Category Archives: politics

Amnesty International Uses Maternal Deaths to Push for Unrestricted Abortion

By Elizabeth Charnowski

(New York – C-FAM) Amnesty International, a human rights organization that used to be abortion neutral, is now using the problem of maternal mortality to advocate for abortion. In a new report, ostensibly on medical care for maternal health, Amnesty calls on governments to repeal abortion laws and conscience protection for medical workers who may object. They also call for public health systems to train and equip health care providers to perform abortions.

Amnesty’s “Maternal Health is a Human Right” campaign focuses attention on four countries: Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso, Peru, and the United States. Amnesty argues that maternal mortality will decrease if it is treated as a human rights issue, if costs to health care are covered by governments, and if a right for women to control their reproductive and sex lives is established.

The United States’ maternal mortality ratio is only 21 deaths per 100,000 live births compared to Burkina Faso’s 300 and Sierra Leone’s 890 deaths per 100,000 births.

The Amnesty’s report that in Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso, and Peru, that women face death because of inadequate medical conditions and corruption. But then the report goes further arguing that abortion is needed, too.

Even though Amnesty says the United States has the best health care system in the world, the group urges that abortion services be expanded and obstacles eliminated, including what they call racial and cost barriers. They say abortion services are restricted for Native Americans and women on Medicaid since abortions are only paid for by the government in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger. These women can still obtain an abortion, but it would not be covered by federal insurance.

Amnesty takes issue with restraints on abortion, including conscience clauses and laws that allow health care providers and institutions to decline to commit an abortion if it is against their religious or moral beliefs.

Elsewhere Amnesty has called for small steps towards the legalization of abortion. The group submitted a report to the UN Committee on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) calling for the legalization of abortion in Mexico for women who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest.

According to its official position, “Amnesty International believes that where women’s access to safe and legal abortion services and information is restricted, their fundamental human rights may be at grave risk.”

At the time Amnesty changed its position, many long-time Catholic supports left the group and at least one Vatican Cardinal called upon Catholics no longer to support the group. In the intervening years Amnesty has become an aggressive public campaigner for a right to abortion and even makes the claim that abortion is a human right in international law.

Elizabeth Charnowski is a Blackstone Intern, a wonderful program of the Alliance Defending Freedom, at the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM). This article was originally published in Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM,a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/).

Why Would We Celebrate Congressmen Mike DeWine, Dave Hobson and Steve Austria?

by John Mitchel

I just received my invitation to the Greene County Republican Party picnic; the theme,
“A tribute to our 7th Congressional District Congressmen.” Really?! Now here are three
career politicians who never met a budget deficit they didn’t like; never voted against
raising the debt ceiling; advanced NAFTA, GATT, China’s entry into the World Trade
Organization and the unconstitutional Fast Track trade negotiation authority for the President,
and worst of all, enthusiastically supported unconstitional, undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
that gained nothing, but cost the U.S. beyond comprehension in terms of blood, sweat and tears
for generations to come.

The simple truth is DeWine’s, Hobson’s and Austria’s legacy doesn’t go past their success at
bringing back pork to their special interest insiders. And if you disagree, all you need to do is
take a look at the new Ohio congressional district map. Steve Austria is soon gone, as is the 7th
District. Greene and Clark counties, the two counties that did the heavy lifting in the Seventh
at election time for more than 25 years, have been swallowed up by the 10th and the 8th.

If this is success worth celebrating, how would you define failure?

Dismal Economy, Real Growth Policy Needed

by Raymond J. Keating

There’s no other way to put it: The latest GDP numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis were bad.

During a recovery, real U.S. GDP growth should be moving along at 4.0%-4.5%, on average. But during the second quarter, real GDP advanced by a mere 1.5%. That followed on 2.0% growth during the first quarter.

And for the past three years, from the time this so-called recovery started, real GDP growth has averaged a mere 2.2% – half of where we should be.

By the way, it needs to be pointed out that business investment is slowing. As noted in the GDP data, gross private domestic fixed investment continued a three-quarter slowdown – from 15.5% in the third quarter 2011 to 10% in the fourth, 9.8% in the first quarter 2012 and 6.1% in the second quarter. This is important to watch since consumers – indeed, the rest of the economy – take their cue from business investment. After all, if business is expanding, consumers gain in confidence, especially given the effects on the job market.

Two key problems exist with our persistently bad economic growth numbers.

The first is the loss in production, income, and jobs. Slow economic growth, quite simply, means a loss in our standard of living.

Second, the U.S. has to make sure that it does not fall into the trap of diminished expectations. After GDP numbers were released on July 27, a talking head on television said the U.S. economy was “resilient.” Really?

