Tag Archives: abortion

European Development Aid and Funding Abortions

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

(New York C-FAM) The European Commission is using development funds to pay for abortions in countries that restrict the procedure and funding the two largest abortion providers in the world, International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International, according to a new report by European Dignity Watch.

The report The Funding of Abortion through EU Development Aid reveals Marie Stopes International received over $30 million from the European Union. The Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition, a high level global partnership that includes the UNFPA and provides abortion kits to developing countries, was given close to $32 million over a 30-month period ending in June 2011.

The report discloses that EU money was spent to fund abortions in developing countries with strict abortion laws through the EU’s Development Aid and Public Health budgets for projects related to “sexual and reproductive health.” But European Dignity Watch (EDW) says the “term ‘sexual and reproductive health’ as defined by the EU excludes abortion explicitly”.

International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International asked and received funding projects that included “safe abortion,” “emergency contraception,” “training in manual vacuum aspiration,” and “menstrual regulation” to admittedly bypass legal restrictions on abortions in countries like Bangladesh, Bolivia, Guatemala, and Peru.

The term “menstrual regulation,” the report explains, is a less explicit term for surgical abortions. It is described by Planned Parenthood as the process of emptying the uterus through the high-powered suction created by a manual vacuum aspirator. The device is inserted in the dilated cervix of a woman who “suspects” being pregnant rather than one who “knows” she is pregnant. After the procedure, it is impossible to tell whether a woman was pregnant unless the extracted tissue, which may include an implanted embryo, is examined microscopically.

The report denounces the European Commission, which manages the budget of the European Union, for acting illegally. The report asserts that the Commission does not have the authority to fund abortions because of the limited authority of the Commission, the Commission’s own statements, and the need for consensus to act on foreign policy. Each EU member state has a seat on the Commission, and several EU countries have strict abortion laws.

European Dignity Watch based the report on disclosures from a document request for all papers and correspondence between the EU Commission, the two abortion giants, and the Center for Reproductive Rights for the period running from 2005 to 2010. Not all the information requested from the EU Commission was handed over. The report calls the findings so far “cursory” and asks EU Parliamentarians to investigate further and take action.

The report was presented at the European Parliament in Brussels during an event that was part of the “Week for Life” initiative organized by EU Parliamentarians held in March.

For decades, public funding of abortion in Europe would not have been considered controversial. European Dignity Watch, which was formed in 2010, is just one of many recently formed politically active pro-life organizations in Europe. This development shows how the pro-life movement is gaining momentum in Europe.

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

Lives Saved, Reports In From Around the World

By Daniel Downs

Lives saved from certain death continue coming in at the 40 Days for Life headquarters in Virginia. The latest count is 688 unborn children were spared death by abortion. Men and women, young and old, hit took their message to the streets throughout nations like Australia, Poland, Spain, Ireland, and even England.

Birminham England

Literally, people paraded through the streets of Birmingham protesting against abortion. In London, they held vigils near abortion clinics and government offices. Night and day, campaigners prayed for government officials, abortion clinic workers, and especially for mothers considering abortion. Besides oppostion by media and clinics, campaigners got to explain to women contemplating abortion and to others their biblical view about life and abortion. For 40 days, they exercised the religious freedom long fought for and won by the heirs of the Reformation, which freedom includes freedom of speech and assembly. Even in cold Montreal Quebec weather, people spoke out in public for the right to life of the unborn.

Modesto California

The same is true of Americans. Across the United States, Americans also exercised their liberty to speak out for the the lives of the unborn. In Modesto California, campaigners showed a father and daughter what a fetus looked like 12 and 16 week. When two came out of the clinic, they told the Modesto group they had changed their minds. Over 688 women made the same decision during the 40 Days for Life.

Students for Life of America recently reported 3 babies were saved from abortion as a result of their college campus based campaigns. Three different local campus groups reported mothers changing their minds about abortion and choosing life for their unborn children. In each case, members of the local SFLA organizations were given the opportunity to continue working with each mother in dealing with their concerns and issues.

