*The Lethal Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

“The Core Curriculum is really just another component of population control—it is used to help teach children the “facts” about climate change and problems of over-population. “

The Ambitions of Bill and Melinda Gates: Controlling Population and Public Education

by Anne Hendershott - March25, 2013

Continuing their commitment to controlling global population growth through artificial contraception, sterilization, and abortion initiatives, Microsoft founder and philanthropist, Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda, a self-described “practicing” Catholic, are now attempting to control the curriculum of the nation’s public schools. Subsidizing the Common Core State Standards in English language arts and mathematics, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has committed more than $76 million to support teachers in implementing the Common Core—a standardized national curriculum.   This, on top of the tens of millions they have already awarded to the National Governor’s Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to develop the Common Core in the first place.

:::

In a column published in January, political commentator Michelle Malkin calls the Common Core a “stealthy federal takeover of school curriculum and standards across the country.” And, she maintains that the Common Core’s “dubious college and career read standards undermine local control of education, usurp state autonomy over curricular materials, and foist untested, mediocre and incoherent pedagogical theories on America’s schoolchildren.

:::

The Gates Foundation: Buying Control

For nearly two decades, the Gates Foundation has been generous in providing aid to more than 100 countries—often coupled with family planning opportunities.  Such aid is often framed as a way to foster economic growth.  In an article in American Thinker, Andressen Blom and James Bell wrote that Melinda Gates made that connection explicit in a speech at a population gathering that “government leaders are now beginning to understand that providing access to contraceptives is a cost effective way to foster economic growth.”

:::

Gates maintains that improvements in health care—including an expansion of the administration of vaccinations—will encourage families to reduce the number of children they desire to have.  And, in an ongoing attempt to expand the types of birth control, Gates has spent millions of dollars on research and development.  According to Christian Voice, a few years ago the Gates Foundation awarded a grant of $100,000 to researchers at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, to develop a new type of ultrasound described as a “non-invasive form of birth control for men” which would make a man infertile for up to six months.

Such strategies have been effective.   In fact, the Gates Foundation has been so successful in their family planning initiatives that the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) awarded their annual Population Award in 2010 to the Foundation.  According to a June 15, 2010 article in Mercator.net, at the awards ceremony, UNFPA executive director Thoraya Obaid cited the Gates Foundation as a “leader in the fields of global health and global development, particularly in promoting excellence in population assistance, including through the design of innovative, integrated solutions in the areas of reproductive health, family planning, and maternal and neonatal health.”  The International Planned Parenthood Federation is a previous winner of the United Nations Population Fund’s Annual Award.

It is easy to understand why the United Nations Population Fund—a fund which Steven Mosher, the President of the Population Research Institute has exposed as being a direct participant in China’s coercive one-child policy—honored Gates with their prestigious Population Fund award since the Gates Foundation has donated more than one billion dollars to “family-planning” groups including the United Nations Population Fund itself; CARE International—an organization which is lobbying for legalized abortion in several African nations; Save the Children—a major promoter of the population control agenda, the World Health Organization—an organization that forcibly sterilized thousands of women in the 1990s under the pretence of providing tetanus vaccination services in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines; and of course, the major abortion provider, International Planned Parenthood Federation.

Bill and Melinda Gates truly believe that population control is key to the future.  Plans are already in place to track births and vaccinations through cell phone technology to register every birth on the planet.  Gates claims that the GPS technology would enable officials to track and “remind” parents who do not bring their children in for vaccines.   Maintaining that vaccination is key to reducing population growth, Gates predicts that if child mortality can be reduced, parents will have fewer children, following the example of the urbanized West where birth rates have dropped to below replacement levels: “The fact is that within a decade of improving health outcomes, parents decide to have fewer children.”   For Gates, “there is no such thing as a healthy, high population growth country.  If you’re healthy, you’re low-population growth… As the world grows from 6 billion to 9 billion, all of that population growth is in urban slums…It’s a very interesting problem.”

More than a decade ago, on May 17, 2002, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had purchased shares in nine of the largest pharmaceutical companies valued at nearly $205 million.  Acquiring shares in Merck, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson Wyeth, Abbott Labs, and others, the Gates Foundation continues a financial interest in common with the makers of AIDS drugs, diagnostic tools, vaccines, and contraceptives.  But, the commitment to global population control goes well beyond financial interests.  It is likely that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will continue its commitment to global population control, and now, curriculum creation in the nation’s schools because they truly believe that they know better than anyone else how we all should live.

:::

A Product of Poor Catholic Education

According to the National Catholic Register, Melinda Gates represents herself in the media as a practicing Catholic who has a great uncle who was a Jesuit priest and a great aunt who was an Ursuline nun who taught her to read.  She graduated from Ursuline Academy in Dallas, where she claims to have learned “incredible social justice.”  And, this may indeed be where the problem begins.  For so many Catholics, social justice has been so broadly defined that it now includes giving women access to reproductive rights—including the right to abortion—so that they can play an equal role in contributing to the workplace and the economy.  In an article entitled “Why Birth Control is Still a Big Idea” published in Foreign Policy in December, 2012, Melinda Gates writes:

Contraceptives unlock one of the most dormant but potentially powerful assets in development:  women as decision makers.  When women have the power to make choices about their families, they tend to decide precisely what demographers, economists, and development experts recommend.

Most recently, in a January 2, 2013 article published on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation website entitled “Profiles in Courage: Philippines Passes Reproductive Health Bill,” the article congratulates all of those who helped bring expanded access to “reproductive health” through the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012—recently signed by President Aquino. This bill states that women and men—living in the most Catholic of Catholic countries—can now “decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children.”   What the Gates Foundation website omits is information about the provision within the bill involving “population management” through mandatory counseling of couples seeking marriage licenses.  In this case, social justice involves a demand that couples learn about the government’s views on an ideal family size of two children—coming one step closer to China in its government’s one-child policy.

This commitment to a distorted definition of social justice by Melinda and Bill Gates will likely continue because they have been lead to believe that such control is what is best for people.  The Core Curriculum is really just another component of population control—it is used to help teach children the “facts” about climate change and problems of over-population.  Indeed, the population agenda is a trap that many wealthy, highly intelligent people have fallen into in the past. From the wealthy eugenics supporters of Planned Parenthood’s Founder Margaret Sanger, to the Rockefeller family and their population control initiatives, this work continues today through their heirs—heirs like David Rockefeller—an ally of Bill and Melinda Gates.  And some influential Catholics have been complicit in this.  At one time, Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, President Emeritus of the University of Notre Dame served as a trustee, and later, Chairman of the Board of the Rockefeller Foundation, a funder of population causes counter to the teachings of the Church.

The population control initiatives promoted by the Gates Foundation will continue to grow nationally and internationally because they have convinced others and themselves that they are saving lives. On their website, they ask: “what is more life affirming than saving one third of mothers from dying in childbirth?”   What they do not seem to acknowledge is how many unborn children have died from their initiatives.

Click here to read the full article.

*Subscribe to this blog

Read Full Post »

*From 7 Billion People To 500 Million People – The Sick Population Control Agenda of the Global Elite

This article first appeared in The American Dream and is copied here with permission.

The United Nations has officially designated October 31st as 7 Billion Day.  On that day, the United Nations estimates that the population of the earth will hit 7 billion for the very first time.  But instead of celebrating what a milestone 7 billion people represents, the UNPF is focusing instead on using October 31st to raise awareness about “sustainability” and “sustainable development”.  In other words, the United Nations is once again declaring that there are way too many people on the planet and that we need to take more direct measures to reduce fertility.  In recent years, the UN and other international organizations have become bolder about trying to push the sick population control agenda of the global elite.  Most of the time organizations such as the UN will simply talk about “stabilizing” the global population, but as you will see in this article, there are many among the global elite that are not afraid to openly talk about a goal of reducing the population of the world to 500 million (or less).  To you and I it may seem like insanity to want to get rid of more than 90 percent of the global population, but there is a growing consensus among the global elite that this is absolutely necessary for the good of the planet.

As we approach October 31st, dozens of articles are appearing in newspapers all over the globe that are declaring what a horrible thing it is that we are up to 7 billion people.

In fact, it surely is no accident that the United Nations put 7 Billion Day on the exact same day as Halloween.  Perhaps they want to highlight how “scary” it is that we have 7 billion people on the planet, or perhaps they are trying to send us a message by having 7 Billion Day occur on the same day as “the festival of death”.

In any event, it seems like way too much of a coincidence that 7 Billion Day just happens to fall on the same day as Halloween.

Today, “sustainable development” has become one of the key buzzwords that those in the radical environmental movement love to use, but most Americans have no idea that one of the key elements of “sustainable development” is population control.

So what precisely is considered to be an ideal population for the earth by those pushing “sustainable development”?

Well, of course there is much disagreement on this issue, but many are very open about the fact that they believe that the earth should only have 500 million people (or less) on it.

For example, the first of the “new 10 commandments” on the infamous Georgia Guidestones states the following….

“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”

CNN Founder Ted Turner would go even farther….

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Dave Foreman, the co-founder of Earth First, says that reducing our population down to 100 million is one of his three main goals….

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

Sadly, this kind of garbage is even being taught at major U.S. universities.  For example, Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Piankaonce wrote the following….

I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.

Mikhail Gorbachev thinks that reducing the global population by 90 percent would be just about right….

“We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

But most of the time, the way that the global elite speak of population control is much more “politically correct”.  They tend to use terms such as “sustainable development” and “reduction of fertility rates” and “quality of life” when discussing the need to reduce our population.

As 7 Billion Day has approached, there have been articles popping up in major publications all over the globe that are advocating increased population control measures.  Of course in the western world such measures are always framed as being “voluntary”, but that is the way that they always introduce things like this.  Once enough people get on board with the “voluntary” population control measures they will become “mandatory”.

So now that you are aware of some of the buzzwords that are used, check out what has been written on some of the biggest news websites in the world recently….

Jeffrey D. Sachs, the director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, recently said the following in an article for CNN….

“The arrival of the 7 billionth person is cause for profound global concern. It carries a challenge: What will it take to maintain a planet in which each person has a chance for a full, productive and prosperous life, and in which the planet’s resources are sustained for future generations?

“How, in short, can we enjoy ‘sustainable development’ on a very crowded planet?”

For Sachs, one of the “keys” to sustainable development is the “stabilization” of the global population….

“The second key to sustainable development is the stabilization of the global population. This is already occurring in high-income and even some middle-income countries, as families choose to have one or two children on average. The reduction of fertility rates should be encouraged in the poorer countries as well.”

In a recent article for the Guardian, Roger Martin stated that all of the problems that humanity is facing would be easier to solve if less people were running around the planet….

“…all environmental (and many economic and social) problems are easier to solve with fewer people, and ultimately impossible with ever more.”

He also says that if we reduce the population, it will mean better lives for all the rest of us….

“On a finite planet, the optimum population providing the best quality of life for all, is clearly much smaller than the maximum, permitting bare survival. The more we are, the less for each; fewer people mean better lives.”

But is that really the case?

Of course not.

There has been tremendous human suffering all throughout history.  If we eliminated 90 percent of the global population it would not suddenly usher in some kind of “golden age”.

