
To put all of this in historical perspective, the Framers of the American experiment understood that a representative democracy built on the principle of limited government would require certain virtues of its citizens. These would include a restraint of passions and an upholding of traditional moral virtues, without which democracy would not be possible. As the idea of limited government implies, the citizenry would be required to carry out the social responsibilities of the community without the intrusion of government and, thus, citizens would be expected to have the moral integrity necessary for such an arrangement. The Framers of the American Republic also agreed that it would be impossible to have a representative democracy and a limited government if the people did not elect leaders who embodied the virtues of the citizenry while also respecting and protecting society’s pre-political institutions: marriage and family, the church, and the local community.
Thus, the idea of a limited government requires that society uphold and pursue the health of its most basic institutions. When a civil society is weak, government becomes strong. When the family breaks down, government grows stronger. When the essential institutions of society are no longer respected, government demands that respect for itself. That is a recipe for tyranny.
Much of this was essentially affirmed until the early decades of the 20th century when progressivists began promoting an agenda that fundamentally redefined the role of the federal government in public life. By the middle of the 20th century, the Democratic Party had essentially embraced this progressivist agenda, becoming committed to an increasingly powerful government—a government whose powers exceeded those enumerated in the Constitution. At the same time, the Democratic Party also began advocating for a basic redefinition of the morality that shaped the common culture. By and large, however, the Republican Party continued to maintain a commitment to the vision of America’s founders, advocating for a traditional understanding of morality while also upholding the principle of limited government.
By the 1980s, the two parties represented two very different worldviews and two very different visions of American government. For decades, each party has acted rather predictably and in ways that accord with their fundamental principles. All of that, however, has now changed.
The 2016 presidential campaign has developed in an entirely unpredictable manner and, in many respects, represents a crisis in American democracy. This crisis is not limited to either party. Bernie Sanders, the Independent senator from Vermont, has won several stunning victories in the primary season over presumed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. While it is still extremely likely that Clinton will become the Democratic nominee, Sanders support among voters represents a populist flirtation with Democratic Socialism. This pattern is something few Democrats could have imagined just one year ago. What this foray into Democratic Socialism represents, then, is a radical adjustment of the Democratic Party’s basic economic principles. Thus, even if Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee, the process will likely drag her even further to the left, eventually redefining the Democratic Party before our very eyes.
But if it is remarkable to see what is happening in the Democratic Party, it is absolutely shocking to see what is happening among Republicans. Traditionally, the Republican Party has established its reputation by standing for the principles advocated by the American Founders—limited government upheld by the health of society’s primary institutions such as marriage, family, and community. Yet Donald Trump, the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, represents virtually everything the Republican Party has typically defined itself over against. Clearly, both political parties are now redefining themselves. What is not clear is where each party will ultimately end up. What is also not clear is whether the American experiment can survive such radical political change.
As already noted, the American experiment in limited government requires that the citizenry and those who hold public office honor certain moral virtues and respect the institutions that are crucial for a society to rightly function. Yet, we now find ourselves in a situation where the three leading candidates for president show little to no respect for such institutions in their articulations of public policy.
This fundamental redefinition of the American political landscape requires Christians to think carefully about their political responsibility. Make no mistake; we cannot avoid that responsibility. Even refusing to vote is itself a vote because it privileges those who do vote and increases the value of each ballot. In truth, we bear a political responsibility that cannot be dismissed or delegated to others. Every Christian must be ready to responsibly steward his or her vote at the polls.
To put the matter bluntly, we are now confronted with the reality that, in November, Hillary Clinton will likely be the Democratic nominee and Donald Trump the Republican nominee. This poses a significant problem for many Christians who believe they cannot, in good conscience, vote for either candidate. As a result, Christians are going to need a lot of careful political reflection in order to steward their vote and their political responsibility in this election cycle.
Headlines from around the world tell us that other representative democracies are at a similar moment of redefinition. Political turmoil now marks the United Kingdom and also nations like France and other key American allies. Perhaps democracy itself is now facing a crucial hour of decision and a crucial season of testing. It is no exaggeration to say that democracy is being tested around the world; it is certainly being tested here at home. Yet if this is a moment of testing for democracy, it is also a crucial moment for Christian witness. This election cycle is going to be a particular test for American Christians—and we are about to find out if Christians are up to this challenge.
Reprinted with permission from Albert Mohler.
‘Sick and twisted’: Scientists keep embryos alive outside womb up to 13 days for experimentation
May 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Two teams of scientists have announced that they have been able to keep human embryos alive outside the womb for 13 days for the purpose of conducting scientific experiments. Some call the announcement the onset of a “Brave New World,” while others are petitioning lawmakers to lift sanctions that would keep scientists from experimenting on newly conceived babies even longer.
Researchers from Cambridge University, King's College, and Rockefeller University said in two separate reports that they stopped at 13 days only to avoid violating an internationally accepted law. At least 12 nations restrict the amount of time a newly conceived child may be kept alive in a laboratory to 14 days, the point at which scientists believe “individuality” begins.
The newest development allows scientists to observe newly conceived human beings after the point at which implantation in the womb would have occurred.
Professor Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, one of the studies' lead researchers, said her team's breakthrough could advance embryonic stem cell research and “can improve IVF success.”
Some scientists have called on the international community to extend the amount of time such experimentation can take place.
“If restrictions such as the 14-day rule are viewed as moral truths, such cynicism would be warranted,” three experts – Insoo Hyun, Amy Wilkerson, and Josephine Johnston – wrote in a commentary published yesterday in Nature magazine. “But when they are understood to be tools designed to strike a balance between enabling research and maintaining public trust, it becomes clear that, as circumstances and attitudes evolve, limits can be legitimately recalibrated.”
Pro-life experts said the experimentation destroys human life and could lead to grave ethical dilemmas by extending the research.
“No human being should be used for lethal experimentation, no matter their age or stage of development,” said Dr. David Prentice, a professor of molecular genetics and an Advisory Board Member for the Midwest Stem Cell Therapy Center. “The 14-day rule is itself arbitrary, and does not assuage those who believe life begins at the moment of sperm-egg fusion. Moreover, allowing experiments on human embryos beyond 14 days post-fertilization risks the lives of untold more human beings, because it further encourages creation and destruction for research purposes.”
Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, called the experimentation “sick and twisted.”
“Science has undeniably proven that a new human life, with unrepeatable DNA, begins at conception,” she said. “There is no reason for experimentation on that human life and science itself should not be heralding thae fact that a tiny human being can survive now for two weeks outside of the womb, all for the sole purpose of experimentation.”
Dr. Prentice noted that embryonic stem cell research “has yielded no benefit thus far,” leading even its most vocal advocates, such as Michael J. Fox, to admit it has not lived up to its promise.
“If this research does not stop at 14 days, where does it stop?” asked Prentice. “This is a risky step which could encourage further eugenic attitudes and actions.”
Dr. Prentice encouraged Congress “to have a full and open debate on the issue of human embryo research before the research community moves further without oversight.”