Author Archives: admin

Live Action President Lila Rose On Planned Parenthood Defunding in NC

(RALEIGH) Lila Rose, president of the pro-life youth organization Live Action, issued the following statement yesterday morning on North Carolina’s defunding of Planned Parenthood:

“North Carolina is now the fourth state this year to step up to the plate and ensure that no taxpayer dollars go towards funding the biggest abortion business in America, Planned Parenthood. This corrupt organization is responsible for killing over 332,000 defenseless unborn children each year. Planned Parenthood manipulates women to choose abortion and routinely aids and abets the sexual exploitation and trafficking of young girls. Governors of other states should take note of how Gov. Perdue’s legislature has decisively rejected her veto and realize that the American people do not want to subsidize abortionists.”

Indiana, Kansas, and New Jersey have recently passed laws to prevent taxpayer funds from going to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is challenging the Indiana law in federal court, although a federal judge has already denied the abortion business’s request for a temporary injunction.

Over the past four years, Live Action has released undercover videos revealing Planned Parenthood clinics across the country covering up the sexual abuse of children and violating mandatory reporting laws for statutory rape. In February, Live Action released new undercover footage showing 7 Planned Parenthood clinics in 4 states willing to aid and abet the commercial sex trafficking of underage girls. The videos prompted the House of Representatives to vote twice to defund Planned Parenthood of all federal taxpayer subsidies.

“North Carolina joins Indiana, Kansas, and New Jersey in standing up for the rule of law, human rights, and responsible government,” says Rose. “While we wait for Congress to defund Planned Parenthood at the federal level, responsible state governments should do their part to protect women and unborn children and end local public subsidies of this lawless abortion chain.”

To see the videos, visit: liveaction.org/traffick

Gay Journalist Continues Aggressive Campaign Against Christian Counsellor

Lesley Pilkington, the Christian counsellor who is being investigated by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) for giving counselling to an undercover gay reporter, has had her confidence breached once again after Patrick Strudwick released a misleading article about the hearing, while the investigation still continues, and against the express instructions of the BACP.

The Professional Conduct Hearing took place on 4th May 2011 in relation to Mrs. Pilkington providing Reparative Therapy to Mr. Strudwick. The decision was communicated to the parties on 23rd May, with a stipulation that its contents were confidential.

Reparative Therapy is recognised in the primary textbook <em>Essential Psychopathology and its Treatment</em> (2009) which reads:

“[H]omosexual orientation can be theraputically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce harm when attempted”.

Mr. Strudwick is a gay activist seeking to end the practice of Reparative Therapy. In 2009, Mr. Strudwick pretended to be a Christian individual who wished to undertake Reparative Therapy. He approached Mrs. Pilkington at a Christian conference pretending to want counselling for unwanted same-sex attraction. He attended two counselling sessions with Mrs. Pilkington during which he secretly recorded her. He then reported her to the BACP.

What happened at the Hearing on 4th May 2011:

The BACP did not question the validity and effectiveness of Reparative Therapy, and found that:

The Professional Conduct Panel found that certain procedural rules had been breached by Mrs. Pilkington, such as extending the session over the allotted hour and for failing to counsel Mr. Strudwick after a meeting with her husband whilst Mr. Strudwick was on a purported toilet visit, but in fact, his purpose of going to the toilet was to change the tapes he was using to record Mrs. Pilkington. Further, the BACP found that Mr. Strudwick was a “client” and “was the recipient of counselling related services”.

A Complaint to the Press Complaints Commission:

Lesley Pilkington said:

“I am deeply concerned that the privileged and confidential relationship between a counsellor and her patient will be undermined by a journalist seeking a sensationalist story without any substance. It is an abuse by the Guardian newspaper. Accordingly, I propose to act with restraint. I will seek to make a joint complaint with the BACP to the Press Complaints Commission in relation to the subterfuge and deceit used by Mr. Strudwick. Reparative Therapy is a valid therapy that many people want and it should not be damaged by irresponsible reporting. The hearing is still subject to an appeal.”