But many among the global elite are truly convinced that we are spoiling “their planet” and they don’t want so many of us around anymore.  Thanks to technology, they only need a few hundred million people to run their system, and they view the rest of us as “useless eaters”.

This all may sound quite bizarre to many of you, but this is the kind of stuff that is being taught in colleges and universities across the western world.

In fact, you are starting to see an increasing number of people in the western world actually suggest that we adopt a “one-child policy” such as China has.  For example, the following is from an opinion piece that appeared in the National Post….

A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

The author of the opinion piece believes that such a “one-child policy” would reduce the global population to 3.43 billion by 2075….

The intelligence behind this is the following:

-If only one child per female was born as of now, the world’s population would drop from its current 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion by 2050, according to a study done for scientific academy Vienna Institute of Demography.

-By 2075, there would be 3.43 billion humans on the planet. This would have immediate positive effects on the world’s forests, other species, the oceans, atmospheric quality and living standards.

This is the kind of stuff that a lot of these people sit around and think about all day long.

They are obsessed with death and with reducing the population as rapidly as possible.  They see us as a “plague” that is ravaging the planet, and they believe that by getting rid of us they would actually be saving the earth.

Due to public opinion, population control advocates have to tread lightly in the western world.  But where they can get away with it, they are not afraid to be very forceful.

I have already discussed the horrific one-child policy in China.  As the Epoch Times recently noted, enforcement of this policy can be absolutely brutal….

“Pregnant women lacking birth permits are hunted down like criminals by population planning police in China and forcibly aborted.”

If you don’t believe something like this can ever happen in the western world, you might want to think again.

Limitations on child births are already showing up in popular television shows.  For example, a new show on Fox called Terra Nova portrays the future of the earth as a living hell due to overpopulation.  People in the future can hardly breathe the air due to overwhelming pollution and a strict “two-child policy” is rigidly enforced.

The family featured in Terra Nova is able to go through a portal to a prehistoric world that is 85 million years in the past.  In this “new world”, humans have set up a wonderful new socialist society where everyone is provided for and where “green technology” is helping them to avoid making the “mistakes” of the past.

Unfortunately, socialist utopias such as the one portrayed on Terra Nova only exist in works of fiction.

Instead, what happens most of the time in real life is that the “good intentions” of social planners devolve into absolute tyranny when put into practice.

For example, just check out what a recent National Geographic article said happened when social planners in India tried to aggressively reduce birth rates in India in the 1970s….

The Indian government tried once before to push vasectomies, in the 1970s, when anxiety about the population bomb was at its height. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay used state-of-emergency powers to force a dramatic increase in sterilizations. From 1976 to 1977 the number of operations tripled, to more than eight million. Over six million of those were vasectomies. Family planning workers were pressured to meet quotas; in a few states, sterilization became a condition for receiving new housing or other government benefits. In some cases the police simply rounded up poor people and hauled them to sterilization camps.

How would you feel if you were rounded up and hauled off to a sterilization camp?

Sterilization programs (most of the time they are “voluntary”) are in full force all over the globe.  Much of the time they are sponsored and funded by the United Nations.  The global elite are absolutely obsessed with getting women to have less babies.

That is one reason why abortion is so very important to them.

Recently, Al Gore made the following statement regarding population control….

“One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women. You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children have, the spacing of the children.

The elite love to use terms such as “fertility management” and “family planning”, but what they really intend is for there to be less pregnancies and more abortions so that the population will not grow as quickly.

They certainly do not intend to empower women to have more children.

This agenda was also very much reflected when the March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief asked this shocking question….

“What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?”

Now who in the world gave the UN the right to be trying to “accelerate fertility decline” for women in poor countries?

But to many in the global elite, trying to get women to have less babies makes all the sense in the world.  In a recent editorial for the New York Times entitled “The Earth Is Full“, Thomas L. Friedman made the following statement….

You really do have to wonder whether a few years from now we’ll look back at the first decade of the 21st century — when food prices spiked, energy prices soared, world population surged, tornados plowed through cities, floods and droughts set records, populations were displaced and governments were threatened by the confluence of it all — and ask ourselves: What were we thinking? How did we not panic when the evidence was so obvious that we’d crossed some growth/climate/natural resource/population redlines all at once?

These people honestly and truly believe this stuff.

Unfortunately, this agenda is even represented in the highest levels of our own government.

Barack Obama’s top science advisor, John P. Holdren, once wrote the following….

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Holdren also believes that compulsory abortion would be perfectly legal under the U.S. Constitution….

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

The following are 8 more quotes that show the mindset that a lot of these population control advocates have….

#1 Microsoft’s Bill Gates….

“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

#2 U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg….

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

#3 David Rockefeller….

“The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”

#4 Jacques Cousteau….

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

#5 Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh….

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

#6 David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club….

“Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

#7 Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger….

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

#8 Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12….

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

When you believe that the earth has way too many people, human life becomes cheap, and abortion becomes a way to get rid of undesirables.

According to a recent article in the Daily Mail, thousands of “abnormal” babies are now being selectively aborted in the UK each year….

Thousands of pregnancies were aborted last year for ‘abnormalities’ including 500 for Down’s syndrome, new figures reveal.

In total, there were 2,290 abortions for medical problems with the foetus, with 147 performed after 24 weeks.

In a world that is “overpopulated”, babies that are not “perfect” become more “disposable” than ever.

In fact, the truth is that the population control agenda and the “abortion rights movement” have been inseparably linked for decades.  Those that are obsessed with “overpopulation” view abortion as a very necessary method of birth control, and one of their main goals is to expand access to “reproductive health care” to as many women around the globe as possible.

But in the end, our “voluntary” actions are not going to be nearly enough to reduce the population and most population control advocates realize that.  Many of them are openly calling for a “benevolent” global authority to take charge to lead us through the “necessary” transition that is ahead.

In a previous article, I described the type of world that the radical population control advocates see for our future….

Imagine going to sleep one night and waking up many years later in a totally different world.  In this futuristic world, literally everything you do is tightly monitored and controlled by control freak bureaucrats in the name of “sustainable development” and with the goal of promoting “the green agenda”.  An international ruling body has centralized global control over all human activity.  What you eat, what you drink, where you live, how warm or cold your home can be and how much fuel you can use is determined by them.  Anyone that dissents or that tries to rebel against the system is sent off for “re-education”.  The human population is 90 percent lower than it is today in this futuristic society, and all remaining humans have been herded into tightly constricted cities which are run much like prisons.

This is the endgame for the radical green agenda.  In order to save the earth, they feel as though they must dramatically reduce our numbers and very tightly control our activities.

But is that the kind of a future that anyone would actually want to live in?  Would anyone actually choose to live in a future where bureaucrats micromanage our lives for the good of the environment?

Personally, I think that the 7 billion people on earth would do just fine if they were given a lot more liberty and freedom to live their own lives as they see fit.

But letting people decide how to run their own lives is anathema to those that have bought into the population control agenda of the global elite.

They actually believe that they are smarter than all of the rest of us and that they need to tell us what to do for the good of humanity and for the good of the planet.

This patronizing approach should truly sicken all freedom-loving Americans.

So what do you think of the population control agenda of the global elite?

Related:

*China’s Shame – Repulsive crime(s) against humanity

Millennium Development Goals / United Nations 

*Subscribe to this blog

Read Full Post »

*China’s Shame – Repulsive crime(s) against humanity

China’s Shame: Two year-old Wang Yue Crushed Under Two Vans, Left to Die

By Jennifer Hartline

10/24/2011

This article first appeared in Catholic Online (http://www.catholic.org) and is copied here with permission. 

Look at China: see what happens when people become mere instruments of productivity for the sake of economic prosperity.

The shocking death of 2 year-old Wang Yue may finally succeed in accomplishing what up to this point has not quite been done: bringing shame upon China for their abhorrent and violent treatment of their daughters.  Perhaps Little Yueyue, by her horrible, brutal death, will begin to arouse a disinterested world; perhaps she can revive the death-cold heart of her country by forcing the Chinese people to see her for what she was: a human being; a helpless child they trampled and threw away.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Catholic Online) – Little girls are worth next to nothing in China.  Baby girls are killed on a regular basis in China.  We all know that.

Yet little YueYue’s story may finally succeed in accomplishing what up to this point has not quite been done:  bringing shame upon China for their abhorrent and violent treatment of their daughters.

The Chinese government routinely rounds up women who violate the 1-child policy by getting pregnant with a second child and forcibly aborts them, even well into the third trimester of pregnancy. Some mothers die along with their preborn babies. Sometimes they threaten and beat up fathers and husbands who refuse to cooperate; they threaten families’ homes and businesses; in short, they destroy people’s lives in every way they can — literally.  All for the sake of their evil, anti-human policies.

Yet inexplicably, this has failed to draw the international ire it deserves.  Even our own government tries not to really notice, and certainly goes out of its way not to criticize.  I don’t really expect intelligent or courageous talk from Vice President Joe Biden, but his political-correctness sank to an inexcusable low when he told the Chinese, “We understand.”

Perhaps Wang Yue, by her horrible, brutal death, will begin to arouse a disinterested world; perhaps she can revive the death-cold heart of her country by forcing the Chinese people to see her for what she was:  a human being; a helpless child they trampled and threw away.

Left in the Street to Die

On October 13, Wang Yue, nicknamed “Little Yueyue”, was crushed nearly to death in the street in the Chinese province of Guangdong.  She’d wandered out alone into the small street near her parents’ shop, and she was run over by a van.  The driver hit her and she fell under the front wheel.  The van slowed to a stop, and then drove on, crushing her a second time under the back wheel.

The driver never stopped again.

Now mutilated, smashed and broken, bleeding profusely onto the ground, Little Yueyue lay there as a total of 18 people passed her by.  The first man to encounter her practically had to step over her as he walked past.  He never stopped.  Others walking down the street stopped to stare for a moment before turning their heads and continuing on their way.

Her little arms still moving from time to time, she waited in agony for help.  Not a single adult who witnessed her suffering did anything to help her.  A 2 year-old child lay in the street crushed and dying, and no one would even acknowledge her there.

Then, unbearably, along came a second van.  The driver made no apparent attempt to avoid her, and she was crushed under the wheel for a third time.

As more people continued to pass her by, her blood flowed into the street.

Finally, an older woman carrying a trash bag sees her, set her bag down, and walked over to the mangled child.

She grabbed Yueyue by the arms and dragged her across the pavement, out of the way of oncoming vehicles and people.  Then, the child’s mother appeared, and she half-carried her dying child away.

Little Yueyue died of brain and organ failure on Friday, October 21.  The intensive-care doctors treating her said her injuries were too severe and treatment had no effect.

Undeniable Brutality

The entire, horrific, unspeakable scene in the street was captured on surveillance video and posted online for the whole world to see.  There can be no denying what happened to this child; no one can attempt to explain or rationalize or ask us to understand.

I watched the gruesome video and fought the intense urge to vomit.  The violence, apathy, callousness, and stone-cold indifference of the people who crushed and then ignored this little girl is sickening beyond words.  It will leave you shaken to the core.  If it does not, something’s very wrong.

We must call China to account for this act of brutality and inhumane cruelty.  Chinese officials may attempt to conceal from the eyes of the world their violent treatment of pregnant women, their destruction of preborn babies, their brutality against families who violate the inhumane one-child policy, but this, this they cannot conceal.