Continually poor GDP numbers for four-and-a-half years can have an effect on people’s psyches. They can start thinking that poor economic growth is the new normal. That is, they can succumb to diminished expectations. Suddenly, 2.0% economic isn’t so bad.

Make no mistake, the U.S. should not accept poor economic growth as some kind of new normal. Instead, if we make serious pro-growth policy changes, no reason exists why the U.S. cannot get back on a path of robust growth.

The necessary policy agenda to spur entrepreneurship, investment, growth and job creation forward is no mystery.

Provide broad-based, substantial, permanent tax relief. Similarly, roll back egregious, costly, anti-growth regulations, and establish a regulatory system whereby Congress must approve all new rules and regulations. Rein in the size and scope of government spending in order to leave resources for far more productive uses in the private sector, now and in the future. Lead the world in reducing trade barriers in order to expand opportunity. And get the Federal Reserve refocused on the only job it’s meant to do, i.e., maintaining price stability.

Get the policy mix right, and the U.S. will get back on a track of strong economic growth and job creation.

Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. His new book is “Chuck” vs. the Business World: Business Tips on TV.

Pastor On Trial for Helping Mother & Daughter in Same-Sex Custody Battle Travel Internationally

by Wendy Wright

A judge orders that a little girl be taken from her mother and given to a lesbian woman with whom the little girl has no biological ties or relationship.

An Amish/Mennonite pastor is on trial for allegedly, and perhaps partially unknowingly, helping the mother and daughter travel to another country.

Yet homosexual advocates say that same-sex marriage or unions don’t affect anyone other than the individual couples.

The trial of Pastor Kenneth Miller began this week in Vermont. He is accused of helping Lisa Miller (no relation) leave the U.S. in 2009 for Central America with her then-7 year old daughter Isabella.

As with many custody cases, there are many details and twists and turns. This story is replete with state officials allowing another state’s same-sex civil union laws trump their own laws upholding traditional marriage.

Years ago, Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller, both of whom lived in Virginia, entered into a civil union in Vermont. Lisa had Isabella through the aid of a fertility clinic. Soon after, Janet and Lisa broke up. The mother and child lived in Virginia, where Lisa became a Christian and renounced her former ways. Janet lives in Vermont.

A few years later, a custody battle ensued in Vermont. Virginia does not recognize same-sex marriage or unions. That state has both a constitutional amendment and a state law only recognizing traditional marriage.

Yet judges in Virginia defied those laws and incomprehensibly ruled that Virginian citizens Lisa and Isabella must obey Vermont’s laws and court rulings.

A Vermont judge had ordered that Lisa hand Isabella over to Janet Jenkins for unsupervised days-long visits.

Isabella had returned from these visits with this virtual stranger recounting episodes that left her not wanting to go back, like being required to bathe with Janet. Soon after Lisa and Isabella disappeared, the judge – to punish Lisa for not producing Isabella for a visit – gave full custody to Janet.

The case has become a cause celebre for homosexual activists with the New York Times on the trail of Lisa and Isabella. The newspaper recently ran a story on an Amish/Mennonite community in Nicaragua where the mother and daughter had lived for a time as the FBI and Interpol conducted an international manhunt. They sought the pair, claiming Lisa “abducted” her daughter.

The New York Times reported this week on as the trial began against Kenneth Miller who prosecutors accuse of driving Lisa and Isabella from Virginia to New York in 2009, where they crossed into Canada to then fly to Central America.

A website set up by supporters to follow Pas. Miller’s case can be found at Millercase.org

As they state, “When considering the correct response in this case, we take inspiration from Jesus’ way of relating to people in whatever situation they were in – that is with compassion and lack of condemnation . . . We wish to clarify that this was an act of mercy without a political agenda.”

This article was originally posted on the Turtle Bay and Beyond blog by Wendy Wright, who is Vice President for Government Relations and Communications at the Catholic Family & Human Right Institute.

The Trouble with “Jumah at the DNC”

By: M. Zuhdi Jasser

It is troubling that the Democratic National Convention has decided to promote and lend its name and national political platform to the organizers of the “Jummah at the DNC”. The leaders of this event – Jibril Hough and Imam Siraj Wahhaj as advertised are no moderates. They are radicals. These individuals embrace Islamist supremacy and have demonstrated support for radical ideologies.

A quick Google search by the DNC would have shown them that Hough and Wahhaj are leaders in the separatist American Islamist movement. While they may be able to get a few thousand Muslims to attend the event, they are NOT going to be mainstream Muslims. Most will likely come from Hough and Wahhaj’s radical networks that have long been entrenched in the Charlotte area. Make no mistake they are part of the Islamist movement.