Andrea Minichiello Williams, CEO of the Christian Legal Centre said:

“We are grateful that the decision of the Professional Conduct Committee has not questioned the validity of Reparative Therapy and individuals are still free to seek counselling services for reorientation when they choose to change their behaviour.

“Christians are being targeted and increasingly unable to access justice in this country. To think a gay activist, engaged in deception, can seek out a Christian therapist by pretending to be a Christian seeking to choose to change his behaviour, manipulate the counselling sessions for the purpose of a story, use a clandestine taping device and then report the therapist to the professional body is almost beyond belief. The fact that the BACP even entertained the complaint is wholly unacceptable. Lesley Pilkington is a caring and devoted counsellor, inspired by her Christian faith to help people. She is being persecuted by persons who dislike the love, ethics and transforming power of Christ. One can only imagine the reaction if a Christian tried to do this to a Pink therapist.”

<strong>Source:</strong> Christian Legal Center, May 27, 2011.

UN Report Calls for Comprehensive Sex Ed for Ten Year Olds as a way to Fight AIDS

By Lauren Funk

NEW YORK (C-FAM) Some in the UN believe that comprehensive sexuality education is the main intervention needed to prevent new HIV infections – even for adolescents as young as 10 years old.

“It is time to seize the opportunities to promote sexuality education and comprehensive knowledge of HIV and other health matters among very young adolescents before they become sexually active,” explains a new UN report on HIV/AIDS. “This is the window in which to intervene, before most youth become sexually active and before gender roles and norms that have negative consequences for later sexual and reproductive health becomes well established.”

The report recommends comprehensive sexuality education as the primary strategy to prevent HIV/AIDS for adolescents aged 10 – 24.  There is a lack of evidence that such programs have a significant positive effect on youth’s sexual behavior or on HIV prevention.  A 2009 UNESCO report, one of the few existing assessments of such programs, did not find that comprehensive sexuality education programs significantly reduce sexual risk-taking.  UNESCO did not assess the programs’ effect on HIV/AIDS prevention.

Critics question why UNICEF, UNAIDS, and the WHO chose to focus primarily on comprehensive sexuality education, a method of HIV prevention that is largely untested, when proven alternatives, such as behavioral modification, exist to stop the spread of HIV.  Some international observers see this move as part of a larger agenda to promote comprehensive sexuality education among youth.

Jane Adolphe, Associate Professor at Ave Maria School of Law, suggests that the promotion of comprehensive sexuality education is a form of sexualization of children.  “There is a growing awareness of the sexualization of children in the media, music videos, advertising, and fashion industries, and one might argue that Comprehensive Sexuality Education is another example of this tragic phenomenon,” Adolphe told the Friday Fax.  “Children are targeted through the vehicle of Comprehensive Sexuality Education where they are gradually introduced to the ideology of sexual freedom.”

Commenting on how promotion of comprehensive sexuality education intersects with efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, Adolphe explained “those promoting the ideology of sexual freedom, inclusive of its risky and dangerous behavior, advance risk reduction (e.g. condom use) not risk elimination (e.g. abstinence and fidelity) as the solution to HIV/AIDS, even in areas of Africa where condom use has been proven to be ineffective.”  And any opposition to such a narrow vision is stifled when people are stigmatized as so-called homophobics or religious fanatics.”

Ideology has in fact supplanted evidence in guiding AIDS interventions at the UN in recent years.  Dr. Edward Green, former director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard School of Health, wrote in a 2009 Lancet article that UNAIDS had switched from urging that AIDS prevention be “evidence based” to “evidence informed.” Green writes, “This seems to acknowledge departure from evidence-based planning and programming. It seems to say, we will do things our way, and we need only be informed by the evidence that supports what we are doing, and we can ignore the rest…in truth, this agency [UNAIDS] has become primarily an advocacy and not a science-led organization.”

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 (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.