They cannot pretend it did not take place, nor shroud it in political language. The images and facts of Yueyue’s death give indisputable testimony to the truth that China has lost its humanity and its soul.

We can take some small measure of encouragement from the cries of outrage being voiced by many Chinese citizens who are asking what has happened to their country to cause such apathy in the face of a child’s suffering.

A BBC news story said that many people in China choose not to help for fear that they will end up being charged for the crime.  Without evidence to prove their own innocence, they will not interfere.

A professor of social science at Hong Kong University of Science “said he believed China’s political environment had ‘no tolerance’ for people with a social conscience.”

Can anyone still seriously question the destructive effects of a government that rejects the moral laws of human freedom, religious freedom, and the sanctity of human life?  Look at China: see what happens when people become mere instruments of productivity for the sake of economic prosperity.

Will the United States government now finally voice an unequivocal condemnation of China’s brutal and cruel human-rights violations?  What do you think, Joe?  Do you still understand?  How about you, Mr. President?  Any comment?

Be wary and pay attention, America, because China’s present could become our future if we do not cherish our freedoms and guard our hearts.

I saw a beautiful photo of Yueyue, her mother and her older brother, and the thought occurred to me, “Wait — she’s their 2nd child?  How’d they manage to have two children?”

Is it unreasonable to question whether perhaps this little girl was targeted and killed intentionally because she was her parents’ 2nd child?  It’s a chilling thought, but is it really an unreasonable one?

For now what we know for certain is that a little girl has demanded through her death the attention her country refused her as she lay bleeding in the street.  She died a victim of apathy and cruelty.  Shame on China!  Shame on every person who passed her by and ignored her.

Rest now in peace, little Yueyue, in the loving embrace of your Heavenly Father.  Those who mourn your death beg your forgiveness and ask for your prayers.  Please pray for your lost country.

Jennifer Hartline is a grateful Catholic, a proud Army wife and homeschooling mother of three.  She is a contributing writer for Catholic Online.

Related: 

Joe Biden and the Obama Administration willing to turn a blind eye to China’s Atrocities

*Subscribe to this blog

Read Full Post »

*Joe Biden and the Obama Administration willing to turn a blind eye to China’s Atrocities

For saying that he “fully understands” China’s one-child policy, the Vice President has run into a buzz saw of criticism and now calls the policy “repugnant.” But what, precisely, does Joe Biden know about Chinese-style population control, and when did he know it?

“Understanding” Joe Biden Perfects the Kowtow

By Steven W. Mosher - Weekly Briefing: 2011 (v13)

The Vice President is being hammered for seeming to condone Chinese-style population control. Answering a question about the one-child policy, he seemed to go out of his way to be noncritical, saying that he “fully understands” the one-child-per-family policy and was not “second-guessing” it.

His defenders maintain that this does not constitute an endorsement of the policy, tacit or otherwise, and that Biden was merely being diplomatic. Of course, this is not much of a defense since, even if this is the case, then the Vice President is guilty of whitewashing the worst ongoing human rights abuse of our century, one which costs millions of lives each year.

Others believe that the sitting Vice President suffers from a chronic case of foot-in-mouth disease. His misstatements should not be taken seriously, they say, because they are just the latest in a long line of gaffes. (This suggests that Biden should never be allowed to open his mouth without a teleprompter in front of him.)

Still others believe that Biden was simply ignorant of the way that Beijing’s one-child policy is enforced by means of forced abortions, forced sterilizations, and other coercive measures.

But this explanation doesn’t exculpate the Vice President either, and let me tell you why: I know that Joe Biden “fully understands” how women are arrested for the “crime” of being pregnant, how they are incarcerated and browbeaten for this “crime,” and how they are forced to undergo abortions and sterilizations. I know because, while serving as a Commissioner of the U.S. Commission on Broadcasting to China in the early nineties, I told him so.

Rather, my take on the incident is that the Vice President was clearly pandering to his Chinese hosts. It wasn’t ignorance and it wasn’t a gaffe. Biden wanted China’s communist leaders to know that he and the President he serves are more than willing to turn a blind eye to atrocities committed in the name of the one-child policy.

In other words, “Understanding” Joe Biden has perfected the kowtow.

Taken aback by the criticism his remarks occasioned at home, Biden now says that he finds the policy “repugnant.”

The Obama administration itself went even further, issuing a statement declaring that it “strongly opposes all aspects of China’s coercive birth limitation policies, including forced abortion and forced sterilization.”

Really?

This is the same administration that continues to pour money into the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which is China’s chief international collaborator when it comes to carrying out the one-child policy. The UNFPA’s so-called “model family planning” program in China is rife with forced abortions, sterilization targets and other coercive tactics, as PRI investigations have repeatedly documented. Yet Obama wants to give another $47 million to the UNFPA in the coming fiscal year.

Then there is the money that the Obamanauts continue to funnel to the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), which also works hand in glove with Beijing’s population control apparatus.

I will believe that the Obama administration “strongly opposes all aspects of China’s coercive birth limitation policies” when it stops sending your tax dollars and mine to the UNFPA and the IPPF to fund their dirty work in China.

And maybe the next time he visits China the Vice President can be convinced to bang his head on the floor a little less loudly.

Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute. 

Related:

Millennium Development Goals / United Nations 

*Subscribe to this blog

Read Full Post »

*Plea to Filipinos: Defeat the Tyrannous RH Bill

In the following letter, a dear friend and associate warns her fellow Filipinos of what she has witnessed first hand in the West: the breakdown of morality, family and faith due to sex education and contraception. Her letter is in response to “The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011″ (commonly known as the Reproductive Health Act, the RH Act or RH Bill), which is currently being debated in the Philippines.

To My Dear Fellow Filipinos:

The unfolding possibility of the RH Bill’s passing by our government fills me with horror and foreboding because so few understand the impact that such a bill would have on our children, our families, our moral values and the future of our nation. My conscience would never let me rest if I didn’t make a small effort to weigh in with what I have come to discover while living in the United States for almost 23 years.

The birth of my grandchild when my daughter was in crisis led me to get involved with mothers in crisis pregnancies so that they, like my daughter, would choose life for their babies. After 50 million abortions resulting from Roe vs. Wade that legalized abortion in the US, there are millions of women that have suffered its devastating consequences.

In the nearly 22 years I have been actively involved with these women, I began to see so clearly that the ultimate devastating decision to abort came as a direct link to failed contraception or its ensuing contraceptive mentality. There is a tremendous array of “effective” contraceptive drugs, many of them abortifacients, and devices available to women (some as young as 12) promoted through sex education in schools, magazines and the multi-media. Yet they have only served to increase the number of abortions (1.5 million annually) and the number of sexually transmitted diseases from a handful to over 50 strains in just a little over 40 years. Condoms do not prevent the transmission of many of these strains.

I have spoken to and mentored hundreds of teenage girls and young women, not one of whom was told of her unique gifts and dignity as a woman and mother. They were very receptive to messages of abstinence and natural family planning once they understood their true meaning because they have been naturally and divinely wired to believe those truths.

These are statistics and facts, but I have had the unique experience of seeing these young women heartbroken and hurt by this contraceptive culture. Most of them come from broken homes and parents who are also products of this contraceptive age. How is it not possible to see an epidemic of pregnancies among young teenagers (14, 15, and 16 year-olds) with contraception and sex education available to all? (Day care centers are now being built at public high schools.) We see so many at the center where I work. Our modern woman is told she can finally claim her reproductive rights, but she has only become a victim to greater exploitation and worse, having been convinced that destroying her unwanted, unborn child is also her option and right.

Make no mistake; the bitter fruit of contraception is abortion and the devastation of the family. Look at Thailand, the country so successful at controlling her population through a massive condom program – she is now the Aids capital of Asia. Look at its bitter fruit in the West, with its runaway abortion numbers, countless divorces, the threat to legal marriage between a man and a woman and the spread of socially transmitted diseases that are resistant to treatment. Without the building block of healthy families, these nations will soon be ungovernable, if they are not already.

There is a quiet desperation I feel as I watch the country I deeply love go down the path so many others have gone, abandoning their Christian principles and moral roots. The poet George Santayana once said, “Those who have not learned from history are doomed to repeat it”. If we go down the same path, we will lose out greatest assets – our family values and our faith-filled people.

I urge those who have the power to do so, not to pass this bill—and for those that don’t, to pray to a much higher Power that it doesn’t. If it isn’t passed, if we can find the means to control our population the natural way without destroying our values, we will see our country blessed in ways we can never imagine. Our nation once again can show the world that a people that successfully resisted a tyrant can resist the tyranny of outside influences that seek to destroy our families. In 1986, our people fought for democracy; today,we fight for our national soul. If we do succeed, it will make People Power look like a minor miracle.

Patsy M. Sevilla-Gonzalez

Patsy Gonzalez counsels pregnant mothers at Juan Diego Society Women’s Center in San Jose, CA. She also volunteers as an “angel” for The Gabriel Project of the Archdiocese of San Francisco and has extensive experience in sidewalk counseling.

Related:

The Philippines Under Fire 

WHY I AM AGAINST THE RH BILL 

The Catholic Position on the RH Bill

Millennium Development Goals / United Nations

*Subscribe to this blog

Read Full Post »

*The Roots of the Culture of Death…

The Roots of the Culture of Death and Restoring a Culture of Life 

Or

Inhuman Humanism vs. Christian humanism

By Monsignor Philip J. Reilly

Founder of Helpers of God’s Precious Infants

In the year 1959, I was a Deacon in the major seminary, still studying and waiting to be ordained a Priest in May of 1960.  The successor of Peter at that time was a man in his eighties, called Pope John XXIII. Many felt that the Cardinals at the Conclave had elected the elderly, Pope John XXIII, simply to be a sort of caretaker of the Church, until the younger Cardinal Montini would be ready to succeed him, which he did at the next Conclave and took the name, Pope Paul VI. The year 1959 was the Hundred Anniversary of the death of Saint John Vianney, the Cure of Ars. And so through 1959, until August 1960, Saint John Vianney was proclaimed as an outstanding example for all Parish Priests.

In the year 2009, fifty years later, I was awaiting my Golden Jubilee as a priest in May 2010, while again an eighty year old Pope, Benedict XVI was now the successor of Peter. The year 2009 being the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Death of St. John Vianney, the Church again declared from June 2009 to June 2010 to be the Year of the Priest, with Saint John Vianney held up as a model for priest to follow. On hearing these very similar facts, a very young person might conclude that nothing much has happened or changed in the past fifty years. But any older person, who has lived through these past fifty years, knows the tumultuous changes that have taken place both in the Church and in the World during this period of time. What brought about these changes?

The Council was more pastoral than dogmatic

Pope John XXIII did not consider himself as the Church’s caretaker. He insisted that we open up a few windows in the Church and let some fresh air in. He proclaimed that the work of the renewal of the Church by the First Vatican Council was never completed since the Council was interrupted and the work must be completed. Thus moved by the same Holy Spirit, who knew also what changes were about to happen in the Modern World, Pope John XXIII called for a Second Vatican Council to rejuvenate, especially in a pastoral way the Church. In 1959 the reaction of the Seminary Faculty and the Seminarians was from shock to disbelief.  Some were even saying the Pope has gone senile. Shortly after the beginning of the Council, Pope John XXIII died and the new Pope, Paul VI had the difficult task of maintaining continuity with the past, while allowing pastoral changes in the Church which could help rejuvenate it, knowing that some changes may need to be corrected or stopped later, if they proved not to be helpful. The Council was intended to be more pastoral than dogmatic.