This is not about their right of assembly; this group under a different name pulled the same stunt at the US capitol in 2009 claiming 20k and getting 2-3k. THIS IS ABOUT the DNC calling this an “official function” listing these radicals as typical of the DNC community and more importantly about this organization speaking out AS representing supposedly typical American Muslims (or “Mainstream”).

If that is who the DNC is consorting with then all Americans, Democrats should be concerned. There are many patriotic Muslims who are part of both parties, and when radical ideologues like this do a demonstration of “solidarity” in the name of our faith and choose an imam like Siraj Wahhaj who I saw with my own eyes in 1995 seditiously say it his duty and our duty as Muslims to replace the US Constitution with the Quran- then we need to speak up!

Their jummah (group) prayer is supposedly against the Patriot Act, the NYPD, and Islamophobia and is actually NOT about our democracy but about empowering their Islamist and MB sympathetic groups into the very fabric of the political system so that Americans become anesthetized. We need American Muslims to speak up and marginalize these radicals. The DNC needs to understand and reject them because of their radical history and ideas.

They use our American Muslim identity to speak as “one community” as a political unit or as a “bloc vote” – a political Islamist party when in fact most us Muslims don’t want that political unity and seek reform against their ideology that seeks to hijack our community. They do not represent us.

For more on Jibril Hough please review AIFD’s piece “Connecting the Dots of Islamism-Jibril Hough, the Islamic Political Party of America (IPPA), and the Jamaat al-Muslimeen (JAM)” or listen to Dr. Zuhdi Jasser’s March 8, 2010 interview on the Keith Larson show on WBT Charlotte.

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day A Success

Although I can offer no dollar figure to measure the level of the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day event, the long lines witnessed at the Fairfield Road restaurant
was proof enough. There were multiple lines of people streaming in and out of the restaurant. There were two lines of cars circling the building with 5 friendly attendants taking and serving orders. The lines extended into the street both at noon and at 2 PM. If the same was true at other locations across the nation, the event to support a Christian owned restaurant was a huge success indeed.

Of course, it was a wonderful political statement as well. Supporting the family and the traditional meaning of marriage is certainly worthy of support.

Wheaton College Suing Obama Administration Over Abortifacient Mandate

By Laurie Higgins

Wheaton College President Philip Ryken sent a letter to alumni today to share that the Wheaton College Board of Trustees has filed a lawsuit in opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandate which “requires the insurance plans of religious institutions (except churches) to cover all government-approved contraceptives,” including abortifacients, or pay significant fines.

Wheaton College is joining the Catholic University of America in this lawsuit because of its concern for both the sanctity of life and religious liberty.

President Ryken has also written a letter to the Daily Herald in which he recounts the unresponsiveness of Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to the thousands of comments the HHS has received in opposition to the mandate. Remember this next time the Obama administration claims to be above partisanship or when President Obama claims to be a unifier.

In his letter to the Daily Herald, President Ryken exposes not only the outrageous threat to religious liberty that the mandate poses but also the inadequacy of the “accommodations” that the Obama administration is offering to religious institutions and the consequences for Wheaton College students and employees.

President Ryken explained that “penalties ‘would amount to $1.4 million in fines annually for faculty and staff alone.’”

We should be deeply thankful to President Ryken and the Board of Trustees of Wheaton College and to the other religious institutions that are willing to pursue the onerous and regrettable path of litigation. Let’s hope and pray that other religious institutions follow their lead.

Laurie Higgins is a Cultural Analyst at the Illinois Family Institute.

If You Build It, They Paid for It

By Cameron Smith

President Obama recently noted that “[i]f you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.” But the President’s argument did not stop with the assertion that economic success fundamentally requires paying customers. Instead, the President essentially argued that the successful person somehow “owes” the government for the fact that he or she makes a good living.

For most businesses in America, making money is a fairly simple concept even if it is challenging to execute. In short, the business makes a product or provides a service that customers value more than the money in their pockets. As a result, the business profits and the customer receives something he or she values. But where is the government in that exchange?

The President argues that the business became successful in large part because of transportation infrastructure and an Internet created by the federal government. But this fundamentally begs the question of where the money for those projects came from.

Few will deny the utility of quality transportation infrastructure or the reach of the Internet, but the government did not generate the wealth that enabled those projects. While the Field of Dreams sentiment “if you build it, they will come” makes for great theater, it falls flat when applied to government action. A government’s resources simply do not exist outside the economy it taxes.

Unfortunately, the current revenue base of almost $2.5 trillion is not nearly enough grist for the Obama Administration’s political mill. In fact, the President’s most recent “budget” calls for an additional $1.3 trillion in debt. Stating that the wealthy need to pay a “little more” in order to trim federal deficits is such a serious understatement that it borders on falsehood.