New York Times Gets It Wrong–Moscow Demograohic Summit Is About Declining Birthrates

A recent new York Times article (“<a href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/world/europe/10iht-abortion10.html?scp=1&amp;sq=Russians%20Adopt%20U.S.%20tactics%20In%20Opposing%20Abortion&amp;st=cse” target=”_new”>Russians Adopt U.S. tactics In Opposing Abortion</a>”) mischaracterizes the upcoming <a href=”http://worldcongress.ru” target=”_new”>Moscow Demographic Summit: The Family and The Future of Humankind</a> – June 29-30 a the Russian State Social University – as “an international anti-abortion meeting.”

World Congress of Families Managing Director Larry Jacobs, who was mentioned in The Times’ story twice, set the record straight: “While it’s true that World Congress of Families is uncompromisingly  pro-life, as part of our natural family agenda, the Moscow Demographic Summit is first and foremost about the dramatic worldwide decline of birthrates, and only secondarily about abortion. Our goals are to analyze the phenomenon, examine how we reached this crisis and suggest solutions to what could be the greatest challenge confronting humanity in this century.”

Jacobs continued, “While abortion has played an undeniable role in this tragedy, it’s far from the only factor. Late marriage, cohabitation and the culturally induced desire for small families are among the many factors which have led to a 50% decline in birthrates worldwide since the late 1960s.  While pro-life spokesmen (Russian and international) will play a prominent role in the Summit, so too will demographers, economists, sociologists, authors, researchers and political and religious leaders, whose primary concern lies in other areas.”

In discussing growing Russian opposition to abortion on demand, The New York Times also failed to note the grim reality the nation faces: It’s birthrate is barely 1.2 (children per woman) with a birthrate of 2.1 needed just to replace current population. It’s been estimated that in Russia today there are 4 million abortions annually and only 1.7 million live births. “This is national suicide by ‘choice.’” Jacobs comments.

For more information about the Moscow Demographic Summit, including a partial list of speakers, go to <a href=”http://www.worldcongress.ru” target=”_new”>www.worldcongress.ru</a> or see the May 27 article titled <a href=”http://www.profam.org/press/wcf.pr.110527.htm” target=”_new”>”Moscow Demographic Summit One Month Away</a>”.

The Summit has been endorsed by Patriarch Kirill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church. In a message to delegates, Patriarch Kirill noted that the purpose of the Summit is “to defend traditional family values and to analyze the world’s demographic problems.”

Click <a href=”http://cts.dundee.net/t/39155912/105413499/94233/194″ target=”_new”>here</a> for the full text of Patriarch Kirill’s letter to Summit participants.

Do Nice Guys Lose & Bad Boys Win?

A recent study published by the American Psychological Association found that women are more attracted to men who look shameful, brooding or prideful and that men who smile are actually seen as less attractive.

NeW author, Danielle, traces this phenomenon back to the 19th Century. See seems to attribute it as an acculturated attraction conditioned by the popular print and media of the past. After listing some examples of more recent films that depict this phenomenon, she makes this interesting statement:

Nice guys, are you still reading this? I am sure all this talk of “bad boys” is a bit demoralizing, but I have an important piece of information for you:

Women may be attracted to bad boys, but women fall in love with men who smile, joke, are nice, well-mannered, and treat them well. Those are the relationships that last long term, says the study, and many women will attest to that from experience. No matter how enticing the bad boy is, the nice guy will get the girl in the real world.

So there is hope for the “nice guys” of the world after all, at least according some at New Enlightened Women’s organization.

Read the entire post by Danielle at http://enlightenedwomen.org/do-nice-guys-lose-bad-boys-win

Court Upholds School Expulsion, Assault Charges of 14-Year-Old Honor Student Over Shooting Plastic ‘Spitwads’

(SPOTSYLVANIA, Va) The Circuit Court of the County of Spotsylvania has refused to reverse the expulsion of a 14-year-old honor student charged under a school zero tolerance policy with “violent criminal conduct” and possession of a weapon for shooting plastic “spitwads” at classmates. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute had petitioned the court to intervene on behalf of Andrew Mikel, a freshman at Spotsylvania High School, who was expelled for the remainder of the school year for allegedly using the body of a pen to blow small, hollow plastic balls akin to spitwads at fellow students. School officials also referred the matter to local law enforcement for criminal prosecution. Mikel has been homeschooled since the incident occurred in December 2010. Institute attorneys have offered their assistance to the Mikel family should they choose to appeal the court’s ruling.