The river of renewal was weakened by offshoots of dissent

The difficulty was that inside the Church, some saw the Council as an opportunity to challenge and question many of the Churches’ teachings, especially in regards to moral practices. Their source of authority for change was not the Holy Spirit but rather their constant refrain of “in the spirit of Vatican II” and “one should follow one’s own conscience”. The problem was peoples’ consciences were being formed by the World and dissident theologians rather than by the Magisterium and the teachings of Vatican II. The dissenters became theologians of the World, believing as progressive and modern, whatever practices the world was proclaiming. Then they used their minds to try to justify it. The true theologians of the Church, believes the Church’s teachings and use their minds to show that the beliefs of the Church are reasonable or do not contradict reason. The river of renewal unleashed by the Holy Spirit in Vatican II to renew the Church and the World, was constantly being weakened by offshoots of dissent, not only against all sexual morals restraints, inside and outside of Marriage, but even such fundamental dogmatic teachings as the real unique substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist was questioned or watered down. Eventually not only Eucharistic devotion and adoration was dismantled but many devotional practices were also challenged or discouraged or dropped.

The so-called Spirit of Vatican II became the problem

These dissenters didn’t accept the infallibility of the Pope, because it conflicted with theirs. In Mass the catechetical sermon was replaced by the homily on the scripture. It seemed harmless except within a decade the younger generation in the Church no longer understood, or could explain or defend their faith.  Thus without a knowledge of their Faith, the ways and values of a World without Christ, slowly became more acceptable and attractive to them. Vatican II was not, and is not the problem, but rather the rejection of Vatican II in the so called spirit of Vatican II became the problem. Indeed on the occasion of the hundred and twenty-fifth anniversary of the death of St. John Vianney, Pope John Paul II was going to Ars in France, where St. John Vianney was the Cure. In twenty-five years, how radical a change had taken place? Well, the Pope was verbally attacked by many of his own priests in France for holding up to them an outdated Saint for the Modern Priest. All of this dissent was a major tragedy because it was at the very time that the World needed a strong united Church to proclaim the truth without ambiguity because of the changes about to happen in the World. What were some of those changes?

The ‘Chip’ and the ‘Pill’

In the year 1959 Americans were introduced to the ‘Chip’ and the ‘Pill’. The Chip, the size of a newborn’s thumbnail, is the nickname for an integrated electronic circuit with a backbone of silicon, an ingredient of common beach sand. The Chip was able to do a million calculations a second while the old IBM computer in the 1950’s with its bulky vacuum tubes which occupied a whole room had a very limited capacity.  The Chip promised to provide the capacity to advance technological capacity in quantum jumps with the potential to alter life styles fundamentally, by putting a computer or microprocessor on a chip. For the most part it has done so, and done so in a very positive fashion, from putting a computer on an individual’s lap, to help putting a man on the moon. Everything is now computerized from cars to airplanes. It has made information accessible to millions without them leaving their homes.

Pregnancy no longer considered a blessing

The Pill is the nickname given to the chemical contraceptive, that the providers also promised would radically alter social behavior of people, especially in the family. It has but in an incredible disastrous manner. By deliberately blocking God’s actions and the conception of a new life, it has changed the thinking of many people on the purpose of sex. The final purpose of sex is no longer a personal act of love open to life but rather, the purpose of sex is pure pleasure even to the exclusion of life.  Pregnancy is no longer considered a blessing but something to be feared and avoided at all costs, even by way of an abortion. The woman has become for many, no longer a person to be loved but a sex object to be used and even abused. It opened the door to unnatural acts being acceptable and approved by society and laboratory reproduction being applauded and funded.  It provides Governments with ways to control forcefully their population. The negative effects have been monumental.

Suddenly in America a million women had irregular cycles

The Church Fathers in Vatican II, in the document on the Church in the modern World, Gaudium et Spes, reaffirmed its constant teaching that to obstruct life in the marriage act, or to destroy the product of the act afterwards, is intrinsically wrong. Pope Paul VI said he would decide whether the new chemical Pill taken before the act was to be considered also a contraceptive and therefore morally unacceptable.  That is all he was deciding. The secular media, however, urged on by dissenters, gave the impression the Pope was trying to determine if the use of all contraceptives would be okay. In May 1960 the contraceptive Pill, whose distribution in America was still illegal, was distributed under the cover of being a health product that would correct a woman’s irregular menstrual cycle.  Suddenly in America a million women had irregular cycles that needed to be corrected and healed. The women were not told about the incredible negative side effects of the pill on the woman’s body. Finally on June 7th 1965 the US Supreme Court in the decision Griswold vs. Connecticut legalized the Pill for married people in the privacy of their homes.  And so, on that same day, June 7th 1965 a nurse called Griswold, working for Planned Parenthood, distributed the first legal contraceptive pill in America.

By evening the media halted their praise of the pope

Pope Paul VI became the first Pope to visit America, when he arrived in New York City to address the United Nations, on the afternoon of Oct. 4th 1965. This was only four months, after the Pill had been legalized in the United States, namely on June 7th. In the great U.N. Assembly Hall, Paul VI in French gave his famous talk to all the Nations of the World about No More War, War Never Again. When the Pope arrived in the morning, he was treated by the Media like a hero.  He received constant applause in the first two thirds of his talk about peace and War Never Again. Then everything changed, when the Pope to the surprise of the United Nation members, the Media and many others pushing for the Church to change its position on contraceptives, said: “…the life of man is sacred; no one may dare offend it. Respect for life, even with regard to the great problem of the birth rate, must find here in your Assembly its highest affirmation and its most reasoned defense. You must strive to multiply bread so that it suffices for the tables of mankind, and not rather favor an artificial control of birth, which would be irrational, in order to diminish the number of guests at the banquet of life.”  By evening the Media halted their praise of the Pope.

The teaching was rejected by millions

The Pope knowing that the poor and undeveloped Countries were the target of the population control people, who favored given bread to the poor only if the poor use the contraceptives given to them with the loaf of bread, the Pope in 1967 issued his Encyclical, Populorum Progressio, in which he stressed the spiritual nature and uniqueness of each person must be taken into account for any true development of peoples. Otherwise the Pope said we will not be involved in a true development of humanity but in an inhumane humanism.      And so it was no surprise considering his statement to the United Nations in 1965, his encyclical in 1967, on the true development of people  that on July 25th 1968 the Pope in his Encyclical Humanae Vitae clearly upheld the

Church’s teaching about the sacredness of Marriage and affirmed that the use of contraceptives during the marital act and before it, by way of the chemical pill were equally intrinsically evil. No longer could anyone say the teaching is not clear. So they attacked the Pope’s authority and the reality of the Natural Law and proclaimed the sacredness of a person’s individual conscience. Wrong is wrong even if everyone is wrong and right is right even if everyone is wrong. Although the arguments against contraceptives in the beginning were abstract and academic, Pope Paul VI in section #17 of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, ominously prophesied in concrete language what would happen, if the teaching of the Church was to be rejected. The teaching was rejected by millions and unfortunately the negative effects predicted in section #17 are now a reality.  The culture of death was now firmly established with its tree of death being firmly implanted with its many deep and long roots. The roots of the tree of death are economic and philosophical; sociological and eugenic; legalistic and juridical; technological and scientific. Some knowledge of these roots is important in understanding and uprooting them.

Rather than expressly telling the poor to drop dead

Thomas Malthus a pessimistic minister and economist in 1798 published in England his famous Essay on the Principle of Population As It Affects the Future Improvement of Society. He studied population statistics and agriculture production and  concluded that unless the birth rate were drastically reduced, the food supply would be unable to sustain the growing population and mankind would be doomed to pestilence, famine, and death.

On the other hand, with outright irony, for Malthus, famines, plaques, natural disasters was nature way of controlling the population of the poor and we should not get in nature’s way with misguided charity. Direct relief by the rich to the poor only made matters worse. It would also only encourage larger families and laziness. None of Malthus’ dire predictions proved true during his lifetime or since, and yet the Malthusian theory of overpopulation to this day has influenced many rich population control peoples and the public policy of most Governments. Rather than expressly telling the poor to drop dead and not to have children, they do it in a more subtle fashion by tying to the aid we give to the poor, the requirement of limiting their families by the contraceptives given to them with the loaf of bread. Now abortion, sterilization has been added to the package. Euthanasia will not be far behind.

Steps should be taken to prevent the ‘Unfit’ from propagating

The British naturalist, Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, after his research in the Galapagos Islands led him to believe that all species are formed through a gradual process of evolutionary change and that the survival or extinction of organisms, depended on a process of natural selection. Darwin said he owed a debt to Malthus and was influenced by Malthus’ views on population yet Darwin in the beginning did not apply his theory to the social or political sphere but a Victorian biologist and philosopher called Herbert Spencer, who lived from 1820-1903, was quick to do so.  Spencer created Social Darwinism by applying the idea of evolution to social circumstances and claiming that by the competitive processes society removes its inferior elements and only the fittest survive and the unfit are removed and progress is made. Like Malthus, Spencer was opposed to the  passing of any laws to help the poor or even subsidizing social programs to help the poor but rather steps should be taken to prevent the ‘unfit from propagating out its unfit and permit them to die off so as not to weaken the racial stock.”

Discouraging the breeding of the inferior

Sir Francis Galton 1822-1911 a writer and sociologist, a cousin to Darwin, was a Social Darwinist and the Father of the pseudo-science of Eugenics, namely a good birth.  Galton in his book Hereditary Genius expressed his belief that a man’s character and capabilities was primarily shaped by heredity and therefore the present generation had the power to improve the inborn qualities of future generations by actively weeding out or discouraging the breeding of those whom Galton considered inferior, which for him was obviously the poor, those physically different like black people or naturally morally corrupt like the Jews. He naturally argued for the sterilization of the feeble minded, the criminal, the insane as necessary to reduce the propagation of the ‘unfit’. Indeed Darwin in his work the Descent of Man incorporated quotes from Galton’s book Hereditary Genius. Obviously the goal of Eugenics is to check the birth rate of the Unfit to bring about the improvement of the race by the productivity of the Fit and only that amount which can be properly cared for. Galton based his conclusions on simplistic ideas and generalizations and like Malthus and Spencer had an incredible tendency to accept sweeping generalities while ignoring well established and proven medical and biological data.

The educated elite and rich tycoons embraced Malthusian ideas

In spite of shoddy scholarship the so called educated elite and rich tycoons, in Western Society like James Hill, the railroad tycoon, Andrew Carnegie, the steel tycoon, John D. Rockefeller, the oil tycoon, quickly, scandalously embraced these Malthusian ideas coming through Spencer and Galton. This scientific racism was more acceptable than a simple ethnic racism based on emotions and hate.  Besides considering themselves among the so called ‘fit’, it obviously made them feel good about themselves. It   provided them with justification why others should leave the planet earth and not themselves.

