Brian Clowes

Uganda clearly shows contraceptives not the answer to HIV/AIDS epidemic

Brian Clowes
By Brian Clowes

October 11, 2011 ( - The fatal danger of relentlessly pushing contraceptives on Uganda and other African countries was laid bare recently in an alarming new report showing that the most popular contraceptive in Eastern and Southern Africa may actually double the risk of contracting HIV. After experiencing success in combating HIV/AIDS in Uganda through an anti-contraception initiative, it’s not surprising to hear that contraceptives are part of, and not a solution to, the problem. 

According to research published in The Lancet, women using the injectable birth control depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) became infected with HIV at a rate of 6.61 per 100 persons, compared with 3.78 for those not using that method. When used by HIV-positive women, transmission of HIV to men occurred at a rate of 2.61 per 100 persons compared with 1.51 when the women had used no contraception.

The study involved 3,800 couples in Botswana, Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Uganda.

Uganda made news in the fight against AIDS over the past decade because President Yoweri Museveni successfully attacked his country’s high HIV/AIDS rate through a program of systematic behavior modification. President Museveni said in 2004 that, “AIDS is mainly a moral, social and economic problem,” and that the best way to fight it is with, “relationships based on love and trust, instead of institutionalized mistrust, which is what the condom is all about.”

The President’s program is called ABC: “Abstain before marriage, Be faithful after, and use Condoms only when absolutely necessary.” The key to the program has always been the strong discouragement of condom use for more than 95 percent of the public, because the Ugandan government is well aware of their high failure rate.

When the ABC program was instituted in 1992, the adult HIV/AIDS infection rate was an astounding 30 percent in the capital of Kampala and other large urban areas, and the national life expectancy for the entire country was a dismal 44 years. As the ABC program took hold, the adult HIV/AIDS infection rate dropped 80 percent in just ten years, to six percent in 2002, and the life expectancy has jumped by eight years.

However, at the beginning of the new millennium, several influences began to cripple the ABC program. Foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) began to aggressively undermine the program simply because they could not allow it to succeed.  In fact, the program has actually been too successful for the population controllers’ liking, and represents a real threat to their dogma of “Condoms first, condoms last, condoms always.”

Martin Sempa, the “brains” behind the Ugandan success story, is familiar with the thinking of the population controllers. After speaking at a 2006 Toronto AIDS conference, Sempa said that they suffer from a “pathology” of hatred for abstinence and motherhood.

What Sempa called “abstinophobia – fear of sexual abstinence and fidelity as a way of fighting HIV AIDS – and “matriphobia”–” irrational and paranoid fear of programs that promote marriage and motherhood – are “the last gasp of life for a sexual revolution that has gone stale in the West, and which is using the AIDS crisis as a means of keeping itself going.”

However, one must ask why the population controllers are still so motivated to attack African abstinence and African motherhood when the continent is already so sparsely populated. These well-funded NGOs sincerely believe that Africans must shed their “outmoded” and “backwards” cultural norms and join the “developed” world in its unfettered pursuit of unlimited sex and material wealth. Nowhere is this more evident than in Uganda, where a proven way of saving lives is being discarded in favor of ideological enslavement to the condom. The corrupting money from the West is now flooding Uganda — about $1 billion over the past decade.

The result of this “contraceptive imperialism” is as predictable as it is dismal. The Ugandans are becoming desensitized to sex and are beginning to regard their traditional customs as outmoded — which, of course, is precisely the idea.

Uganda has boundless possibilities for pro-life activism. The people naturally love life, the leadership of the nation is almost uniformly pro-life and the bishops and priests are fearless. The population control cartel, however, has shown its sordid talent at corrupting even the most life-loving countries.

The population controllers have demonstrated beyond any possible doubt that they do not care if the HIV/AIDS rate is reduced in Uganda; they only care that their worldview is imposed on the people, and if the result is the deaths of hundreds of thousands, so be it. Their activities have already directly caused the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of Ugandans. Not only are they pushing contraceptives that actually promote the HIV epidemic, they are committing human rights abuses on a huge scale with virtual impunity, and are ignoring the laws of this sovereign nation.