“We’re greatly disappointed by this ruling, which does not in any way see justice served,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “Andrew Mikel is merely the latest in a long line of victims of school zero tolerance policies whose educations have been senselessly derailed by school administrators lacking in both common sense and compassion.”

On December 10, 2010, ninth grader Andrew Mikel, a student at Spotsylvania High School, was sent to the principal’s office after shooting a handful of small, hollow pellets akin to plastic spitwads at fellow students in the school hallway during lunch period. Mikel, an honor student active in Junior ROTC and in his church, was initially suspended for 10 days and charged with criminal assault and possession of a weapon under the school’s Student Code of Conduct. The Spotsylvania County School Board later voted to expel Mikel for the remainder of the school year, allegedly on the recommendation of the school’s assistant principal. School officials also referred the matter to local law enforcement, which initiated juvenile criminal proceedings for assault, resulting in Mikel being placed in a diversion program, as well as having to take substance abuse and anger management counseling.

Decrying the school’s actions as arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute filed a legal petition with the Circuit Court of the County of Spotsylvania asking the court to overturn the School Board’s decision. Institute attorneys also challenged the school’s characterization of Mikel’s actions as “criminal” and the spitwads as “weapons,” contending that there was no indication that Mikel intended to harm anyone and the plastic tube and pellets did not rise to the level of “weapons” as defined by the school code. Furthermore, Institute attorneys insist that Mikel’s conduct did not rise to the level required for expulsion or long-term suspension under the Student Code of Conduct. As a result of the criminal charges, Mikel, who had hoped to attend the U.S. Naval Academy following graduation from high school, can no longer be considered as an applicant.

Mikel’s father, a former Navy Seabee and Marine officer, who was awarded a meritorious service medal for solving the problem of “brown-out” for helicopters in Iraq (the sand caused static electricity that interfered with instruments during landing), credits his son with inspiring the solution. “I fought for my country and the rights of people here, and my family sacrificed right along with me,” stated Mikel Sr. “The actions of the school system are completely inconsistent with what I fought for.”

Source: Rutherford Institute News, May 24, 2011.

Ohio Is Mediocre When Comes to Taxing Beer and Its Consumers

Ohio beer drinkers have some good news from the Tax Foundation. In a recent study, the Foundation learned that Ohio is among the mediocre state when it comes to taxes. Out of all 50 states, Ohio excise tax of beer was a meager 18 cents, which earned Ohio the mediocre ranking of 28.

Ohio’s middle-of-the-road beer tax may be the result on only an average number of drinkers among both taxpayer and especially their political representatives. Many Ohioans and their representatives may drink the stuff, but when compared to the nation of drinkers as a whole, the number of Ohio consumers of beer is only average.

Sarah Palin’s state, Alaska, is ranked number #1 in the nation. That means two things: (1) Alaska taxes beer drinkers an outrageous amount of $1.07, the highest in the nation. It seems apparent that Alaskan officials do not even like the taste of beer. They want to dissuade the populace from consuming that stuff.

Only a few cents beyond Alaska is Alabama, Georgia, Hawaii, and South Carolina. Except for Hawaii, I wonder if those southern states were originally prohibitionist. May be the citizenry and their politicians are smarter than others, or maybe they place a much higher value on getting drunk.

At any rate, the state with the lowest excise taxes on beer is Wyoming at 2 cents. That rate is in line with its cowboy history of two bit for a beer. Other states with only a few cents higher taxes include Missouri, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Kentucky.