The theory was acceptable on the highest levels

The first International Congress of Eugenics was held in London in 1912. Among the 800 participants at the Eugenic Congress were some of the most prominent scientists, social scientist, politicians and prominent intellectuals. In 1921 and 1932 the International Congress was held in New York City and again well attended by the intellectual and scientific elite. Now that the theory was acceptable on the highest levels the next step was who and how to apply it.

It soon returned in a more insidious form

The Eugenics movement grew strong in England and was strongly embraced in America and Germany where the eugenicists from both countries worked hand and hand together.  As a matter of fact Leon Whitney of the American Eugenics Society sent his book the Case for Sterilization to Adolf Hitler and received back a personal letter of thanks from the Furher. The racist Madison Grant sent the Furher a copy of his book The Passing of the Great Race and also received back a personal letter from Adolf Hitler who proclaimed that this book was his bible. Under Hitler, eugenic ideas became the foundation for the organization of a whole State, which was looked upon with approval both in England and America.  Indeed, a number of American eugenicists visited and were welcome in Germany, such as Lothrop Stoddard who wrote The Rising Tide of Color Against White World –Supremacy. He expressed his support with how the Nazi’s were “weeding out the worst strains in the German stock in a scientific way from the Third Reich.” Not only were his writings featured in Nazi school textbooks but Lothrop met with Heinrich Himmler, chief of the S.S. and even had a personal meeting with Adolf Hitler. After World War II the revelation of the Nazi atrocities hindered but did not crush the eugenics movement.  It soon returned in more insidious forms especially with Margaret Sanger of America and her deadly offspring, the International Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes of England and her deadly offspring, Marie Stopes Internationals, thus supplying new ways to implement the eugenic program on a grander scale.

Sanger advocated segregating the unfit

Margaret Sanger was born in 1879 and became aware of Malthus from her radical freethinking father and was converted to the principles of the sexual revolution to liberate women from sexual bondage through the influence of Emma Goldman, a militant utopian in France. She met many prominent Malthusian eugenicists supporter like H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw and the sexologist, Havelock Ellis.  Eugenics gave her “scientific” grounds to justify her radical sexual liberation views and to argue for birth control and to emancipate women from the family. In 1917 she founded a magazine called The Birth Control Review that featured articles of prominent eugenicists and utopian friends like H.G.Wells, Pearl Buck, Julian Huxley and Havelock Ellis. It caught the attention of the intelligentsia. Sanger in her Plan for Peace advocated segregating the country’s millions of ‘unfit’ on to farms where they would receive adequate care like forced sterilization and birth control to protect the “fit” citizens from them.

Sanger spoke against the cruelty of charity

In 1922 Sanger revealed her strong scientific racist bent in her book The Pivot of Civilization where she presents birth control, sterilization and abortion as the way to solve social problems. Of course today she would include euthanasia. She spoke against the ‘cruelty of Charity.  She said that the most serious charge that can be brought against modern benevolence is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression. She was repulsed by the poor   working class created by the Industrial Revolution and who in her eyes were possibly worse than the sub-human Negro.

One would need a permit to have children

In the 1930’s Sanger wrote an article entitled: A Code to Stop Overproduction of Children. Some of the ways expressed in the article to purify the human race was to agree that a marriage license would not include the right to have children. One would need a permit to have children issued only to couples if they meet the qualification decided by others. Obviously the feeble-minded, habitual criminals, those with inheritable disease, the biologically unfit should be sterilized and isolated.

With a religious zeal she set out to implement her ideas. In 1914 she founded the American Birth Control League. In 1925 in New York City she held the International neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference at which she gained the complete support of those involved in birth control and eugenics. In the thirties, Sanger sought and obtained corporation grants, foundation bequests and the endorsement of well known celebrities and politicians such as Katherine Hepburn, and Eleanor Roosevelt, from Rockefeller to Henry Ford and later on even Presidents, Truman and Eisenhower. She secured the backing of rich disciples of Malthus like the Fords, the Mellons and the Rockefellers to fund her Birth Control League.

A massive genocide of black African Americans continues

Her first Birth Control clinic was opened in a poor area of Brooklyn, New York.  In 1939 in America she undertook her very successful Negro project. Birth control clinics were set up in areas of high concentration of African Americans. The purpose of the clinics was to radically diminish the number of Blacks. Gifts were given to Black ministers to encourage the Blacks people to use the birth control clinics. The Negro project was incredibly successful. Even today Planned Parenthood still runs abortion clinic in many of those same areas with the results that today a massive genocide of the Black African Americans continues. For example, today in the Borough of Brooklyn where Sanger opened up her first Birth Control Clinic, the rate of abortions of Black unborn babies, according to the 2008 New York State Vital Health Statistics is the scandalous statistic that out of every one hundred black unborn babies in the womb, seventy will be killed while still in the womb by abortion, with the government paying for at least eighty percent of them with tax payers monies. It is a tragic irony that many blacks in leadership positions in America are still outspoken in their support and funding of Planned Parenthood, showing the so called Negro Project of 1939 is still successful

Birth Control League’s name is changed

In 1942 Margaret Sanger changed the name of her Birth Control League to Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In 1948 the Federation became the International Planned Parenthood for the goal was now no longer simply the unborn babies in Brooklyn but indeed throughout the Whole World. To accomplish this mission the Margaret Sanger Research Bureau financed the development of the birth control pill. Furthermore to accomplish this worldwide mission, Sanger needed the involvement of the United States Government and other Governments, the United Nations and a massive conversion of the populace. How did this come about? Who helped her?

The New Population Council

John D. Rockefeller III, one of the richest men in the World being the great grandson of the oil tycoon, was a strong believer in the ideals of Malthus and out of his own funds set up, with the help of Fredrick Osborn, the well known eugenicist, the New Population Council in 1952. He built a global network of population experts who worked to increase the supply of contraceptives to undeveloped countries. He constantly lobbied to get the U.S. Government to become involved and join the population control forces. He would not have been successful without the propaganda crusade of a man called Hugh Moore.

Hugh Moore and Paul Ehrlich and the Population Bomb

Hugh Moore the owner of the multi-million dollar Dixie Cup Company was an enthusiastic convert to Malthusian thinking. After World War II playing on the fears of people about the atomic bomb, he inundated politicians and important people in particular and the public in general with his pamphlets entitled the Population Bomb.  In 1968 the ecologist and butterfly expert, Paul Ehrlich published his Book “The Population Bomb” taken the title from Moore’s pamphlet. Ehrlich’s Book was filled with dire Malthusian predictions of what was going to happen to the World between 1970 and 2000, if we did not radically reduce the number of people. The secular media gave great coverage and credence to his Book” the Population Bomb”.  In 1981 Julian Simon a Professor of Economics published his well documented book entitled the Ultimate Resource, namely, man and his imagination. He documents how everyone, one of the gloom and doom theories of Ehrlich, on energy, food, raw materials, pollution, standard of livings and population itself, are either not well founded or already proven to be false. He suggests that additional population actually leads to improvement in economic well being.  Recently Pope Benedict XVI in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate struck the same theme by declaring that depopulation was a real cause of the present global economic recession. The Pope also wisely stresses that in this ever interdependent world that any attempt of global governing to resolve world problems must allow at the same time real subsidiary independence among nations to maintain their own values, otherwise a worldwide state of tyranny is more than likely to become a reality. Obviously Julian Simon’s scholarly work the Ultimate Resource received limited publicity from the media and the population control organizations.

National Security Study Memorandum 200

William Draper a friend of Hugh Moore was appointed by President Eisenhower to chair a committee on foreign aid.  The Draper Report in 1959 became the first official U.S. government report to endorse population control in the context of foreign aid. With pressure from both Moore and Rockefeller, the United States Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was passed and enshrined the Malthusian doctrine as official U.S. policy. They convinced enough members of Congress that growing populations was also a threat to U.S. national security and therefore aid should only be given to those countries that control their populations. In 1975 President Gerald Ford accepted the plan set forth in Henry Kissinger’s National Security Study Memorandum 200, which urges to use control of food resources to control foreign populations.  Thus American aid was no longer about feeding the poor and the hungry, helping the sick and improving their economic conditions but rather the implementing the Malthusian idea of reducing fertility in the undeveloped countries.

USAID and its population control programs

This new policy was implemented on a large scale in 1966 when the United States Office of Population created USAID, the United States Agency of International Development and appointed Dr. Ravenholt a fervent Malthusian to be its Director until the year1979. Like Margaret Sanger he was convinced birth control was the key to public safety, freedom from hunger and the way to development. The Office of Population under him shipped billions of condoms, abortifacient birth control pills, and IUD’s to the areas of the world, populated by the ‘Unfit’. The Director Ravenholt gave enormous funds to International Planned Parenthood Foundation and the Population Council to carry out Ravenholt’s family planning population control programs.  One wonders to this very day whether Planned Parenthood really has to lobby for government grants or is the United States Government still implementing their Malthusian policy by giving hundreds of millions of dollars each year to these organizations who have the infrastructure in the countries and the places where the ‘unfit’ live. Using these organizations disguises from the average citizen what the Government is unfortunately really about in their so called development programs.

World Bank’s foreign aid suddenly was to control population

The final pieces were finally put into place when under pressure from the President Johnson’s Administration; the UN’s General Assembly passed a resolution by unanimous vote that called for special aid for governments who were willing to make efforts to decrease population. In 1967, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities also known as the Population Fund was established. It was to be funded by voluntary contributions from countries that support birth control as the way to control population. In 1968, President Lynden Johnson appointed Malthusian Robert McNamara as President of the International Bank for Reconstruction also known as the World Bank. Suddenly the main goal of the World Bank’s foreign aid was to control population.  When President Bush around 2003, became informed and convinced that the UN Population Fund was involved in the recent coercive population policy on the people in China, he immediately shut off U.S. funds to the organization. Unfortunately, President Obama shortly after his election, quickly gave again the Population Fund, millions of US dollars to continue their Malthusian work.

Support also came from powerful foundations

Uprooting this culture of death would seem almost humanly impossible, when one realizes that not only does the United States Government and other Governments fund, these Malthusian organizations of death but that their support also comes from powerful Malthusian driven Foundations, like the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates, Buffet Foundation; Foundations like William and Flora Hewlett, Ford, Zoros, Turner, MacArthur and Mellon Foundations. Having uncovered for you the economic, sociological and eugenic roots of the culture of death, may I briefly unearth for you some important legalistic and juridical and philosophical roots of this tree of death.

The use of technology in the area of biochemical sciences

The population control Malthusian scientists were anxious to implement their eugenic goal of a massive scientific eugenic cleansing of the human race, by weeding out the unfit in their reproductive labs. The scientists were confident that the computer chip’s impact on technology and the use of this technology in the area of the biochemical sciences, made the screening out of the genetically imperfect, a reachable goal. Furthermore, the scientist were convinced not only could they remove the unfit but they could actually improve the future stock of the human race, through their experimentations on life in the same reproductive labs by way of embryo stem cell research, human cloning etc. However, there were two inconvenient truths that needed to be negated or removed before their Brave New World could be fully realized. What were these truths?

Two inconvenient truths needed to be negated

The truths were the absolute sacredness of each human life and the uniqueness of traditional family. They knew to attack directly; either the absolute sacredness of life or the uniqueness of Family, would be a foolish. Indeed in the United States Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers declared that certain truths are so self evident, that no one would dare to argue against them, namely that the truth that an innocent person’s right to life is absolute since it comes directly from God the Creator. The signers of the Declaration declared that no government, no Court, no person has the right to take another innocent persons’ life from them, and any government that would attempt to do so, would lose all grounds for its authority, which authority comes from the God who gives life.  Moreover it was common accepted wisdom among the people of all nations that a wise government should support and strengthen family life, for as the family goes, so goes society. The question was how to get such a radical change in ideas.

Philosophical ideas are important

Ideas are important, especially philosophical ideas, for everyone knows, to sow an idea is to reap an act; to repeat an act is to sow a habit; and to sow habits is to reap a character or a culture or a civilization. Good ideas results in a good character or a culture of life. Whereas, bad ideas result in a bad character or a culture of death. Our Lord said by their fruits, you shall know them.  A good tree cannot bear bad fruit nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. By their fruits you shall know ultimately, which is a culture of life and which is culture of death.  The philosophic ideas or theories of the eighteenth and nineteenth century on the origin of societies; on truth and freedom; on materialism and socialism and communism, gained wide acceptance both in Europe and in the United States and also helped paved the way for the growth of the culture of death  in the twenty and twenty first centuries.

The thinking of Hobbes and Rousseau on society

Thomas Hobbes1588-1679 held the origin of the State is simply a result of a collective contract inspired by self interest  and enforced by the power of the majority. Furthermore Jean-Jacques Rousseau 1712-1778 in his social contract theory, claimed all contracts, all societies are a result of the exchange of will of two or more parties, and every  contract can be declared terminated, if it is clear one or both parties no longer will it. Thus  a Judge can declare whether either party has withdrawn his or her will, and that therefore, the marriage contract  no longer exists.  For Hobbes and Rousseau  the idea that the State exists because God made man a social being and the society of marriage exists because God made man, male and female, and therefore what God has joined together man must not separate, was no longer relevant or even acceptable. Thus the societies of the State and Marriage being man’s creation, men could agree to change at will its rules and laws. A practical atheism was taken roots. The thinking of Hobbes and Rousseau on society, is obviously helpful in attacking people as prejudice against homosexual unions, who support traditional marriage as God‘s creation with no equal and the only place where human life should be conceived. They realized insisting that all human life should be conceived only as a result of an act of love in the context of the traditional family would put a full stop on their Laboratory reproduction of humans.

The Father of French Positivism

One of the most influential philosophers was August Comte (1798-1857) the “father of French Positivism. According to Comte, the human mind passes through three stages: the theological stage, trying to explain facts by supernatural agents; the metaphysical stage, seeking abstract reasons or verbal explanations; and finally to the positive stage, which holds strictly to real data, namely to the order of observable cause and effect. For Comte the positivist, reality existing beyond observable facts, must be viewed at best with an agnostic attitude. Obviously, this resulted in the glorification of the mathematical, physical and biological sciences as the only source of real and certain knowledge. In England John Stuart Mill 1806-1873 applied the principles of positivism to all areas including logic, psychology, and ethics.   Quickly the principles of positivism were applied to evolution by people such as Herbert Spencer. Positivism became the philosophy of the materialists.

The rejection of faith and the dethronement of truth

Since the existence of God can only be arrived at through reason and the mind was no longer considered  a reliable instrument to arrive at truth, then God and Faith beliefs must be excluded from the public Square. Besides since so many wars in Europe were religious in origin, instead of rightly saying the State should not establish a Religion, they insisted instead, that the State should exclude God and the practice of any Religion in the public square, In correcting one error, they created a greater evil, for a society without God is seriously detrimental to all living in it So by the end of the nineteenth  century God and Faith was dethroned. By the end of the twentieth century, Reason too being rejected, Truth was dethroned and now only a secular society was acceptable where God and truths of Faith must be excluded.

Practical atheism reigns

The dialectical idealism of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) and the diametrically opposed philosophers Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) and Louis Buchner (1824-1899) who popularized a strict materialistic view of life were incredibly merged in the thinking of Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895). And Lenin was soon forcefully setting up a socialistic, communistic society based on the dialectical materialism and atheistic ideas found in the works Das Kapital and Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. In this Godless society, man exists for the State not the State for man. By removing the Creator from the picture the devaluation of man was inevitable.  In the reproductive labs today, where practical atheism reigns, God being excluded, human life in the labs is once more devalued and enslaved but this time by modern progressive high tech totalitarianism.  The Secular State and the atheistic scientists will remake this world in their image and likeness. In the culture of death man’s thinking is imminent, that is hubristic, sinless man is turned in on himself seeing no need for God or a Savior to resolve problems or bring about progress.

The triumph of ethical relativism

Philosophically everything now seemed to be in place for the Brave New World of  genetically cleansing the human race. The concept that something is right or wrong whether it be legal or not, was discarded. Now using a positivistic approach something is wrong because it is illegal but if you change the Law it is right. So people will accept whatever we legalize whether it be divorce, contraceptives or even abortion. Rightness and wrongness, namely truth is separated from freedom. Freedom is now the absolute value, since a universal and objective truth arrived at by the mind is not reachable and therefore must not be imposed on all through the Law. This thinking is the triumph of ethical relativism. Dr. Martin Luther King, the great civil rights leader in America, said that the Law cannot make you love me but the force of Law must make you respect me. Remove the Law and the weak are at the mercy of the strong. No one is weaker than the unborn infant. The unborn child’s last hope for life is the Law. And suddenly on January 22nd 1973, in America, that last hope was removed, because the Law no longer protected God’s precious infants in the wombs of their mothers.

The death knell of western civilization

For suddenly in America everything was radically changed overnight, when on that day Jan. 22nd 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an act of judicial tyranny, the judges legislated from the bench by handing down the infamous Roe vs. Wade Decision that legalized abortion in America through the nine months of the pregnancy. It was not only the death knell for the unborn, but it was the end of Western Civilization, whose culture was founded on a belief in God as Creator and was rooted in the principles of Judaic and Christian ethics. By that decision the quality of a person’s life now became the absolute value, while ones right to life became relative to the quality of one’s life, as determined by others. There was never a question of when life begins, but rather has the quality of a person’s life reached such a level as to make that person’s life worth living. A decision not to be determined by the unborn, the chronic elderly sick, the down syndrome child , or the handicapped person but  by others, who after making the decision are free to choose whether to end the other person’s life or not. Obviously euthanasia, where the quality of a person life has lessened, was always included in the reasoning used in the decision to permit elective abortions. Although most citizens were shocked by the Supreme Court Decision, yet the eugenic driven, positivistic thinking birth control movement quickly disposed people to accept the judicial decision on abortion as legal and therefore okay and a reasonable back up for any contraceptive failure, with the same reasons being used to justify both.

A nightmare realized all too soon

Clearly those in the racist eugenic movement are now complacently convinced that the victory is complete and there is no way the people of life can turn it back. Why otherwise would they have placed about six weeks ago on the front page of Sport Section of the New York Times Newspaper a posed picture, which would have fifty years ago, caused a reaction by the readers, close to a riot. The caption over the picture was “A Dream Deferred, Almost Too Long.” In the picture there were three attractive women, who obviously had just visited the beauty parlor to prepare for this posed picture. The excuse of putting them on the sport page was because they were retired professional tennis players. But the real reason they put them into the paper was because they exemplified that people, including sports celebrities, had completely embraced the brave new world of the culture of death. In the picture, two women were seated while a third woman stood between them but slightly behind them. Each of the women seated held a baby on her lap. The babies were twins. All were smiling. Looking at the picture, I said to myself, wait a minute, there is no way you can connect the dots and make moral sense out of this picture. The reason was because there was no visible man in the picture. The women were lesbian lovers who were unsuccessful in their adoption efforts. So they went the route of In Vitro Fertilization. Yet they were still without success because their eggs were defective. Their friend in the background finally donated her egg and after the two women perused the profiles of the men in the sperm bank, they finally decided on a genetically fit father. After making their choice, the sperm was used to fertilize her friend’s egg and then finally the zygote was implanted in the womb of one the woman who was obviously not the biological mother but in reality a surrogate mother. Over the picture I would have changed the caption from “A Dream Deferred, Almost too Long; to the caption: “A Nightmare Realized, All too Soon.” Instead of a riot from their readers viewing the picture, they expected no reaction from their readers and sadly they seemed to have been right in their judgment.

An inhuman humanism

Pope Paul VI in section 42 of Populorum Progressio said: “what must be aimed at is complete humanism.  And what is that, if not the fully rounded development of the whole man and of all men?  A humanism closed in on itself, and not open to the values of the spirit and to God Who is their source, could achieve apparent success. True, man can organize the world apart from God, but without God man can organize it in the end only to man’s detriment. An isolated humanism is an inhuman humanism. There is no true humanism but that which is open to the Absolute and is conscious of a vocation which gives human life its true meaning.   Far from being the ultimate measure of all things, man can only realize himself by reaching beyond himself. As Pascal said so well “Man infinitely surpasses man”.

The complacency of the population control advocates is not well-founded

In my closing remarks may I simply say that the present complacency of the eugenic, population control advocates is not well founded because there are so many sound reasons to hope that in spite of the long roots of the tree of death, it will definitely be uprooted and the tree of life will once again blossom, and a culture of life will be restored.  For time is on the side of truth and with the passing of time, it has become clear, even to past buyers, that the produce being sold from the tree of death are beyond rotten. The deadly produce is not only causing death to the weak and dependent but grief and sorrow to the strong who survive. Obviously the product can’t sell itself but will still need massive deceptive advertising to convince any new buyers to buy it. Many who have purchased it in the past will not recommend it to others. Others publicly condemn it. Indeed many of those living in the so called undeveloped world, who are considered unfit to breed, their eyes are now opening wide and they can clearly see the hook of death attached to the demonic aid and so are refusing to bite into such a deadly bread.

The problem is not population explosion but implosion

Where there is no offspring, no life; there is no future. In correcting the so called problem of overpopulation, the population control advocates have been insanely involved in overkill, so that if there be any population problem in the world today it is not population explosion but implosion. Just recently Pope Benedict XVI wisely pointed out in Caritas in Veritate that depopulation is clearly one of the causes of today’s World Wide Financial Recession

Operated on the wrong patient

Besides these physicians of death have committed a major mistake, since they performed their death operation on the wrong patient, namely on the fit who according to them should breed rather than on the unfit or should not breed. Today the sixty richest countries in the World, all have a dying population. Their nations are below the replacement level to survive as nations. Everyone in Western Europe including now the Governments know that if the Moslem families, who have for the most part rejected the culture of death, were not having children, Europe would become like a wasteland by 2050.  The first step in resolving a problem is to recognize that there is a problem. Both individuals and Governments are becoming more reluctant to subsidize their own or their nation’s death.

The Romans’ greatest gift to posterity

The ancients believed in Fata, namely the Fates. Fate comes from the Latin deponent verb for, fari, fatus which means to speak. The past participle fatus means that which has been spoken. For the ancients it was madness to act against the fates, namely that rational force guiding an ordered universe or cosmos. For them man’s reason enabled him to participate in this force. For the good pagans when a man separated his freedom from truth then such a man was driven by irrationality or furor or madness and became destructive of self and of others and must be checked by the Law. For the Romans they believed that their greatest gift to posterity to maintain civilization was the gift of a Reasoned Law. We too believe the eternal plan of an intelligent God guides this universe and our reason enables us to participate  in the mind of God and to bring God’s Eternal plan to completion Rational man knows that there is more to the world than only what you can learn from the senses or the experiential sciences. But God has given us a further light called Faith by which we can know and participate in the eternal plan of God to bring all mankind into unity and perfection  with the Triune God through the death and Resurrection of Jesus , the Father’s only beloved Son who is  the merciful Savior to a  fallen humanity. And that the eternal plan of God is being worked out, is being brought to perfection. Or as the Prophet Habakkuk reminds us in the face of great evil, the Lord said to him: Write down the vision clearly upon the tablets, so that one can read it readily. For the vision still has its time, presses on to fulfillment, and will not disappoint: If it delays, wait for it, it will surely come, it will not be late. We must have hope in the resurrection even in the midst of our own passion as the closing words of the Book of the Prophet Habakkuk reminds us when the prophet says: “For though the fig tree blossom not, nor fruit be on the vines, though the yield of the olive fail and the terraces produce no nourishment, though the flocks disappear from the fold and there be no herd in the stalls, yet will I rejoice in the Lord and exult in my saving God.”

God’s Will – will be done

For each of us then, our job at this Congress is to learn or be reminded once again what is the Vision of God, Live the Vision and proclaim courageously the Vision to all in the World. Our ultimate reason for hope then, in the face of great evil, is ultimately knowing we are doing God’s Will, and God’s Will, Will Be Done, the Vision Will be Fulfilled.

Republished with author’s permission.

Source: http://www.helperslibrary.info/themes/helpers/text/The_Roots_Culture_of_Death.pdf

Click here to visit Msgr. Reilly’s Helpers of God’s Precious Infants website

   

Read Full Post »

*The Philippines Under Fire

By Steven W. Mosher

As I write, there is a battle royal underway in the Philippine Congress. On the one side are the Planned Parenthood types, backed by well-funded international organizations, who are attempting to ram through legislation that would cripple the Filipino birth rate. On the other side stand those who believe that the most precious resource of the Philippines is its people, and who object to the use of what some call “human pesticides” to control the Filipino population.

As you might suspect, the U.S. foreign aid establishment, emboldened by the anti-people mentality of the Obama administration, is on the wrong side of this crucial battle for Life.

The legislation in question is called ”The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health And Population And Development Act Of 2011”—a title which manages the remarkable feat of encapsulating three lies of the abortion/population control movement in the short span of a dozen words.

• “Responsible Parenthood” is shorthand for the wrongheaded notion that couples are somehow doing the world a favor by having few or no children. In fact, the opposite is true: Children are the only future a nation has. Those who are willing to provide for the future in the most fundamental way—by providing the future generation—are a national treasure. They should be praised and encouraged, not condemned and sterilized.
• “Reproductive Health,” another favorite of the anti-life movement, is equally misleading. Such programs are not intended to produce health at all, but sterility. Lest you think I exaggerate, consider how the “reproductive health” of a population is defined: It is the percentage of women of childbearing age who have been sterilized or who are using so-called “modern methods of contraception.” The higher this percentage (of women who have been chemically or surgically sterilized), the greater the supposed “reproductive health” of the population is said to be. This leads to the absolutely bizarre conclusion that a population enjoying perfect “reproductive health” would not be able to reproduce at all! Why? Because every last female reproductive system would have been disabled. We should not be surprised that the same people who define pregnancy as a disease, define “reproductive health” as sterility.
• Finally, the implication of “Population and Development” is that population growth constitutes an intolerable burden on the economy. But while it is true that growing populations do produce temporary scarcities of goods and services, in a free market entrepreneurs respond by innovating; they devise more efficient means of production, for example, or they find substitutes for scarce materials. At the end of the day a larger population not only produces more goods and services, they do so at a lower price. Economists have a name for this: It’s called economies of scale.

The language of the Philippine Reproductive Health Bill, as it is called for short, is just as dangerous as its name suggests. Section 20, which fixes the “ideal” family size at two children, undermines the God-given right of couples to decide for themselves the number and spacing of their children. It will give further impetus to social engineering projects, already underway in the Philippine Department of Health and other government departments, to reduce family size. In our experience at PRI, any time a government sets population targets of any kind, it leads to human rights abuses.

But this is only the beginning of the mischief. Consider Section 13, which imposes on local government officials the obligation to enforce the provisions of the Act and “give priority to family planning work”. To this China hand, this sounds an awful lot like the PRC, where local officials are under constant pressure to reduce the birth rate, and do so by resorting to forced sterilizations, forced contraceptions and, all too often, forced abortions.

Another provision which could have been taken from Beijing’s playbook is Section 15, which sets up a so-called “Mobile Health Care Service,” and details how it will operate around the country. Apparently, as is the case in China, mobile sterilization teams will be brought in to do the dirty work of population control that local physicians, nearly all Catholic, find morally objectionable.

Incredibly, the proposed law even attempts to stifle dissent by Catholics and others by prohibiting the dissemination of “malicious disinformation about the intent and provisions of this Act.” The “malicious disinformation” that the framers of the bill had in mind would presumably include—aside from my criticisms above—pointing out the simple truth that life begins at conception.

Now I know that you may find this hard to believe, but the “reproductive health” enthusiasts who support the bill deny that a woman who has conceived a child is actually pregnant. It is not until five to seven days after conception, when the developing embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, that they are finally willing to admit its existence.

In claiming that human life does not begin at conception, but at implantation, they violate not only science but common sense. But it is important to understand that they are not fools. They do not engage in this obvious subterfuge lightly, but because they believe that the very success of their population control agenda demands it.

You see, if they admit that life truly does begin at conception, then they would also have to admit that every last one of their hormonal concoctions—from pills and hormonally laced IUDs to implants and injectables—cause early-term abortions. All hormonal contraception works, at least part of the time, by preventing an already conceived baby from implanting in the uterus.

The backers of the Reproductive Health Bill lie about this, too, of course, because they know that few women would take a supposed “contraceptive” knowing that it would actually cause them to abort.

This second lie is especially important to their efforts in the Philippines, where the Constitution, in Article II Section 12, provides that “the State shall equally protect the life of … the unborn from conception.” The Philippine Congress, wanting to leave no doubt about its intentions and no room for misinterpretation, defined the word conception in medical terms, as the fertilization of the ovum. Implantation goes unmentioned

This puts the Reproductive Health Bill, which indiscriminately promotes all types of abortifacient contraceptive devices and services, on a collision course with the Philippine Constitution.

The bill’s backers, supported by foreign “experts” and driven by their anti-people agenda, hotly deny that contraceptives are human pesticides, and that their massive distribution in the Philippines will exterminate large numbers of innocent Filipino babies. But there is little doubt that, if the bill passes, and “reproductive health” becomes the order of the day in the archipelago, that millions will die.

So far, the Philippines has resisted the population control juggernaut that has crushed the populations of other Asian countries like China and Indonesia. Zoe Vidal, a Philippine bioethicist, rightly observes that in this sense the Philippines is “the last country standing.”

Let us pray, for the sake of generations of Filipino babies as yet unborn, that they shall stand fast.

(c) Population Research Institute Permission to reprint granted. Credit required.

The pro-life Population Research Institute is dedicated to ending human rights abuses committed in the name of “family planning,” and to ending counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of “overpopulation.”

See also: WHY I AM AGAINST THE RH BILL

Related: Millennium Development Goals / United Nations

 

Read Full Post »

*U.N. Abortion Will Harm, Not Help, Millennium Goals

Congressman Tells U.N. Abortion Will Harm, Not Help, Millennium Goals

By Peter J. Smith

NEW YORK, July 28, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Pro-life human rights advocate and U.S. Congressman Chris Smith testified at a U.N. subcommittee hearing on the Millennium Development Goals, where he argued that strong evidence indicates that encouraging legal abortion would harm the U.N.’s commitment to reducing maternal and child mortality rates all over the world.

The U.N. is deep in negotiations over the Outcome Document for the High-Level Summit on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), in which pro-abortion advocates are trying to include “reproductive health services” – language that can serve as a Trojan horse to introduce legal abortion into signatory countries with pro-life laws.

Smith, a member of the U.S. Foreign Affairs committee, and ranking member of the Africa and Global Health Subcommittee, spoke Tuesday before a hearing conducted by the International Subcommittee on International Organizations, telling committee members that the spread of legal abortion would actually undermine MDGs 4 and 5, goals dedicated respectively to reducing child and maternal mortality.

“The inclusion of legalized abortion or ‘reproductive health services’ defined as abortion in the Outcome Document would be unjust to the littlest humans, intellectually dishonest, and counterproductive to these successful efforts,” said Smith.

The congressman referenced the April 2010 Lancet medical journal, which published a study funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation that indicated worldwide maternal mortality had been declining since 1980. As of 2008, the number of maternal deaths per year had dropped to 342,900 – a 40 percent decline from 526,300 in 1980. The report noted that had not the HIV/AIDS pandemic broken out, that drop could have been as much as 50 percent.

But Smith also pointed out that the Lancet study showed no correlation between the expansion of legal abortion and the drop in maternal mortality. He told the committee that the study showed, “Many of these countries with very low maternal mortality rates have laws that restrict abortion.”

Real success, he indicated, was due to governments improving basic, life-affirming health care services and conditions that encourage the socio-economic advancement of women.

“While still too high, this landmark report is encouraging to governments who have been seriously addressing maternal mortality in their countries by increasing the number of skilled birth attendants, the availability of c-sections for women with obstructed labor, access to health care including safe blood, education of women, and economic development,” he added.

However, Smith also pointed to evidence from studies showing that abortion itself can harm the chances of survival for subsequently born children by sharply increasing the risk of pre-term birth and low birth rate.

“Preterm birth is the leading cause of infant mortality in the United States, and causes one-fourth of infant mortality in the world,” Smith pointed out.

He said that at least 113 studies “show a significant association between abortion and subsequent premature and low birth weight births.”

One such study in the International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology found that women with one abortion had a 36 percent increased risk for preterm birth; but for women who had two abortions, that statistic leapt to a 93 percent chance .  It added that the risks for children being born with low birth weight were also comparable, increasing 35 percent after one abortion, and 72 percent after two abortions or more.

“Abortion is child mortality for the child aborted, and can be mortality or morbidity for future children,” continued Smith, adding that for these and other reasons, the term “safe abortion” is a misnomer.

Smith also said at least 102 studies show that women who abort set themselves up for “significant psychological harm, major depression, and elevated suicide risk.” He pointed to a comprehensive 2006 New Zealand study which “found that almost 80 percent of the 15-18 year olds who had abortions had major depression as compared to 31 percent of their peers.” Additionally, it found that 27 percent of 21-25 year olds who had aborted their children had seriously contemplated suicide, compared to 8 percent of their peers.

The congressman then recommended the international panel to seek to improve medical care for mothers and newborns, especially, in the “golden minute” right after birth, where birth asphyxia is a real danger. The condition he said is a major cause of infant mortality, killing one million newborns each year.

“Skilled attendance at birth, temperature support, stimulation to breathe and assisted ventilation through the use of low cost resuscitators are interventions we can and should be made available to achieve MDG 4,” he said.

Smith concluded his remarks by saying the MDG Summit Outcome Document “will be very important for guiding our steps as an international community over the next five years” and he exhorted those present to use their influence “to ensure the Outcome Document keeps us on the path of saving both mother and child.”

More on the United Nations & Abortion (Very important)

Read Full Post »

*Tying Abortion to Millennium Development Goal #5 – UPDATES

UPDATE 3 – 01/02/10

[IPPF views these developments as part of a "growing international interest" which "needs to be seized upon in order to drive forward the agenda for universal access to reproductive health." IPPF will be focusing on using the "emerging momentum around maternal health to secure new support and financing" to fund abortion growth.]

IPPF Pushes For Abortion Market Share Amid Economic Downturn

By Samantha Singson – December 31, 2009

(C-FAM) International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) recently released its annual performance report for 2008-2009. Despite an economic downturn and a slight decrease in annual income, the abortion industry giant boasts of increased activity across all of its lines of work, including condom distribution, advocacy and abortion services.

IPPF’s overall income for 2008 was US$119.7 million, down from over $120 million the previous year. While IPPF’s total financial intake dipped, its abortion business boomed. The organization provided almost 428,000 “abortion services” to young people alone, with a staggering 1,134,549 total number of such services – almost double the number from 2007 – across the globe.

Despite an increase in abortion services, IPPF remains unsatisfied with the figure, arguing that “in comparison to other types of services provided by IPPF Member Associations, these figures remain low and indicate that much needs to be done in terms of future investment in this area if IPPF is to meet its objectives of providing women with the choice and right to safe abortion when faced with an unwanted pregnancy.”

In the report, IPPF boasts of promoting its abortion agenda among its member associations in traditionally pro-life countries. IPPF highlights its work in pro-life Ireland, which maintains strict limits on abortion access despite pressure from its EU partners and abortion advocacy groups such as IPPF. IPPF boasts that through its member associations, it has been on the ground helping to provide support for rallies and debates to challenge Ireland’s pro-life laws since “public debate is often dominated by religion.”

IPPF also boasts of its successes in Spain, where abortion only had been permitted in cases of rape, fetal impairment or for the health of the mother. The IPPF report credits its Spanish Member Association for successfully campaigning in 2008 for an amendment to the abortion law to remove restrictions and legalize first trimester abortions on demand.

The report laments the “dramatic decrease in funding for family planning” from international donors and claims that the drop “represents a decline in donor interest rather than a decline in need.” IPPF intends to focus its future work on securing sustainable funding for its activities by capitalizing on statements made by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on family planning funding, and on the Obama administration’s repeal of the Mexico City policy so that funding to “international sexual and reproductive health organizations” will be restored.

IPPF views these developments as part of a “growing international interest” which “needs to be seized upon in order to drive forward the agenda for universal access to reproductive health.” IPPF will be focusing on using the “emerging momentum around maternal health to secure new support and financing” to fund abortion growth.

Beyond its traditional emphasis on abortion, contraception, family planning and advocacy, Executive Director Gill Greer indicates IPPF will expand into new areas such as “population dynamics” and “climate change” to garner increased funding.

[This article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (www.c-fam.org). This article appears with permission.]

:::

UPDATE 2:

[According to UNFPA executive director Thoraya Obaid, obtaining a “reproductive health” target under the maternal health MDG 5 is essential to increasing global legitimacy and funding for the reproductive rights agenda.]

New Approach to Abortion Rights at UN: “Motherhood and Apple Pie”

by Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D

(C-FAM) Abortion rights advocates at the United Nations (UN) are pursuing a new approach – one that avoids mention of abortion, promotes a right to maternal health, and seeks to enforce “reproductive rights” norms among UN member States.

The reason for the shift seems to be an increased confidence among activists and UN officials that they have secured or are close to securing a new international right to abortion. According to statements by Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and others, their confidence has been boosted by winning legal cases, most notably in Colombia where the 2006 constitutional court’s decision to liberalize abortion was based upon the activist’s interpretation of UN treaties.

By creating a new “right” to maternal health over the next several years, advocates can consolidate gains while avoiding scrutiny by opponents. Then, once they are confident the new right is established, they can assert the claim that abortion is part of the new international obligation. A blueprint for the legal dimension of the approach is the “International Initiative on Maternal Mortality and Human Rights.” The initiative was launched in 2007 at a UN conference sponsored by the UN Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, which includes the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Organization, the World Bank, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and various abortion rights organizations.

Indicative of the new approach is a recent “shadow report” on Brazil submitted to the committee that monitors the International Convention on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights (ICESCR). Prepared by the abortion rights law firm Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), the report focuses on basic maternal health care such as skilled birth attendants. One UN delegate described the new effort as “the motherhood and apple pie approach to abortion rights.” CRR recently backed its first model “case” in Brazil, sponsoring a complaint brought to the committee that oversees the Women’s Convention (CEDAW) by the family of a woman who died in childbirth which was unrelated to abortion.

In adopting the maternal health approach to abortion rights, advocates rejected more open approaches, such as the pursuit of a new UN treaty. A 2003 internal memo outlining CRR’s legal strategy for the next 5 years stated that, “If, at the end of 2007, we determine that the existing norms are proving inadequate (as evidenced by the interpretations we seek) then we would reconsider whether to undertake a concerted effort to secure a new international treaty or addendum to address this gap.” The memo, obtained by the Friday Fax and published in the U.S. Congressional Record, also stated that this should signal a shift from creating new norms on abortion rights to focusing on “enforcement mechanisms” at the international, regional and national level.

An important part of enforcement is linking reproductive rights to maternal health in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a link UNICEF and UNFPA claim already exists but which UN member states refute. According to UNFPA executive director Thoraya Obaid, obtaining a “reproductive health” target under the maternal health MDG 5 is essential to increasing global legitimacy and funding for the reproductive rights agenda.

[Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. writes for C-FAM. This article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (www.c-fam.org). This article appears with permission.]

:::

UPDATE 1 :

New Report Details Fudged WHO Numbers on Maternal Morality

(C-FAM) A newly released research paper identifies structural flaws in United Nations (UN) data collection and analysis of global maternal health, finding that UN maternal heath policies based on the bad data are jeopardizing women’s health in the developing world. The paper, “Removing the Roadblocks from Achieving MDG 5 by Improving the Data on Maternal Mortality,” by Donna Harrison, M.D., was published by the International Organizations Research Group (IORG) [IORG is a division of C-FAM, publisher of the Friday Fax]. The paper shows how the World Health Organization’s (WHO) guidelines to UN member states require nations to collect faulty data while at the same time pressuring them to enact UN policies such as liberalizing abortion laws based on that data. Read more.

:::

ORIGINAL POST – Tying Abortion to Millennium Development Goal #5:

by Fredi D’Alessio

Here we go again.

Yet another report (Induced abortion: estimated rates and trends worldwide) crafted to promote “reproductive health” (a term that is frequently used by UN agencies to promote legal abortion) and tying that goal to Millennium Development Goal #5, Improve Maternal Health.

Although it is true that the MDGs do not include the controversial issue of “reproductive health”, after having done research for my commentary on the Millennium Development Goals, I am no less concerned about the underlying goal of many UN agencies and NGO. I believe the pro-life community should be made fully aware of their agenda and their perspective of MDG #5. If you haven’t yet read my exposé and all of the documents referenced therein, I urge you to do so. As an addendum to the commentary I believe we need to advocate for a new MDG and renumber the others making the new one the first and fundamental goal. That MDG should emphatically charge the worldwide community to respect and protect every human being’s right to life from conception to natural death. Let’s face it, the agenda to promote legal abortion and contraception worldwide will not cease.

Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, secretary for Relations with States, said in the general debate of the recent 62nd session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, “We must work to stop and reverse the culture of death embraced by some social and legal structures that try to make the suppression of life acceptable by disguising it as a medical or social service.” Thus, the MDG I proposed above should be the foundation for all the others.

The Archbishop added, “In this sense, the abolition of the death penalty should also be seen as a consequence of full respect for the right to life.” The proponents of population control desire to invoke the sentence of death upon all unwanted (by them) children in their mothers’ wombs and suppress the lives of those as yet not conceived.

I implore you to read “The Millennium Development Goals and the Critical Next Step for the Catholic Church“ and all of the resources referenced therein to learn for yourself how serious this issue is and share this information with others.

Below are three articles. Be sure to read the last one that exposes the fallacy of reports on the numbers of abortions. Regardless of what the actual numbers are, the consequences of this holocaust are immeasurable.

• Induced abortion: estimated rates and trends worldwide
  
• 1 in 5 Pregnancies Worldwide Ends in Abortion, Study Says
• Planned Parenthood’s Guttmacher Institute Said to Play “fast and loose” With Abortion Stats

More on the United Nations & Abortion

Read Full Post »

*UN Petition for the Unborn Child – Your Name is Needed

By Austin Ruse

 (C-FAM)  An international coalition of pro-life and pro-family groups has re-launched a petition that is expected to gather one million signatures in support of the unborn child and the traditional family.  

     Groups from the United States, Poland, Spain and other European counties launched the petition last fall and at that time gathered nearly 500,000 signatures, which were presented to selected Ambassadors at the United Nations (UN) and at a UN press conference that was broadcast throughout UN headquarters. The groups included C-FAM [publisher of the Friday Fax], Concerned Women for America, United Families International, all from  the United States, along with the Polish Federation of Pro-life Groups and the Spanish Institute for Family Policy. A prominent parliamentarian from Honduras also participated in the press conference.

     The purpose of the petition is to persuade UN Member States to begin interpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as protecting the unborn child from abortion and also to recognize traditional marriage and the right of parents to educate their children.

     Organizers launched the petition partially in reaction to efforts by pro-abortion groups last year to use the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration to promote a right to abortion.  

     The pro-life petition, which can be signed at www.c-fam.org/campaigns/lid.2/default.asp in one of 19 languages, specifically references portions of the Universal Declaration that can be interpreted by States in pro-life and pro-family ways.  For instance, the Universal Declaration says, “Everyone has the right to life.” Though it is not clear that the drafters meant to include the unborn child in this formulation, States may interpret the document this way.

     The Universal Declaration also says, “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.”  In recent years social radicals have pushed the UN to call for an international right for homosexuals to marry. Social conservatives point out this is in direct opposition to the intention of the drafters of the aspirational Universal Declaration and its binding implementing covenants promulgated in 1966.

     Family-rights proponents also highlight the Universal Declaration’s recognition that “Parents have the prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” There is a push in the West to allow homosexual propaganda in schools even against the wishes of parents. This would be in violation of the Universal Declaration.

     Additionally, the petition cites the Universal Declaration where it says “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection from society and the State.” In recent years efforts have been made to undermine the natural family by redefining it to include homosexual couples, efforts that have been repeatedly defeated in the UN General Assembly.

     Organizers were also inspired by efforts of the Catholic St. Egidio Community of Rome who gathered one million signatures calling for a moratorium on the death penalty that resulted in a successful UN resolution calling for a ban on executions.

     European Union Parliamentarians Anna Zaborska of Slovakia and Carlo Casini of Italy led similar efforts to the UN pro-life petition in Europe. Their petitions were presented to the European Parliament last year.

Read Full Post »