With the approach of Easter, what better way to celebrate the resurrection of life than by the deliverance of innocent lives from the modern version of ancient Egypt’s infanticide, which was an effort to destroy the promise of God. Easter extends the promise of a life of freedom to life eternal with God.

WHO’s Report Is It Anyway?

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.

(NEW YORK, C-FAM) In recent weeks a new paper asserting that all nations should liberalize abortion laws has been characterized by the news media as an authoritative study by the World Health Organization (WHO), but the paper’s fine print says it’s not a WHO report. Why the mismatch?

The report found that “unsafe” abortion has increased in recent years despite the fact that abortions overall are declining. It concluded that in order to make abortion “safe” and to reduce worldwide maternal deaths, restrictive abortion laws should be rescinded.

Media coverage served mainly to disseminate rather than critique the report, which was published in the British medical journal Lancet. The Lancet also characterized it as a WHO study, a joint project with the Guttmacher Institute, which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, an abortion advocacy organization.

Notably absent from news coverage of the story is that that the WHO has distanced itself both from the views contained in this study and the views of previous studies by the same authors. Two of the authors, including one WHO staff member, collaborated previously on a paper asserting abortion is a human right.

Just over a month ago, a top WHO official asked that the signers of the San Jose Articles remove a footnote in the Articles stating that the WHO had said, “[a]ccess to safe, legal abortion is a fundamental right of women, irrespective of where they live.” (The San Jose Articles is an expert statement on the status of the unborn child in international law.) The quote appeared in a WHO paper, published on the WHO website, and referring all inquiries about its findings to WHO. Yet the official asserted that due to a disclaimer in the paper’s fine print, the Articles could not accurately say that WHO embraced the view. Organizers of the San Jose Articles removed the note.

The new study carries the same disclaimer, which states, “The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this paper and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy, or views of their institutions or those of funding agencies.”

Experts have sharply criticized the most recent report’s methodology, including the lack of data regarding abortion, a reliance on arbitrarily inflated abortion statistics, the conflating of spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and planned or induced abortions, and the use of quasi-legal terms to define its dependent variable, “safe” abortion.

Such fundamental flaws would have made the paper warrant far less credence than it received. Arguably, it was the WHO imprimatur that caused many to overlook the errors in the rush to publicize it.

This raises the question: what is the position of WHO if it does not endorse the statement that abortion is a human right? And what is the position of WHO regarding whether all nations must liberalize abortion laws, the conclusion of this most recent paper?

If WHO’s position is neutral, why doesn’t this paper say so? The absence of such a statement leaves readers and reporters with the impression that the unambiguous declaration on abortion is the position of the organization that is disseminating the study.

Friday Fax asked WHO to answer these questions but the organization did not comment.

It is reasonable to conclude that WHO officials are trying to have it both ways: to endorse the controversial research but allow the organization to disclaim views when pressed.

Scientists have noted that WHO’s policy making role is in conflict with its research role in the area of reproductive health. They have urged WHO colleagues to abandon the political side of their work. The existence of a disclaimer in this latest, highly controversial and badly flawed paper, makes this recommendation all the more cogent – and urgent.

Susan Yoshihara is Senior Vice President for Research at the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute. Her article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM and is republished here with permission.

Ruse on the Susan G. Komen Foundation

By Austin Ruse

“Last week the Susan G. Komen Foundation made an announcement that appears that they have reversed themselves on funding of Planned Parenthood. While I do not believe they have reversed themselves, it may turn out to be the case. We do not know.

What happened was nothing short of a Mafia shakedown campaign by Planned Parenthood against the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

Planned Parenthood told the Komen Foundation ‘either give us money or we will destroy you.’ They were aided and abetted in this hostage taking by the mainstream media.

At this point, pro-lifers should cease their support of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. We should wait and see what happens. We know there are five more Komen grants to Planned Parenthood in the pipeline. If any more come up, we will know we have lost and Planned Parenthood has won.