Now, I’m wondering whether Missouri also keeps with its history of helping the pony express riders numb the pain from saddle sores. I imagine beer is as good as any painkiller. Wisconsin, on the other hand, is considered by some as the modern beer making capital of the United States. They would like to build a pipeline to transport their flammable fuel to every home. Then, there is Colorado known as Rocky Mountain high, which might be beer related but doubtfully so. The two surprises are Pennsylvania and Kentucky. The three things that come to mind about Pennsylvania is the Puritan taste for Rum, the Quakers religion, and the Constitution–not the love of beer. And, Kentucky used to be one of the moonshine states. Maybe Kentuckians traded the gut-rotting moonshine in for the more healthy brain numbing alcoholic beverage.

Ohioans can be glad politicians do not regard beer as a candidate for the sin tax–at least not yet.

WHO-Approves Abortion Drug Promises Life, and Death

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.

NEW YORK (C-FAM)  By authorizing the use of a single drug, the World Health Organization has simultaneously raised hopes for saving thousands of mothers’ lives and raised fears that the drug will also be used to kill perhaps millions of unborn children. Misoprostol is used to help stop bleeding during delivery, the main cause of maternal deaths, but it can also be used to induce at-home abortions, which are very dangerous, particularly in rural areas that lack primary or emergency medical care.

The fears are grounded in the fact that WHO approved use of the drug by unskilled personnel and that both WHO and Gynuity Health Projects, the organization which sought the drug’s approval, advocate the use of misoprostol for abortion outside the hospital setting.

WHO says its “work over the past three decades has contributed significantly to the emergence and wide acceptance of the current recommended regime” of medical abortion, according to one of its recent reports. WHO has trained midwives throughout the developing world to perform abortions in order to eliminate the need for physicians, the report says. In Vietnam alone, the trials included 1,734 women, and its misoprostol-induced abortions are conduced up to 63 days, WHO says.

Gynuity is working to mainstream the use of misoprostol for self-induced abortions. According to a 2009 Gynuity report, the organization works at the community level to cast self-induced abortion in a positive light, and to “oppose legislation introduced at the state or federal level that furthers the concept of fetal personhood.”

The WHO’s decision is similar to Federal Drug Administration approval in the U.S., ensuring that the drug is legitimized for use without a doctor and that it will be stocked in pharmacies all over the world.

Another concern is that use of misoprostol causes birth defects. Gynuity’s own 2002 report shows that when misoprostol is used for abortion, the risk of birth defects increases, most commonly causing clubfoot, cranial nerve abnormalities, and absence of the fingers.

When used to reduce post-partum hemorrhaging, pro-life physician Joe DeCook says misoprostol is a “wonder drug” since it does not have to be refrigerated or injected in non-sterile, rural environments. “But it’s like morphine. It can be used for good or for evil.”

Other physicians are even more skeptical. Maternal Life International (MLI) advised the WHO that approving the drug outside the hospital setting sets a double standard. “Women in resource limited settings are expected to give birth with unskilled or semi-skilled birth attendants,” MLI’s Dr. George Mulcaire-Jones said, “This fact alone leads to higher maternal and infant mortality rates than those in developed countries” and gives women “the false assurance that their deliveries will be ‘safe’.”

A quarter of all medical abortions fail and require medical attention in a hospital setting, DeCook said, and after seven weeks, risks to the life of the mother increase dramatically. “They may be able to show a decrease in the number of maternal mortalities because they will decrease the number of deliveries by abortion,” DeCook said, “but they will have no idea how many women will die in their wake.”

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 (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.”

Is This the Best We Can Do?

by Gary Palmer

In his centennial address to Congress in 1876, President James A. Garfield said, “Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless or corrupt, it’s because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature.”

He added, “If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”

When I read that statement, my first thought was of Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) who is at the center of the most recent scandal in Congress. Weiner, who was widely viewed as a rising star among Democrats and a possible candidate for mayor of New York City or governor of New York, was accused of texting raunchy pictures of himself to at least six women around the country.

As is so often the case with integrity-challenged politicians, he initially tried to lie his way out. And, as is so often the case, he ultimately had to admit what he had done to the great embarrassment of his wife, family, Congressional colleagues and many in the left-wing media who hopelessly tried to defend him.

Speaking of how some in the left-wing media have reported on this, Barbara Walters made a bizarre attempt to make Sarah Palin’s bus tour somehow the equivalent of Weiner sending lewd pictures he took of himself. And MSNBC talk show host Chris Matthews even implied that Weiner’s actions were his wife’s fault.

With the exception of Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) who has called for him to resign, Republican members of Congress have largely remained quiet about Weiner. That is not surprising. Most recently, Rep. Christopher Lee and Sen. John Ensign both resigned because of sex-related scandals. Apparently, the difference between Republicans and Democrats caught in sex scandals is that Republicans are expected to resign, Democrats are expected to stay in office.

Since 2000, there have been at least 16 members of Congress embroiled in sex scandals. And those are just the ones who got caught in Washington, and only involved sex scandals. The list does not include Congressmen charged with other offenses such as tax evasion and public corruption.

The future of America depends largely on the character and courage of its people, and that in turn must be reflected in the leaders we elect. It is of paramount importance that the majority of members of Congress in both parties have reliably high standards of morality and integrity. While their ideas about the role of government and taxes and spending may still be suspect, we should at least have confidence that the vast majority don’t cheat on their spouses, send lewd photos and messages over their cell phones, cheat on their taxes or engage in corrupt activities. If we can’t trust them, then the people must shoulder the responsibility to elect people we can.

The vast majority of people expect representatives at every level of government to exercise good judgment, conduct themselves with integrity and to a great extent, to be role models, regardless of their political party. Moreover, most people want to conduct their own lives by high standards of good judgment, morality and integrity.

Given that, why is it that the weakest and least trustworthy among us keep getting elected?

In my opinion, as President Garfield warned, it is because those who shape our enterprise, our culture and our morality have not been of “… aid in controlling the political forces.” Too few people with the ability to shape our enterprise, culture and morality have been willing to speak out while too many qualified people have written off politics as too dirty for honest people. Consequently, by steering clear of politics, good people allow those with less character, less moral restraint and oftentimes with less ability, to be presented as our only choices.

The question we have to consider isn’t whether or not politicians such as Anthony Weiner or John Ensign are the only ones we can choose from. That question is answered every time a good man or woman who is qualified to hold office decides to run or not to run. It is also answered every time voters cast their votes based on their allegiance to a political party or their own self-interests, instead of the character of the candidates or what is truly best for the nation.

In that regard, given the current state of the nation and its present course, President Garfield’s statement is a stinging indictment of the choices we have made. With so many scandals involving our elected leaders, we have to ask ourselves … is this the best we can do?

Gary Palmer is president of the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

Gov. Kaisch and Senator Brown’s Battle for Ohio Taxpayer Money

Govenor Kaisch has decided to drop out of the National Governor’s Association (NGA), according to the Columbus Dispatch. Kaisch wants to save Ohio the $176,000 annual dues. Moreover, he claims the costs are greater than the benefits. Of course, the NGA’s recent report that spot lighted some of Kaisch’s budget balancing cuts as among the biggest in the nation might influenced his decision just a little bit.

While Gov. Kaisch is trying to save the state money, Senator Sherrod Brown want to increase the cost of government in Ohio. Brown is seeking donation to campaign agianst Ohio newly revised public employee collective bargaining law known as Sentate Bill 5. It’s understandable why Senator Brown is stumping against SB5. If he stuck to just making federal laws, his collective baragaing union voters would likely vote for someone else the next election.

Readers might have guessed that this blogger favors SB5. Saving taxpayers money is a good thing. Reformation that benefits non-union workers and taxpayers is a good thing too. Even better is local and state representatives enabled to represent the best interest of their community taxpayers rather than being hamstrung by rigid collective bargaining law that favor the public unions. And inspite of the growing number of public employees, the majority of Ohio workers are not members of any union.

If memory serves, Governor Kaisch signed SB5 into law.