In 2009, the last year for complete federal tax data, tax returns with an adjusted gross income of more than $200,000 incurred a total tax liability of almost $450 billion. Assuming that the President could increase the tax liability for these “wealthy” individuals by ten percent, the net gain to the federal government would be less than $50 billion, barely a drop in the bucket against what Washington is spending. In truth, President Obama would need to tax those with returns in excess of $200,000 at almost 50 percent of their total taxable income to trim even 25 percent of President Obama’s $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009.

It is little more than political theater to argue that there are some services and legitimate functions of government that most Americans have little trouble lending their consent or their tax dollars. The hard truth is that a government comprising almost 25 percent of America’s GDP needs major reforms … not just a little more cash.

Unfortunately, the President’s mantra reflects the powerful siren call of the collectivist rather than support of the time-tested free marketplace. The warm notion that “we are all in this together” conveniently leaves off the rest of the sentiment …”as long as you agree with me.” To paraphrase Austrian economist F.A. Hayek, the only thing worse than submitting to the uncertain outcomes and inequalities of a free market is submission to an equally uncontrollable and arbitrary power of other men. Americans can and must do better than simply give more control and send more money to Washington in an effort to solve the challenges facing the nation.

Cameron Smith is Policy Director and General Counsel for the Alabama Policy Institute, an independent, 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.

Governments Fight Back Against CEDAW Committee

By Elizabeth Charnowski

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) Countries are fighting back against the CEDAW Committee’s questioning on abortion and maternal mortality as delegates complain about the inaccurate information the Committee relies on and the ideological rigidity of its experts. Committee experts insist abortion decreases maternal mortality, despite conflicting evidence, in order to push countries to change their abortion laws.

The 30th anniversary of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) kicked off the 53nd session of the Committee in New York last week. The Committee is reviewing reports of Indonesia, Guyana, Mexico, and a few other countries.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) along with other pro-life organizations filed an extensive report to the CEDAW Committee focusing on the false correlations between liberalized abortion laws and maternal mortality. That report was outnumbered by reports filed by pro-abortion advocates.

Guyana, Indonesia, and Mexico detailed efforts to reduce maternal mortality. Throughout the session, CEDAW experts relied on arguments submitted by abortion advocates, instead of the data in the ADF or country reports.

Zohra Rasekh, one of the reputed health experts on the committee, questioned Guyana’s Human Services and Social Security Minister Jennifer Webster about reducing maternal mortality. Rasekh was previously an analyst for Population Action International, whose goals include advocating for access to contraception for all women. She stated that Guyana’s high rate of maternal mortality is linked to unsafe abortions, and safe abortions are not available in the country.

Ms. Webster replied that there is no data showing that maternal mortality is related to abortion laws. Moreover, public hospitals in Guyana must provide abortions, and the public health system is completely free. The Committee seemed taken aback by the challenge.

The episode made it into the Guyana Times, which reported the delegation complained about the reliance of experts on “alternative sources” for their data, especially when accurate data was available in their report. Guyanese delegates plan to file an official complaint over the CEDAW Committee’s questioning.

Rasekh questioned the Indonesian delegate on abortion and maternal mortality again relying on inaccurate data. Amnesty International’s report on Indonesia included parallel data, claiming that unsafe abortions account for 5 to 11% of all maternal deaths in the country, and that legalizing abortion would be a “positive step towards combating maternal mortality.”

After the delegate ignored the abortion questions, Rasekh asked again if Indonesia had any intention of changing its abortion laws, specifically to allow for abortion in the case of incest and for women less than 6 weeks pregnant. The delegate defended the laws of her country where abortion is only allowed when a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother or in the case of rape.

As much as the CEDAW Committee and NGOs insist the maternal mortality rate is linked to abortion, no evidence supports this claim. The ADF report stated data, including a recent Chilean study, that found legalizing abortion does not contribute to maternal mortality rates. Rather, education, increases in health care quality, and improved medical conditions are key to decreasing maternal mortality.

Elizabeth Charnowski 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.

ObamaCare Catch-22: Crushing Fines for Religious Entities in Mandate

By Bridget Johnson

Under President Obama’s healthcare law, the HHS can levy $100 per employee, per day against institutions that won’t comply with the mandate.

Therefore, religious employers with hundreds of employees could be fined millions of dollars each year. A 50-employee institution, for example, would face a penalty of $1,825,000 each year.
Advertisement

“ObamaCare gives the federal government the tools to tax religiously affiliated schools, hospitals, universities and soup kitchens right out of existence,” said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), sponsor of the Religious Freedom Tax Repeal Act. — Read More