Reprinted with permission from

Share this article

Featured Image
John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John

BREAKING: Planned Parenthood shooting suspect surrenders, is in custody: police

John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John
By John Jalsevac

Nov. 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Five hours after a single male shooter reportedly opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood, chatter on police radio is indicating that the suspect has now been "detained."

"We have our suspect and he says he is alone," said police on the police radio channel. 

Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers also confirmed via Twitter shortly after 7:00 pm EST that the suspect was in custody.

The news comes almost exactly an hour after the start of a 6:00 pm. press conference in which Lt. Catherine Buckley had confirmed that a single shooter was still at large, and had exchanged gunfire with police moments before.

According to Lt. Buckley, four, and possibly five police officers have been shot since the first 911 call was received at 11:38 am local time today. An unknown number of civilians have also been shot.

Although initial reports had suggested that the shooting began outside the Planned Parenthood, possibly outside a nearby bank, Lt. Buckley said that in fact the incident began at the Planned Parenthood itself.

She said that the suspect had also brought unknown "items" with him to the Planned Parenthood. 

Pro-life groups have started responding to the news, urging caution in jumping to conclusions about the motivations of the shooter, while also condemning the use of violence in promoting the pro-life cause. 

"Information is very sketchy about the currently active shooting situation in Colorado Springs," said Pavone. "The Planned Parenthood was the address given in the initial call to the police, but we still do not know what connection, if any, the shooting has to do with Planned Parenthood or abortion.

"As leaders in the pro-life movement, we call for calm and pray for a peaceful resolution of this situation."

Troy Newman of Operation Rescue and Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also issued statements.

"Operation Rescue unequivocally deplores and denounces all violence at abortion clinics and has a long history of working through peaceful channels to advocate on behalf of women and their babies," said Newman. "We express deep concern for everyone involved and are praying for the safety of those at the Planned Parenthood office and for law enforcement personnel. We pray this tragic situation can be quickly resolved without further injury to anyone."

"Although we don't know the reasons for the shooting near the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs today, the pro-life movement is praying for the safety of all involved and as a movement we have always unequivocally condemned all forms of violence at abortion clinics. We must continually as a nation stand against violence on all levels," said Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, based in Washington, D.C.


Share this article

Featured Image
Wikimedia Commons
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, , , ,

Rubio says SCOTUS didn’t ‘settle’ marriage issue: ‘God’s rules always win’

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Surging GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-FL, says that "God's law" trumps the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision imposing same-sex “marriage” nationwide.

The senator also told Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody that the Supreme Court's redefinition of marriage is not "settled," but instead "current law."

“No law is settled,” said Rubio. “Roe v. Wade is current law, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t continue to aspire to fix it, because we think it’s wrong.”

“If you live in a society where the government creates an avenue and a way for you to peacefully change the law, then you’re called to participate in that process to try to change it,” he explained, and "the proper place for that to be defined is at the state level, where marriage has always been regulated — not by the Supreme Court and not by the federal government.”

However, when laws conflict with religious beliefs, "God's rules always win," said Rubio.

“In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin — violate God’s law and sin — if we’re ordered to stop preaching the Gospel, if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that,” Rubio expounded. “We cannot abide by that because government is compelling us to sin.”

“I continue to believe that marriage law should be between one man and one woman," said the senator, who earlier in the fall was backed by billionaire GOP donor and same-sex "marriage" supporter Paul Singer.

Singer, who also backs looser immigration laws and a strong U.S.-Israel alliance, has long pushed for the GOP to change its position on marriage in part due to the sexual orientation of his son.

Despite Singer's support, Rubio's marriage stance has largely been consistent. He told Brody earlier in the year that "there isn't such a right" to same-sex "marriage."

"You have to have a ridiculous reading of the U.S. Constitution to reach the conclusion that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex."

Rubio also said religious liberty should be defended against LGBT activists he says "want to stigmatize, they want to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them as haters."

"I believe, as do a significant percentage of Americans, that the institution of marriage, an institution that existed before government, that existed before laws, that institution should remain in our laws recognized as the union of one man and one woman," he said.

Rubio also hired social conservative leader Eric Teetsel as his director of faith outreach this month.