I do not regret the work I did over the past days on this issue, neither should any pro-lifer. I only regret we could not have done more to make Komen strong and able to fight off the thuggish abortion giant, Planned Parenthood.

What the week has shown is that Planned Parenthood, an organization that is under criminal investigation all over this country, will stop at nothing to maintain their stranglehold on organizations like the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM, a New York and Washington DC-based research institute working exclusively on International social policy.

The Abortion Industry’s Greatest Hits of 2011

By Kristan Hawkins, Executive Director, Students for Life of America

I think many will agree with me that 2011 was a pivotal year for the pro-life movement. Let’s take a moment to look back at some of the hits the abortion industry suffered during 2011:

January 2011: Kermit Gosnel and his staff were indicted on murdering 7 almost-born infants and 1 woman in their horrific abortion facility in Philadelphia. The District Attorney even remarked what we commonly say in the pro-life movement, “the real business of Gosnell’s clinic was not health, but profit.” The controversy was enough to cause Americans, many of whom still call themselves pro-choice, to question what the old-Clinton mantra of “safe, legal, and rare” really means.

January 2011: A youth organization lead by a former SFLA intern, Lila Rose, took their undercover work exposing Planned Parenthood a step further, releasing 7 videos of Planned Parenthood facilities, some that even receive federal taxpayer funding, aiding actors who were posing as human sex traffickers.

To continue reading, click here.

Ohio Senate Approves Opt Out of Abortion Coverage in Obamacare

(COLUMBUS, OH) – The Ohio Senate added to what has already been a historic pro-life year by approving HB 79, legislation designed to protect pro-life taxpayers from paying for abortion via Obamacare. This legislation now heads to pro-life Governor John Kasich’s desk for his signature. With today’s passage in the Ohio Senate, HB 79 will be the seventh pro-life measure enacted in the state of Ohio in 2011.

“As we move closer to national health care, it was critical for Ohio to take advantage of the federal opt out provision,” said Mike Gonidakis, Executive Director of Ohio Right to Life. “This legislation ensures that Ohioans who support life don’t have to pay for someone else’s elective abortions.”

House Bill 79 would exclude abortion coverage from the State Exchange which Ohio must create as required by the new federal health care law. The federal law includes a provision allowing states to opt out, making it possible for this legislation to protect the conscience rights of pro-life taxpayers.

“Ohio is committed to realizing a culture of life in our state and has become an example for the nation,” said Gonidakis. “That is evident through the unprecedented slate of pro-life legislation that has moved through the legislature this year alone. We are blessed for the unwavering pro-life leadership of Senate President Tom Niehaus, Speaker Bill Batchelder and Governor John Kasich,” said Gonidakis.

Ohio Right to Life is grateful to Senator Keith Faber, Senator Kevin Bacon, Senate President Tom Niehaus, and bill sponsors State Representatives Joe Uecker and Danny Bubp for standing up for pro-life Ohioans through House Bill 79.

New US “Right” to Family Planning Policy Hurts Trafficked Women

By Lisa Correnti and Wendy Wright

WASHINGTON, DC (C-FAM)   The same week U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a conference in Senegal that family planning is a “basic right,” the U. S. Congress was investigating the Obama administration’s rejection of a highly qualified group to receive a grant to help trafficking victims because it does not offer contraception and abortion. The grant was awarded instead to a group that “had no plan on how objectives would be met.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has established new criteria for anti-trafficking grants mandating that applicants offer full reproductive health services to victims, equating contraception and abortion with basic rights like food and shelter. HHS then denied a grant to an experienced, previously approved applicant, the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB), because it did not provide contraception and abortion. The program has rescued more than 3,000 men, women and children trafficked to the U.S. for sex and labor trade in the past five years.

An HHS internal document obtained by Congressman Darrell Issa, Chairman of the Oversight Committee, revealed that the USCCB was recommended by objective evaluators to receive $2.5 million but was passed over by HHS in favor of two sub-standard applicants that would refer for abortion. Evaluators said one of the chosen programs lacked “detail on key program areas, had no plan on how objectives will be met and even lacked resumes for key staff, including the program director.”

In the same week, Secretary Clinton told a conference in Senegal that family planning is a “basic right.” Addressing the 2nd International Family Planning Conference, Clinton called for accelerating efforts “to ensure that all women have access to family planning and reproductive health care and services.” Dr. Babatunde Osotimehin, head of the United Nations Population Fund told attendees, “Family planning is oxygen—it is a right to get it.”

Beth Englander, who oversees the USCCB Anti-Trafficking Program, told the Friday Fax the vast majority of foreign-born victims in their program were labor-trafficked. “The program was intended to be a supplemental support for victims seeking help finding housing, food, clothing, and legal aid. In addition, female victims received treatment for routine OB-GYN care, to include STDs and physical injury.” Englander believes most sex-trafficked victims had access to contraception through various resources. “These arrangements would have been in existence prior to their rescue and entry into USCCB’s program and in the traffickers’ interests.”

Dr. Jeffrey Barrows, who works with recovered trafficked victims, says the new HHS policy could hurt trafficked women: “possible harm could occur if a very pro-abortion counseling approach were to be taken with a victim just out of a trafficking scenario who has not had adequate time to re-establish her autonomy.” Many trafficked victims experience traumatic dependency upon their abuser, known as Stockholm Syndrome.

“This dependence on others could be carried over into the aftercare stage where they almost prefer to have others tell them what they should do in certain situations without having adequately formed an opinion themselves,” Barrows told the Friday Fax.

Congressman Chris Smith, author of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, expressed disgust with HHS’s actions. “Pernicious pro-abortion favoritism, embedded in this egregiously flawed process, does a grave disservice to the victims of trafficking.”

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.

Support the Heart Beat Bill

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYIpqiLhjXM&w=640&h=360]
http://www.heartbeatbill.com

For a summary of the Heart Beat Bill, click here.

Incoming Spanish Prime Minister Promised to Repeal Abortion Law and Other Anti-Family Policies of Socialist Government

Spain’s Popular Party won a historic conservative victory in Sunday’s election and the ruling Socialists suffered their worst defeat in 30 years.

While acknowledging that the dismal state of Spain’s economy was a factor in the election, World Congress of Families Managing Director Larry Jacobs noted the significant impact of family issues. “Over the past 8 years of its socialist misrule, the Zapatero government painted a symbolic bulls-eye on the Spanish family and moral virtues – liberalizing and promoting divorce, instituting same-sex marriage and adoption, creating easy access to abortion, lowering the age of consent, eliminating parent’s rights, and mandating pro-homosexual education in the schools.”

This led to massive demonstrations, especially on the life issue. Just this year, on March 27, 2011, more than 150,000 people marched through the streets of Madrid to protest Zapatero’s abortion law, which allows abortion on demand up to the 14th week of gestation, up to 22 weeks in cases of rape, fetal abnormality and risk to the mother’s health, and up until the moment of birth if the unborn child has a serious or incurable illness, as determined by a committee.

In a February interview with the newspaper El Mundo, Spain’s incoming prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, promised that if his Popular Party constituted the next government, it would repeal the new measure and return to the previous law – which allowed abortion only in cases of rape, fetal deformity and danger to the mother’s health. Rajoy also pledged repeal of Spain’s controversial “Education for Citizenship and Human Rights Program” which indoctrinates students in the worldview of homosexual activists.

Spain will be the site of World Congress of Families VI, at Madrid’s Palacio de Congresos, May 25-27, 2012. Themes will include: The Case for Marriage, Strengthening the Family (including fatherhood and motherhood), The Culture of Life Versus the Culture of Death (including abortion and euthanasia), Demographic Winter, Sexual Revolution and the Family (divorce, co-habitation and pornography), Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Education (parent’s rights), Engaging the Culture (including the impact of the news and entertainment media on the family), The Homosexual Lobby and International Family Law and Policy (UN, EU, and other international bodies).

The organizing committee for World Congress of Families VI is spearheaded by WCF Partner HazteOir.org, and its president and founder, Ignacio Arsuaga, who also helped to organize the pro-life demonstrations in Madrid and over 80 other Spanish cities last March. Arsuaga is the co-author with M. Vidal Santos of a book detailing the anti-family policies of the Zapatero government, “The Zapatero Project: Chronicle of an Attack on Society.” Go to http://proyectozapatero.org to read a copy of the book in English.

“It’s been eight years in which we lived with attacks aimed at destroying our society. Imposition, prohibition, manipulation and indoctrination have been the characteristics of the last two [Zapatero-led] legislatures. That is why we celebrate this newest election, “said Ignacio.

Jacobs added, “We hope the revolution which started in Madrid on Sunday will spread to other Western European nations. Their economic woes are rooted in anti-family policies, resulting in some of the lowest birthrates in history. World Congress of Families VI in Madrid (May 25-27, 2012) will map strategies for a renaissance of the natural family and help educate the new leaders in Spain and throughout the world.”

San Jose Articles Used to Block Right to Abortion in Uruguay

By Austin Ruse

NEW YORK (C-FAM) An impressive list of dignitaries launched the San Jose Articles in the national legislature of Uruguay last week. Led by Congressman Gerardo Amarilla, the list included many members of the Uruguayan Congress, several former high-ranking Ministers, medical doctors, professors of constitutional law, and one famous soccer player.

There have been efforts in the Uruguayan Senate to liberalize their laws on abortion by the left-leaning coalition. In order to get this achieved they needed a coalition that would include the right-of-center Colorado Party. The Colorado Party declined to join the effort and cited the San Jose Articles when they did.

The Uruguayan launch of the Articles took the San Jose organizers by surprise. “We did not know about this launch until just before it happened,” said a spokesman for the San Jose Signatories. “While we were surprised, we welcome this effort. This is exactly what we had intended, that the Articles would take on a life of their own, that people from around the world would embrace them, make them their own, and promulgate them.”

The Articles were also launched, before a crowd of 1,000 people at the National Philippines for Life Congress in Cebu City. Former Majority Leader of the Philippine Senate Francisco Tatad led the effort. Present were many high-ranking Churchmen including the Archbishop of Cebu and the incoming president of the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of the Philippines. The launch of the Articles was the high point of Senator Tatad’s keynote address to the Congress.

Tatad told the Friday Fax, “The San Jose Articles are primarily meant to shut down the false claim of an international right to abortion; but they constitute one of the biggest boosts so far to our fight against foreign-dictated contraception and sterilization.” The Philippines is under great pressure from UN agencies and American advocacy groups to accept UN-style population control programs.

The San Jose Articles are an expert document signed by such luminaries as Professor Robert George of Princeton, Professor John Haldane of St. Andrews, Professor John Finnis of Oxford, Anna Zaborska of the European Parliament and former French Cabinet Minister Christine Boutin who has launched a bid for the French presidency.

The Articles are intended to help people around the world, especially government officials, to refute claims made by UN personnel and abortion advocates that there exists an international right to abortion. Anand Grover, the UN Special Rapporteur for Health, made this claim as recently as last month in his report to the Secretary General. Governments complained at the time that Grover had overstepped his mandate and that asserting an international right to abortion was none of his business.

Even this week, a large number of Member States imitated a debate in the General Assembly scolding Grover and others for their overreach. They attempted to place an amendment in a GA Resolution to that effect. The effort lost but not by much and marks the first time such a widespread pushback against Special Rapporteurs has occurred.

The San Jose Articles have now been launched at the UN, the European Parliament, the British House of Lords, the World Pro-Life Congress in San Jose, and the National Pro-Life Conference in Calgary. Formal launches are still pending in the US, Chile, Argentina, and the Italian Parliament.

The Articles are now circulating in eight languages including English, French, Spanish, Polish, Croatian, German, Italian, and Slovak. Organizers say many more are to come.

Austin Ruse is President of C-FAM. His 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.