However, things have not been entirely smooth for Rubio on marriage. Social conservatives were concerned when the executive director of the LGBT-focused Log Cabin Republicans told Reuters in the spring that the Catholic senator is "not as adamantly opposed to all things LGBT as some of his statements suggest."

The LGBT activist group had meetings with Rubio's office "going back some time," though the senator himself never attended those meetings. Rubio has publicly said that he would attend the homosexual "wedding" of a gay loved one, and also that he believed "that sexual preference is something that people are born with," as opposed to being a choice.

Additionally, days after the Supreme Court redefined marriage, Rubio said that he disagreed with the decision but that "we live in a republic and must abide by the law."

"I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman," he said. "People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court. This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years.

Rubio also said at the time that "it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood…"

“I firmly believe the question of same sex marriage is a question of the definition of an institution, not the dignity of a human being. Every American has the right to pursue happiness as they see fit. Not every American has to agree on every issue, but all of us do have to share our country. A large number of Americans will continue to believe in traditional marriage, and a large number of Americans will be pleased with the Court’s decision today. In the years ahead, it is my hope that each side will respect the dignity of the other.”

The Florida senator said in July that he opposed a constitutional marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution to leave marriage up to the states because that would involve the federal government in state marriage policies.

Featured Image
Former The View star Sherri Shepherd and then-husband Lamar Sally in 2010 s_bukley /
Steve Weatherbe

Court orders Sherri Shepherd to pay child support for surrogate son she abandoned

Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Sherri Shepherd, a Hollywood celebrity who co-hosted the popular talk show The View for seven years, has lost a maternity suit launched by her ex-husband Lamar Sally, forcing her to pay him alimony and child support for their one-year surrogate son LJ. The decision follows an unseemly fight which pro-life blogger Cassy Fiano says has exposed how surrogacy results in “commodifying” the unborn.

Shepherd, a co-host of the View from 2007 to 2014, met Sally, a screenwriter, in 2010 and they married a year later. Because her eggs were not viable, they arranged a surrogate mother in Pennsylvania to bear them a baby conceived in vitro using Sally’s sperm and a donated egg.

But the marriage soured in mid-term about the time Shepherd lost her job with The View. According to one tabloid explanation, she was worried he would contribute little to parenting responsibilities.  Sally filed for separation in 2014, Shepherd filed for divorce a few days, then Sally sued for sole custody, then alimony and child support.

Earlier this year she told PEOPLE she had gone along with the surrogacy to prevent the breakup of the marriage and had not really wanted the child.

Shepherd, an avowed Christian who once denied evolution on The View and a successful comic actor on Broadway, TV, and in film since the mid-90s, didn’t want anything to do with LJ, as Lamar named the boy, who after all carried none of her genes. She refused to be at bedside for the birth, and refused to let her name be put on the birth certificate and to shoulder any responsibility for LJ’s support.

But in April the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, and now the state’s Superior Court, ruled that Shepherd’s name must go on the birth certificate and she must pay Sally alimony and child support.

“The ultimate outcome is that this baby has two parents and the parents are Lamar Sally and Sherri Shepherd,” Shepherd’s lawyer Tiffany Palmer said.

As for the father, Sally told PEOPLE, “I'm glad it's finally over. I'm glad the judges saw through all the lies that she put out there, and the negative media attention. If she won't be there for L.J. emotionally, I'll be parent enough for the both of us.”

But Shepherd said, “I am appealing the ruling that happened,” though in the meantime, Sally will “get his settlement every month. There’s nothing I can do.”

Commented Fiano in Live Action News, “What’s so sickening about this case is that this little boy, whose life was created in a test tube, was treated as nothing more than a commodity…Saying that you don’t want a baby but will engineer one to get something you want is horrific.” As for trying to get out from child support payments now that the marriage had failed, that was “despicable.”

Fiano went on to characterize the Shepherd-Sally affair as a “notable example” of commodification of children, and “by no means an anomaly.” She cited a British report than over the past five years 123 babies conceived in vitro were callously aborted when they turned out to have Down Syndrome.

“When we’re not ready for babies, we have an abortion,” she added. “But then when we decide we are ready we manufacture them in a laboratory and destroy any extras. Children exist when we want them to exist, to fill the holes in us that we want them to fill, instead of being independent lives with their own inherent value and dignity.”

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook